Quote Originally Posted by point
Now what could be occurring is that the specialized cognition signal processors are producing a asymmetric signal(relative to cognition) to the conscious. and this is entirely plausible. However what might not be true is that this asymmetric signal is somehow organized the same way as cognition or that any sort of information preference exists, it could simply be a signal strength mechanic. I'm not saying Gulenko made a mistake, but he's perhaps mirrored something that's not a mirror.
If I get you correctly, you're suggesting that the behavioral processes might not be something you should consider a sort of mirror/dual sociotype to the main one. That, even though Gulenko was correcting the idea that mental-vital corresponds e.g. in LII as a sort of LII-ILI thing, to include a different sociotype, that perhaps his fascination with symmetry is leading to his positing a still too neat conversion.

And that really what's going on is that we can't "type the unconscious" using a model that looks just like a sociotype and that the sociotype is just one part of a multilayered system whose parts besides the sociotype don't necessarily need to look like sociotypes themselves.

I guess to me, while there doesn't have to be this enormous level of symmetry between behavioral/vital and mental/information, and indeed as I often say, I think the ego identifies with the persona (rightfully than not) quite often and thus blurs the distinction between a person and ego type, this case of Freud I detailed really interests me as an instance to consider, because it seems like there's some real consistency in scholars diagnosing him as either an introverted feeling type or an intuitive-logic type of extraverted kind.

I have a feeling both of these types are in a sense information types, because after all, they're still info elements in both types.Perhaps the error is in calling the second type the energy type?