What's Wrong with Socionics - Take Two

[Singu]

If a cat likes to sharpen its claws on paper, do you give it a book to read on other uses for paper? Kinda dumb, and so am I. Because that's exactly what I did. Cats and Mad Hatters do not read books. Over and out.

Uh huh... so you accuse me of not reading what you provided, and yet you didn't read what I said.

It's because what I clearly said is that what emotions or happiness are, are not a matter of philosophy.

If I say that they are a matter of philosophy, then I'd have to evoke the supernatural and say that they can't be physically explained. And I clearly detailed the reasons why emotions and consciousness can be physically explained, which you didn't bother to read.

But it's fine, you're just trying to defend Socionics. LOL. And I've already detailed why Socionics can't possibly be defended, if you're a rational person. At best it's a classification system, and I think that has to be admitted instead of saying "Well it's not supposed to be science... it's not supposed to be philosophy... it's not supposed to be...". Well I'll tell you what it's "supposed to be". It's a fucking classification system. Is that bad? Not necessarily, but it's clearly limited in what it can do and can't do. It can't predict relationships, it can't explain any human thoughts and behaviors.

If you want to take it further, then you're going to have to come up with explanations for it. Saying "It's not supposed to have explanations..." don't help anything.