On gender and socionics

ON GENDER AND SOCIONICS by Tuukka Virtaperko
=======================

It took me a while to learn to relate to the movement known as "feminism". Initially, as a teenager, I believed that the name of the movement biases it against men. However, programming taught me that there is a deeply linear aspect of reality in which everything must be arranged serially, not in parallel. If I were to choose which gender should be zeroth and which gender should be first in a list of two genders, the zeroth gender would be woman and the first gender would be man. Hence, I accept that feminism is called "feminism" despite the fact that it isn't biased against men.

Some time ago a trusted advisor recommended me to consider what is the difference between femininity and masculinity. In order to approach such a subject I'd first consider how do I express these attributes in the best way. Due to my specialisation I suppose my best way should be exact. The language of socionics is suitable for this. In order to understand the following, the reader ought to remember that I'm not presenting my views as theorems of socionics or as additions to socionics. I'm merely using the language of socionics to express another idea that is my opinion.

I find gender both cultural and biological. That is to say, it's justified to ask whether a notion about gender is cultural and relative or biological and almost absolute. By "almost absolute" I mean that even though also biological differences are relative, and even though the ultimate definition of biological sex probably boils down to the size of the gametes so that females have larger gametes, socionics is too fine an instrument for expressing such profound differences. It is meant for expressing finer nuances.



Author's common sense impression of gender
------------------------------------------

If I were to define my common sense impressions about masculinity and femininity I'd do that by assigning certain traits as masculine or feminine, scoring each sociotype according to each trait and producing sorted lists of types according to all attributes that can be defined by this method. These attributes are masculinity, femininity and androgyny. If you don't like these kind of lists please skip them without thinking so you can keep reading. You don't need to read the lists in order to understand the part that comes after them.

List A1. Feminine traits:
IXXx
XNXx
XXFx
XNXp
XXFj

List A2. Masculine traits:
EXXx
XSXx
XXTx
XSXp
XXTj

List A3. Femininity of sociotypes:
δ INFj ****
β INFp ****
γ ISFj ***
γ INTp ***
β ENFj ***
δ ENFp ***
α ISFp **
α INTj **
α ESFj **
α ENTp **
β ISTj *
δ ISTp *
γ ESFp *
γ ENTj *
δ ESTj
β ESTp

List A4. Masculinity of sociotypes:
δ ESTj ****
β ESTp ****
β ISTj ***
δ ISTp ***
γ ESFp ***
γ ENTj ***
α ISFp **
α INTj **
α ESFj **
α ENTp **
γ ISFj *
γ INTp *
β ENFj *
δ ENFp *
δ INFj
β INFp

Androgyny of sociotypes can be calculated as the intersection of score in list A3 and list A4 for each type. List A5. Androgyny of sociotypes:
α ISFp **
α INTj **
α ESFj **
α ENTp **
γ ISFj *
β ISTj *
δ ISTp *
γ INTp *
γ ESFp *
β ENFj *
δ ENFp *
γ ENTj *
δ INFj
β INFp
δ ESTj
β ESTp

All quadras are equally feminine and masculine but androgyny varies. List A6. Androgyny of quadras:
α ********
β **
γ ****
δ **

For those who'd object to the general usefulness of making these kind of lists I wish to point out that even if you'd like to make the notion of gender less restrictive for human behaviour it would probably be better for you that you'd have a specific, not vague, idea about what kind of a notion you wish to subdue. If you have a specific idea you're capable of explaining your beliefs to someone who cares enough to listen. But if you don't have a specific idea you might fail to explain your beliefs to others despite the fact that they've taken the time to listen to you.



On the purpose of gender
------------------------

I suppose the notion of gender is good for something instead of a scourge that should be eliminated by means of postmodern deconstructivism. In addition, I believe my above definition of masculinity, femininity and androgyny is informative. But that doesn't mean I'd like the fact that according to my definition, my own sociotype, INTp, is a more feminine type yet I'm a man. In fact, I dislike that unless I can find profound meaning within it. But I don't think that's a difficult thing to do.

