If the socion is the set of all social behaviors innate to a person, then we can say that it says a great deal about -Fe and -Fi, as regards to how we prioritize information and thus behave in manners that reflect this prioritization. Socionics does not by itself, however, say anything about that which is wanted by the person themselves. Person =/= personality.

Technically by understanding what is wanted, the socionics practicioner can anticipate both the method and objective of behavior in any well-understood environment. INFps do this as a matter of course, using the initial correlations by ENFjs to make sense of the behaviors themselves. In this unstructured realm of, literally, fantasy -- told in books, movies, televisions shows, RPGs... and in any other medium that can convey personality -- the F side of Beta conducts endless introspections into the nature of human interaction. There is therein a vast, unseen, unheard language and too, a hidden progression of humankind. (particularly from a rational's standpoint) Man has from antiquity coped with his wants in the context of the social capacities he is dealt by fate; one could go a step farther, of course, and argue that his prioritization of want is itself a fated attribute, and this would a valid observation. Either side has orientations toward life or death, light or darkness: it is how a man copes with these orientations which defines his moral character. I assert that man can only be truly judged -- not on the level of society, but from a standpoint of personal righteousness -- by how he copes with the interaction of -Fi aspects with -Fe aspects. Judgment is itself a cop-out; it is fundamentally unfair. Who are we to sentence the consciousness of a person to death -- and the fear and anxiety which accompanies it -- for the embrace of their own natural dispositions? Do we not do the same, and does it not make us hypocrites to demand that others change their own person when we embrace our own for the same reasons?

However there is a greater morality above the dictates of evolution. That a man can care about the fate of another -- about the quality of their consciousness despite what they have done no matter how horrible -- would seem to me the threshold upon which the Self issues judgment. One is not judged by society, but by the Self; to live in bodily comfort is little help to the tortured soul. ("For what does it profit a man to gain the world at the expense of his own soul?") Should one process indifference to another's fate, at that same instance there arises a corresponding conflict between the internal processors of empathy toward that person in the mind, and the ambition to suppress this information -- invariably processed -- as irrelevant. The soul is the mind and to be uncaring is the torture of one's own person. This does not mean that we should throw logic to the wind -- those who would destroy the mind in service to the annihilation of their own self-tortured souls must be guarded against forever, lest their determined bid for self-purification be carried out to the doom of us all. It is not for them -- who perceive of our persons as perverse weight and recrimination -- that we attempt empathy. It is for us, as their existence creates a corresponding empathic projection in our own minds that we can only reconcile by observing the incarnate projection as a part of our internal sense of self. Our passive processors reckon all types of information we encounter -- our passive self is typeless by any definition. That we accept the existence of this information as relevant to our experience, is essential for the harmony of our soul.