Relatioship-Personality System

[casanddra]

You should probably just stop posting..

Sorry, I don't comply with bullying. Especially bullying of new members in online communities. It is rather low and disreputable.

There are people in here who actually do know how legitimate tests work, and you're just showing your ass here.

I know perfectly well that all tests have a margin of error, whether it be by test design or taker error. You cannot design a perfect test. Taker error means that sometimes people don't answer the questions in the way that corresponds to their real personality. For this reason if you read articles published in peer reviewed journals on psychology the authors will include error bars or a disclaimer about these factors. From your comments it can be gathered that you know very little about any of this. This is not to mention that there are many personality tests online and you have no idea whether Benny took a "legitimate" test or went to OkCupid and took a joke test.

WRONG!

Cassandra, this forum IS VERY useful ! So please don't even try to justify your claims here.

Do you see advice on this forum being backed-up by links to peer-reviewed journals in psychology or sociology? I certainly don't. Yet there are individuals like IndiReloaded who will come into threads and demand that your post be backed up by "scientific evidence" while ignoring all the rest of the threads he posted in that have nothing to back up their claims. I was simply pointing out how biased and duplicitous his reasoning and conduct were.

[casanddra]

Its about as 'useful' as astrology. You call it a 'theory' (or hypothesis--which is it?--I notice you don't want to address that point), but a theory means you can test the validity of the system.

Socionics = crap b/c it can't be tested and has no predictive power.

Socionics has been called a protoscience and is still in its infancy. In future it may very well be tested for validity. It has predictive power within intertype relations.

Its in the same class as things like homeopathy and typing someone based on the shape of their skull.

"Homeopathy" is completely wrong analogy and has nothing to do with Socionics. Nobody gets typed on shape of their skull, common, that's absolutely ridiculous. You're just trying to smear it and throwing all the possible dirt that you've got at it, and unsuccessfully might I add.

[IndiReloaded]

Socionics has been called a protoscience and is still in its infancy. In future it may very well be tested for validity. It has predictive power within intertype relations.

How do you claim predictive power without it being tested? Who cares about the future, where's the evidence NOW? Again, lets see a reference from a reputable journal. Until then, you can say what you want, but its binned with astrology, Homeopathy and other snake oils. I'm not one to sort garbage; I just throw it away.

"Homeopathy" is completely wrong analogy and has nothing to do with Socionics. Nobody gets typed on shape of their skull, common, that's absolutely ridiculous. You're just trying to smear it and throwing all the possible dirt that you've got at it, and unsuccessfully might I add.

Critical thinking and scientific method is hardly "dirt". LOL. You sound like an undergrad psych student. A bad one. No wonder so many schools refuse to call psychology a science. Anyway, why don't you spend your time on something useful. You'll note I said I'm quite prepared to change my opinion provided you can show evidence. Until then, its crap. Good luck.

[ChristianonLI]

This thread amuses me. Sorry OP but I'm going with Indie's assessment. They sound far more informed than you just based off the quality of English usage.