Anyone want to help make socionics scientific?

[Lao Tzunami]

What observation would prove Socionics to be false?

If you cannot answer that, it may show that you don't know how to show Socionics to be true.
(That is not intended as a criticism at others: it is a question I have asked of myself during many sleepless nights)

Socionics can be proven wrong if you can show the functions are not directly correlated with each other. Without the function structure, you don't have type and you don't have intertype relations. If you prove that wrong, model A collapses.

Then to a lesser degree, you can prove specific linear dependent parts of the model false if the theoretic correlations don't exist in practice. For example, consider temperament. Temperament is defined with 3 dichotomies, but there are only 4 temperaments, even though there are 8 possible dichotomy combinations.

Valid temperaments:
extrovert + irrational + static = Flexible-Maneuvering
extrovert + rational + dynamic = Linear-Assertive
introvert + irrational + dynamic = Receptive-Adaptive
introvert + rational + static = Stable-rigid

Theoretically impossible combinations:
extrovert + irrational + dynamic = Null
extrovert + rational + static = Null
introvert + irrational + static = Null
introvert + rational + dynamic = Null

Every part of socionics has this property, which means every part is falsifiable. We need statistics to decide at what point each of these relationships are cohesive, and at what point they collapse.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Socionics can be proven wrong if you can show the functions are not directly correlated with each other. Without the function structure, you don't have type and you don't have intertype relations. If you prove that wrong, model A collapses.

Then to a lesser degree, you can prove specific linear dependent parts of the model false if the theoretic correlations don't exist in practice. For example, consider temperament. Temperament is defined with 3 dichotomies, but there are only 4 temperaments, even though there are 8 possible dichotomy combinations.

Valid temperaments:
extrovert + irrational + static = Flexible-Maneuvering
extrovert + rational + dynamic = Linear-Assertive
introvert + irrational + dynamic = Receptive-Adaptive
introvert + rational + static = Stable-rigid

Theoretically impossible combinations:
extrovert + irrational + dynamic = Null
extrovert + rational + static = Null
introvert + irrational + static = Null
introvert + rational + dynamic = Null

Every part of socionics has this property, which means every part is falsifiable. We need statistics to decide at what point each of these relationships are cohesive, and at what point they collapse.

How would a trait like "extroverted thinking" be falsifiable?

[Lao Tzunami]

How would a trait like "extroverted thinking" be falsifiable?

The root of the 8 information elements are Jung's 8 types. If you prove the scales that define the 8 types don't exist, you eliminate the information elements.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The root of the 8 information elements are Jung's 8 types. If you prove the scales that define the 8 types don't exist, you eliminate the information elements.

How would you prove that the Socionics grouping of traits or behaviours are anything but arbitrary?

[Lao Tzunami]

How would you prove that the Socionics grouping of traits or behaviours are anything but arbitrary?

Show inverse correlation between the dichotomy traits and linear dependence in higher order networks (for example, temperament)

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Show inverse correlation between the dichotomy traits and linear dependence in higher order networks (for example, temperament)

Wouldn't that just mean that Socionics is internally consistent, rather than anything other than arbitrary?

(I don't think there is much more I can say without becoming vexatious, and I don't think I could say anything further that would be especially helpful to any short-term goals to making Socionics scientific).

[Lao Tzunami]

Wouldn't that just mean that Socionics is internally consistent, rather than anything other than arbitrary?

If you had a large network of theoretical relationships that are consistent with reality, that is meaningful. If you didn't like the socionics explanation for why those correlations exist, you'd have to come up with an alternative explanation that has more utility. The more complex the correlation structure, the harder it is to invent a fictional narrative that fits the facts until it becomes impossible, and the only explanation that fits is the what is actually happening.