I used to think like that until I actually experienced what @Bertrand is talking about. @Olduvai looked like an ILI initially because he was into ideas, held his ground (was no pushover and could be hostile like a man). I no longer think of IEEs as soft at all, and here the subtype theory helps me understand differences; Normalisers and Harmonisers are far less confrontational.
However after closely talking to him, the half extinguishment dissonance emerged, my ideas seemed wrong to him - couldn't trust my analysis, he said I was speculating/forcing things together which may not necessarily do so. And well I'd here and there say, his ideas weren't internally consistent - you are not thinking about how everything is suppose to fit in together. Ni vs Ne cognitively is like Ti vs Te.
The ILI: Ti-Te vs IEE: Fe Fi, was also weird - I had no counter to his Fe-Fi reasoning, especially when he emphasized the "Fe" reason - which is actually a logic form but conceptual, implicit, in its factoids (over pedantic logic (logic) - focusing on explicit details). Similarly I realized that when I also emphasized my "Ti", logically and systemically explaining my rationale - logic, explicit and fact based, he didn't quite process what I said.