The decline of internet Socionics content

[Sol]

Besides "declines" may be said about some improvements. Among significant improvements since 2005 in English "content" :
- 8-functional tests based on Socionics functions descriptions (which are better developed than in other sources). For example, Talanov's test translation. Unfortunally, some of such tests may use Reinins traits what to reduce their accuracy.
- Near-classical theory book by Filatova, - seems, the only normal Socionics book in English until now. Filatova's books are among best for novices in Russian language. To study Socionics by books is better than by chaotic reading of texts on sites, as books give systematic description of the typology and should be not badly translated what helps to correct understanding. Also books are mainly written by authors which have the experience of lectures about types, experience in types usage - what helps to explain the theory correctly.
- Should be arised typing accuracy due to more weight of VI in typing of people and famouses. As videos became usual, while photos are significantly worse for VI. Besides that nonverbal behavior is a part of useful info, it has lesser distortions than what people say. Public info is filtered and limited ; what say people, which want be typed, can be filtered by what they think or wish about own types beforehand. While logical analysis has comparable speculativity. There was experimentally proved (socioforum, 2015) that nonverbal VI is useful and gives average typing matches 15-20%, what is close to results of SRT-99 - the experiment which used IRL interview. It's about real matches, without a conformism - when typers did not know external opinions before saying own ones.
- More of translated to English texts. Though the quality and correctness of many translations is questionable. And what is translated can be not Socionics but doubtful hypotheses by different authors. Socionics is ideas of Jung and Augustinavichiute only. To add something new to "Socionics" needs good objective basis, what lacks.
- More and better examples of types to study the typology. Now can be used more common people as bloggers, videos of typing interviews. Unlike actors on the perception of the personality of which strong influence their roles, unlike politicians which significantly "show" an image, unlike different famouses about which is known not much and an info can be strongly filtered (especially when they lived long ago). Also with bloggers we may even to talk, to give them tests - to check the types.
- More of people comes, especially after Internet became cheap and fast since of 2000s end. Where someones (<20%) take types seriously (but not as another theme for talking on forums), study better sources as books, trust more to theory which has better basis, think more independently. Than when were studed by IRL courses of the past or when communicated with smaller groups of people. This allows them to be more critical to theory and practice and with potentially with higher objectivity to achieve better results, with developing their skills and understanding by the experience.

My improvement.
I'm making IR test since end of 2010s. It's new and may work. It's on early stage and maybe will work better. Filatova used photos as IR test. In Internet and on regular basis - I can be first who tries this, at least by videos. After I've experimentally proved nonverbal VI as useful, such test got the objective sense.
I plan to achieve the accuracy of the test up to the degree to experimentally prove the effect of complimentary functions. For example, by the match of results with a common 8-functional test above statistical accidental. It's needed for all functions pairs: Te/Fi, Ti/Fe, Se/Ni, Si/Ne. Which have Te in ego should prefer Fi types, etc.
After this Socionics with its IR theory can get the interest of "science", good studing and mass usage. At now it's in a state near astrology, without objective proof of the basics.
My resources are limited and I may not get the needed results. Same can be done by anyone, but not sure it will be. Nonverbal VI principles were described in classical texts since 1980s, it was used among common methods by manyones. But never was done a simple experiment to prove VI as a useful method until I did this. Partly because the technical side became easy recently only - when videos of random people could be used. But was other reason too. There were (and can be met still) assertions about VI as useless method because intuitive approach looks as not "scientifical" and it's impossibly to describe the typing process to convince another typed noob by speculative "smart words". But to evaluate statistically results of _any_ method is possibly: by the match between typers above random, by the match with other methods to which you trust, by the match with different traits and behavior of people and of their relations. It still needs to accept VI openly to prove IR theory by easy way and is among obstacles to be done by others.

[Exegesis]

My improvement.
I'm making IR test since end of 2010s. It's new and may work. It's on early stage and maybe will work better. Filatova used photos as IR test. In Internet and on regular basis - I can be first who tries this, at least by videos. After I've experimentally proved nonverbal VI as useful, such test got the objective sense.
I plan to achieve the accuracy of the test up to the degree to experimentally prove the effect of complimentary functions. For example, by the match of results with a common 8-functional test above statistical accidental. It's needed for all functions pairs: Te/Fi, Ti/Fe, Se/Ni, Si/Ne. Which have Te in ego should prefer Fi types, etc.
After this Socionics with its IR theory can get the interest of "science", good studing and mass usage. At now it's in a state near astrology, without objective proof of the basics.
My resources are limited and I may not get the needed results. Same can be done by anyone, but not sure it will be. Nonverbal VI principles were described in classical texts since 1980s, it was used among common methods by manyones. But never was done a simple experiment to prove VI as a useful method until I did this. Partly because the technical side became easy recently only - when videos of random people could be used. But was other reason too. There were (and can be met still) assertions about VI as useless method because intuitive approach looks as not "scientifical" and it's impossibly to describe the typing process to convince another typed noob by speculative "smart words". But to evaluate statistically results of _any_ method is possibly: by the match between typers above random, by the match with other methods to which you trust, by the match with different traits and behavior of people and of their relations. It still needs to accept VI openly to prove IR theory by easy way and is among obstacles to be done by others.

It just seems a little bit of a leap to me to base your entire method on IR to arrive at conclusive types when really it is best to test each part of the theory as a hypothesis in its own right. So we start out by attempting to prove the hypotheses on information metabolism, then those on IR, then those on VI (which are harder to create scientifically falsifiable methods out of, but you addressed this quite well in your point above), and so on so forth. From the most fundamental aspects of the theory to those that are extraneous, moving alongside descriptive / predictive power. I see it as great that all these advancements you mention are being made, indeed I think that not only Socionics but typology as a whole has had many conceptual breakthroughs. However, I also see it as harmful if these advancements are made without corroboration to established theory / empirical observations, because lack of organization when inserting concepts leads to a more difficult time testing concepts and coming to employable and useful conclusions.