Quote Originally Posted by Resonare View Post
Yeah that's fair enough. I don't expect whichever type I am to encompass everything that I am, nor do I even expect to relate to everything to do with it but some things about them just raise red flags.
Advice. Don't go with the behaviourist approach as far as type descriptions go. The trends you can spot in them that are directly IE related are OK.


Best course in terms of feasibility, effectiveness and expenditure in cost (time, money, effort etc) which I would normally consider a sub-part of feasibility.
Te.


In MBTI terms it would be identified as inferior (negative) usage Fi. Even though they are different systems a few of the functions are described in the same way and often times the socionics descriptions seem like in-depth versions of their MBTI counterparts.
That makes sense.


As in whenever Gamma Se+Fi could apply to a situation I'm in it often does for me, while Gamma Ni+Te doesn't.
Honestly, I don't know you IRL but here you never displayed the Fi+Se, only the Ni+Te, in a confident natural way.


Well, most probably that or ESI. Are there any other dichotomies other than romance style that distinguish the two?
ILI is a Dynamic, ESI is a Static type. Look into dimensionality much yet?