Originally Posted by
Joy
The bottom line is that descriptions aren't a whole lot more useful for determining one's type than tests are (and tests are practically useless). The only way to understand a socionic's type it is to understand functions (information elements) and model A. "Type traits" will be different in different environments.
I disagree with the bolded. Part of the reason that I disagree is that based on where a function is and how it relates to the other functions in that person's psyche influences how it's expressed (which I realize you're saying to a degree by mentioning model A). A function does not look quite the same in two different types. Compare an ESFp to an INFj-- they both have Fi, but the understanding of what Fi is has to be looked at as how it is used by a real person.
I tried looking at functions in their dissected form. I looked at the information elements that anndelise was working on. They don't make a lot of sense that way, because it's hard to separate them out from everything else.
I agree that "type traits" might look different in different environments, to a point, but functions also behave differently in different types. And breaking everything down to its elements doesn't always allow you to understand the whole compound. CO2 is a lot different than H2O.
I was trying to figure out how Se was my polr, and so started trying to figure out just what Se was. I just got more and more confused. Then I read the Strat. descriptions for INFj and ISFj, and tried to get people to explain to me why I identified with the ISFj Se section and not the INFj. People answered that she didn't have the functions labeled quite right, which really did not answer my question at all. Fine, I let it go, and kept trying to figure out what Ne was, what Fi was and what Se were on their own. Not very possible.
Then I went through her descriptions as a whole and put my comments. I asked for feedback from other INFjs to find out if she was just mistaken in how she was describing INFjs, and if they identified with my comments more, or with her description more. That fell flat.
I then went through and did the same for the ISFj description. It fit better. There were sections of them both that were similar, which makes sense considering they share in the same functional order Fi, Ti, Te and Fe.
Then, when the Filatova descriptions came out, I again read both. It became clear that I fit her ISFj description better than her INFj description. But there's some pretty common ideas about what functions are that if I went by those, there's no way I'd be an ISFj.
For example: Se is obnoxious, pushy and inconsiderate as seen in some ESTps. If you're not that way, you don't have it.
Ne is the function of creativity and imagination. If you ever daydream or make up scenarios in your head, you're Ne.
If you ever appreciate someone doing something for you, even when you're sick, you have Si HA.
and so on.
Far more useful to look at a number of descriptions and compare them, than to take a test. However, sometimes descriptions are misleading, and not useful. The way people read things into descriptions can also be a problem. If someone wants to say they're a certain type all they have to do is say, "I'm just exactly like this description." Well that's ridiculous. Unless you were the actual person the describer was describing then there's no way you could be EXACTLY like the description.