Subtype matching or not in duality and activity

[wasp]

^ what I don't understand about that, even if real socionists support the notion - is why write the subtype descriptions to make it sound like compatible subtypes (Fi-Te and Si-Ne, in the case of SLI-IEE) are better suited for each other, if the opposite is actually true? both IEE-Ne and SLI-Te are unsure of their feelings, whereas IEE-Fi is enticed by someone who's emotionally reticent, which I always pegged to be SLI-Te, because it gives them the freedom to be the "leader" in relations, in contrast with SLI-Si who are less enticed by direct and/or aggressive romantic approaches, which isn't IEE-Fi per se, but they naturally operate on a shorter psychological distance, whereas IEE-Ne would be less direct and/or aggressive as a rule. in the case of IEE-Ne, they "bloom" next to a sensual and attentive partner (which seems more characteristically SLI-Si than SLI-Te, because the description sounds like someone with a preference for Si over Te) whereas in the case of IEE-Fi, they thrive with a partner who's more energetic (which I took to mean "contact") with strong business acumen and the like, which seemed like SLI-Te because there's less focus on sensuality and more focus on Te-buzzwords. I could draw comparisons all day but the point is that whenever I read the subtype descriptions, I kept thinking it was obvious they were playing an angle, like "yeah yeah I get it, you just emphasized SLI-Si traits in the IEE-Ne sexual section, and you emphasized IEE-Ne traits in the SLI-Si romantic section"

I'm not saying the above theory is wrong because I understand how they came to that conclusion - it's their theory after all - but it contradicts what's actually written in the subtype descriptions, and I can't really makes sense of that disparity, because it always made sense to me that you'd need someone whose strengths/weaknesses are the anti-thesis to your own. stronger Te can mean there's less emphasis on Fi, but I thought it mean something more like, "they put less emphasis on Fi, therefore they need a partner who places more emphasis on Fi for balance." (for SLI-Te and IEE-Fi)

so in that sense I assumed that contact/inert duality combos would result in a bond that's more akin to activity relations than duality relations

[Shytan]

^ what I don't understand about that, even if real socionists support the notion - is why write the subtype descriptions to make it sound like compatible subtypes (Fi-Te and Si-Ne, in the case of SLI-IEE) are better suited for each other, if the opposite is actually true? both IEE-Ne and SLI-Te are unsure of their feelings, whereas IEE-Fi is enticed by someone who's emotionally reticent, which I always pegged to be SLI-Te, because it gives them the freedom to be the "leader" in relations, in contrast with SLI-Si who are less enticed by direct and/or aggressive romantic approaches, which isn't IEE-Fi per se, but they naturally operate on a shorter psychological distance, whereas IEE-Ne would be less direct and/or aggressive as a rule. in the case of IEE-Ne, they "bloom" next to a sensual and attentive partner (which seems more characteristically SLI-Si than SLI-Te, because the description sounds like someone with a preference for Si over Te) whereas in the case of IEE-Fi, they thrive with a partner who's more energetic (which I took to mean "contact") with strong business acumen and the like, which seemed like SLI-Te because there's less focus on sensuality and more focus on Te-buzzwords. I could draw comparisons all day but the point is that whenever I read the subtype descriptions, I kept thinking it was obvious they were playing an angle, like "yeah yeah I get it, you just emphasized SLI-Si traits in the IEE-Ne sexual section, and you emphasized IEE-Ne traits in the SLI-Si romantic section"

I'm not saying the above theory is wrong because I understand how they came to that conclusion - it's their theory after all - but it contradicts what's actually written in the subtype descriptions, and I can't really makes sense of that disparity, because it always made sense to me that you'd need someone whose strengths/weaknesses are the anti-thesis to your own. stronger Te can mean there's less emphasis on Fi, but I thought it mean something more like, "they put less emphasis on Fi, therefore they need a partner who places more emphasis on Fi for balance." (for SLI-Te and IEE-Fi)

so in that sense I assumed that contact/inert duality combos would result in a bond that's more akin to activity relations than duality relations

Would you say C-IEEs are IEE-Fi or IEE-Ne?