Quote Originally Posted by Alomoes View Post
Yes. It's not ready. Fix the core disagreements first, make it stand to rigorous analysis, which it doesn't, at least not this forum's, and find it empirically valid. Then you can start the process of making it mainstream.

First thing I would do is create an empiric system of VI. Why? Currently, it looks like advanced phrenology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

Phrenology is fun, but nobody will take that seriously in an academic setting.

BARE MINIMUM is a guide and theory as to why it works, if it works.

For example, we're not looking at the shape of the head, we're looking at the expression of the face. Great, fantastic. That's acceptable, but it's not great.

You're gonna want to actively qualify each and every type, show why the VI must be true with respect to all systems of psychology, and then you're good.

I'm not gonna bother though, I'm just using this for my own purposes, which isn't to revolutionize psychology. You can though, and this would help people out.

Personalized psychology is better than generalized psychology, but for personalized psychology you need to know how to personalize the psych. I assume some people try, but without general guidelines, it doesn't work.

Socionics is the solution. I don't think I need to add to that.

Trying new formatting, it's probably better, or more readable if I separate statements into different groupings so you can see what is a new statement or thought.
Dario Nardi wrote a book (Neuroscience of personality it is called) in which he correlated activity in certain regions of the brain with the cognitive processes that Jung described. While Nardi's work is interesting and lays the foundations for further investigation, it fails to establish conclusive facts.

Taking these studies, taking neurological experiments further and establishing a scientific basis on which to fundament socionics is the path that socionists should take, the path of taking large samples of individuals whose sociotype is clearly defined and agreed between professionals, and submitting them to tests and contrast tests while their brain is being monitored. If this went well (and Nardi's studies suggest that it could work well) we would not only have proof that socionics is an excellent tool for interpreting the human psyche, even an objective method of diagnosing sociotypes through neurological tests could be developed.
The thing is, if it went wrong, socionist would see their whole careers in ashes, so I think this is unlikely to happen.

As a final note, the most important use of this is not actually in interpersonal relationships as most think (although it would still be relevant to relationships), but in the organization of work teams, in the structuring of businesses, in HR, in big data, in marketing, in goverments, and in the adaptation of classrooms, lessons and teachers by blocks of quadras in educational centers to create a superior learning experience for students, to give a few examples.

If the idea that the human brain operates though information elements geared towards perceiving certain info, and that through analyzing those information elements you would be able to predict the myriad reactions to certain info from individuals, and you'll be able to predict relationships as well was an established fact, it would be revolutionary and probably affect most sectors and their way of organizing and behaving in any given society.