From what I can understand, Sociotype does not determine the actions of people, but rather it represents overarching intentions and preferred methods. From what I can tell, there is emphasis on overarching and preferred. But then how can one say any person is capable or incapable of an action? Isn't part of Socionics that the preferred function changes under unfamiliar circumstances? This is just something that I want to clarify. It may be my misconceptions, or perhaps there are conflicting beliefs that are simply not resolved thus far.
All I'm saying is, as a person grows up, they learn that certain things work and certain things don't. When infants first see this world, they don't use this knowledge, they only know how to cry. As an infant becomes a child, they learn to communicate more eloquently. As a child becomes an adolescent, they start to see how large the world really is, and how many conflicting beliefs occupy it, and that it turns out nobody agrees with all their beliefs. As the adolescent becomes an adult, they become stronger and more independent and learn to interact and commerce with the world.
Then how does Sociotype prevent or guarantee any particular behavior? No matter how vile, no matter how utterly sacrificial, are we not all capable of performing these acts when we think it is called for?
In any case, I think I should only be glancing at Socionics from a distance at the moment. Until I resolve my own personal conflicts, I think I shouldn't dwell on this.
EDIT: When I say that there is emphasis on overarching and preferred, I realize it's totally possible I just made that up to resolve my own beliefs.
Also, to give an example: I used to think that if someone attacks you, you should fight back in self defense. I am a pacifist now. But type shouldn't be defined by either of those beliefs, it should be defined by the motive behind those beliefs. (As far as my understanding of Socionics.)