Implications of the socionic structure

It is no secret that there are many differing opinions on how socionics should be viewed and practiced. However, I believe there are certain fundamental notions that the socionic structure itself implies, and as long as you subscribe to socionics at all, those notions will remain true regardless of your specific interpretation of the theory. In this post I would like to outline them and explain why I think they follow.

Socionics teaches that everyone, including you, has one and only one sociotype, with a function stack that determines their relationship with different kinds of information. This means that you have strengths that most people do not possess. If we assume that the sixteen types are more or less equally common, then only 1/8 of the world population has as much awareness of your (strong, conscious, accepting) lead as you do, and only 1/8 can apply your (strong, conscious, producing) creative as well as you can. Only 1/16, those with the exact same type as you, can do both at the same time. And let me be clear that I do not believe this fact to mean there is a linear connection between a person's type and their chance to succeed in a given activity or profession. Some connection definitely exists, but, much like with behavior, other factors (e.g. education, motivation, dedication, experience, work capacity and consistency) also play a substantial role. Moreover, the same activity can be approached in different ways - Wassily Kandinsky's paintings are quite unlike those of Paul Cezanne, but both are still seen and appreciated as artists. What your proficiency with your lead and creative does imply, though, is that due to statistical probability you will encounter situations and challenges that you will be able to handle better than anyone else present. A person who can surpass you at everything does not exist, because, even if they are the same type as you, the unique blend of your life experiences, personality and function stack will still leave you with some abilities that differ from theirs, and different situations require different solutions. 

But you do not only have strong functions - you also have weak ones, those in which you are inherently limited. Therefore, when you interact with the environment, there is always some information you miss. In fact, there are things which most of the people you encounter will be able to understand and navigate better than you. Situations may come up where you feel like some things are straight up impossible to understand, and those who do claim to understand them are either delusional or lying. You may feel like certain perspectives make no sense, and the only explanation for people ahdering to them is stupidity. And you may certainly be right in some of those cases; I would never encourage you to blindly succumb to peer pressure. Hovewer, it is also possible for you to be missing something that other people do not, and I believe it to be a good reason to approach every situation in a open-minded, non-judgemental way, and to avoid making assumptions until you know more. There is a similar concept in Zen Buddhism which is known as "shoshin", or "beginner's mind":

It refers to having an attitude of openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions when studying a subject, even when studying at an advanced level, just as a beginner would.

Everything stated above applies to everyone else for the exact same reasons. Because everyone has strong functions, there are things that every person is or could be good at. Moreover, there are things everyone is or could be better than you at, which is either conditioned by them being stronger than you in certain elements if your types are different, or by a unique spin their personality and experiences put on the inherent abilities you both have if your types are the same. This implication may be the hardest to accept, because it means that the people you might look down on, those you consider dumb, vapid, boring or talentless, those you hate and despise, even those you would deem to be the worst people who ever lived... All of those people still possess genuine abilities and gifts, hard as it may be for you to see it in some of them. 

But everyone also has blind spots, and this is the final notion following from the socionic structure that I think is important to be aware of. The information pertaining to your stronger elements is likely to seem obvious "common sense" to you, but for many other people it will not be so. And if someone does not appear to understand something you consider obvious, it does not necessarily imply malice or stupidity - instead it could be a failure to notice, evaluate or apply the information in question due to it being related to that person's particular blind spots, even though the person is perfectly capable in other areas. And if you are not sure which it is, it is more charitable and more prudent to assume the latter until you know more, especially considering that due to your own blind spots you may end up in a similar situation yourself (perhaps even with that same person). 

At the beginning of the post I stated that, if you subscribe to the theory of socionics, it should make the notions I outlined true to you. But what I myself believe is not that they are true because of socionics, but rather that they are an integral part of the human condition itself, the upsides and downsides to our innate differences. The fact that socionics captures them and provides a structure for them is what makes it a good framework, and it is also something that gives this theory value beyond its descriptive ability. The biggest value of socionics, in my opinion, comes from the fact that it makes these truths undeniable and impossible to ignore without twisting the theory into something completely unrecognizable. Subcribing to socionics means that you have to accept that everyone, including yourself, your idols, your enemies and your loved ones, has real, tangible strengths and weaknesses, and that, in the words of the creator of socionics Aushra Augusta: 

Together [the sixteen types of information metabolism] form a unified system thanks to which man was able to become man and build everything we call “culture” today. A single way of processing information, or information metabolism, is unproductive. ... Humanity’s strength is in the diversity of its intelligence - the existence of the sixteen types of IM.

Behavior

I believe that, when it comes to socionics, few questions are as important as the one I am going to address in this post. Your personal answer to this question will color everything else about the way you see the system and the way you practice it. The question is the following:

What is the relationship between socionics type and human behavior? 

Are certain behaviors inherent in certain types while being impossible for others? And if not, how come we can still use behavior as evidence in typing? Let me try to outline an answer. 

I will start by saying that the structure of socionics is actually very simple, with only two things being really integral to it:  

1. the nature of elements, i.e. what kind of information this element covers;
2. the nature of functions, i.e. what kind of relationship a person has with an element in this position (it should be noted that two blocked functions are intrinsically linked and therefore mutually influenced by one another). 

All other concepts in socionics are a consequence of this structure, and of these concepts the most fundamental is type. 

What is type? It is something we get when we map elements onto functions. The result of this synthesis is the nature of specific elements in specific positions, i.e. what kind of relationship a person has with specific kinds of information. Personality traits and behaviors are therefore not a part of any type's core definition - the only things that are integral to a type are parts of the socionic structure it is based on. 

But is behavior not a consequence of type? And if it is, would that not mean that behavioral tendencies are inherent in types, after all? It is fairly obvious that the way we perceive and interact with information has a huge influence on everything we do and everything we are. But, while behavior is a consequence of type, I would argue that it is not a consequence of just type. Rather, I see behavior as a result of a "collision" between several things: 

1. type;
2. the context of the situation;
3. other factors that influenced and continue to influence the person. These include, but are not limited to, culture, upbringing, past experiences and mental health. 

What this means is that, while behavior is a consequence of type, the connection between behavior and type is not linear. There is not a single person on Earth whose personality and behavioral tendencies did not change at all over the course of their lifespan. People change, sometimes beyond recognition, but their socionics type stays the same. 

Still, we do not have direct access to another person's mind, so behavior is all we have to go off of if we want to type someone. And it is definitely possible to use behavior as evidence of type, but in order to do so we must take into account the context of the situation and the person's past and present experiences. We must explain how this behavior follows from type for this specific person and in these specific circumstances. Behavior in itself, without knowing the context and the person, is not evidence of type and should not be ascribed to specific types, nor should we say that any behavior is impossible for the specific types. 

I realize that this condition makes it harder to practice socionics. It means that we can never do it perfectly because we can never know all the factors needed to type someone with full certainty. Even when trying our best, occasionally we will still fail and make surface-level typings with faulty reasoning. But I think that we should still strive for a nuanced and situational approach to typing, because, when practiced well, socionics can be an amazing tool that can aid us in understanding others and ourselves - something that it can hardly do when types are viewed as nothing more than mere clusters of personality traits and behavioral patterns.