# Socionics Description: The Best INTp/ILI Guide Ever Written



## Zero11

Promethea said:


> Actually in my experience typing people in both systems, they can have completely different types cross-system; for example, I know an intp who is an LIE in socionics (Te Ni).


A introvert who is now in a new System a extrovert :dry: thats completly wrong. Thats impossible but ya´know it is easier to blame a System instead of your own failures :wink:


----------



## L

Zero11 said:


> A introvert who is now in a new System a extrovert :dry: thats completly wrong.


I'm an MBTI INTP type.

I'm also a Socionics ILE.

Am I so wrong?


----------



## Zero11

@L_Lawliet

So you are calling yourself a native Ti- and a native Ne user  according to analytical Psychology this is impossible.

ILE = *E*NTP (Ne Ti) Ne-dom
LII = *I*NTP (Ti Ne) Ti-dom

It is both based on Jungs work :shocked: The descriptions are confusing but this doesn´t change the fact that these Types are based on Jungian Functions.


----------



## jeffbobs

I think this isn't an accurate typing of an INTP, The self confidence? in debate? I am not self confident anywhere in my life, I've seen a lot of examples of other INTP's not being massively self confident, Also self confidence for a type that doesn't believe in anything he says, as it could be false and proven wrong in the future, or there isn't enough understanding of the subject to be completly correct. 

I would of thought the INTP's where very un confident by nature just from the fact we are constantly trying to expand our knowledge and have one of the best understands of truth and fact.

Also i am not self confident in debates, I don't trust myself with the knowledge i have, as much as i know the other person is wrong, and that their statements are wrong and flawed.


----------



## Promethea

Zero11 said:


> A introvert who is now in a new System a extrovert :dry: thats completly wrong. Thats impossible but ya´know it is easier to blame a System instead of your own failures :wink:


Considering the cognitive functions in mbti are not the same as the IM elements in socionics, yes its absolutely possible. Are you aware of the differences between Te and Ti between the systems for example? They are not the same things at all. Perhaps you should actually understand the systems before you blame someone elses own "failure." And yes hes an intp but an LIE in socionics.



Zero11 said:


> @L_Lawliet
> 
> So you are calling yourself a native Ti- and a native Ne user  according to analytical Psychology this is impossible.
> 
> ILE = *E*NTP (Ne Ti) Ne-dom
> LII = *I*NTP (Ti Ne) Ti-dom
> 
> It is both based on Jungs work :shocked: The descriptions are confusing but this doesn´t change the fact that these Types are based on Jungian Functions.


Actually LII in socionics is INTj -- and what it "is" in mbti is nothing, because socionics is in no may mbti. Not every socionist even uses the four letter labels for type in socionics because it doesn't make sense to when it is so different from mbti.



L_Lawliet said:


> I'm an MBTI INTP type.
> 
> I'm also a Socionics ILE.
> 
> Am I so wrong?


If thats correct, then its correct. Ti in mbti is different from Ti in socionics. Perhaps in mbti you rate higher in Ti than Ne, and in socionics you are slightly less of that -type- of Ti _which is not mbti Ti_. 

I would advise you to ignore the ignorance of anyone who claims the functions are the same between those systems. Its simply untrue.



jeffbobs said:


> I think this isn't an accurate typing of an INTP, The self confidence? in debate? I am not self confident anywhere in my life, I've seen a lot of examples of other INTP's not being massively self confident, Also self confidence for a type that doesn't believe in anything he says, as it could be false and proven wrong in the future, or there isn't enough understanding of the subject to be completly correct.
> 
> I would of thought the INTP's where very un confident by nature just from the fact we are constantly trying to expand our knowledge and have one of the best understands of truth and fact.
> 
> Also i am not self confident in debates, I don't trust myself with the knowledge i have, as much as i know the other person is wrong, and that their statements are wrong and flawed.


This article is not about mbti INTPs, but about socionics ILIs, hence the lowercase p in INTp (Ni Te).


----------



## Zero11

Promethea said:


> I would advise you to ignore the ignorance of anyone who claims the functions are the same between those systems. Its simply untrue.


