Quote Originally Posted by Vex View Post
You yourself don't even know all of his typing methodology so how can you criticize it? Different Socionists is a different matter entirely and that's why people should look into what methods they like and respect from a Socionist. People are of course going to have different opinions on a theory, but the heart of the matter is most English means are outdated, so why not go to a source itself? There's a lot to learn from there and I'm not sure why this goes over people's heads.
I've seen several of his type assessments with the reasoning attached. He has also talked about it in different publications. I haven't seen it being a special secret sauce, really. He determines the temperament and then goes by dichotomies, finally ending up with DCNH which he uses to smooth out some other inconsistencies. The analysis is pretty surface level, with single anecdotes used to rationalize a dichotomy. That's to be expected when it's basically a short questionnaire with the second part customized. The main work of DarkAngelFireWolf69 has been translated and there's a lot of stuff you can read with the help of google translate as well. You're underestimating (projecting?) if you think it goes over the heads of people. This is literally not rocket science.

Nobody here got typed by DarkAngelFireWolf69 because "he's popular". Nobody even mentioned that so that's your perception of "this fad". Also, what you say in terms of someone "being good at a theory but not being able to apply it" is not very logical. If anything that shows how little you know about the theory. The theory is meant just to examine how people think on a cognitive level and how they metabolize information, that's it. This isn't an idea based on things that are physical or tangible that can be put out into an applicable plan. Most people of his caliber wouldn't even need much to examine how people think. This is a theory and anyone who knows a theory inside out, especially from the mind of the woman who created the theory, is going to be able to apply it for what it's meant to do. He's objectively one of the best Socionists out there with 30 years under his belt, trained by the originator, carrying on her theory, and running his own school which still uses Model A and another Model to enhance it. It makes no sense to say that someone with so much experience and who still uses the same Model, and has done so much research, who everyone in the sphere of Socionics talks about and refers to, bears no weight on Socionics or has no credible opinion due to "his method", and this shows how you "apply it" yourself imo.
I didn't say people got typed by DarkAngelFireWolf69 because he's popular. I said it would be foolish to unquestioningly trust him based on that. Are you implying that you do unquestioningly trust him? If not, then this statement does not apply. Being good with theory but not being good at applying it in the field is something that happens in the real world all the time, in most fields. Is this something you're going to debate?
Here the "applying it in the field" refers to the ability to determine a person's type in the system. That isn't necessarily easy to do even if you know the theory inside out. Unless you redefine your theory so that it locks down a simple methodology that always applies by looking at some specific surface details (thinking Vultology/CognitiveType here), but that doesn't seem to be very useful seeing how complex personality is. The rest of your arguments are basically ethical singing of DarkAngelFireWolf69's praises: "Most people of his caliber wouldn't even need much to examine how people think." - seriously?

I mean pretty much everyone is disputed in every field, DarkAngelFireWolf69 is really undeniably the most credible OG Socionist out there though. Nobody here who got typed treats him like a gold standard, though it's undeniable to see his work in the field. We just see the reasoning we got from him as far superior from which we received from the forum. People here can still think whatever, the forum is largely for fun for most forumites.
No, most facts and theories within fields of actual sciences are not disputed. Socionics is a jungle where few agree with each other outside of basic Model A. I wasn't talking about DarkAngelFireWolf69 personally being disputed as a "socionist" (although these people undoubtedly also exist), I was talking about how widespread the acceptance of Model G and DCNH is among people working on Socionics. It's good if none of you think DarkAngelFireWolf69's typing is automatically gold standard and instead see the reasoning as very solid and fitting. I was hoping this would be the case.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention that I agree with "Don't let this fad turn into a cult and remain critical." Because critical thinking leads to original thought and also leads theories, structures, insights, and the like leading forward and advancing. Though what you say in all your other posts that I've quoted here go against this aspect of critical thinking IMO.
Good. Personally I see it goes against critical thinking if you mostly base your arguments on the weight of someone's perceived reputation in a field where nothing is objectively proven.