She sounds like she is a woman. And if you are like her, you sounds like you're a woman too
. Or in other words, the things she and you state all sound like stereotypically female things. I don't really see them as being very type related or specific. Well, apart from this one sentence:
I use to be into socionics a long time ago and have since forgotten nearly everything, but since I got back sometimes I remember things. I remember that apparently one distinction between
and
in practice is the purpose of walks.
valuing and having types when stresses go for walks or engage in activities for the view, for the bodily sensation like I don't know, a massage or something. It's an important aspect of the stress relieving behaviour, the focus and purpose.
valuing or having types on the other hand engage in them for the thinking. The view and bodily sensations are completely irrelevant, it's their thoughts, ordering them, going through them, that is the focus.
What are her weaknesses, in what real world situations does she stumble, try hard yet fail and repeat the same mistakes over an over? If you are able to notice such things. Perhaps complaints other people have had. Or objective interpretations of her efforts, like she consistently fails to deliver and yet always has excuses about it.
Also are there things where she seems stereotypical? Fake if other people who don't really like her or care about her were to describe that behaviour of hers.
And regarding how she views the world, her informational interpretations of things, am I wrong when I say that she perceives object and things as they are
and not sensations and states of them
in the world around her. Like it's food not taste, lumps of clothes not messiness. I sort of got that mild impression (very mild) beneath all that stereotypically female (IMO) behaviour both of you presented.