i disagree.
here's one of the major problems. you're basically admitting that you don't know what Se is and that you're depending on other people to try to give you information.But some Se-base behavioral traits might apply to me, it's just that they have never been listed yet. For example I'm the first to say that much of the vocabulary associated with Se on wikisocion is a good representation of the way I write when I'm being an ass - which is all the time except when I'm discussing seriously.
primarily, if you don't understand the information required to understand the theory yourself, how do you expect to ever understand what's going on?
i could list different aspects of Se for you, but i could never list each and every last detail of Se because Se is a conceptual construct which is defined by what it is, rather than some list of traits that magically contain all information that ever needs to be disseminated on Se.
you have to understand, implicitly, what the concept of Se means in order to actually understand it and evaluate it. and to do that, you have to observe it and understand what it is that you're observing. you already know enough basic information about the function (ie in very general terms, it has to do with spatial awareness, agressiveness and reckless behavior, the sex drive, and other stuff that you already know) to be able to extrapolate what people are actually working from when they use this function.
here's another interesting point: do LIEs mainly depend on other people for information? consider, along the wonderful lines of ashton thought, that Te is an extroverted rational function. does it sit idly by and wait for people to come feed it data and then reach it's conclusions?
i wonder what types do that. hmmm...
you certainly seem social enough.It's a hypothesis that can't be rejected. Still, I'd be a complete failure as an SF!