On the Lack of Consensus in the Socionics Forum

[mfckrz]

Alright, so there's a lack of consensus here that makes it incredibly hard to understand and get better with socionics.

My suggestion is that everyone sits down and hammers out basic definitions that are to be followed and refered to as a rule. Until then, all I'm gonna learn is how divided everyone is. Basically create a stickied thread that links to accepted definitions for basic socionics theory. Anything that deviates from those definitions should be in viewpoints.

I believe this would be a start. It'll address the differences people have in interpretation.

Most of the basics people endlessly quibble over in typology were already reasonably defined long ago. Jung and Aushra wrote plenty of material which hardly anyone in these communities actually reads.

This gets especially confusing in the West given the aping of WSS, Gulenkoism, etc… 'schools' that've diverged so far from the theoretical foundations of Socionics that I don't think they're talking about the same thing anymore, yet present their viewpoints as canonical anyhow. The situation is so deteriorated in this sphere that Westerners are barely even using intertypes now, which was the central purpose of Socionics to begin with.