I consider my job to be that of finding relevant knowledge and creating expressions of that knowledge. I can do this descriptively, by telling about something that happened, or prescriptively, by stating how things ought to be. I don't always state which one I mean because, luckily, nobody cares that much about what I do anyway.

As a man I'm supposed to value myself doing masculine things because other people are supposed to expect me to behave in a masculine manner so that they would be able to predict my actions. They need to be able to predict my actions to some extent in order to trust me. Therefore masculinity and femininity as cultural constructs are intended for improving the functionality of the culture.

Every time a culturally shared norm can be used as a way to avoid telling something to someone because the other person can be expected to already know that, effort is conserved. Cultures, in other words, are mental economies, or economies of willpower or energy. But there are many different cultures because people have different values. What is mentally economical depends on culturally shared goals, motives or values.

I suppose that because my sociotype has only one masculine trait, XXTx, it means I have a reason to attempt to excel as a thinker only although I don't necessarily need to do so. To do so would probably make my lifestyle less masculine than that of an ESTx but that doesn't matter because specialising in thinking allows me to devise better thoughts that an ESTx probably would have time to create.

If I can claim superiority in some hierarchy that isn't considered effeminate I shouldn't need to do anything else to consider myself having earned the title of a man. Furthermore, there shall necessarily remain a reason to allow me to keep this title until someone else becomes my superior in all of the hierarchies in which I used to be superior, but even if this happens that doesn't necessarily cause me to lose the title of a man. It only makes it possible for me to lose that title despite valuing it and despite the hierarchy, on which the title is based, remaining not effeminate.

The function of the title is to ensure others they're not doing something inappropriate when expecting masculine behaviour of me. In other words, the function of the title is to assist others with relating to me. But also sociotypes can be used as such guides. Therefore it would make sense to suppose that combining feminism with socionics would amplify this effect, since similar or same motivations underlie both: to understand the other.



Endurance as masculinity
------------------------

Despite having expressed what I consider an "usual" definition of gender I haven't addressed whether this definition is a product of cultural conditioning or not. For the sake of argument I shall assume that this definition indeed is a product of cultural conditioning. This begs the question: what kind of circumstances lead a culture to value these traits?

According to Robert Pirsig it is a Nordic preference to consider thinking a masculine trait. Because also the Japanese seem to value thinking I don't suppose the origin of this value is Christianity. Instead, and for the sake of argument, I presume the origin of this value to be wealth.

People who, for some ethnic or other reason, consider being poor as a part of their identity, seem to usually consider feeling more masculine than thinking. Perhaps this is because it's less useful to be good at thinking if material circumstances prevent one from leading a lifestyle of thinking. For example, in uncertain circumstances it isn't as useful to be good at making plans because plans are impossible to carry out due to crime, poverty, political instability or other disturbance. In such circumstances it'd be quite unthinkable that someone would devote most of their time for something that is essentially abstract and not necessarily social.

Therefore I shall postulate that my view of masculinity and femininity is quite relative and not very absolute. So I shall produce alternative definitions for masculinity and femininity. Again, please skip these definitions without thinking if you don't like them. They are supposed to be useful, not to divide people into haves and have nots with regards to understanding.

List B1. Feminine traits for the impoverished:
IXXx
XNXx
XXTx
XNXp
XXTj

List B2. Masculine traits for the impoverished:
EXXx
XSXx
XXFx
XSXp
XXFj

List B3. Femininity of sociotypes for the impoverished:
α INTj ****
γ INTp ****
β ISTj ***
β INFp ***
γ ENTj ***
α ENTp ***
δ ISTp **
δ INFj **
δ ESTj **
δ ENFp **
γ ISFj *
α ISFp *
β ESTp *
β ENFj *
α ESFj
γ ESFp

List B4. Masculinity of sociotypes for the impoverished:
α ESFj ****
γ ESFp ****
γ ISFj ***
α ISFp ***
β ESTp ***
β ENFj ***
δ ISTp **
δ INFj **
δ ESTj **
δ ENFp **
β ISTj *
β INFp *
γ ENTj *
α ENTp *
α INTj
γ INTp

