I've said before that types don't translate ideally to nations or groups, which are designed to be self-sufficient and expansive -- as opposed to people, which are designed to cooperate and be interdependent. So the logic of intertype relations doesn't carry over well.

So you're right in questioning intertype relations between groups or countries. There may be a few intriguing examples, but far too many exceptions to take it very seriously. Sympathies between countries shift a lot as things go in and out of fashion.

You can see in Russia, for example, a distinct rejection of the Anglo-Saxon life philosophy and governing style. They are very sensitive about it and find a -based worldview almost evil. On the other hand, Russians as a group have always been sympathetic towards Germans and Germans culture (their "activators") despite the world war (!).

The English are prone to honor all sorts of useless traditions just because they "go back a long time."

Italy and other countries have a macho culture where men look at women's butts and whistle as they walk past, or walk up to them to offer to take them somewhere. Sex is discussed constantly, even between strangers. At the same time, the Italians can't overcome corruption, because habits (informal solutions and personal connections) are built into the system at every level.

Strict observance of procedures and "faith in the system" are built into most logical cultures. Americans, for example, are incredibly trusting of organizations and procedures and are routinely deceived in ethical countries because of their gullibility and assumption that strangers will take care to keep their word and only say things if they intend to do them.

In Spain and other countries with strong , people routinely ask strangers about their relationships and discuss their own relationship woes. This is taboo for other cultures where this is seen as being "personal." Americans ask strangers about their work and profession and go into great detail about their own activities, which is taboo in places like Russia, where this is perceived as being too "personal." Each culture perceives some information aspects as being more personal than others.

I think there are good reasons to apply socionics to large groups like nations, but it has its limits.

Also, as Expat said, is usually associated with the availability of useful information like "how to reserve a hotel" or how to get anything done. The English and Americans are kings at this -- just look at instruction manuals from the U.S. where everything is spelled out "for idiots." Here in Ukraine people are always shocked and impressed by these instruction manuals, but end up laughing at them. In Ukraine there is a chronic lack of useful information at every level. It's just assumed that if you need to know something, you will somehow automatically know it or will ask someone who will tell you. In the U.S., it is extremely easy to find out anything. Every single organization or activity is surrounded by accessible useful information in the form of informative websites, instruction manuals, handbooks, broschures, etc. etc. Not so in most other countries!