I don't recall having proposed any general criteria as yet. But I do think socionics can help answer that question since it's essentially the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning (albeit very schematic in its current form).Originally Posted by Karatos
Is that so? Well, then you should take all your Jungian criteria for what's "normal" and "abnormal" out back and burn it.
@golden I have known such people in the past. Being "kind" and "tolerant" is fine but it doesn't mean someone isn't psychologically abnormal.
Functioning (Te) is dependent on purpose (Ni). For example we'd say an oven is malfunctioning if it's unable to heat food, or if it causes harmful side effects to the user. Its purpose differs from that of a knife, which is to cut food, etc. So, what's the purpose of a human being? If you think that it's to do something vaguely cognitive/emotional and to "align their perceptions and actions with consensus reality" then fine. But it goes quite a bit deeper than that.
"normal for a 16-year-old Chinese boy is not normal for an 80-year-old Dutch woman"
"it is quite clear there are all kinds of consistent, concrete differences between people who from a clinical and self-assessment pov are struggling with disorders, versus controls"
ok, now you're just contradicting yourself. If these consistent differences can be objectively measured, then what makes them normal in one culture and not another? If you relied on self-assessment to decide whether someone was sick physically ("I feel bad so I must be sick") you'd get absurd results - hypochondriacs are now the sickest people in the world. Which is essentially what this transgender nonsense is about in the first place.
Reply With Quote