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.Originally Posted by point
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?