Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
If to take description of functions (about what is the thread) - they are rather correct. So the distortion is rather more expected from people which mistyped themselves and are incompetent noobs than in those descriptions.

You've linked to type's description. In types desciptions you may find lesser of core theory, more of doubtful author's views and different heresies. Also types descriptions are supposed to be about average traits. Also which are given in exagrated degree so the difference between types was more clear. The more important is to description of which type you fit more than the degree in which you fit to that description. Anyway, there is not much to be "biased" in types descriptions and so distortions should be in the incompetent and mistaken opinions of readers. Most of which are incompetent noobs which often like to explain contradictions which they notice not by own doubtful knowledge and bad typing skills.
Ah, thanks for pointing that out about the article, though wouldn't you say it's problematic that a professional Socionist's description of a type cannot be taken as reliable? Just a thought, but I wouldn't want to derail this thread too much. I suppose the descriptions on these pages are more relevant? If not, you can link me to the proper descriptions.

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ENTp-ISFp-ESFj
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...Grigory-Reinin

However, the problem I have with descriptions persists with these. By bias, I mean the types, whether descriptions or functions, are put in a way that comes off as more generalized observations of the type rather than something more definitive.

"He sees the world in black and white without shadows."
"They may live highly structured or regimented lifestyles and can be quite proactive."

A lot of these might not fit everyone. "Oh, but it doesn't have to fit you exactly," you might say, but if the descriptions aren't concrete or undeniable in their truth, then this isn't scientific and therefore throwaway information that you can take or leave at your own leisure. The bias in question is that every article is trying to interpret a concept in their own way. The same goes for all the Socionics models. They might all follow the same idea, but they do it in different ways that muddies the waters, so to speak, and makes Socionics more obtuse than it needs to be. The concept needs a stronger binary of traits that can unquestionably apply to solely one type without adding irrelevant information that only serves to discredit the study. The fact that these articles need to exaggerate anything is a sign that these concepts need refinement. Which brings me to this.

"Most of which are incompetent noobs which often like to explain contradictions which they notice not by own doubtful knowledge and bad typing skills."

We can have a healthy debate without having to be condescending to newcomers, whether on this forum or to new Socionists in general. It is good to question a system, to pick out its faults. If we just accept everything as perfect, nothing would improve. Yes, we have experts who put years of their lives into studying Socionics, but the study is still developing. Even the best Socionists can only guess a type with a certain amount of accuracy, let alone going through online tests.

To improve the study, Socionics needs more empirical data and that can only be attained by introducing more people and by doing so, grant everyone a chance to learn and improve this system until all confusion and doubt is minimized. Having an elitist attitude will only serve to scare newcomers away and keep Socionics in obscurity as opposed to MBTI and the Big Five, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Finally.

"Type is one of strong factors of a behavior which can be related to what functions dominate in the consciousness.
The problem of mistakes in types significant too - can be >50% of wrong opinions about own types among those who think to have some of them and never checked it positively and thoroughly by IR. As average typing match is <20% by common today methods."

I agree that cognitive functions play a role, but I think you grossly overestimate their importance. Genetics, upbringing and many other factors play a bigger role. An ESE raised in a poor community would be very different from one raised in a rich home. This isn't getting into different cultural standards. What Socionics describes is an ideal, a box closed off from other factors. You say the average typing match is low, but you can't fault people for not fitting an ideal. If the accuracy is that low, it's the system that needs to improve, not the people. Most of Socionics assumes one is a healthy individual, but doesn't psychology exist to help the unhealthy of mind, the people most difficult to type?

Point is, we're allowed to believe whatever we want to believe, but until Socionics can spell out its concepts in a manner digestible for the populace, without room for confusion, I and many others will continue to question the study until it reaches its true potential.