IPs are pretty easy to spot.
I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.
Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.
Role is a part of the superego; developed enough to get by, to mask a weakness or deficiency, but not something you take seriously or really care for. I don't care for Si, but it's become clear to me over my life that a lot of people judge things by the first impressions they get off things. For example, let's say I choose to dress comfortable, but bland; someone might make a lot of associations about me from that, such that I don't care about my appearance or that I'm poor or lazy, etc. So I've learned to care, but I don't at all.
I don't know about mobilizing, as I don't really have one and would rather not try to speak for other people that say they do.
Ni role would be kinda like if you're doing a job based around prediction(s)(more important to others, obviously) while
Ni mobilising would place a lot of importance on time efficiency / development of events(even if not important).
edit: I am more interested in the difference between Ni creative and mobilising, seeing how one seeks out another.