I know :dry: but :mellow:

The source of the functions is the same: Carl Gustav Jungs "Psychological Types"


----------



## Zero11

Promethea said:


> Considering the cognitive functions in mbti are not the same as the IM elements in socionics, yes its absolutely possible. Are you aware of the differences between Te and Ti between the systems for example? They are not the same things at all. Perhaps you should actually understand the systems before you blame someone elses own "failure." And yes hes an intp but an LIE in socionics.


They are the same :dry: but Si and Se are not :laughing:

Otherwise you need to explain the difference.

sorry for the double post


----------



## Promethea

Zero11 said:


> I know :dry: but :mellow:
> 
> The source of the functions is the same: Carl Gustav Jungs "Psychological Types"


So then I'm certain that those who developed them somehow had the exact same interpretations of his vague descriptions (descriptions that were not yet functions). Ah, well they did not, and thats the point. A lot of his work was hard to understand, and many have taken liberties with it to develop -different- personality models. "I'm a jungian intp "-- No, I'm not. Jung never defined such a thing. Myers and briggs.. kiersey.. all of those people used his work to develop these models. Mbti and kiersey are even different from each other yet they are commonly used interchangeably here. Now socionics, thats a completely different model. Watching it used interchangeably with mbti is a trainwreck.


----------



## Promethea

Zero11 said:


> They are the same :dry: but Si and Se are not :laughing:
> 
> Otherwise you need to explain the difference.
> 
> sorry for the double post


And actually Te and Ti are some of the elements that differ greatly from mbti functions. They are -different things-.

I don't know where you are getting your socionics information from but much of it on the internet is wrong. Study this for a while instead: IM elements - WSWiki


----------



## Zero11

Promethea said:


> I don't know where you are getting your socionics information from but much of it on the internet is wrong.


Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics :happy:

Or you take a look into my signature :wink:


----------



## jeffbobs

Promethea said:


> Considering the cognitive functions in mbti are not the same as the IM elements in socionics, yes its absolutely possible. Are you aware of the differences between Te and Ti between the systems for example? They are not the same things at all. Perhaps you should actually understand the systems before you blame someone elses own "failure." And yes hes an intp but an LIE in socionics.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually LII in socionics is INTj -- and what it "is" in mbti is nothing, because socionics is in no may mbti. Not every socionist even uses the four letter labels for type in socionics because it doesn't make sense to when it is so different from mbti.
> 
> 
> 
> If thats correct, then its correct. Ti in mbti is different from Ti in socionics. Perhaps in mbti you rate higher in Ti than Ne, and in socionics you are slightly less of that -type- of Ti _which is not mbti Ti_.
> 
> I would advise you to ignore the ignorance of anyone who claims the functions are the same between those systems. Its simply untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> This article is not about mbti INTPs, but about socionics ILIs, hence the lowercase p in INTp (Ni Te).


I was going off the fact people where comparing it to being the same thing as the mbti type


----------



## Promethea

jeffbobs said:


> I was going off the fact people where comparing it to being the same thing as the mbti type


Yeah. I know very few LIIs who are actually intps in mbti, and many of the intjs I have known online have been LSI. The infps are various socionics types. Many isfps are IEI. Etc., 

We need a socionics section if things like this are going to be posted, in my humble opinion. : P

But then again it would just frustrate me to death watching people butcher the model in attempt to warp understandings of functions/elements cross-system.


----------



## Promethea

Zero11 said:


> Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics :happy:
> 
> Or you take a look into my signature :wink:


Filatova's book has complete lies for one thing: that there is scientific proof for socionics. There are also interpretative differences between Filatova and classic socionics, furthermore his book is overly-simplistic and doesn't present a formal explanation of what socionics means. Sure, his book comes to the conclusion that the elements/functions are the same so I can see where you get that from -- but its wrong. 

At best there are overlaps to varying extents in the functions/elements cross-system. 

The fact was before, and remains the same that mbti functions differ from socionics IM elements; which were developed by two very different perceptions on what jung's work meant, and refined in those different schools of thought without jung looking on as a guide. To make matters worse, you have people like Filatova further obscuring it with his own absurd spin on it all.


