Quote Originally Posted by ajsindri View Post
You need to read psychological types because you consistently have no idea what you are talking about.
That's funny, because I just did. It's literally what Jung is saying.

I just don't understand why the focus is on "How do we know that Jung's observations are correct?", and not "How do we know that what Jung was saying about his observations are correct?".

In the same way, the Socionics test is "How do we know that our observations are correct?", and not "How do we know that what we're saying about our observations are correct?".

So we're saying that the observations are self-explanatory. But they're not. Observations are only a very small part of the explanation, not the explanation of everything that is final.