Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei
How is this different from simply combining instincts as used in Enneagram with Socionice types?
It's the difference between just using two systems simultaneously and actually using them in conjunction. I'm not just talking about figuring out your socionics type and then figuring out your instinctual variant -- I'm talking about integrating them in order to clarify each other. Socionics and instinctual variants fit together very well because socionics deals with what kinds of energy people are attentive to while instinctual variants are about where people direct this energy.

Quote Originally Posted by Galen
It does seem like something that would help to eliminate stereotypes, although it could just as easily lead to creating even more hyper-specified stereotypes than before (the odds of which don't seem that likely, considering the number of types in play).
It does seem unlikely since people fall back on stereotypes because they're too lazy to really analyze things. But when you have to juggle 96 stereotypes, analysis starts to seem more appealing. I don't really think of it as 96 distinct types though... rather, it's about recognizing the different dimensions to types and how the overall "energy" of one type can manifest itself through a variety of different channels.

Quote Originally Posted by KazeCraven
Probably best if we use this to get an idea of the scope of one's Socionic type. Does instinct change the axioms of Socionics? For example, does an ESE with sp/sx have different values of functions when compared to an sx/so ESE?
It's more about creating a paradigm for applied socionics that makes it easier to handle intratype variation. Socionics theory is very clear cut, but when it comes to actually trying to type people and practically understand how their types manifest, there's a lot of ambiguity, and I'd be willing to bet that following through on the idea of integrating socionics type and instinctual variant would cut back on a lot of this ambiguity.

For instance, take the ESE sp/sx and the ESE sx/so. Let's say they want to know their socionics types, so they log into the16types and make a type thread. Most likely, there will be a lot of different types being thrown around, some of their behaviors will flat-out contradict the widely-accepted notion of ESE, etc. When people try to type the ESE sp/sx, Si ego will probably be easier to pick up on, but things like EJ temperament, Fe leading, etc. will be a lot harder to pick up on. They might even get typed SEI or something, even if their actual function ordering is that of an ESE. But a systematic understanding of how EJ temperament, Fe leading, etc. manifest via sp/sx channels will shed a lot of light on the type of the individual in question.

Similarly, the ESE sx/so will probably be more stereotypically Fe-leading, but Si will probably be less apparent. They might be mistyped EIE or something, but once again, their function ordering is that of an ESE, and understanding how Si-creative manifests in an sx/so type will clear things up.

In other words, you're right that this doesn't change the basic axioms of socionics. The problem is that there's a huge gap between the clarity of socionics' axioms and our ability to use socionics powerfully and accurately -- we gotta close that gap, or we're wasting our time here.