Originally Posted by
Alonzo
A few things >
1.) First of all, Socionists can't even fully agree on the validity of the Reinen dichotomies, in part, because they are inconsistently derived--some entail purely theoretical constructs and others are gleamed by way of observing behavior. Moreover, not all dichotomies possess the same amount of weighted importance as it pertains to a type's fundamental makeup. For example, the result/process dichotomy concerns the flow of information, and so an SLE (result type) will always be activated by Fe -> Se and an LSI (process type) by Ni -> Ti. But that still isn't to say that a result type can't also care about process and vice versa, because humans tend to care about both, but may prioritize one over the other, along a continuum and depending on the context.
And FWIW, the below sounds more like a process type:
2.) Subtype, and the degree/strength of subtype, matters, and can skew how a type manifests, including but not limited to IR; it's not difficult to imagine how an LSI-Se and an IEE-Fi might mimic the IR of a standard SLE and IEE. And are you certain that you've accurately typed the IEE? Could they not be EII-Ne, which could still ostensibly create a dynamic similar to the super ego relation of SLE and IEE? Wouldn't it make more sense to rely on a method actually empirical in nature, certainly more empirical than what most other Socionists have produced? A valid enough methodology of typing that lead to the discernment of phentotypical patterns that correlated with certain sociotypes, the results of which could be readily replicated? I love Strat but she doesn't possess that type of evidence based backing and support.
I first typed as INTJ in MBTI and later on, ILI-Te in Socionics, and I still relate to many of the INTJ/ILI profile descriptions, which should be no surprise seeing as how LIE and ILI are brother types and I'm LIE-Ni, a more intuitive breed of LIE and a contact subtype, which might bear a greater resemblance to one's mirror relation. I vacillated for a few months between ILI and LIE until VI and good ol' inductive reasoning set me free. My premise is based on a certain phenotypical pattern having been observed among LIEs that distinguishes them from other types, and because I fit that pattern, the likely conclusion is that I am that type. And the more I studied and investigated a LIE's valued IEs and function stacking, the more clarity and certainty I experienced. I don't find profile descriptions to be the most reliable because oftentimes, they lean more towards a certain sub type. For example, ENTJ in MBTI is often a D in the DCNH system or LIE-Te--that's why I never could fully get behind most ENTJ profiles, which routinely led me to mistype myself.