Quote Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
Do you mean the socionics evidence every member of this site continually gets but too lazy to get yourself? It must be pretty easy to draw up statistics from a website, statistics somebody else researched, statistics you claim are legitimate simply because you say they are

Every person on this forum: "I've seen a particular socionics type use a particular socionics function quite a few things times"

Subteigh:. "Socionics has no evidence. Big Five does. Here's a spreadsheet and a Q & A from a random website that proves it. I don't make the careful observations myself but since Big Five gives me good feels I'll believe it anyway."
I have previously made statistics of self-typings on this forum, but I'm not in the position to attempt anything on the same scale again.

With no standardised Socionics test instrument and only subjective opinions of third parties there simply isn't the capability to do anything scientific from a Socionics perspective within the limits of this forum.

I have had a long and continued interest in psychology research they I often post here in the hope that it could have some significance for possible future Socionics research.

I am not a psychologist. Wanting to be scientific about Socionics and not wanting to make unfounded statements should not mean I receive insults, or be called a -type or whatever. Stick to the facts.