List B5. Androgyny of sociotypes for the impoverished:
δ ISTp **
δ INFj **
δ ESTj **
δ ENFp **
γ ISFj *
α ISFp *
β ISTj *
β INFp *
β ESTp *
β ENFj *
γ ENTj *
α ENTp *
α INTj
γ INTp
α ESFj
γ ESFp

List B6. Androgyny of quadras for the impoverished:
α **
β ****
γ **
δ ********

In disagreeable conditions INTp are more likely to run out of the desire to live despite being physically otherwise healthy. This can sometimes make wealthy INTp disinterested of getting to know people from different ethnic backgrounds that are associated with poverty. It can be scary to find out that one has merely happened to get born into a culture in which it can be easy to be masculine by thinking. This fear makes INTp inclined to think there's something wrong with the culture of poor people. Conditions similar to poverty can arise in torture, incarceration, involuntary hospitalisation and such.

I've read an anecdotal report of a man who was an inmate of a concentration camp. He had an academic background. He was punished by beating him with a stick. Most inmates would deal with such a situation by faking pain. However, he didn't fake pain so he was beaten to death. May he rest in peace. An INFp would've been more likely to fake pain and survive the beating since an INFp wouldn't have been bothered by a certain notion of dignity that a concentration camp can turn into vanity. This makes the INFp more masculine than the INTp if masculinity is measured as the ability to out-survive peers in adverse conditions.

Under adverse circumstances INTp are more likely to run out of the will to live than INFp because INFp won't need to spend as much energy into not offending rich or dangerous people. INFp tend to be nicer kind of people in a more immediate way than INTp and there's no time, privacy, resources or opportunity for much else than immediate goals. INFp are also better at letting go of things they can't change whereas INTp are more likely to be bothered by things they can't change. For poor people there are many such things.



Intellect as masculinity
------------------------

In ancient Greece, on the other hand, women were considered lusty and incapable of controlling their sexuality. Such a culture would seem to consider sensing feminine and intuition masculine. Sensor women would readily express their sexuality even if that were culturally considered somehow dirty. But it would be less comfortable for intuitive women to violate such a cultural norm in a way that is tolerated only with some reservation.

If we suppose sensing is feminine and intuition masculine, like the ancient Greeks might have done, we get yet another definition of gender. Perhaps this is the opposite of the values of poor people, since those ancient Greeks who did things we nowadays remember as worthwhile were mostly so rich that each one of them owned many slaves. Indeed these values could perhaps be called academic values if the academia of today hadn't been so influenced by capitalism that sensing (ie. sending many grant applications and attending conferences & publishing frequently in order to manifest own existence) is nowadays valued instead of intuition. So I shall not call these values academic but, instead, intellectual.

List C1. Intellectually feminine traits:
IXXx
XSXx
XXFx
XSXp
XXFj

List C2. Intellectually masculine traits:
EXXx
XNXx
XXTx
XNXp
XXTj

List C3. Intellectual femininity according to sociotype:
γ ISFj ****
α ISFp ****
δ ISTp ***
δ INFj ***
α ESFj ***
γ ESFp ***
β ISTj **
β ESTp **
β ENFj **
β INFp **
α INTj *
γ INTp *
δ ESTj *
δ ENFp *
γ ENTj
α ENTp

List C4. Intellectual masculinity according to sociotype:
γ ENTj ****
α ENTp ****
α INTj ***
γ INTp ***
δ ESTj ***
δ ENFp ***
β ISTj **
β INFp **
β ESTp **
β ENFj **
δ ISTp *
δ INFj *
α ESFj *
γ ESFp *
γ ISFj
α ISFp

List C5. Intellectual androgyny according to sociotype:
β ISTj **
β INFp **
β ESTp **
β ENFj **
δ ISTp *
δ INFj *
α INTj *
γ INTp *
α ESFj *
γ ESFp *
δ ESTj *
δ ENFp *
γ ISFj
α ISFp
γ ENTj
α ENTp

List C6. Intellectual androgyny according to quadra:
α **
β ********
γ **
δ ****



Introversion as masculinity
---------------------------

I shall also analyse my default notion of the modern usual secular capitalist values with the additional axiom that introversion is considered masculine. At least in Finland if not other Nordic countries, introversion might easily be considered more masculine than extroversion. But I've already been exposed to so much foreign influence I don't belong to the generation that thinks that way.

