# Am I an LLI-INTj or ILI-INTp? What's the difference between the two?



## shallnotbenamed (Dec 19, 2014)

*CORRECTION IN TITLE: *LII-INTj
Not "LLI-INTj"*

I'm still a bit confused as to how socionics work, but I got LLI-INTj-The Analyst on my test.

But I read this description about ILI-INTp and it applies to me fully. 

_"Introverted intuition in ILIs is predominantly characterized by well developed imaginative abilities and mental wanderings. ILI often spend a great deal of time simply thinking and may spend excessive amounts of time in their mind. Most ILIs somehow manage to spend most of their time in their minds regardless of the responsibilities with which they are burdened. This mental focus can be manifest by reflecting on scenarios, on pondering bodies of information, and assorted concepts of interest. They may be prone to excessive day dreaming, in creation of intricate inner worlds or universes, or in mentally replaying elements of their own personal experience. ILIs may even have novelistic tendencies where they create intricate plots, characters, and places, though many ILIs may be generally unmotivated to display such creativity. However, ILIs are not always inclined to share their imaginative tendencies or thoughts with others.

The mind of an ILI is an oasis of sorts where knowledge is treated as a toy or even a vehicle that allows them to visit complex mental landscapes that are shaped and continually revised by new information. Nonetheless, an ILI is likely to find the process of accumulating new information tiresome and requiring too much of their energy; consequently, new information is often accumulated and updated in a rather lethargic, periodic, and occasionally incomplete fashion.

ILIs are often stereotypically represented as reclusive scholars, philosophers, scientists, artists, seers, and sages. The ILI, with their often unusual perceptions, may come across as unreachable, esoteric eccentrics. Because ILIs are confident about analyzing the implications of the knowledge that they have gathered, ILIs often appear perceptive, especially in fields of interest, and commonly tend to view the ideas of others with skepticism and scrutiny. ILIs may tend perceive others' intellectual contributions as deeply misguided or limited in scope, and may hold the viewpoint that many people do not know what they're talking about on a particular topic of interest."_


If you could help me, that'd be gr8.
Some real life examples would be nice.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Check out the quadras, and their descriptions. Which do you relate to the most?

Socionics Quadras

Going by type descriptions is usually folly. We must look, instead, at the cognitive functions, and the worldview of the individual.

I would not peg you as either ILI or LII based on a test. Tests are generally inaccurate. If you _must _take a test, I would recommend this one: http://www.sociotype.com/tests/

But, it still throws out curve balls.

Another one is www.keys2cognition.com

And to answer your question, the difference between the two is actually quite marked. ILI is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. LII is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. Very, very different.


----------



## shallnotbenamed (Dec 19, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Check out the quadras, and their descriptions. Which do you relate to the most?
> 
> Socionics Quadras
> 
> ...


That was the test I took before making the post, lol.

Alpha and Gamma seemed to relate to me most. That's a pain because LII is in Alpha and ILI is in Gamma.. damn it. If it helps, I once took a cognitive functions test and it gave me this:
Ti - Ne - Te - Ni - Si - Fi - Fe - Se

Could you ask me some real life situation questions to gauge if I'm LII or ILI?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Deadmanrising said:


> That was the test I took before making the post, lol.
> 
> Alpha and Gamma seemed to relate to me most. That's a pain because LII is in Alpha and ILI is in Gamma.. damn it. If it helps, I once took a cognitive functions test and it gave me this:
> Ti - Ne - Te - Ni - Si - Fi - Fe - Se
> ...


That's weird. Alpha and Gamma are opposites.

It's not about real life practical stuff-- That stuff is just external. If you fill out a questionnaire in the questionnaire section, it may help, but there's no guarantees. @Entropic is generally a good typist.


----------



## shallnotbenamed (Dec 19, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> That's weird. Alpha and Gamma are opposites.
> 
> It's not about real life practical stuff-- That stuff is just external. If you fill out a questionnaire in the questionnaire section, it may help, but there's no guarantees. @Entropic is generally a good typist.