----------



## L

Zero11 said:


> @_L_Lawliet_
> 
> So you are calling yourself a native Ti- and a native Ne user  according to analytical Psychology this is impossible.
> 
> ILE = *E*NTP (Ne Ti) Ne-dom
> LII = *I*NTP (Ti Ne) Ti-dom
> 
> It is both based on Jungs work :shocked: The descriptions are confusing but this doesn´t change the fact that these Types are based on Jungian Functions.


Test results:
Your Result:
ILE -> Intuitive Logical Extrovert if I'm not mistaken.

These types might also be considered:
IEE
ILI
IEI
SLE
These types are not very likely: 
SEE
LIE
EIE
SLI
These types are quite unlikely: 
SEI
LII
EII
LSE
these types are extremely unlikely: 
ESE
LSI
ESI








This test was taken about a month or so ago.


----------



## Zero11

@_L_Lawliet_ 
@_Promethea_ 

Okay I see _Modell A(ugusta)_ is a violation of the Original _J(ung)_, for "advanced" use :crazy: This explains the descriptions of several Socionic Types. Like some ESFJ/ESFP overlaps :laughing:

Socionic Model of the Psyche



> *strong
> (1, 2, 7, 8) * Individual has a confident command and large amount of information of a certain kind and can forcefully influence other people and his surroundings in a certain way.


ESFJ/ESE: *Fe Si* Ni Te Ti Ne *Fi Se*
ESFP/SEE: *Se Fi* Ne Ti Te Ni *Si Fe

*So *IM-Elements *(







,







,







,







) (







,







,







,







) are changed/advanced/modified *Jungian Cognitive Functions* 

Damn Filatova :mellow:



> *Model J* (_Модель Ю_ in Russian) is an early socionic model which contains the functions 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Model A. Augusta created Model J simply as a visual representation of Carl Jung's descriptions of four functions of the psyche. Later, as she developed her theory, she replaced Model J with Model A, which contained all eight IM elements and provided a fuller picture of the psyche and information interaction between types.
> 
> 
> Today Model J is used by a small handful of "old school" socionists, most notably Ekaterina Filatova.


----------



## L

@_Zero11_ 

So that's where the differences were coming from...

@Promethea
Got any good book recommendations for socionics?


----------



## Lunarprox

Ista said:


> Please remove this article. It is incorrect!!!


If this was grounded science -- where is your data? BLUAGH1121!!1! 
This is Socionics, not MBTI. 

The description is spot on, ictm.


----------



## Boolean11

jeffbobs said:


> I think this isn't an accurate typing of an INTP, The self confidence? in debate? I am not self confident anywhere in my life, I've seen a lot of examples of other INTP's not being massively self confident, Also self confidence for a type that doesn't believe in anything he says, as it could be false and proven wrong in the future, or there isn't enough understanding of the subject to be completly correct.
> 
> I would of thought the INTP's where very un confident by nature just from the fact we are constantly trying to expand our knowledge and have one of the best understands of truth and fact.
> 
> Also i am not self confident in debates, I don't trust myself with the knowledge i have, as much as i know the other person is wrong, and that their statements are wrong and flawed.


What Jungian type are you?


----------



## jeffbobs

Boolean11 said:


> What Jungian type are you?




IEI apparently


----------



## Boolean11

jeffbobs said:


> IEI apparently


Your Jungian thought process type is NiFeTiSe? Though your Keirsian type is INTP?


----------



## Entropic

Promethea said:


> The functions in socionics are not the same as the functions in mbti -- period.
> 
> This article is about ILIs, and not all ILIs are mbti intjs!
> 
> Actually in my experience typing people in both systems, they can have completely different types cross-system; for example, I know an intp who is an LIE in socionics (Te Ni).


Agreed. Seen it happen as well. I knew an INTP who was so stereytpically LIE that I couldn't even consider another type for him. He really fit the description well for Ni subtype too. And it's not that he was just someone I was acquatainces with, I knew him pretty much inside out. 

He really had a strong Ni and Te favoring and this was apparent in MBTI too, but if you look at it, it makes sense because he was still an NT with dominant T, but the direction of the functions were different in the systems which is easily explained because the systems type people differently.


