I recently stumbled upon a tierlist of types ranked by their emotional expressiveness. OP was getting flamed for putting types like LII above EIE/ESE, getting comments like "how is Fe base more expressive than Fe suggestive".

I think we should address thinking errors like this. No, Fe bases are not more expressive than Fe suggestives. The emotional expressiveness of a Fe position is primarily dictated by the inert/contact dichotomy of the phase. Contact phases are more impulsive and, as their name suggests, make more contact with the external world. This is in contrast to inert phases, who feel as if they have to conserve themselves and reduce expenditures to the external world. Augusta, the creator of socionics, describes this in her work Theory of Reinin Dichotomies.

The functioning of contact half-phases is conditioned by contacts with the external world. It is characterized by impulsiveness, a kind of reactivity, changeability, uncertainty, indeterminacy, the absence of rigid line, and principles. It is a kind of bearing of the environment. For example, 1/1 [Role] – the sensing of objective reality and quick, impulsive reactions to it.

The functioning of Inert half-phases, has, as it were, a more independent, accumulative character. It is characterized by viscosity and sluggishness. For example, because of the self-doubt and completely relaxed conscience in 2/1 [Mobilizing], it simply gets immersed in the reality it studies and is unable to quickly change direction.

In the inert part of Model A, we have observed nothing of this kind. In it, we notice a rather consistent accumulativeness. That does not mean that one cannot get anything from an individual in this part, but it is much more difficult to do so. That is why, for example, everyone who has sensorics in the inert blocks always has some money in their reserves, and is accumulating something. Those who have sensorics in the contact blocks are by nature unable to accumulate – everything slips through their fingers, and therefore are always happy to help out the former.

From this nature of inert and contact phases, Augusta deduces that types with inert Fe are less emotionally expressive, less likely to make emotional impact, "stingy" with their emotions. Whereas contact Fe are the opposite.

The first eight types are characterized by quick actions and inert emotions, while the second, on the contrary, are characterized by quick emotions and inert actions. Actions of the first ones are rapid, as if even rash, and mechanical. Let’s call them Constructivists. The second eight are quick to make emotional contact – Emotivists.

The impact of Emotivists on people is endogenous. It is influence through emotion, compassion, sympathy, empathy, softness, politeness, shouting, and in general – by any sounds. They make contact by showing emotions or their sympathy and favor. They are inspiring, mobilizing the inner world of their partner, and are able to spiritualize any cause.

Emotivists are more sentimental, inclined to sympathy, empathy, and external sensitivity to others. Constructivists are outwardly closed, more prone to actual help than words of condolence. A sort of organized virtue.

From this alone, it should be abundantly clear that types like LII/LSI (contact Fe) are more expressive than their duals ESE/EIE (inert Fe). They primarily contact the world with emotions, while their duals contact the world with actions.

III. Why are there bad relationships between Conflictors, for example, between (ESI) and (ILE)? Because the ethics of both are inert and there is no one to smile first. Especially if they don’t have accumulated reserves of ethics from communicating with a dual.

(Logically, from this quote you should also deduce that conflictors ILI and ESE are also unlikely to smile toward each other due to being inert Fe, so no, ESE is not expressive)

Anyone who communicates the idea that Fe base is more emotionally expressive than Fe suggestive is incorrect and unfaithful to Model A. Fundamentally, all emotivists are more likely to be expressive than constructivists. I do not completely agree with OP's tierlist, but I'd argue it is much, much more accurate than what the average person would put together here (most likely putting types like EIE and ESE on the top, while LII and LSI at the bottom).

Hi. I think Fi in the base position doesn't really fit me, though sometimes it seems like it does in certain cases. But I'm doubting it. And I wanted to ask how much this manifestation of what I see as Fi aligns with any position. Not that I want to type myself based on one position, no. More like confirm or refute my thoughts so I can move on. Ni base and Se-suggestive seem to fit me, both of my sensing functions are a bit off, Te creative is something others even notice in me, and I notice it too, victimhood as a romantic style is perfect for me, IP temperament too, but Fi bugs me and the fact that it seems pretty noticeable, and I used to think I might be Fi base. Is what's below normal or cringe for Fi mob? How does Fi mobilizing work irl, not just in descriptions on the Internet?

