Socionics and Jung
the first part of this post is me summarizing what jung discovered. the second part is my personal view on socionics, particularly intertype relations.
the functions are real, because if you look at jung's original line of thought, we evaluate things using our feelings and our thoughts. the two are diametrically opposed but they need each other. we (human beings) also take in information using our senses (sensation), but we also use our imaginations (intuition). the evaluating funtions are called rational functions and the information gathering functions are called irrational, mainly because jung was a rational type, and i don't think he meant to dis the irrational types, he just noted that the rationals, uh.....ration, and the irrationals, being more open and fluidic, don't. since he "discovered" them it was up to him to name them.
we all know about introversion and extroversion and how all four functions can be introverted or extroverted. and how everybody prefers one function, and the auxilliary function backs it up. if you really want to get into it read jung's psychological types. at least i think thats what it's called, i don't have it with me. i found it in a collection of jung essays called the portable jung. anyway it works like math, everything has an opposite and is balanced out in some way so that there can be an overall state of equilibrium.
moving on. the existence of psychological types was discovered by jung, and isabelle myers came up with the MBTI test, shitting on jungs original theory when it came to rational types and irrational types. augusta corrected the error with the invention of socionics, and socionics developed an intertype relations theory and a theory on visual identification. the intertype relations theory would have made it a lot more scientifically reputable than the MBTI but visual identification right now sort of gets in the way, and makes it look kind of ridiculous, although i'm sure it's true.
the intertype relations theory seems to work to a certain extent but there are certain inconsistancies... needless to say if you try to use the intertype relations theory to govern your relationships with other people you will run into a lot of trouble. socionics is real, the way the types interact is real, what each type does is real, yada yada yada. the theory should be used to help understand problems but thats all, everything else should happen naturally. never choose your friends based on socionics, but if your friend is being a dick socionics can help you understand why.
also i had an idea.... what if you look at each type is a way of behaving that comes with its own check and balances? so that when you act like an ESFP, no matter what your type, you will start to seem like a dumbass at some point. if you start thinking and theorising the way an ENTP or INTJ would (like me right now) you will lose touch a little bit with your ability to be normal. a good actor could come across as any type, but be careful what you pretend to be or you just might become it. at least until psychasthenia sets in and you realize why its a good idea to be yourself and not falsify type.
and so each mode of behavior interacts with each other mode of behavior in a certain way. act too much like a stereotypical ISTP and the ENFJs will start to judge you, as well as the ENFPs, although the ENFPs will understand and not hold it against you in the same way. But if you're an ISTP and you recognize where ISTPs go wrong and try to correct it, then you will keep even the ENFJs at least as your allies, because really lets face it, deep deep down conflicting types like each other.
This goes for every type. Each type has something only they can do that makes people like them , but also certain weaknesses that turn people off. The functions are like muscles, so if you're an ENFP it doesn't mean you're pigeonholed and predictable like every other ENFP on the planet, it means that your two strongest muscles are and , and how you use those muscles will still be unique to your personality.