Undeniably interesting nonetheless
And therein lies the problem. See, you can't just divide people into chunks and say, "Ok, enneagram explains this part of me, and Socionics explains this part." They are both meant to describe people as "wholes," not their individual parts. You can't just pick and choose; the whole picture has to fit for each one; if you're using one to rationalize the other, you're missing half the point. They aren't part of the same system; while they often describe different things, and as such can be used in a complimentary fashion, you can't just divvy people up and say "Well if this is attributable to the enneagram, then it must not be relevant to Socionics," or vice versa. You have to look at the big picture instead of using them to compartmentalize.
Granted, neither of them are going to be able to describe EVERYTHING about a person. But if you are going to take one character trait or tendency in isolation and analyze it, well, it's not like Socionics is just incapable of analyzing that particular character trait; indeed, projecting a particular consistent "image" is a pretty common manifestation and partial interpretation of Fe+Ni. There's a reason that EIEs are often 3s, and IEIs are commonly 4s, and it's not just because it just happens that way
It's because the phenomena they are describing have a significant overlap in this particular area.
Yeah, I will admit that temperament is the hardest part for me to make sense of. But, between being Ni/"IP" sub, and looking more specifically at what Fe means and how it is an "EJ function," in terms of constantly adapting to fluctuating emotional states in both myself and others, it makes sense.
I can't believe that whatever you are seeing in the eyes is both totally consistent with approximately 1/32 of the world's population and is also perfectly correlated to Ni sub EIEs. That's just preposterous. If that is one of your criteria for typing anyone, throw it out; there is never one type related thing that is "consistent" in all examples of a type, because the reasons that they are that "type" aren't always the same. Type is not a concrete phenomena, but a categorical one; you need to wrap your head around that.
Ok, in enneagram terms it makes sense with being a 4/3. But how would you interpret it in terms of Socionics? Needing to be seen as something and valued for it? That doesn't sound like an Fe+Ni behavioral phenomena to you, producing a consistent self-image and projecting it?
Maybe I was, but couldn't that simply be related to valuing Ti>Te?