Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
The pseudo-aggressor theory is actually broken and not really true but rather is just a contrived means to try to force ideas on to the theory. Observe enough people and even talk to some on this forum it'' become apparent that there is no determinstic connection between the romance styles and styles. "Aggressors"(Assertors) can be intuitves too and ESE & SEE can also be infantiles.
The secondary Romance style of Childlike is Aggressor and vice versa, and the secondary Romance Style of Victim is Caretaker and vice versa; this is based on the shared dynamic or static dichotomy.

So yes,
IEE-Fi and ILE-Ti will have moments of being "Aggressor-like", but in a playful way. (Not so much EII and LII, because of their PoLR.)
SEE-Fi and SLE-Ti will have moments of being "Childlike" and playful, but in an aggressive way. (Not so much ESI and LSI, because of their PoLR.)
IEI-Fe and ILI-Te will have moments of being "Caretaker-like", but in a self-conscious or passive way. (Not so much LIE and EIE, because of their PoLR.)
SEI-Fe and SLI-Te will have moments of being "Victim-like", but in caring/nurturing or guiding way. (Not so much ESE and LSE, because of their PoLR.)

Considering all this, it is indeed difficult to explain how Gamma NTs are "Pseudo-Aggressor", or Delta NFs "Pseudo-Caretaker".
I have observed those behaviours in individuals of those types, so I find it to be true. I am wondering whether the key here is – valuing the most efficient or appropriate method.
In that light, Gamma NTs see too much Victim behaviour and Delta NFs see too much Childlike behaviour as being inefficient, so they unconsciously try to be like the other style sporadically.
But this is just a theory, I am really not sure why they have adopted a "Pseudo"-ness.