Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
I remember from the german meetup that there was some consensus that russia is ILI.
I don't remember this. I think there's a pretty strong consensus that it's IEI.

But this is where things can get tricky, to use a nice ILI phrase

Socionists here (Ukraine & Russia) typically distinguish between the type of an ethnos and the type of a state, when there is a divergence. For instance, while Russia culturally is IEI, historically it has attracted a SLE style of governance. Bukalov (really, the biggest fan of integral types) is quick to note the ESI ethical system of the U.S. and says that the type of the CIA is ESI (hehe), and is poorly equipped to deal with unexpected information. But I think that's an application of socionics that oversteps the useful bounds of the field.

Let's see, what else do I remember... Britain's faithful adherence to traditions that have long lost their practical value Bukalov sees as an expression of suggestive Fi. I wonder how well this reasoning applies to other cultures.

Then Expat and I and others in Dusseldorf had a rather interesting discussion about cultural vs. institutional types and how an ethnos may belong to quadra X but be in an institutional phase of quadra Y. So, while it seems likely that Europe today is in a kind of Delta phase, does that mean that Europe as a whole IS delta? Probably, things were quite different during WWI or WWII. Nationalism has had a fruitful history in Europe, and it is probably not a Delta phenomenon.

Anyways, the issue of nation's types can easily grow quite complex.