How did Socionics help you with discovering your cognition/ways of thinking?

[Soupman]

It didn't help me really, it only limited the perspective of both myself and of others.

There's no such thing as "Thinkers, Feelers, Sensors and Intuitives". The existence of something is not the evidence for the lack of existence of something else.

I've understood that but expanded my understanding whilst you've halted your progress by assuming that the lack of clear delineations nullifies the existence of variation and diversity regarding the phenomena of observation

I'd say concepts like "Dimensionality" are harmful at best, and it limits your ability and your belief in able to achieve something.

If one chooses to take the concept wholesale without analysing how it reconciles with reality then yes that's true.

Rather the correction I have found upon the theory is that it's best understood as influencing preferred behaviour in the absence of external protocol that mandates the emergence of a necessitated behaviour. TLDR if it makes sense to behave in an "Fe" manner then we all display "Fe" as it is the most appropriate social conduct available. The idea that an ILI or SLI has to be socially inept and be incapable of caring and adapting to social cues, emotions, etc is asinine; on top of that anyone can become socially inept given the right toxic impetus, or converse learn to develop socially barring those with medical conditions such as types of autism.

In spite of this there is variation, diversity, in what people may ascribe as "Fe" with regards to personality. Furthermore, it is very much possible and evident to see an ILI with superior competence in "Fe" compared to an ESE or EIE - that is superior awareness of group dynamics and emotions along with an ability to influence them.

"Thinkers" pretending like they're more logical and objective than others, and Feelers thinking that Thinkers are innately more logical and objective than them, and can never reach that state, I think, is fairly dangerous.

"Intuitives" don't have some sort of magical and mysterious understanding of things, and "Sensors"don't have some sort of magical aesthetical or medical understanding, nor are they magically grounded in "reality" or "concrete thinking".

That there is exactly true, nevertheless there are variations in thought that could be ascribed to the 8 thinking styles. This however is quite abstract but true as evident in how it's easier to share information/thoughts with people whose thinking is congruent with ours.

Actually all thinking is both simultaneously abstract & concrete (as in: deriving in mental projections upon the world whilst equally being of the world and connected to it); despite this there's empirical difference to be felt empirically though hard to articulate. My own father is SLI, but as intelligent as me to uncanny levels with absurd similarities, it made no sense to diagnose him as my identical or quasi-identity, extinguishement or mirror (ILI, LII, ILE, LIE), as I have met people like that who are different from him. There is no mystical sensing - it was just a reductive abstraction of people like that who weren't even intelligent.

[Singu]

I've understood that but expanded my understanding whilst you've halted your progress by assuming that the lack of clear delineations nullifies the existence of variation and diversity regarding the phenomena of observation

What I mean is, being good at "Fe" doesn't necessarily mean that you're bad at "Ti". You could be good at both. Or even bad at both. What seems to me is people may have different degrees of strength in logic or emotions or whatever. But it doesn't necessarily mean that if you're good at something, then you'd be worse at something else. I mean you can't be good at EVERYTHING, because resources are limited, but what's considered "good" is in relative strength to others.

At best, I think it's a matter of processing speed and memory. Some people may very quickly solve logical problems or analyze social situations and emotional cues, while for others, it may take a while. But I don't think there's some sort of a fundamental "level" that some people can't reach even in principle. I don't think that Feelers/Thinkers/Intuitives/Sensors are a kind of entirely different "species" that typologies tend to describe in.

Some people may be thorough and methodical, while others are not. It may be because being methodical may take up a lot of mental resources that would otherwise be used for something else. And you could call him a "type", or you could casually refer to him as a "methodical person". But given this premise that I've given, it could be that he would be less methodical and be lazy when he's tired and have no energy left. So if you don't understand the reason why, then you're not going to understand how he's going to act in different circumstances and situations.

Actually all thinking is both simultaneously abstract & concrete (as in: deriving in mental projections upon the world whilst equally being of the world and connected to it); despite this there's empirical difference to be felt empirically though hard to articulate. My own father is SLI, but as intelligent as me to uncanny levels with absurd similarities, it made no sense to diagnose him as my identical or quasi-identity, extinguishement or mirror (ILI, LII, ILE, LIE), as I have met people like that who are different from him. There is no mystical sensing - it was just a reductive abstraction of people like that who weren't even intelligent.

Say that Type A has this kind of thinking, and Type B has that kind of thinking.

But how do you, as a 3rd-person observer, understand both Type A and Type B types of thinking? It must mean that you're capable of understanding both, and hence have the ability to use both kind of thinking.

If you say, "Well he's thinking abstractly, but I don't know what the hell he's talking about", then how do you know whether there's some validity to what he's saying, or he's just saying some nonsense?

[Soupman]

Say that Type A has this kind of thinking, and Type B has that kind of thinking.

But how do you, as a 3rd-person observer, understand both Type A and Type B types of thinking? It must mean that you're capable of understanding both, and hence have the ability to use both kind of thinking.

Excellent question @Singu (took 4 years of analysis to reach this conclusion)

How do I understand both types of thinking as a 3rd-person observer?

I understand the different through contrasts and similarities with my own thinking - the most difficult question I struggled in those 4 years was reconciling the fact that other's thinking was both similar/borderline same at a rudimentary abstraction, yet it made no sense to conclude that it was identical either since empirically there was something different difficult to quantify.

After some time it emerged that we are extremely similar in paramount human thought but with difficult-to-articulate but important minutiae, causing the emergence of the difference empirically felt but not/hard to articulate. In a metaphor it's as if the same musical notes are being played, but something is different, if you exaggerate the notes - reducing people to a particular note, then it makes no sense because all the notes are on display within everyone; at the same time to conclude that there is no difference it a lie since there's something different about how the notes manifest themselves.

If you say, "Well he's thinking abstractly, but I don't know what the hell he's talking about", then how do you know whether there's some validity to what he's saying, or he's just saying some nonsense?

I had to re-frame my expectation of the manifestation of the 8 thought styles with an altered framework for understanding the facts on observation; I had to learn to articulate my hunches.

First I had to alter my definitions and face the fact that all human thought is bizarrely simultaneously abstract and concrete, what was normally understood as dominant intuition or thinking for example manifests dominantly in all types. I had to frame a new concept called intellectual variant - intellectual variants of all functions Si Se Ni Ne Ti Te Fi Fe.

Quick summary
S & T - are both about referencing reality starting from the object/point of reference then to idea; this perspective is stricter about aligning with the point of reference making this perspective seem too concrete.

N & F - are mutually about referencing reality again but instead starting from ideas first before the object/point of reference; with this perspective being not strict, it's references seem loose not concrete enough (those who don't share it can feel like the person is jumping all over the place).

E & I - are opposite priority upon reality; "E" is more "empirical" it needs ideas referenced in an explicit context, so called "practical" as priority; whilst "I" is more theoretical fixated on the point of illustration the details have before "practicality". We value both but have one as a priority... but there's more and this TLDR just cannot do the ideas justice

Emotions, Ethics, Relations are an entirely separate point of observation with intrinsic variation failed to be articulated by socionics.

Thinking about the future is an entirely separate activity everyone is capable of doing since it's a matter of projecting events in imagination, as the future is not a real place until it is the present. The matter of planning for the future, delayed gratification... etc is about intelligence, luck, the peculiarities of individuation, not an exclusive acumen.

All the other attributes assumed to the functions are separate traits that can be found evident or lacking in individuals. ESE physicists exist - case in point Neil DeGrasse Tyson.