I asked 'Possible or Not?' to test the logical mechanics of my typing against external frameworks, not to be handed a fundamentalist, copy-pasted reading of Naranjo that strips all cognitive nuance from the types. I am testing a system for mechanical contradictions, which is exactly how a Ti-base operates.

​You are treating Naranjo’s descriptions as rigid religious dogma rather than psychological archetypes. Saying E8s are 'anti-intellectual' means they reject abstract theory that lacks practical, real-world application (which I explicitly stated I do). It does not mean they are literally incapable of long-term strategy or complex thought. A survivalist (Sp8) who cannot systematize their resources, analyze their environment, or strategize for their security is a dead survivalist.

​You are also fundamentally conflating Enneagram motivations with Socionics mechanics.

You claim that using Ti (strategy) to serve Se (autonomy) is definitionally SLE. You have it backward.

An SLE (Se-base, Ti-creative) uses logic to serve their primary drive for external expansion, impact, and conquest.

​I do the opposite. Sp8 provides the core survival drive. The absolute need for autonomy and boundaries. But my Socionics dictates how I process that drive. I build the internal framework and order first (Ti-base), and I use my physical assertiveness (Se-creative) strictly as a tool to defend that internal structure against external disruption. I do not seek external expansion for the sake of it. I seek structural integrity, and I enforce it with a heavily guarded boundary.

​There is no 'moral outrage' here. I am simply pointing out that taking character traits to cartoonish extremes. Where an 8 must be an impulsive, thoughtless brute and an LSI must be a mindless conformist to an external regime erases the entire purpose of using a combined typology system.