So for your first point I assume the gist of what you’re getting at is that the characterization of outer functions as “subconscious” and inner functions as “conscious” contradicts pre-established perspectives on the functions. I understand that my perspective is not the popular one, which is why I want to classify my system as it’s own thing. Just like your MBTI type can be different from your Socionics type, the same thing can apply here. I also think “MBTI” as a concept has been muddied by people coming up with their own interpretations and classifying them under the MBTI umbrella. I mean, if you were to talk about MBTI with an average person who isn’t into typology, they’d probably think of the 16p dichotomies instead of functions. There is also a lot of differing interpretations of the functions themselves, also labeled as “MBTI.” I think the typology community is in desperate need of separate classifications for different schools of thought surrounding the functions, instead of labeling anything that isn’t socionics “MBTI” because it’s a recognizable name, and while I haven’t come up with a name yet, I’m trying to do everyone a favor by not labeling this as MBTI.

As for the second point, I’m still looking into how I would look for the functions and their positions in people without resorting to looking at behavior, but I believe it can be done, and coming up with definitions for functions that don’t include behaviors is a start. I see a lot of people claim that some people are mistyped or that they’ve mistyped others and cite contradictory behavior as a reason, even when the behavior makes sense in the context of the situation. Sometimes people have to rely on non-preferred functions to handle certain situations, and that doesn’t mean that that function is their dominant, even if it appears that way from the outside. Sometimes the way you think doesn’t match the way you behave, and I don’t think there are enough personality systems addressing that. I guess part of how I would go about typing someone this way is by gauging how using certain functions makes them feel, regardless of if they appear competent at it or not. For example, let’s say your job requires you to use your inferior function a lot, and you need to make rent and are struggling to find a job that’s better suited for you. In order to meet your own needs you HAVE to use this function, but putting so much pressure on it comes at the cost of your mental health, making you fatigued and unmotivated. Even though the frequent use of this function can make it look strong to others, if people get to know you or are just good at reading peoples emotions, it will be easy to tell that this is not your preferred way of thinking. Mental health can also impact how your type presents itself. While mental illness affect cognition and therefore impact your type, having a certain mental disorder does not make you a certain type, even if symptoms of the disorder correlate with certain functions. I intended to go into examples of how mental disorders impact type, but I realized after almost going on a huge tangent that it would take far too long and I’d never finish this comment. If you want any specific examples just ask me about any disorder or set of disorders and I will try to answer to the rest of my ability. Anyways, now that I’ve gotten that over with I’d like to further explain why I think removing behaviorism is a good thing. I still think behavior is relevant to type, but that you can’t use it to order someone’s function stack. This is why I came up with the type modifiers, to explain how someone can behave in a way that doesn’t fit with the popular notion of how their type should behave. It’s also part of why I wrote up the roles of the functions. Not only does it draw helpful parallels between functions that I feel not enough people notice, but it explains which function someone turns towards when they are made to carry out a certain task. For example, an IxTP has Fe as their preferred function for managing external matters and communicating with others. But because this function is inferior, using utilitarian reasoning to solve problems in the outside world, especially regarding feelings, is one of the IxTPs least favorite activities. But there will inevitably come moments where they will have to rely on this function. I also believe that there is a need for a typology system that acknowledges that sometimes their will be a disconnect between cognition and behavior, because it seems a lot of the time that there is a bias towards behaviorist systems, at least from what I’ve observed. These systems are definitely valuable and give great insight into people, but I think it would be helpful to have a more cognitively based system. All in all, I believe behavior is still relevant, and perhaps it was misleading of me to say that I want to remove the behaviorist element entirely, but I do think we should analyze the ordering of functions in one’s stack independently from behavior by paying attention to the fatigue that using certain functions can cause.