I am considering a possibility I might be an so5 with a strong so1 fix than so1 with a strong so5 fix. What are some views on LIE so5? Explain your argument

Would appreciate some help. Feel free to ask me questions to diagnose my type

Extra info (If it helps): 1w9, so/sp, 153, VLFE, Phlegmatic-Choleric, True Neutral

Big Five (SLOAN): r[C]/O/Ei

- Social: 40th% (Reserved)

- Limbic: 3rd% (Calm)

- Organized: 97th% (Organized)

- Accommodation: 30th% (Egocentric)

- Non curiosity: 55th% (Inquisitive)

INTJ 1w9 here

I am vibe-typed as either INFJ because in conversations I create empathy by focusing on shared values & harmony rather than differences, or as ENTJ because my relationships are based on clear objective & conditions and I sometimes turn distant or aloof. Does any socially skilled INTJ relate?

Also what about IT(N)? Asking for myself ofc. INTJ LIE here 🙋🏻‍♂️

​

Apparently VLFEs are mostly E1, E7, E3 which is considered weird for an INTJ, but VLFE & INTJ themselves are a valid combination. What would you say?

‼️ INTJ as in MBTI. NOT socionics

Explain your answer as well. Thanks

Additionally, which one would suit an E1 LIE INTJ and why?

No. Literally every comment in this sub I see fails to explain this carefully. You do not need to justify if you can't do it properly

Read these articles and learn something rather than saying "He is imperfect, he was x, he was y". People do not realize that by making unanswered/unjustified controversial comments, they give a lot of room for those people who choose to deflect people from Krishna consciousness using prabhupada's ideologies

Prabhupada mentioned about women liking rape in 2 different contexts, the srimad bhagavatam one (Puranjana's story), and kolkata rape case. I am here to clear both

Justification for Srimad Bhagavatam:-

Meaning of words changes over time. Srila Prabhupada studied Scottish English, learning from dictionaries from the 19th century. He used English words in a traditional and classic sense, as we can observe in his purports
An old meaning of the word rape is "to seize and carry off" (in other words, to steal, or to take possession of something), and that's the meaning Prabhupada appears to use here. Understanding the situation (a man making advances over a willing woman, winning her heart, and taking her hand) becomes clear that Prabhupada is not using the word "rape" in the modern sense, but to describe the process of assertive seduction that is the basis of the love affairs between men and women

Justification for his view on Kolkata rape case:-

Rape here, very clearly meant the intercourse one, which I agree. However there's still a distinction people are missing

When he said "women like rape", he was clearly meaning "the body of a woman gives the same response as it does when it is consensual", rather than "women secretly want to be raped by men". There's a semantic difference between both

=> This also implies that if anyone does not rise above and beyond just identifying the material body, even disgusting things like rape will have no difference than consensual sex. This is where Prabhupada tells how "intelligently" the lawyer made the oppressed woman lose the case, by stating that the woman had the same biological response as she does in consensual, because on the level of pure body, it reacts the same

>The woman could not defend herself there because the lawyer made a convincing argument, not differentiating between body and soul. The lawyer used the body's pleasure (the secretion) to justify the victim's (the soul's) trauma. Prabhupada telling how "intelligent" the lawyer was, is a sarcasm of how consensual or unconsensual sex doesn't matter for a pure body's reaction, and what ACTUALLY defines rape is the mental/conscious status of the victim than purely body-based

This is where the thing of "legal or illegal" came. "These are all nonsense. It is lusty desire, that’s all". Consensual or unconsentual, the body of the woman reacts in the same manner. It is the PSYCHE, the SOUL that reacts in the different manner. NOT the body

Empirically speaking, when a person is raped, the main effect is not 100% "physical trauma", but it is always "psychological trauma" 100% of the times. Why is it so, even despite the "body" actually reacting the same way as consensual? Because the victim realized they, and their body is not the same, that's when we come on the level of "souls"/"consciousness"

Just by reading "women like rape", you will get confused. Atleast read, was he meaning "the human body of a woman is equally aroused by (hence "liking") rape"? Or women as a subset of humans (Body + soul) in general enjoy any kind of rape done to them? There is a very subtle distinction between body and the soul here

Additional justification: Is Prabhupada sadist/misogynist?

