Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
When I used to self-typed as LII, I thought that there was an "extroverted", or perhaps an "agreeable" side to me that might give me reason to think I might not be LII, and I wondered if this was Ne or somehow even Fe, which seemed quite contrary to my typical personality. I cannot objectively say I have now resolved that matter: unfortunately, as @Singu has recently being saying, with Socionics, people will use different, even contrary explanations to explain a behaviour, and attribute distinctly disparate behaviours to the singular explanations, which are not really explanations at all, rather, they are desired conclusions that people work back from to determine premises that are based in circular reasoning.
I think the psychologist Albert Bandura has made a particular astute remark regarding this:

Quote Originally Posted by Albert Bandura
The conceptual structure of theories that invoke drives or impulses as the principal motivators of behavior has been further criticized for disregarding the complex and changeable patterning of human action. An internal motivator cannot adequately account for marked shifts in a given behavior under differing situational circumstances. When varying social conditions produce predictable changes in behavior, the postulated cause cannot reside mainly in a drive in the organism, nor can the cause be less complex than its diverse effects.
Some people in Socionics seriously say something like: "Fi-lead is about being both moral and immoral. The immoral Fi-leads are unhealthy Fi-leads".

But then that only proves that the immoral behavior is affected and caused by the (unhealthy) environment, and it has nothing to do with "Fi". If you say that "Well it's Fi plus the environment, the Fi itself remains the same", then well, you can't have immoral behavior without the environment anyway, so you might as well analyze what the environment is doing.

And if you say that the immoral behavior is the result of the environment, then you might as well say that moral behavior is also the result of the environment and not possible without the environment.

So I would think that you can't separate the environmental effects from what causes any human behavior.

If we seriously want to analyze what "Fi" is, then I'd think the wisest thing to do would be to try and figure out how this Fi expresses itself in different environments and circumstances. It's no use working from backwards and saying that all sorts of observable behaviors are the result of Fi. Because then... potentially anything can explained by Fi, which is not actually explaining anything.