Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
That’s what you’re saying when you say the 2=2=2 thing.

/


I’m talking about this:
I don't make either assumption. It is possible that neither influences the other: I asked that question to try to find out if and how @ajsindri was focused on demonstrating that Socionics had explanatory power. If Socionics types are neither causes of personality or the effects of individuality, then Socionics has no substance. As it is, the situation is such is that there is no focus even on resolving how we might determine the matter of what Socionics explains: circular reasoning does not prove that Socionics types meaningfully exist in reality. But that is not a criticism of anybody in this thread: it would require a significant degree of resources to attempt to move Socionics beyond a conjecture.

It isn't clear if I am in a discussion with people who think that Socionics types are real physical manifestations, or merely useful constructs. I think that is a great part of the reason that we are not quite seeing eye-to-eye. If you want to prove something to be false, it is useful to be clear what is you are trying to prove to be false.