I don't even know what point you're trying to make here other than to say you think I'm stereotyping. And Gulenko is sometimes kind of an idiot.IME p-sub betas are actually more ingenuous than the j-subs when it comes to this, precisely because they're aristocrats most pronouncedly on the Ni/Se axis...where Ni is, as Gulenko put it, the "integrity of the internal situation." I'm not saying you don't have a point, I just think you're stereotyping betas.
And I'm the one stereotyping???See what I said above. SEEs use Fi in a very "hands on" way, where if something can be justified in terms of power/leverage and isn't too much of a breach of Se boundaries, it will play. SLEs do play the game, yes; but they adhere to certain rules that all betas get, and thus even if they're fucking around or making a go for something, they aren't quite schemers in the sense you're implying.
Rand was probably LSI...so it's kind of moot...Well, Rand inspired her fair share of aversion, and definitely had a certain dogma that would seem similar to Trump. But the difference I see, is that she still had more of a "code" or just general template that structured her actions...why do you think she wrote both The Fountainhead and The Romantic Manifesto? Whereas Trump, to me, just seems like, as I said before, a 'player' in that SEE way. The implication I was getting at, is that gammas have more experiential scope than betas in this regard, because they're not shackled by Ti. True, their Te does constrain things to a degree; but external objects as a function pair gives rise to a more open-ended, play-it-as-it-comes way, where the result matters more than the basis of the pursuit.