Originally Posted by
The Ineffable
Only the last two [1] IMO, which also mean that sociotype is an ideal set of personality traits, this ideal consisting in the completeness and/or full development of these traits. This means that the development of a type involves the accumulation and/or [2] strengthening these traits to the point they prevail over other configurations, in a certain individual. But to demonstrate that this view is incorrect is easy: Aushra postulated that the type is a complete set of discrete traits. That is, by definition, any trait that is optional and scalar is not a sociotype property.
Consequently, a sociotype can be only and fully one of the Socion, and there is no such thing as an ideal representative of a sociotype, neither "underdeveloped" or "unhealthy" [3] type. Actual behavioral traits - the "type related" figures - correlate with type but do not define it. Any "Socionist" that denies these definitions is in the wrong, since that is what makes sociotypes (and what Socionics means), disputing them is a matter of whether sociotypes exist, and not a matter of whether those conceptions are correct. In my knowledge, neither Aushra was 100% certain that types cannot change, however if they do, it can only happen entirely.
So based on these arguments, I conclude that sociotypes cannot be influenced as required to make a functional correlation to archetypes or any such kind of inventories.
---
[1] - and the second bolded (third in the full list), in case it means it changes along a period of time, instead of some moment during that period.
[2] - when considering the traits scalar, it may be the case that their absence to mean zero development.
[3] - another misconception springing from the same misunderstanding, that wankers often speculate around. It should not be confused with unhealthy or underdeveloped personality correlated with type, which is acknowledged and is judged based on the social potential of a type that cannot be manifested, or it is manifested negatively. The judgment is purely value-based. Assuming an F type is supposed to end-up caring and empathetic, a bitter and cold representative is considered a consequence of a hostile informational environment, nevertheless, that doesn't change the type of that individual in the least, one can't say that type is "less F" or "more T" or anything like that.