@
SisOfNight I would certainly say that many of the matches are not at all satisfactory.
I imagine that:
- the source data not likely to be especially reliable.
- attempting to create correlations via an indirect process is highly problematic.
- that my "method" assumes that each metric (e.g. "openness" and "intuition") has a 100% correlation, and that each correlation is of equal importance.
- tritypes are not especially meaningful to begin with.
In terms of 4w3 as the third part of an ILE's tritype (out of types 4,5,6): it essentially assumes that ((high "Extraversion" * high "Openness" * low "Conscientiousness" * 0.67)+(low "Extraversion" * low "Agreeableness" * low "Conscientiousness" * 0.33)) is best represented by 4w3.
speaking for myself, I don't think 5w4 seems like a first choice for EIIs (based on descriptions, but of course also knowing about "the Thinker" stereotypes). But on the otherhand, if I had not looked into this at another angle (through somewhat questionable means), I would not have picked up on how the E9, E1, E6 etc. types seem to be associated more with lower levels of intuition, and the extent to which there does not seem to be an especially strong type that represents EIIs well (Some enneagram types with wings seem to describe a particular Socionics type very well. Other enneagram types do not seem to represent anything especially distinct). I think 5w4, on paper, as an alternative to 4w5 for example, could be a satisfactory type for an intuitive EII (which would obviously mean someone who is IJ temperament,
-ego...in contrast to an intuitive IEI).
I think unfortunately, enneagram descriptions tend to describe the minds (thought processes) of individuals who are both "introverted" and "intuitive" in somewhat mystical terms, which makes it difficult for me to comprehend E4 and w4 descriptions.