Weird alternate ways of defining functions and types.
Let's see what we can come up with... any approach is welcomed.
The purpose of this thread is to raise awareness of how each of socionics' terms is of only a relative importance. None of them are strictly fundamental. Hence, the current conceptions of which terms are fundamental are contaminated with bias. Other possibilities need to be explored.
There is no such thing as introversion/extroversion. When creating perception is applied in limiting form, it becomes what we know as 'extroverted'. Extrovert/introvert is the result of the conjunction of accepting/creating, perceiving/judging and limiting/empowering.
There is no such thing as accepting/creating beyond it's influence on a function being limiting or empowering. Extroverts aren't extroverted because they have 'extrovert' accepting functions, they're extroverted because their perceiving functions are empowering.
There is no such thing as 'creating sensation'. What we ordinarily mean by 'creating sensation' actually means 'concretized thinking'. Hence, types do not consist of two functions, but of only one with a direction of movement. (concretizing/abstracting).
...to be continued.