These are good points; excellent thread. I agree with just about everything Expat has said here. In particular, it is clear that Jung's Ti description probably doesn't work so well for LSI.

I have sometimes mentioned Jung's original descriptions as a reference point not because I think they're necessarily right, but because I'm also not sure Socionics is always right either.

In particular, in my observation, just as Jung maybe over-emphasizes the pleasure-seeking side of Se, Socionics. or some views in Socionic, seem perhaps to over-emphasize the aggression side, and even suggest that any pleasure-seeking at all of any sort is always Si.

I think there's a myth that gets created that Se types are all rather pushy people, even somewhat mean, and always loud and vulgar. In real life, Se types can be much more pleasant than that, more playful, and not necessarily quite as power-hungry or selfish as the way they're sometimes portrayed.

Perhaps part of the solution is, as Dmitri pointed out, to view SEEs as having the "softer" kind of SE and SLEs as having the "harder" kind, although even then SLE types can be "nicer" than they sometimes come across in Socionics.. In any case, I think misconceptions persist in that area.