This way of thinking made sense when people lived in small villages minding their own business. It kept making sense when academic success was a good indicator of later success. But it doesn't make sense anymore because my generation no longer really believes in this. To be sure, some of us do and the older generation likes that.

The explanation for the masculinity of introversion seemed to have something to do with associating extroversion to family, incompetence, impatience and dishonesty. Of course there still remains a lot of truth to this association because the archetype of a strong and silent man doesn't have that kind of a burden. However, uncertainty about the future makes it more difficult to find value in patience and, more importantly, globalisation has made it more difficult to get away with introversion. But it remains true that sociality is more important for women in the sense that women seem to value sociality more and have better social skills on average. And that would explain a viewpoint in which extroversion is considered feminine.

List D1. Feminine traits if extroversion is feminine:
EXXx
XNXx
XXFx
XNXp
XXFj

List D2. Masculine traits if introversion is masculine:
IXXx
XSXx
XXTx
XSXp
XXTj

List D3. Femininity of sociotypes if extroversion is feminine:
β ENFj ****
δ ENFp ****
α ESFj ***
α ENTp ***
δ INFj ***
β INFp ***
γ ISFj **
γ INTp **
γ ESFp **
γ ENTj **
α ISFp *
α INTj *
δ ESTj *
β ESTp *
β ISTj
δ ISTp

List D4. Masculinity of sociotypes if introversion is masculine:
β ISTj ****
δ ISTp ****
α ISFp ***
α INTj ***
δ ESTj ***
β ESTp ***
γ ISFj **
γ INTp **
γ ESFp **
γ ENTj **
δ INFj *
β INFp *
α ESFj *
α ENTp *
β ENFj
δ ENFp

List D5. Androgyny of sociotypes if introversion is masculine:
γ ISFj **
γ INTp **
γ ESFp **
γ ENTj **
α ISFp *
δ INFj *
β INFp *
α INTj *
α ESFj *
δ ESTj *
β ESTp *
α ENTp *
β ISTj
δ ISTp
β ENFj
δ ENFp

List D6. Androgyny of quadras if introversion is masculine:
α ****
β **
γ ********
δ **

Should I combine these introverted values with intellectual values I'd become able to argue that my own sociotype, INTp, is among the most masculine types of all. Which is actually a circumstance I'd like in a romantic relationship. I wouldn't like to dialectically debate that introversion and intellectuality is masculine but I'd simply like noticing such values to manifest in the relationship between me and my partner.

I've noticed that intelligent or civilised partners might be more confident in their perception of me as masculine than other kind of partners. This doesn't manifest only in what they tell me about myself but mostly about being able to trust me. A partner who doesn't trust me might get depressed by me and start nagging, interrupting, cheating or attacking or just leave.

Socionics can be used to explain what duality is but it might also be worthwhile to explain ideal relationships in terms of sharing the same values. Socionics can be used for that, too. Also, even though one's sociotype won't change it isn't impossible to change the culture that dictates what is masculine and what is feminine. But there's probably no need to assert metaphysical significance or some kind of universality or absoluteness to such culturally shared values, at least unless there is empirical evidence.

Furthermore, I'd find it stupid to believe that I like these introverted intellectual values for any other reason than that I'm an intelligent and introverted man myself and entertain a hopefully moderate feeling of entitlement. This needs to be pointed out, however, because other people might expect my behaviour to be more profound than it actually is.

I wouldn't advise people to adhere to and to associate masculinity to intellectual and introverted values when no intellectual introverted men are around. In other words, I don't intend to set an example for everyone when I consider intellectual and introverted values masculine. If I did and a poor man believed me he'd probably get into trouble.



