Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
It's for the simple reason that if you can't explain "why", then you have no idea if it has anything to do with it or not.

Saying that there's a "type" is another way of saying that if someone is a certain way, then there's a very high probability that the person will be acting in the same way in the future. Which may be true.

But that's just an assumption that the person will be acting in the same or similar way in the future. It does in no way explain why he's acting in that way. It's just an attempt at predicting behavior and bypassing having to explain things. And a bad attempt at that, since true prediction isn't just expecting the same past trend to continue. Somebody may suddenly change his mind, and then what? The prediction becomes impossible.

But you can explain why he changed his mind.
Honestly this probably just doesn't bother me because I'm good at theoryweaving about why people are the way they are, in addition to enjoying being given the opportunity to do so. It's like a hangman game where you're given a few hints and get the joy of guessing and testing it and eventually figuring out the answer on your own. It's the blanks in the information that make it fun like a game.

You can also collect information each time you make a correct explanation for some specific individual situation, and add it back into your framework. HMM I wonder, maybe that's how everybody's been using Socionics all along. -.-