Also, a man who has these views on women

1. Conversation with Author -- April 1, 1972, Sydney: Security. No, social welfare, that the girls are getting illicit children and the government has to supply food for them. Nobody is taking care of the girls, of the children. And government has to take.
2. Room Conversation after Press Conference -- July 9, 1975, Chicago: Prabhupāda: No, we don't say that woman should be exploited by men. We say the man should beresponsible and give protection to woman.
3. Morning Walk -- June 27, 1975, Los Angeles: Husband must be very responsible to take care of the wife ..
4. Room Conversation with Mister Popworth and E. F. Schumacher -- July 26, 1973, London: Prabhupāda: Women should be treated as mother. They should be given protection. They should not be advertised for prostitution.
5. Lecture on BG 1.40, London, July 28, 1973: "When women are polluted or dishonored, the whole family tradition is lost. Therefore, women must be given full protection. If women are misled or insulted, the entire society is spoiled."
6. Lecture on SB 1.3.21, Los Angeles, September 28, 1972: "She should be protected by her father, husband, or grown sons. That is civilization. If women are left unprotected, they become exploited."
7. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.14.40 purport, he writes, "In a demoniac society, innocent animals are killed to satisfy the tongue, and women are tortured by unnecessary sexual indulgence."
8. "To insult a chaste woman means to bring about disaster in the duration of life. Duhsasana, a brother of Duryodhana, insulted Draupadi, an ideal chaste lady, and therefore the miscreants died untimely"
9. SB 1.8.5 purport: On April 4, 1972, Srila Prabhupada witnessed a disturbing rape scene on television. His immediate reaction was one of sadness and disbelief, shaking his head in sorrow.

Can not have as absurd ideology as "every woman wants to be raped by a man because they like it so much"

That's literally it! That's all you were supposed to explain

Sources:-

https://vaishnaviministry.org/on-rape-in-the-fourth-canto/

https://www.ccdas.net/p/why-prabhupda-used-the-word-rape

https://www.thespiritualscientist.com/how-do-we-understand-srila-prabhupadas-statements-on-rape/

... because apparently I think I am one. Here's why

The context

Firstly, I am not an MBTI ENTJ because my MBTI functions are in the strength of (Ni, Te, Ti cluster) > Fi >= Si > Se = Ne >>>> Fe. Literally 95%+ of the tests (Including cognitive functions theory) type me as INTJ and the rest 5% type me as ISTJ (Si dom, Fe blindspot) but never ENTJ (Si blindspot)

Now about LIE. By psychosophy, I am a very obvious 1V 4E (VLFE) and by enneagram I am a very clear so1w9. Clearly, neither of them make sense for an ILI (Se 1D Suggestive) to be, compared to Se 2D mobilizing

But LIE-Ni and LIE-Te. People often think LIE-Ni correlates to ILI, however I doubt that. LIE-Ni strengthens Ni,Fe,Fi,Ne and it makes LIE look more scatterbrained, socially active, etc like EIE, which is totally opposite of my perception of myself (Source: https://wikisocion.github.io/content/LIE_subtypes.html)

On the contrary, though LIE-Te is more towards Te-Se sensing, they are more calculating, volitional, introverted. I think it could fit an INTJ who is less prone to analysis paralysis

Self-Perception

As a self typed INTJ LIE-Te, I believe my thinking and planning skills are exactly as a standard INTJ; but I certainly have an edge from other *introverted* thinkers by having the doer quality as well. I am more inclined to working without a plan (Though it's too uncomfortable and chaotic but better than nothing) than to be stuck in analysis paralysis, yet I could spend all my valuable time thinking about a plan as long as I myself give myself enough time to act

However I am not as much of a doer as an ENTJ is and will still be uncomfortable doing things without a proper blueprint of mental image (plan). In DCNH subtypes mine goes like D > N > H > C, meaning strengthened Te. In a lot of situations I have been forced into using my Id block (Defensive debates, free exploration, over correcting Te using Ti) which made me think I'm an LII but I still have good socio Se (Sensational volition)

It just seems strange to be an INTJ and a LIE-Te while having strong Ti, yet being volitional enough to not be an ILI and slow enough to not be an ENTJ

TL;DR

It makes sense for me to be an INTJ LIE-Te in theory, but I feel somehow unconventional hence I'm here to know what other POVs are to be logically assured. Am I statistically mistyped?

Feel free to ask me any question to cross-check!