Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
And no, it isn't.
Socionics is Jung + Augustinavichiute [in their correct and possibly correct parts, where Jung's word is weighter] + anything new objectively proved about Jung types

Gulenko's fantasies about DCNH subtypes are non of this. formally, it should be called as one of hypothetical personality typologies

the other approach is to mislead noobs by assigning random hypotheses to Socionics brand. baseless and doubtful ones which have high chance to be incorrect. then people think about Socionics what it's not and do mistakes which could be avoided
the main application of those theory additions is to mask the controvertion to normal theory. to mask the mistakes, which are very common for today typology practice (what's evident in high % of typing mismatches)

use the normal scientific approach to Socionics as you'd do with other knowledges. that Socionics stays on hypotheses level does not mean anything may be called by this term. it's not a game