This post was taken from the end of the post "Similar forum members," in response to a discussion between Nick and Gilly... I added to it a bit here so that it stands by itself.
That temperament is as influential as it is in English-speaking Socionics--bc of various factors: MBTI's popularity in English-speaking countries, its emphasis on temperament, and Cartrette's old 16types info page, which emphasized sanguine, choleric, etc--is unfortunate.
I wasted years mistyping myself in Socionics b/c Ej temperament descriptions portrayed someone I thought of as a bit too stiff, too mobile, too focused, etc, to be me. (e.g. I was comparing myself to a lot of the blabber-mouths I know--obvious Ejs--running around doing 300 things at once, and thinking to myself, "that's not me..." You know, some days I just want to chill in bed... These descriptions make Ejs sound like caffeinated robots... Or like my Te-ESTj Dad.)
Perhaps the problem is not with temperament itself, but with the current descriptions..? Idk
"Temperament" can be influenced by a shitload of non-Socionics factors, e.g. depression, medication, motivation, disabilities, ADD, etc. It's also the probably easiest Socionics-related personality characteristic to fake/consciously control. (my friend goes quiet at parties just to get hos.)
For this reason, temperament can be an unreliable indicator of Socionics type.
Subtypes do not explain temperament well either... E.g. one could be relatively quiet and still be a Fe-ENFj, (see: above Non-socionics factors,) or loud and still be a INTj. (I met a very communicative Ti-INTj the other day... He is a famous artist... He has lots of self-confidence and is quite talkative, forceful, etc... Not at all like the INTj stereotype of a somewhat shy, nerdy, math-whiz... Although maybe he is that in his free-time. Who knows?)
Temperament is still useful in Socionics' typing--albeit only slightly... At this point, way too much emphasis is placed on temperament in our community.
As regards typing, the functions are where it's at... The functions you notice ppl using... In my experience, you need to see and feel and know the functions for yourself (vs. just reading the descriptions of them) to accurately type people.
This has become more and more clear to me as I have met and correctly typed more and more ppl of various types/looks/energy levels, etc.
That's the message.
from a post below, clarifying:
Intovert/Extrovert is misunderstood by many people here--and as Socionics grows, it will continue to be misunderstood by even more people.
This is because the terms are fairly colloquial, and thus mean different things to different people... (E.g. I can be "introverted." I have been told such and think of myself as such sometimes... I am not, however, a Socionics introvert.)
Same with Rational/irrational... E.g. I can be irrational. (I'm frequently criticized for being irrational... And Ep temperament descriptions fit my behavior better than Ej temperament descriptions.) I am not, however, a Socionics irrational.
These terminological pitfalls stand in the way of people typing themselves and others correctly. And ppl here often fall in them, conflating them with "temperament." (e.g. DeAnte, Winterpark... and me, for a long, long time.) Thus my call for better descriptions, or at least clarification regarding what temperament really is.