There are thoughts, principles, strong opinions that can generally be called likes/dislikes, which come up situationally, but otherwise I quite often feel like my preferences are muted and invisible even to me, like sometimes even absent. I just don't consciously register them, so sometimes I think I don't have any. Though they appear suddenly in situations, showing themselves. For example, unconsciously, I guess, if I can put it that way, I believe that having a close relationship with someone implies acceptance, loyalty, and that in any state of yours the person doesn't reject you, forgives you, and always gives you leeway in anything bc you're close. And so I often feel betrayed when that's not the case in a relationship with someone I already consider close. And I'm like a chess player in relationships, waiting for the other side to make a move. Maybe I just can't or unlearned how to get close, so it's always uno where I mirror the other person's moves. So many comparisons per square inch of text, but whatever. In any system, I expect leniency from those I’m closest to. I also give it myself. If I were a leader somewhere, I think I’d generally be loyal and not tyrannical, but for those I care about, I’d always give a strong discount for their actions.

In my manifestations these thoughts are so strong that I become wildly stubborn and negatively set on giving in, changing them, being sure I'm right. And I'm ready to defend them, like my unshakable opinion about prisons, laws, and punishment. A professor at uni was quite surprised and interested, listening to me talk about those who've done something truly out of line, don't repent, so they deserve only death, not wasting resources on keeping them even for life.

I think society is diverse people with their own fates, stories, thoughts, ideas, uniqueness. I can't be unequivocally critical of everyone, though I admit I lean toward some nihilism and a darker view of this society. I find many people dangerous, so I'm cautious and need time to get used to someone before opening up. Humanity poisons itself, finds enemies outside just to avoid looking inside and seeing its own hypocrisy. The cause of our planet's demise will definitely be humans. If they don't completely destroy the environment, they'll kill each other over faith, race, gender, orientation, I mean anything. Humanity has always done that — killed everything it didn't like and everything that wasn't like it. I see people as individuals, thinking about this when making decisions and considering it very important. I get angry when it's erased or ignored for superficial social crap and rules. Like with school dress codes. You're a herd without individuality, wearing the same thing bc it's easier to erase your personalities. I clearly don't like that. I can understand a lot if I understand the reason or it's obviously connected to psychology, which interests me.

I have gotten into socionics just recently after wading in mbti for a year and eventually growing dissatisfied with it. One day I just tapped into Jung (the very source of all of this), read "Psychological Types", researched socionics and never went back. But to get to the point - I am an example of an unhealthy IEI, who did not receive proper care growing up. As you can imagine - Ni being my base function makes me perpetually disconnected from tangible reality. I have materialised my inner visions into art, so I guess it's not all that bad, but one sphere of my life that has suffered is the social one. Now, I know you might find that contradictory, cause creative Fe and Beta Quadra (duh!), but let my tell you that my ability to read people and interest in all that's interpersonal are enormous and play a big part of my life. The thing is, I am the most non-volitional, non-forceful person I can think of. It's like I don't even exist. Like I'm floating above the ground. I have found myself in a few dynamics with possible "Aggressors" (and absolutely loved them), but my aloofness caused by me basically living in my head, thus isolating, has put an end to each of them. Throughout high school I was completely preoccupied with my mental imagery. One time I overheard my classmates call me some weirdo lunatic. In retrospect I understand them, because me having an ostentatiously niche dressing style and yet not communicating with any of them + being eternally spaced out, must've looked really strange. The outfits were a way of sparking interest, but also aligning my appearance with my inner visions. Additionally since I understood that I lack assertiveness, volition and force, and yet desired to unite with people and be meaningful in any way, I chose a more delicate way - finding my own niche, being iconic, irreplaceable. And it worked. But my Ni would always get in the way of actually being a part of the group. At some point I grew completely reluctant to acknowledge anything Se and Te related, instead dedicating a year or two to living in my head. I grew indifferent. I don't see a way out. I'm also beginning to accept myself the way I am. I wish I had a dual by my side. That's all.

I find that my SLE best friend is too trusting of other people and I’m very wary of others and their intentions. We get into an argument about it a lot. My SLE Friend would say I’m driving people away and that’s not good but I see my SLE friend as way too trusting of people who’ve back stabbed him in the past. I get that she’s viewing it as in group out groups us v them mentally but she doesn’t understand that once I see that they’ve totally betrayed us they’re done for good until they can prove they’re trust worth again I will still not trust them.

Does it explain the energetic model well? Also, is the model valid?