There's a lot of confusion over Model A and hence people get into muddled "debates" that really go nowhere (with people eventually resorting to the "authority" of Jung or Augusta to settle debates). The reason is because Model A isn't actually a theory, and hence there's nothing to theorize over.
So we'll need to know what a "theory" actually is. What is a theory? A theory is an overall framework, a hypothesized explanation that can answer why a particular thing happen.
For example, we all know the legend of an apple falling on Newton's head, and he came up with his theory of gravity. But how?
He first came up with a hypothesis, a theory that the reason why the apple falls to the ground, is because objects are attracted to each other. And the degree of its attraction has to do with the amount of the total mass of an object. So the more mass the object has, the greater the attraction. This made him wonder whether the same gravitational force that the Earth attracts an apple, is applied to the moon as well, as well as all the other stars and the planets in space. And then, and only then, he could work on his equations and hence he could come up with his universal law of gravitation.
This was quite revolutionary, because nobody had thought like Newton before. Nobody had thought that objects are attracted to each other in that way, and hence the reason for gravity. By the way, this isn't the last explanation, as Einstein had managed to come up with an even better explanation later on, which made possible to come up with an even more accurate models and predictions, when the Newton's theory was coming up with wide margins of errors on some observations, but we won't get to that now.
So it's pretty obvious that a theory first comes up with an explanation, an overall framework that can explain something, and only then it is possible that you can come with calculations, equations, predictions, etc. Newton didn't just keep observing an apple falling over and over again, and magically came up with his equations and laws out of nowhere, or he "generalized" or "extrapolated" from the repeated observations. It's also not as if he came up with this explanation to justify his observation. He had to have an explanation first, that objects are attracted to each other, before he could even start working on anything.
And yet that is exactly what Model A is not doing. So why would Model A not be a theory? Because it's just a catalog of observations, it doesn't theorize, it doesn't explain anything. "Why does this person have bad logic?" "Because of his Ti PoLR". That's not actually a theory, it's just an observation. And if you say "He has bad logic because he has strong Fi", then that's just a correlation, not a theory.
It is as if saying "The apple falls to the ground because of gravity". But that's not a theory or an explanation. A real theory, as we have known, is to say "The apple falls to the ground because objects are attracted to each other, which we call gravity". A theory is an explanation that can explain a fact or an event. And then it all goes from there.
Also saying things like "Creativity is Ne" is nonsensical, because we haven't yet established HOW Ne causes creativity to happen. ONLY THEN and after that, we can say things like "Creativity is Ne". It's as if to say, "Apple falls to the ground because of gravity", when we first needed to establish that "Gravity is the act of objects being attracted to each other".
But rather the entire premise of Socionics is to say that "If something repeats in the past, then it will repeat indefinitely in the future". So if there's a type, then that type will remain the same, forever. If a relationship has conflicted in the past, then that relationship will always conflict in the future. There's not much more to it than that.
So Socionics has got everything backwards. And that's why people are becoming so confused over it.
So we'll need to know what a "theory" actually is. What is a theory? A theory is an overall framework, a hypothesized explanation that can answer why a particular thing happen.
For example, we all know the legend of an apple falling on Newton's head, and he came up with his theory of gravity. But how?
He first came up with a hypothesis, a theory that the reason why the apple falls to the ground, is because objects are attracted to each other. And the degree of its attraction has to do with the amount of the total mass of an object. So the more mass the object has, the greater the attraction. This made him wonder whether the same gravitational force that the Earth attracts an apple, is applied to the moon as well, as well as all the other stars and the planets in space. And then, and only then, he could work on his equations and hence he could come up with his universal law of gravitation.
This was quite revolutionary, because nobody had thought like Newton before. Nobody had thought that objects are attracted to each other in that way, and hence the reason for gravity. By the way, this isn't the last explanation, as Einstein had managed to come up with an even better explanation later on, which made possible to come up with an even more accurate models and predictions, when the Newton's theory was coming up with wide margins of errors on some observations, but we won't get to that now.
So it's pretty obvious that a theory first comes up with an explanation, an overall framework that can explain something, and only then it is possible that you can come with calculations, equations, predictions, etc. Newton didn't just keep observing an apple falling over and over again, and magically came up with his equations and laws out of nowhere, or he "generalized" or "extrapolated" from the repeated observations. It's also not as if he came up with this explanation to justify his observation. He had to have an explanation first, that objects are attracted to each other, before he could even start working on anything.
And yet that is exactly what Model A is not doing. So why would Model A not be a theory? Because it's just a catalog of observations, it doesn't theorize, it doesn't explain anything. "Why does this person have bad logic?" "Because of his Ti PoLR". That's not actually a theory, it's just an observation. And if you say "He has bad logic because he has strong Fi", then that's just a correlation, not a theory.
It is as if saying "The apple falls to the ground because of gravity". But that's not a theory or an explanation. A real theory, as we have known, is to say "The apple falls to the ground because objects are attracted to each other, which we call gravity". A theory is an explanation that can explain a fact or an event. And then it all goes from there.
Also saying things like "Creativity is Ne" is nonsensical, because we haven't yet established HOW Ne causes creativity to happen. ONLY THEN and after that, we can say things like "Creativity is Ne". It's as if to say, "Apple falls to the ground because of gravity", when we first needed to establish that "Gravity is the act of objects being attracted to each other".
But rather the entire premise of Socionics is to say that "If something repeats in the past, then it will repeat indefinitely in the future". So if there's a type, then that type will remain the same, forever. If a relationship has conflicted in the past, then that relationship will always conflict in the future. There's not much more to it than that.
So Socionics has got everything backwards. And that's why people are becoming so confused over it.