I will introduce three subjects that frequently frustrate me regarding the common understanding/viewpoint of various aspects of personality type theory. You can like or hate what I have to say, but I'd rather hear good arguments for or against what I'm suggesting. A lovely discussion!
1. Why do people often have such a hard time believing that physical appearance could be related to their personality type?
The belief that people are blank slates at birth has largely been tossed out in the cognitive science community and we know that what goes on in our brains (and what is determined by DNA) expresses itself physically quite often.
I will agree that the Socionics physical descriptions can be hit or miss. But if you look at the "Types and Celebrities" page the similarities on the faces of people of the same type are uncanny.
What are people so scared of when it comes to the theory that a person's type expresses itself visually on a person's face in the form of physical characteristics and especially facial expressions? I'd like to hear about it.
2. Why the need to be an X anything? For instance, IXFP, XNTJ, etc.? For those of you who really understand different type theories, I find it confusing that you would think X is legitimate. Just because you relate to two sides does not mean you are X. Because it's about functions. They are either dominant or not. Dominant is not all-encompassing, it is simply dominant. A cat dominating a mouse does not necessarily mean that the mouse ceases to exist, the cat is simply in charge. I would liken that analogy to functions. One function will be dominant, and two functions never equal.
3. I get confused when people say they were at one time a certain type and then another later on, that they changed types, because they tested differently before. And I hear that this is maybe because of how they were raised, pressured to behave, etc. But that is not really possible. Just because you tested a certain way because you were conditioned to behave a certain way does not mean you "used to be" a certain other type. It merely means you were not being yourself and therefore answered how you were conditioned to. Or am I way off base?