Feeling and thinking as alternative forms of masculinity
--------------------------------------------------------

There are many practical ways in which masculinity and femininity can be combined with values so that generic restrictions of socionics cease to apply. For example, I know of a community that is run by two comparative men. According to socionics this probably wouldn't work out. However, I noticed that it works. This can be explained by pointing out how different notions of masculinity were expected of these men. These comparatives had ended up in a seemingly simple situation that, however, in a somewhat complicated way gave them a reason to feel equal.

These comparatives felt equal because circumstances required them not to share all values. The thinking comparative dealt with the outside world and was in charge of financial matters. This made the outside world project capitalistic values on him. Even though the community didn't value capitalism, needing to think like a capitalist anyway and doing a good job at it rightly made him feel good about himself. Furthermore, he wasn't culpable because he engaged in such activity precisely so that nobody else in the community would need to do that. Valuing status and challenge, he was also in charge of ceremonies in which the values of the community would crystallise.

The feeling comparative didn't make much money but his general demeanour was more in accordance with the aesthetic, spiritual, ecological and anti-capitalistic moral standard of the community insofar as I could tell what that standard is. He didn't organise or make contracts on behalf of the community but he'd be around when people came to spend time there. If someone sought for an example about how a man should behave there they would've paid attention to him. Because the environment expected a different kind of masculinity of these comparatives they were capable of achieving equality in the same community.



Introverted intellect as masculinity
------------------------------------

If I were to state my own preferred values I'd alter what I consider the usual values so that intellectuality and introversion are considered masculine.

List E1. Femininity as ESFx:
EXXx
XSXx
XXFx
XSXp
XXFj

List E2. Masculinity as INTx:
IXXx
XNXx
XXTx
XNXp
XXTj

List D3. Sociotypes sorted according to femininity as ESFx:
α ESFj ****
γ ESFp ****
γ ISFj ***
α ISFp ***
β ESTp ***
β ENFj ***
δ ISTp **
δ INFj **
δ ESTj **
δ ENFp **
β ISTj *
β INFp *
γ ENTj *
α ENTp *
α INTj
γ INTp

List D4. Sociotypes sorted according to masculinity as INTx:
α INTj ****
γ INTp ****
β ISTj ***
β INFp ***
γ ENTj ***
α ENTp ***
δ ISTp **
δ INFj **
δ ESTj **
δ ENFp **
γ ISFj *
α ISFp *
β ESTp *
β ENFj *
α ESFj
γ ESFp

List D5. Sociotypes of lists D3 and D4 sorted according to androgyny:
δ ISTp **
δ INFj **
δ ESTj **
δ ENFp **
γ ISFj *
α ISFp *
β ISTj *
β INFp *
β ESTp *
β ENFj *
γ ENTj *
α ENTp *
α INTj
γ INTp
α ESFj
γ ESFp

List D6. Androgyny of quadras as derived from list D5.
α **
β ****
γ **
δ ********

Interestingly enough, Finnish culture is widely considered δ which appears to be an androgynous quadra both from the viewpoint of poor people and from my own viewpoint even though these viewpoints have an opposite definition of masculine and feminine values.

Since socionics already uses metaphoric descriptions for romancing styles, such as "employee" and "employer", I might add to this tradition of metaphor by summarising the above values by stating that according to these values femininity is like being a pet and masculinity is like being the owner of a pet. This means neither that real pets mightn't have personalities of their own nor that women should have the same rights as pets.

What it means can be likened to a determined pet on a leash, pulling its less-than-enthusiastic owner through a blizzard. This sounds like a dog but also rabbits can manifest determination by walking towards their owner and insisting their owner to move out of the way instead of going around the owner.

Let us forget about socionics for a while and pay attention to something everyone can understand. It is an almost universal cultural expectation that men are supposed to like cars or driving whereas women aren't. If I had to choose whether I like cars or driving I'd choose to say that I prefer cars to driving.

