Virtually all socionists believe type manifests as both patterns in functional competence (dimensionality of function) and patterns of functional preference. Socionists differ, however, with respect to their interpretations of the origins of these observable patterns. Some socionists (Group A) believe type is determined by one's innate preferences/level-of-comfort with respect to different sorts of information and that apparent functional competence is not innate, but a consequence of these preferences. Others socionists (Group B) believe type is determined by asymmetries in innate competence and that one's functional preferences result from these asymmetries in natural ability. A third group socionists (Group C) feel that functional strengths and functional preferences are co-determined, that neither can rightly be interpreted as a deterministic of the other. A final group of socionists consists of individuals who have not given the question any serious thought and do not know where they stand in the matter. I dare say the majority of you fall into this final group. Further, if forced to take a position, I imagine most of you would describe yourselves as "co-determinists" (group C) or adherents to the "innate-competence determines preferences" school of thought (group B). I strongly doubt that many of you adhere to a "preferences determine strengths" interpretation (group A).
If you belong to group B or C, by definition you believe functional competence is intrinsic to type. Logically, you should also believe that type cannot realistically be faked since no amount of effort or concentration can overcome an intrinsic deficit in functional competence. Is this the general consensus among members of this forum?