Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
An example is Socionics tend to use "paradoxical" language. For instance, it might say "SLEs can be both strong and vulnerable", which might just as well be saying, "SLEs are capable of any logically possible behavior", which is true enough, since human beings are capable of a whole host of complex behavior.
I haven't seen this type of paradoxical language in Socionics. What I do see is too much use of the "can" language for sure though lol.

Also, what do you see as mystical, this is left unclear.


Then you can't claim to have understood the mind, if you can't at least predict what would happen.
Did I claim to have understood it?

I also don't think Socionics understands it fully. Or any theory in psychology at this point.


Psychology doesn't somehow have "immunity" from having low predictive ability, just because of the nature of human beings. The theories that can't even properly predict things are discarded.
I did not talk about immunity. It's just how it is. A little correlation is already seen valuable and worth further research in psychology, and the whole science is still quite young.

No one can expect a theory that only covers certain factors (*not* enough factors) to predict in a definitive way beyond just some probabilities being higher or lower. This is what I meant by the nature of the thing.


PS: I clicked "constructive" accidentally. I did not mean to click it, as I don't particularly agree or disagree with your post significantly more than other ones.