Quote Originally Posted by leckysupport View Post
The imperial/metric example doesn't particular work. Distance is far less complex than personality as metric/imperial is directly interchangeable without having an effect on how physical distance is perceived, where as I can't say the same for socionics theories and typing of individuals.

I'm of the opinion that knowledge must be grounded by it's "source".

I.e martial arts by effectiveness in a real fight, measurement of distance (imperial/metric example) by physical space and programming knowledge by software performance and durability.

Socionics should follow the same example, but as of now it is not grounded.
You are taking things out of context by quoting only part of what I said, which leads to misunderstandings. I was agreeing that it is a pseudoscience, and explaining why:

The difference being that the mind belongs to the noumenal realm and we are making assumptions about how the mind works as qualia cannot be understood in terms of physical processes aka the brain = / = the mind, which means empirical evidence is hard to come by and we can't really measure things aka a pseudoscience.
Consensus to me on the subject is irrelevant. I don't see why the value of socionics would be lessened due to it being a pseudoscience.

EDIT: for clarification, I merely used imperial and metric as a analogy to make a point.