Its just that I know myself well enough to understand that eventually I always start sounding like a douche, better just admit it I figured, that way people will be less bothered. Of course I try to be nice most of the time nevertheless!
Visual reading is very aloof indeed. Specifically the methodology Auburn uses. Humans are like tastes, it takes experience to identify a taste; but once you do taste it, you are certain. To type people with the methodology standard, is to guess the taste. But that isn't valid... You have to actually taste it you know
I have studied it for many years now even though I have only been on this forum for a few days. How long have you studied it? And I don't mean to come off as arrogantly confident but I do have strong opinions about typology. My opinions of typology are a combination of what I have learned about it and from my own interpretations of typing other people and then seeing patterns in their behavior. So you may have a more traditional definition of types than I do, but on that thread we were speculating about people's types so I think it's open to interpretation.
Not necessarily. I'm very unconventional in my thinking and my reasoning, even for unconventional people, and I can be very obstinate.
However, I have found that when people are open about the emotional reasons as to why they choose their views, then it's easy for me to resolve differences with them. Emotions get in the way so much, but only if you don't know where they are. If you know where they are, you can go around them.
I would agree that the three-letter code approach is an improvement. Where Myers-Briggs were troubled over J/P, the three-letter code never even encounters such an issue. Judging and perceiving properties are implied from which type of function is dominant(e.g. logic vs intuition).
However, beyond that it deviates just as well from Jung's work, so overall I'd definitely say it is the more complex theory, but it may not be an improvement over MBTI. There are all sorts of concepts and theories within Socionics, that also are in need of strong backing. In my personal opinion, though, since Socionics's fundamental basis is closer to Jung, I'd prefer to work from that over MBTI, if not branch off into a new personal typology altogether.