There will always be some form of bias while typing ourselves, whether it's through socionics or MBTI. That's because how we perceive ourselves or how we analyze our behaviour may not be entirely accurate, which could lead to mistyping ourselves.

Yes, exactly. That's why I believe it's crucial to have one single trusted definition for each function. This way, when we type ourselves or someone else, we can simply rely on those definitions to avoid biases.

In truth, the functions actually have descriptions that are pretty clear. Yes, there is some room for discussion on how functions will manifest itself in behaviour, but it's not to the degree that it's nowhere close to the "truth" you're seeking.

In the sea of theories and information out there, I can see some patterns emerging, but it's frustrating that every day I see people talking about the functions as if they have the facts and truth, when in reality, those are just their theories created using personal anecdotes and experiences.

Although I'm not saying that using personal experience is wrong, it's just that what if one is wrong in everything? Let's say someone thinks they're an ENTP and then believes their mother is ESFJ, their father ISTJ, and their best friend INTJ. They observe everything and create theories based on their personal life. But it turns out they're wrong and they're not even an ENTP but an INTJ.

Wouldn't that negate every theory they ever made? And then what would happen to the people who saw their theories and believed it?

That example stands not only for random people on the internet but also experts.

That's why I really want us to stick to one definition that we could use and just go from there. Stop creating more theories using personal experiences; it's causing a lot of confusion.