Some stuff has been on my mind for a while and I would like to hear what others think about it.
Firstly, from people I know that are very representative of a particular type I have noticed that the role function is only utilized under stress and when the person is currently unable to solve a problem with their valued functions. But as soon as it gets used it seems that the observing/ignoring/limiting function gets used in conjunction with it. Has anyone else noticed a similar trend?
Second, regarding type development, it seems that based on other people I have known throughout the majority of my life that the temperaments are the only things that appear to be mostly inherited.
In other words, it seems fairly easy to determine an IJ, EP, IP, or EJ temperament in say, a pre-teen child. I speculate that the following functions associated with a temperament are then molded mostly through experience rather than a genetic influence. But this is more of something I would like opinions on, rather than something I am asserting to be true.
Third, sparked by a thread by Subterranean and my slight dismay with subtype systems that made me drop the idea completely, the subtypes are commonly used as an actual new type in many discussions. This is a problem however, because the subtypes are merely a way to distinguish between a person that uses their leading or creative function more compared to other people of the same type. This should allow that same type the ability to swap psychology investment of one ego function over another and leads to a change of subtype and confusion if the subtype is thought as an actual type when it is not meant that way.
Fourth, it's impractical, and many times completely useless, to type someone based on a particular multi-choice test or series of multi-choice tests. The functions are supposed to be a cognitive structure for how someone interrupts the world. Granted this might fall under the realm of philosophy, but two people with the same typing aren't supposed to have the same personality. I think this is the most important mistake anyone could make in applying a theory like Socionics, and perhaps even one that a person must make before understanding why.
What I mean is that taking my brief, most likely hugely debatable list, such as the following:
Ni - Determines trends, envisions the future, and at the same time, attempts to predict and persuade the direction time is going into.
Si - Sense and enjoyment of the personal and internal experience of the world around the person.
Se - Perseverance of will, competitive domination, and direct acquisition of territory
Ne - Production of new novel ways of looking at things, explaining things, and solving problems
Ti - A summary, conceptualization, or generalization of the occurrences of an experience or some particular thing
Te - The employing and/or absorbing of the strict factual elements of a particular thing or experience
Fi - A summary, conceptualization, or generalization of the moral/value occurrences of an experience or some particular thing
Fe - The employing and/or absorbing of the persuasive and emotional elements of a particular thing or experience
Then someone might make the assumption that mathematics is a trait of a Ti leading and then design a test that weighs the mathematical knowledge and fluency of the person, rather than whether or not they interact with the world mostly through a Ti manner, remembering that a Ti leading would be in the greatest focus of summarizing, conceptualizing, or generalizing the world around them before all else. This would have little relevance on whether the generalization produces an error in mathematics or whether it can be shown a broken and thus invalid, or incorrect, way of structuring something. Ti leading would still be the main focus of the person.