The decline of internet Socionics content

[Exegesis]

You fail to notice important thing about socionics. This system is highly speculative and unscientific. Model A is an artificial structure made to resemble individual differences in information processing. It can't be considered a fact because of this but it also means that other people can modify this theory to make it more fitting to reality, that's why other models and subtype systems developed. If you need a reliable system to stick to it I recommend neuroscience for cognitive side of human differences and big 5 for behavioral.

Socionics being speculative and unscientific doesn't necessarily render it useless - it can still be applied to most (if not any) ends. It can only be accurately modified to better fit reality if this is done in an organized, corroborated and streamlined manner, but most people add their own perceptions in without attempting to change the system globally, and thus you still have the "multiple systems" problem. Anecdotes need to be integrated so that the model still stands as a unified, applicable whole - which is not what is happening right now online, and cannot happen until people agree on how to go about it. In the meantime (before accurate methodology is developed), application of the theory as it is seems most reasonable.

[consentingadult]

Anecdotes need to be integrated so that the model still stands as a unified, applicable whole

This might be the perspective of an LIE or an LII, who will want to integrate ideas into larger systems. In the world of logical analysis, this is known as the problem of induction: how can we go from the specific to the general? But this is not how the minds of ILEs and IEEs work, they have no need to arrive at a logical construct, because they simply perceive the essence in a phenomenon, which becomes the source to an anecdote. The only mistake ILEs and IEEs make is that they assume other people are capable of seeing this essence in that anecdote as well, which, of course, often isn't the case, either because the aencdote has been seperated from its source, or because other people lack the cognitive capability to recognize essence.

Likewise, ILIs and IEIs are inclined to think other people can grasp the causality of events, and if they can't, these people must be stupid (especially in the case of ILIs).

Likewise, EIIs and ESIs are inclined to think other people are as capable of integrity as they are, and if they aren't, they must be morons or uneducated.

etc.etc.

I hope my point is clear: what you are asking is that the whole Socionics community adapts itself to your approach towards Socionics. Who benefits by that?

[Adam Strange]

This might be the perspective of an LIE or an LII, who will want to integrate ideas into larger systems. In the world of logical analysis, this is known as the problem of induction: how can we go from the specific to the general? But this is not how the minds of ILEs and IEEs work, they have no need to arrive at a logical construct, because they simply perceive the essence in a phenomenon, which becomes the source to an anecdote. The only mistake ILEs and IEEs make is that they assume other people are capable of seeing this essence in that anecdote as well, which, of course, often isn't the case.

Likewise, ILIs and IEIs are inclined to think other people can grasp the causality of events, and if they can't, these people must be stupid (especially in the case of ILIs).

Likewise, EIIs and ESIs are inclined to think other people are as capable of integrity as they are, and if they aren't, they must be morons or uneducated.

etc.etc.

I hope my point is clear: what you are asking is that the whole Socionics community adapts itself to your approach towards Socionics. Who benefits by that?

Insisting on complete consistency in a theory seems more Ti than Te to me. Personally, I only care about what works right here, right now, for this particular purpose, and if gravity reverses tomorrow, I don't have any cognitive problem with that. I'd just deal with it.

Nevertheless, the goal of finding a consistent set of rules or laws for Socionics is incredibly admirable. As a self-described Te-user and LIE, I don't think I'm capable of doing that, but I respect and admire the people who can. I would never have come up with the Periodic Table, either, and that has proven to be a huge advance over alchemy.

[consentingadult]

Insisting on complete consistency in a theory seems more Ti than Te to me. Personally, I only care about what works right here, right now, for this particular purpose.

In my first post I said: "I have as yet no reason to doubt [your LIE typing]", but meanwhile I do: the insistence on integrating it into a system, to make the anecdotes fit the system, is suspicious at least. Like I said in one of my blog posts:

"The Ne in IEEs and ILEs perceives reality as a multiverse of universes, where each universe stands for a phenomenon that exists in its own right and in comparative freedom from other phenomena. For EIIs and LIIs, with their emphasis on Fi and Ti respectively, there is only one universe, which is made up of interrelated phenomena. Thus, for Ne-base types, an Ne-possibility is a self-realization of a phenomenon, whereas for Ne-creatives, an Ne-possibility boils down to an optimal adjustment to the system."

[rexsaurus36]

I hope my point is clear: what you are asking is that the whole Socionics community adapts itself to your approach towards Socionics. Who benefits by that?

He is not exactly asking people to adapt the minutiae of their methods to adapt to his. Rather, what he is asking for is consistency in sharing these perceptions with each other (to make sure everybody is referring to the same "Socionics" when speaking of it so there is minimal confusion or loss when translating), which is made most efficient when there is a consistent set of rules as an intermediary towards this end. And though many people do simply use it to explain day-to-day observations in their lives (like you say), many people also want what he is saying - the ability to test it scientifically and validate it outside anecdotes, which necessitates consistency for those of us that want it to this end. Indeed, while it's true that not everything cannot be encompassed under a system like Socionics, the least that can be done is to at the very miminum try to fulfill its potential in terms of how it can be employed.