View on Typology

[Braingel]

I see typology rather than as being a literal hard-in system, as being symbolical traits in which to assign oneself, and it is a way to explain how someone has a specific temperament or trait, rather than an objective hard truth of someone being entirety of their type.

You see a lot of followers of typological mean who treat their chosen typology (or typologies) as a gospel and hard Biblical rule.

I see it as a harmful notion, since things often are grey area, often muddied by psychopathology, belief, and life experiences.

I think if you have a combination of various traits, you can get along with a wide variety of type because somewhere along line in the system, the symbols, you can have traits that meet compatibility.. It is sort of like astrology in way.. You can find any reason to see compatibility/incompatibility... And there are so many symbols to denote trait, yet the mattering thing is which traits are most central and which ones you value most in others with your own combination of traits..

It just appears as if people want use typology as a template, perhaps because they have met desperation in relations, or they have exhausted in the try of other resources for their own betterment... And it is a matter of how you choose to connect the constellation, as constellation at end of day were people's interpretation of how dots should align, and all these systems are equivalent to the stars and how they can be used to connect.

[Braingel]

The brightest stars are harder to ignore and make more shape, and so those are the ones that matter most, but then you also just have more fragments and people will debate on subtype, variant, and whatnot.

But you can make a symmetric shape even with more minor ones, if you have enough of them to add up and make for congruency.

[Braingel]

The central focused traits also can change by system, and alter just like how with tropical and vedic.. And even if you only are compatible in one, that still means you have compatibility in some aspect of trait. And it is not a uniform law of compatibility therefore, just one template..

[Djinn]

I view socionics as an extrapolation of informational reductionism and thus something that should be abreast to fundamental concepts and accordingly without subjective interpretation. Despite being rather mystical in a sense, socionics would remain objective within bounds of which upon crossed would result in the sort of alterations you mention. I’d consider adopting different viewpoints a matter of utility, and I utilize the viewpoint that focuses on the intrinsic rather than extrinsic divulgences of the concept. In fact, I have mostly stepped away from the personality typology of socionics to probe the deeper ontological aspects of it and its broader implications.