By this I mean that as an INTp I value my two-dimensional Si and do not value my one-dimensional Se. This means that if I were to find something inherently satisfying in the world of cars and driving I'd find that from the smell of a new car, from having an idea of how the car works and from feeling being in control of the car.

I'd also like the way how I can be in tune with my environment by driving the car. This would manifest, for example, as me wanting to make handbrake turns. But I wouldn't want to make them in order to show off. I wouldn't specifically enjoy having others see me do that. Instead, I'd specifically value the experience of making a handbrake turn, not the impression a handbrake turn as a gesture might give to a bystander unless I was confident I know what that impression is and wanted to make that impression for some reason that isn't inherent to my sociotype. But I could inherently value the sensation a handbrake turn could give to someone else who's also in the car with me.

I wouldn't inherently value a car as a way of getting into places. I wouldn't inherently value the psychological effect of driving aggressively if I didn't suppose I've got something to gain that way.

It might occur to me to believe I've got something to gain by driving aggressively. Once I was driving a spare car behind by wife who had just gotten her car back from the shop to which it was sent for repairs. We were going to return the spare car to another place and drive home in my wife's car. As I was driving behind my wife it occurred to me to flirt with her by passing her.

This would probably occur to a Se suggestive. However, I don't value Se and don't have experience of driving being an effective way for me to manifest masculinity. In fact driving often bores me and several times I've unintentionally broken a car I'm driving by letting it run out of gas or by changing gears aggressively. Because of this I only broke my wife's car by driving it because she'd suggested a few times that I drive.

She wouldn't have suggested that if cultural expectations regarding driving hadn't made her insecure about her femininity.

For someone who doesn't believe in the existence of "more than meets the eye" it would've seemed that I assume a submissive and therefore, according to Abrahamic tradition, feminine role by driving behind my wife. But if someone cared how I feel about this it would turn out that I prefer this. Since my wife is my dual she values Se so it is inevitable that she gets some satisfaction from appearing to be a leader. I find this a good thing because she doesn't make me pay attention to that. Nothing in her behaviour suggests that she has concluded she must be superior to me because she is satisfied by appearing to lead while I follow her.

I prefer to follow her because, valuing Si, I find it more rewarding to drive smoothly than to assert social status by driving. Since I no longer drive much I'm not familiar with the roads so I can't relax while driving smoothly if I lead. But I'm still familiar with cars so I can enjoy driving smoothly when, for some reason, I don't need to make an effort to figure out which way to go.

Please let me also point out that I'm decently spatially aware. However, the kind of navigational spatial awareness I'm probably most used to involves traveling in the wilderness on foot. I don't like it if I have to change my route because the road doesn't go directly that way or if there's a building between me and my destination. But it's okay if there's a lake or a fell between me and my destination because I can see over the lake or climb the fell and, unlike buildings, the fell is no more someone else's property than the rest of the wilderness so climbing it doesn't require me to prepare for socialising.



Masculinity as emotional trust
------------------------------

In any case, to sum up cultural expectations about gender, given my cultural background it's a somewhat controversial idea that feeling would be masculine although I'm alien enough to my own culture that it's not difficult for me to understand this.

When I was walking home from a restaurant with my wife we passed a place through which we'd intended to take a shortcut some time ago but didn't. Shortly afterwards she began telling me that we considered taking another shortcut. We began taking that shortcut since I figured she wanted to go that way. But then she told me again that we tried to take this shortcut earlier but didn't. For some reason she also changed her mind and didn't want to take this shortcut she just chose to take.

I figured she was wrong. I told her it was another shortcut we didn't take last time and that this shortcut we didn't even consider. Because she didn't change her mind I left her walking back home the usual way while I took that shortcut we'd never taken. The shortcut led me to a rocky yard of a flat with a few trees and some tall grass. I walked through the yard to a cliff that was climbable but too steep to be comfortable to climb. So I turned along the cliff to check if the cliff would be less high in the other end of the yard.

