We should start with observed
behaviours, not with functions. We observe a certain kind of behaviour and we should ask ourselves questions like these: What kind of behaviour is this really? Have I now a correct understanding of what it is, or is it possible that I confuse this behaviour with another different kind of behaviour that resembles it? Which type(s) of people typically manifest that kind of behaviour? Is it type related or not type related?
We should not immediately jump to conclusions about which functions are manifested in some type of behaviour, because the risk of being wrong is great here. We see examples of that all the time. Instead we should try to link the behaviour(s) to the
types. Any type can use any function, but every type is a
static pattern of behaviours and attitudes. It is also
dynamic, as explained in Socionics, but it is not so dynamic that it is meaningful to dismiss the types completely and only focus on function uses.
Only when we have agreed on how the types are in behavious and attitudes etc., we should (if we want to or find it necessary) start to discuss which function(s) this person is manifesting in this particular case. But in doing that we all should agree on which are the possible type candidates for that kind of behaviour.
And therefore we must know the types before we know the functions.
Originally Posted by
Jonathan
It's not just Smilex's stuff; Socionics is like that. It should be structured differently. Every description should come with a clear explanation of why each point is being made and where it's coming from. It's all about imprecise definitions and sloppy descriptions, and then we all debate about this stuff.
Maybe I have underestimated the difficulties people have with reading and understanding type descriptions. You really have to go through
a lot of such sloppy descriptions and compare them in order to see the general pattern. But the pattern
is out there. And it is
clear, and it is
beautiful. But it is also complex, since you have to view each type from many, many different perspectives at the same time. If we focus only on the details every time we read a type description or a definition, we are lost, because any detail can fit any person occasionally. We simply must have on overall framework -- the types -- that helps us sort out the irrelevent pieces of information from the relevant ones. But such an overall general understanding of the types can only be the result of a lot of reading and comparing, analyzing, testing, and real life acquaintances with the real types. You have to
see it before you can truly understand it, at least if you are an accepting
type.