One thing I will say: the reason that physics, chemistry, etc. the harder sciences, are more successful and precise is because they deal with the dumbest, simplest parts of the universe. The lowest hanging fruit. Chemistry is more complex than physics. Biology more complex than chemistry. Psychology/sociology more complex than biology.
Newton knew this. He said he can calculate the motions of the heavens but not the minds of people.
That being said, nearly all experts, in the west anyway, would not take Socionics seriously. Same thing with creationism and other pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with Ti or Te or any of that shit. It is totally unfouded and an example of the psychologists fallacy.
The psychologist's fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when an observer assumes that his or her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. The fallacy was named by William James in the 19th century:
The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the ‘psychologist's fallacy’ par excellence. … The psychologist … stands outside of the mental state he speaks of. Both itself and its object are objects for him. Now when it is a cognitive state (percept, thought, concept, etc.), he ordinarily has no other way of naming it than as the thought, percept, etc., of that object. He himself meanwhile, knowing the self-same object in his way, gets easily led to suppose that the thought which is of it, knows it in the same way in which he knows it, although this is often very far from being the case.
This creates "fictitious puzzles" as James called them, like enneagram and socionics.
"The most fictitious puzzles have been introduced into our science by this means...and it is a snare into which no psychologist has kept himself at all times from falling, and which forms almost the entire stock-in-trade of certain schools. We cannot be too watchful against its subtly corrupting influence”
“Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.” -William James
Jung, and socionics people, think they have a meta view and are 6 people. They are just telling stories and have no authority.
Somebody posted a good thread with a guy reading Hegel explaining why Typology is not knowledge, only formalism. Exactly.
"Such predicates can be multiplied to infinity, since in this way each determination or form can again be used as a form or moment in the case of another, and each can gratefully perform the same service for an other. In this sort of circle of reciprocity one never learns what the thing itself is, nor what the one or the other is." -Hegel
for·mal·ismˈ
1.excessive adherence to prescribed forms."academic dryness and formalism"
2.a description of something in formal mathematical or logical terms.: marked attention to arrangement, style, or artistic means (as in art or literature) usually with corresponding de-emphasis of content
Reply With Quote