Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
But is there anything in the type 1 that's inconsistent with being SEE? I certainly recognize SEE there, although the last bullet point doesn't seem to fit as well as the others (lots of types could be creative designers.) I bring this up because I know that often in Socionics SEE is described in more aggressive (even 'pushy') terms, and it may be interesting discussion whether that's really so (in which case many people who seem SEE would then have to be SEI, and then you have two very different types of SEIs).

Anyhow, among real people I know, I think this type 1 description fits very well.
The description is not the opposite of a SEE, but in as far as it summarizes any single type, I think it is closer to SEI and SEE. I'm not saying that it's a good SEI description, either.