At this moment I was in a place that didn't remind me of Finland. I've been to Crete and this place was similar to that but even more it resembled Afghanistan although I've not been there but only seen photos. As I touched a rock with my hand while walking through this terrain I heard laughter. It surely came from one of the balconies or windows of the flat but I did not look. The laughter was quite nonchalant, bright and not sharp, not extremely expressive. By this I mean that the laughter sounded like nothing else than laughter. Somewhere, somehow, a man was laughing and he sounded totally content. Then I heard what sounded like Islamic prayer.

I was capable of believing they'd seen me and could've laughed and prayed with me even though I would've gladly heard this anyway. It perhaps isn't most important whether they saw me or not. Perhaps it's more important that I was capable of believing they'd seen me and that the man who laughed would've laughed with me had it occurred to me to laugh, too.

There was some reason to be happy because that day I had published a formal complaint I intend to send to a Finnish scientific institution. The complaint is about refusing peer review for an article written by me. My work is such that I cannot tell a stranger what I've just done and laugh about it, or at least this is what I assume. But I believe my work is agreeable with Islam and that a Muslim would've thus been capable of laughing with me had I happened to laugh, too. This reassured me that feeling can be masculine. It does require some confidence to believe something good about a stranger and to express that without sounding frivolous or suspicious.



Sensing and intuition as alternative forms of masculinity
---------------------------------------------------------

Intuitive masculinity is less equal than sensing masculinity. That is to say, hierarchies are more pronounced between masculine intuitives in the sense that the issue of masculinity pertains more to who they are instead of what they've accomplished. This makes competition harder if it's more difficult to change yourself than to change your accomplishments.

Furthermore, even though the hierarchies of intutives are more difficult to observe than the quite obvious hierarchies of sensors it's easier to keep track of them because they're more static. Intuitives are less determined to keep trying to improve their standing after reaching a certain status.

A sensor might only need to succeed in something worthwhile. But for an intuitive it's more relevant to demonstrate his mind is unusually good for something rare or unique. Otherwise he isn't that rare or unique. And an intuitive cannot dominate in a relationship without being unique but a sensor doesn't need to be unique in order to dominate.

By uniqueness I mean that one is difficult to replace with someone else so that it'd be possible to tell, beforehand, what that person should be like in order to serve as a decent replacement. However, this doesn't mean that replacing any sensor would be possible. Sometimes a replacement simply doesn't exist despite it being possible to specify somewhat accurately what kind of a replacement would be good.

This issue isn't about whether people are replaceable but about the fact that it's easier to determine just what makes a sensor irreplaceable than what makes an intuitive irreplaceable. Even if it were possible to specifically and briefly assert something about the irreplaceability of an intuitive it'd be more difficult to check whether a given intuitive person actually matches that specification or not.

To say the same in another wording, the following is more true for intuitives than it is for sensors: "Omigosh, I can't go there! SHE'S WEARING THE SAME KIND OF HAT AS I AM!!!" This is, by default, considered a feminine thing to happen. But on the other hand, it also applies to kings. There can't be two crowned kings of the same domain at the same time. One can even observe that the military insignia and ornaments of officers, including floral ornaments, associate femininity with superiority despite emphasising masculinity in general.

Therefore I'd conclude that most intuitives are more feminine than most sensors but the most masculine intuitives are more influential, even if less powerful, than the most masculine sensors. By influence I mean things like charisma, credibility, accomplishment, "calling the shots", being paid attention to, having people imitate or admire oneself or some aspect of oneself, and so on.

What is intriguing and fascinating about influential intuitives is that they're permitted to call some shots precisely because of their neutrality: their sociotype isn't hardwired to value the power aspect of "calling the shots". This makes them more innocent on average. They want to do things that involve the power aspect of life but they're less likely to want anything directly related to power. This makes people think: "What would I do if I only wanted to get something done well but didn't want anything selfish?"

An intuitive isn't hardwired to hoard power even though he can end up doing so by doing something else he is hardwired to value. That doesn't suffice to make intuitives virtuous people or saints but it might bestow them extra authenticity.