Ok, maybe we should forget about my previous explanation and try something else. I think i see where the misinterpretation originates.
I am suggesting that it would be more accurate and efficient to think of socionics theory as a fixed set of elements, where even the interplay between elements is determined by the rules of the theory. this seems consistent with what i've read about socionics thus far, so nothing groundbreaking here. imagine a sort of elaborate traffic pattern like the pictures of ones seen in tokyo. actually, i am not sure how accurate all of the representatons are because some are from sci fi flicks, but anyway...vehicles can travel outside of the lines of traffic, but generally not without causing a problem. traveling the wrong way on a one-way street is obviously dangerous, if not for the cars and drivers, then certainly calls into question the efficacy of the traffic system.
so, I questioned your saying that typing through intertype relations could be the best method. the reason for my question is that while i see intertype relations as a part of the theory of socionics, i do not see that evaluating one's personal relationships through a subjective lens (and it must be subjective unless you have some objectivity virus) and then attempting to place them into the already determined theory could very often yield information which reflects the structure of the objective system. i can see the value in saying "this relationship feels
supervisory, therefore this person of unknown type may be type x, and i may be type y" but what if you have got the nature of supervisory relationships all wrong? and further, what if this person you do not thoroughly know is actually acting out of character?