Why don’t people like DarkAngelFireWolf69?

[wesleh00]

He’s just a reductionist.. If some people like his school, fine. But a human mind is far too abstract to be able to fit into the proposed stationary mindsets he tries pin a psyche into..

He tries seem broad with all his DCNH tacked on.. But again, to make a naturally mobile element stationary, is pretty much a reduction.

Maybe this isn't implied in your comment, but I've also been thinking like this for a while. However, I had come to learn that perhaps in this view, I was also implying that there could be a system or structure that could account for all the infinite complexities of human nature, when I said this out loud, I sort of laughed to myself.

The only "system" I've found that can account for everything would be to establish a completely new system for every individual in ones life.

However, it sort of takes the fun out of what Socionics is, or any "typology" for that matter. In some sense, you sacrifice structure in order to be able to account for everyone; or, you sacrafice the infinite complexities for a system that allows you to make generalizations.

I think Socionics is fun and it's nice that there is a large enough community behind it too, it feels fun to discuss all the topics under the umbrella of it.

[Bethany]

I quite like his book. I’m quite lazy with socionics and for me, it’s quite a handy reference guide. His observations are well-considered. It’s good the book exists- it’s fairly accessible for the average person, if they come across it. If a young, budding psychologist were to discover it, maybe they’d be able to take socionics to an academic institution and get some proper research done. Socionics needs exposure and money. So many kids doing pointless PHDs and we could be revolutionising the world..

[xerx]

What if they used unpleasant methods to make you change your mind?

You should read less Agatha Christie and more “Annals of the Shah’s Torturers”.

Unpleasant? Could depend on what you're into.