Actually I learned I misinterpreted a lot of Gamma when I reread. 
Alpha is where it's at.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

The ego functions are completely different. I know you've probably heard that a million times before, but let me take a shot at this for the record.

Try to imagine you have a bunch of random tetris pieces all strewn about. Ti is all about taking those pieces and organizing them into structures. This is how lead Ti "creates" with Ne or Se; if the tetris pieces represented _possible_ forms of things, that would be Ne. If the tetris pieces represented the actual forms of things, this would be Se.

By organizing the random things into structures that create either _potential for power_ or _actual power_, Ti creates via the creative function (Ne or Se).

With Ni, this is a very different process.

Ni doesn't create structure or organize anything. Instead, Ni is like an aesthetic "taste" - a matter of subjective preference about the future. One perceives the outcome one desires, and in perceiving it, perceives what is necessary for that outcome to be real (or not real, depending on what one desires). In this way, Ni "surveys" the temporal landscape and projects through time and space to get an overview of what outcomes are probable and which are improbable.

This information is then used to create a plan of action. That plan of action either focuses on the organization and distribution of impersonal forces (Te) or humanitarian energy (Fe). Thus, Te and Fe both play a part in the assessment. I may, for instance, have a clear Ni-vision of what outcome I want and how to get it, but through Te or Fe I may come to realize that _creating_ the structure that would be needed to ensure my vision is manifest in reality is too daunting, and I then decide to create in another way.

You have to decide which of these types of egos more reflects your own.

Notice that the most profound difference is the way in which a Ni-lead is more focused on bringing about a vision that it has, shaping the world according to its desires, whereas the Ti-lead is not so strictly focused on a personal vision, but instead, is kind of like a "general helper", producing new assets by way of organizing things that are disorganized. Again, with Ti-Ne this takes on a more cerebral mode, where Ti is organizing the abstract so as to empower itself and others, opening up new avenues for creativity all the time. Notice how Ni-Te is not so focused on creating new possibilities, but on creating structure that ensures a goal is met, _limiting_ possibilities as much as possible to the _one_ that is desired.


----------



## shallnotbenamed (Dec 19, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> And to answer your question, the difference between the two is actually quite marked. ILI is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. LII is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. Very, very different.


Another question.
Then why do they call LII "INTJ" when it clearly has all the INTP functions? Same for ILI being called INTP instead of INTJ in socionics?

How is an INTP ever supposed to get ILI, since it has all the INTJ functions?
Same for INTJ ever getting LII (INTP) in socionics.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Deadmanrising said:


> Another question.
> Then why do they call LII "INTJ" when it clearly has all the INTP functions? Same for ILI being called INTP instead of INTJ in socionics?
> 
> How is an INTP ever supposed to get ILI, since it has all the INTJ functions?
> Same for INTJ ever getting LII (INTP) in socionics.


Because Socionics isn't MBTI. They designed it differently, the letter designations are different, even if the descriptions of the functions are going in the same direction. Asking why Socionics isn't designating letters the same way as MBTI is like asking why apple cider isn't designed the same way as apple juice.


----------



## shallnotbenamed (Dec 19, 2014)

Word Dispenser said:


> Because Socionics isn't MBTI. They designed it differently, the letter designations are different, even if the descriptions of the functions are going in the same direction. Asking why Socionics isn't designating letters the same way as MBTI is like asking why apple cider isn't designed the same way as apple juice.


But then isn't it copyright or something, using the same letters and all? Unless Carl Jung founded Socionics too...


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Deadmanrising said:


> But then isn't it copyright or something, using the same letters and all? Unless Carl Jung founded Socionics too...


Carl Jung was _not _the founder of MBTI. :kitteh: It, like Socionics, is _based _on Jung's works.

As for copyright issues-- I hadn't really thought about it, but I doubt that's an issue.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@Deadmanrising

Besides what abraxus said, they have different cognition styles: Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Articles - Socionix

As far as why the lettering is different, Socionics does not consider the placement of functions for a personality type in MBTI to be equivalent to the placement of elements for a personality type in socionics. 








Also: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/602346-socionics-typology-jung-myers-briggs-model-b.html


----------

