Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
I thought this was pretty mainstream.
To be honest, I never really learned Socionics terms. A few translated articles, and people building axiomatic theories off of one sentence descriptions and single words, don't really fit my model for credible material. People picked up ideas off these forums, and as I said, one sentence descriptions and brief translated articles. Then they started building that into an idea. In my opinion, a form of group think. Any mistakes in the original material has been magnified down for years now. I'm try to engage people on Socionics to learn, but no one can ever really bring it back to anything but what is on these forums, cyclical logic.

I've always focused more on the Jungian side, which in theory is the axiom for Socionics . What is true in Jungian psychology should be true in Socionics. But, if I were to believe everything people around here that wouldn't be the case. I think a lot of people here think there is a "main stream" core of understanding, but it is only surface level. It's kind of like saying there is a common definition of American culture. But once you try to get a common definition of it, you're in trouble. I do believe there is information in Socionics that is valuable, I think someone here might someone have achieved and understanding without any source information by backwards engineering the concepts from the limited material and Jungian psychology. Still, no one has been able to explain anything against a common frame of reference when asked.

This business about one valuing it other is a good example. What does that even mean? Value in what way? Yes, theoretically an Si person would like an Ne person, that is Jungian, not Socionics. Socionics describes that relationship, and others. But, that is not what you, and others, are implying. You are implying value to mean something much more, moral values, likes dislikes and forth. And somehow, an Si person's Ne is actually contributing to the constructions of the ego. Not just by not being there, actually being actively employed in the creation of the persona. I see this being talking about a lot on this forum, and as best I can tell it is an impression people got on this forum from this forum. But it is not consistent with Jungian psychology and therefore Socionics. I may be wrong, but i'm looking for someone somewhere who can make this discrepancy consistent, or point where my understanding is wrong.