What is Wrong with Socionics? (And Also Model A)

[jason_m]

When was the last time you went back to the source and read Ausra A's "Dual Nature of Man"? Her re-interpretation of Jung's functions is biased, but it works well enough to get the point across, and doesn't leave much room for Ti ego to be confused about Fi.

These posts give the impression of confusing "what 16types.info says about Model A" with "what Socionics says" & "what model A is." Say Socionics and Model A are wrong, but at least say it based on what Socionics actually says, not what you heard us say.

1) There is no one single interpretation of socionics - and that is essentially the problem with my self-typing.

2) The thread got derailed about my self-typing - a problem which I did not want to address. The post at the top of the page is the main topic. The parts that I am confusing: 'What you heard us say', etc. has to do with these questions about my self-typing. The post at the top of the page does not address these concerns and clearly addresses the problems with socionics and model A that have nothing to do with my qualms about my personal type. The problems I listed originally are universal, and go back even to 'The Dual Nature of Man.' They are therefore general in nature and have nothing to do with any specific function or type - which are issues that I simply did not want to talk about, but did because they were brought up...