Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
you observe types (if that's even possible), not elements
Regardless of my specific wording, what I was referring to was:
Behavior is observed.
The behavior is then interpreted by the observer.
The observer then associates the interpreted behavior with an element and/or a stereotype.

(Of course, then there is also the "observers" who associate a person with a stereotype or element who then interpret nearly every behavior that person does as 'proof' of the typing the "observer" had labeled them as.)

The elements are only defined conceptually, whether they are clear or not depends on the person and the level of education they have, etc
In my post, "well-defined" refers to "explicit" which is a Socionic's Aspect of Ti, Te, Si, Se.
T being explicit + abstract
S being explicit + 'involvement'
Ti, Te, Si, Se has nothing to do with educational levels, etc.

How clear the element definitions are during communication, imo, has more to do with the original theorists' difficulties in that matter, and for most of us English speakers, also translation issues of both language and culture.

More importantly that should give you the means to understand humans' minds in general, which is the whole purpose of socionics

and yet it doesn't claim to explain every single move of your body, etc.
You're right, it doesn't claim to explain every single move of your body...but then...I hadn't claimed otherwise, nor claimed that it claimed otherwise.

Many socionists do, however, most often ignore what's actually going on inside a person's mind (you know...the info processing part), and often refer to a person's mannerisms, style of dress, and even genetic bits as their sole typing means. Then there are those who go by 'vibes'. And so damned many that don't even bother to interact with the typee, nor make any attempt to check for accuracy. Basically, socionics has become not much more than one more means for projecting one's own thought processes and/or views onto others.

Worse, it seems to me that most socionists forget that socionics types are stereotypes....
And most if not all people are more complex than theoretical structures of stereotypes.
Rarely have I seen a socionist on this forum using socionics to help themselves actually understand another person beyond 's/he's XYZ type' and 'not MY values'. (They claim to, but their...behavior...says otherwise... )