----------



## jeffbobs

Boolean11 said:


> Your Jungian thought process type is NiFeTiSe? Though your Keirsian type is INTP?


Yeah I actually searched "jungian test" in goggle and did a test before hand thinking it was the right one and got INTP on that. then found the right test to take it, I have never found an accurate test that has given me anything i have found at all useful


----------



## Entropic

jeffbobs said:


> Yeah I actually searched "jungian test" in goggle and did a test before hand thinking it was the right one and got INTP on that. then found the right test to take it, I have never found an accurate test that has given me anything i have found at all useful


Jungian =/= MBTI =/= socionics =/= Jungian true type. The best way of figuring out your type is to study the functions you seem to prefer the most and then see how it fits each respective model. That's why my MBTI and Jungian true type is INTP but socionics is EII. While Keirsey wants to put me in the NT group I think I prefer the NFs as well, showing how each respective theory differs. The reason why I say I fit Keirsey NFs is because in the end, while I stereotypically appear as an NT my ideals are closer to that of an NF, and I'm most definitely a humanist rather than a scientist. This is true in socionics as well.

Like Prom says, there's overlap between them most definitely, but one must realize that they are still framed with a different mindset and goal in mind even if they try to ultimately do the same thing.


----------



## Boolean11

jeffbobs said:


> Yeah I actually searched "jungian test" in goggle and did a test before hand thinking it was the right one and got INTP on that. then found the right test to take it, I have never found an accurate test that has given me anything i have found at all useful


Your Jungian functions according to psychological types?


----------



## Boolean11

@_jeffbobs_ 

I have noticed that Ne users tend to have a harder time understanding the similar ("innate") abstract dynamic patterns ascribed to the functions which are consistent in all three theories MBTI, Socionics and the original Jung. There are many MBTIs and Socionics interpretations and the vast majority seem to focus on the functions as static behaviours, providing static frameworks for people to map their types onto. So in a way with the common outward model, your type is based how you feel or the information you are able to abstract about your dynamic nature. Fundamentally type is different with the two systems were people emerge with diametrically opposing types. You could be a sensor in one theory and an intuitive in another. 

With the dynamic perspective to the "functions" I've noticed that Ne types find it very difficult to notice the consistency in the abstract phenomena being ascribed to the functions in the three theories. Ni types do not due to how "dynamic" their perception is being drawn more to seek consistencies in abstract data. Out of all the Ne types, I've also noticed ENTPs to have the least trouble once the study deep enough. INFPs seem to have a hard time period with all forms of typology because their Fi gets in the way and changing their opinion that they feel so strongly about is tough. INTPs have their Ti to worry about, once they make a logical assumption about a system and it fits their Ti model, well that's hard to tear down.

With both INTPs and INFPs their Ne reaffirms their subjective thoughts by filling them with possibilities that favor them and go against what they're being told or shown no matter how logical it is. ENFPs have Dom Ne to see how Socionics fits with Myers and Briggs on the surface level though, they lack Ti to organize any system. Once their Fi picks up on what it wants or likes about a system that's how far they tend to go, there's no need to verify if they're right or wrong. Then you have ENTPs, who share that Dom Ne to see how both typologies coexist just like ENFPs, but they also have Ti to organize both typologies at a fundamental level. Since Ne overrides Ti, it becomes easier to accept that first thought may be wrong and ENTPs have that drive to understand everything and anything in a very systematic format by seeing all the possibilities of what is and having Ti to verify it.

//came _from a discussion with an ENTP via PM_


----------



## Kanerou

Promethea said:


> Filatova's book has complete lies for one thing: that there is scientific proof for socionics. There are also interpretative differences between Filatova and classic socionics, furthermore his book is overly-simplistic and doesn't present a formal explanation of what socionics means. Sure, his book comes to the conclusion that the elements/functions are the same so I can see where you get that from -- but its wrong.
> 
> At best there are overlaps to varying extents in the functions/elements cross-system.
> 
> The fact was before, and remains the same that mbti functions differ from socionics IM elements; which were developed by two very different perceptions on what jung's work meant, and refined in those different schools of thought without jung looking on as a guide. To make matters worse, you have people like Filatova further obscuring it with his own absurd spin on it all.


