Mistaking typology's status as a pseudoscientific theory for a supportive point
“It's really considered a pseudoscience.” Okay, but what exactly is being considered a pseudoscience? Socionics may be pseudoscientific theory, but not everything people come up with is actually a part of Socionics. It's just their own additions and/or modifications to Socionics. For some reason, people always forget that. The distinction between Socionics based on resources, and Socionics according to RandomUserX, isn't acknowledged. All the random shit people make up off the top of their heads is for some reason included under this "pseudoscientific" umbrella.
I'm not suggesting that people should never deviate from resources. I'm just saying that once you do, you can't just keep using that "pseudoscience" category as a supportive element behind your stance. It ends up being an argument that is basically, “This is what I personally believe, and it is more credible than coming up with random stuff off the top of my head because typology is a pseudo-science.” No, it's not more credible than making random things up. The moment you deviate from the standard sources it's no longer pseudoscience, it's your personal views/thoughts about a pseudoscience.
Agree? Disagree? Explain?
Last edited by Lady Lioness; 11-03-2021 at 03:50 AM.
ᴅᴜᴍʙ ᴀsғ ᴢᴏᴅɪᴀᴄ
What's your confirmation bias?