INFj subtypes: EII-Fi vs. EII-Ne

[Faith]

I think those are 2 different subtype systems created by different socionists. I haven't seen any correlation in my experience, but I think Gulenko did some kind of correlation of DCNH with IEs. I choose subtypes in DCNH because of the descriptions basically, not because of the IEs.
As for EII and IEE, I was reading Strat who talk about the case of an SLI/EII couple who over the years, changed subtypes turning their relation more like a pseudo duality, she was apparently EII-Ne and he SLI-Te, though, relationship didn't improved. So my guess is, subtype change over the years as natural way to adapt to environment needs, to fit superficially or cover up certain roles but without changing the base program. It's logical, since, if you have Fi Ne but you interact with someone who requires more Ne than Fi, you are going to start using more Ne to try to compensate partners needs. Same for any other type. Also from reading other type descriptions, supposedly duals have a time for adaptation when they move over their base (in case they have moved to creative), which is, for example EII becoming more into Fi and LSE more Te. That's real ime.

I think my EII friend from childhood is an EII-Ne probably due her interaction with his father who's SLI and myself. What differences I can grasp from she and EII-Fi? Well, EII-Fi can look more serious and act more introverted and be depressed ime. This friend is not an IEE. She's an EII-Ne who seems more unaffected due sadness or deep feelings than regular Fi, is more cheeky, hussy and sassy, more spontaneous, have more friends, so externally she's more Ne, though, she doesnt use Ne as an IEE, her base program stills totally Fi Ne (that's a source of frustration and lack of interest for my side over the years).

[Beautiful sky]

I think those are 2 different subtype systems created by different socionists. I haven't seen any correlation in my experience, but I think Gulenko did some kind of correlation of DCNH with IEs. I choose subtypes in DCNH because of the descriptions basically, not because of the IEs.
As for EII and IEE, I was reading Strat who talk about the case of an SLI/EII couple who over the years, changed subtypes turning their relation more like a pseudo duality, she was apparently EII-Ne and he SLI-Te, though, relationship didn't improved. So my guess is, subtype change over the years as natural way to adapt to environment needs, to fit superficially or cover up certain roles but without changing the base program. It's logical, since, if you have Fi Ne but you interact with someone who requires more Ne than Fi, you are going to start using more Ne to try to compensate partners needs. Same for any other type. Also from reading other type descriptions, supposedly duals have a time for adaptation when they move over their base (in case they have moved to creative), which is, for example EII becoming more into Fi and LSE more Te. That's real ime.

I think my EII friend from childhood is an EII-Ne probably due her interaction with his father who's SLI and myself. What differences I can grasp from she and EII-Fi? Well, EII-Fi can look more serious and act more introverted and be depressed ime. This friend is not an IEE. She's an EII-Ne who seems more unaffected due sadness or deep feelings than regular Fi, is more cheeky, hussy and sassy, more spontaneous, have more friends, so externally she's more Ne, though, she doesnt use Ne as an IEE, her base program stills totally Fi Ne (that's a source of frustration and lack of interest for my side over the years).

I was in a previous relationship with an SLI who was more Te and I have to say it was a very good relationship but all the common stuff about activities was there the one main point of him escaping to go places and not keeping me in the loop about when he would be back and ruining plans. I hate that so much. I love Estj every time I think about that. No Estj has ever made plans with me and broke it unless it was an emergency and even then called me to say they didn’t feel like going out.