Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
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.
Yes, I'm not fully convinced on the Reinin dichotomies which is why I only now considered them as a tool. It doesn't help that sometimes conflicting naming is used.

Regarding subtype of the IEE I've talked about, yes, IEE-Fi would be the subtype. VI based on the Filatova portraits could be either IEE or EII. Body shape matches the EII-Ne visual description but I would place much more weight on facial expressions than body shape. So yes, definitely a shift towards Fi for her. Te is very highly valued and usually her complaints on things are delivered through Te. She devalues Se but can often have flashes of verbal anger and advocates ethical punishments ("how would you feel if you were treated like this?"). Ti seems very painful, she cannot deal with structures at all and will never admit to being wrong about anything.

One central issue with type descriptions is that they often might be (consciously or unconsciously) biased towards one subtype. Most Strat descriptions of LSI seem way too much Ti for me but some more balanced or Se-leaning ones definitely feel familiar.

Thanks for the useful comments again.