@Alive vs the ISTjs (mostly) Normalizing subtype
It's our own tradition here in 16types: whenever we have a typing video by G. and the person gets typed LSI (a good portion of the typings here) Alive comes to the fore with the conclusion that pretty much everyone here is IEI so probably the person in the video is one as well, while a portion of the forum is generally ok with the typings. So the reasons for his objections include: that the individual in the video is too soft, or room decoration indicates person is too open, and that they found the forum is a certain sign of high-dim. Ni.
His reach of Ni and conception of LSI (and IEI) seem different from Socionics so his typings are rather non-functional if one intends to apply personal compatibility theory in real life life, what supposedly Socionics is intended for. If implementation were a non-issue then yes, have your own take on personality and wear the IEI badge (or whatever you want to name it). But why would you need to disrupt a theory by removing its most useful part?
So, at least 7 years ago Berdutina typed this man/teen LSI
Alive might have an objection… because of his looks. So what traits are we looking for here, why do Berdutina and G. go against your perspective? I'm bringing in my teaching experience: kids around his age or younger that most resemble the traits that are attributed more to LSI-N (precise, disciplined, painfully scrupulous and pedantic, avid intakers of knowledge and information, mindful and respectful towards structures) not that uncommonly look like him or similar or not always the opposite. It appears that the types have room for some variety.
The point being, Alive would you agree that your approach is more disjointed? Which is ok if it's about something new but it might run contrary to ITR? That's one question. Would you argue against LSI-N typing for the guy in the picture if he presents traits more attributable to that sociotype than to others?