Ekaterina Filatova is female. ^.^ I've never read her book, but eesh... I've heard things about it.

Not much else to do here except echo Promethea's and LeaT's views on the incompatibility of the two systems. I think they work great on their own - MBTI especially has helped me to comprehend why my parents do things that drive me crazy - but trying to mush them together just creates a mess.


----------



## bearotter

Boolean11 said:


> With both INTPs and INFPs their Ne reaffirms their subjective thoughts by filling them with possibilities that favor them and go against what they're being told or shown no matter how logical it is




As a long-time Ni-user, I see an abstractly very similar issue in the Ni-Te model of processing, which is that the objective rationalizations of Te are guided by a function which, when used well, like you say can perceive abstract data, but ultimately are limited by what is extracted from a limited Pe-use. Much as you see the speculative power of INFP-INTP being guided by an evaluation system resting on subjective tenets. 

Technically different, but in principle somewhat similar. The resolution of course being good judgment of which function to use when to neither be bogged down by the data nor fail to synthesize. Key is to not let Te be limited in _what_ it aims to objectively explain, nor to limit the scope of truths that can be realized through initial use of Ne, together with Ji.


----------



## bearotter

Boolean11 said:


> Since Ne overrides Ti, it becomes easier to accept that first thought may be wrong and ENTPs have that drive to understand everything and anything in a very systematic format by seeing all the possibilities of what is and having Ti to verify it.




Further, of course this may be a trend you see, and what I would say is dominance is given too much weight by most in determining how their type affects them, in the sense possessing a drive to Ni needn't cripple one's ability to know when to Je, although it can in less successful types, and in principle identical remarks apply to the other cognitive introverts.


----------



## Boolean11

bearotter said:


> As a long-time Ni-user, I see an abstractly very similar issue in the Ni-Te model of processing, which is that the objective rationalizations of Te are guided by a function which, when used well, like you say can perceive abstract data, but ultimately are limited by what is extracted from a limited Pe-use. Much as you see the speculative power of INFP-INTP being guided by an evaluation system resting on subjective tenets.
> 
> Technically different, but in principle somewhat similar. The resolution of course being good judgment of which function to use when to neither be bogged down by the data nor fail to synthesize. Key is to not let Te be limited in _what_ it aims to objectively explain, nor to limit the scope of truths that can be realized through initial use of Ne, together with Ji.


Long time Ni-user? (You evolved your type to MBTI:INTP/Socionics INTj from NiTe)

I agree that similarly the subjective focus which quests for order in the intuition percieved can limit lead "Ni" types, Pi types in general. Only those with a personal philosophy to quest for the absolute truth could rescue themselves from the trap. Personally that has been reenforced through my youth development where I learnt that certainity breeds errors hence a little doubt aways remains. 

At the same type I've been looking for a framework to explain the flaws extroverts have with their inability to focus, since when you examine the ignoring function for them, you realize that not a lot is negative:



ENTjs ID Ti said:


> LIEs are often not particularly interested in thinking about the internal consistency of logical systems. usually base their viewpoints and suppositions on factual information, evidence, and ideas external to systems of logical inference. As pragmatic and outwardly-driven individuals, LIEs often ignore logical and mathematical relationships between concepts, perceiving them as uninteresting, unproductive, and of minimal importance in effectuating one's own productive goals in the real world.
> 
> 
> LIEs are confident in spotting internal logical contradictions in ideas and arguments proposed by others, and in pointing them out; however, they are more likely to point out how such ideas and arguments do not hold if checked against external evidence.





ENTps ID Ni said:


> While the ILE may seem entirely spontaneous to the observer, he will often plan extensively for the fallout of his ideas in order to rally the support of others and guide it towards actualization. As a by-product, most ILEs will view lectures about foresight and planning as irritating and unnecessary. There is no need to go over that which he has already considered, in the privacy of his own mind.
> 
> Additionally, with too much attention to consequences the ILE loses the thrill of discovery associated with his base function and finds it difficult to think outside of Ni's natural complement: Se. He prefers to think about immediate possibilities (Ne) and what can be done to materialize them (Ti) rather than to dwell on the outcome of what might or might not be.


----------



## bearotter

@_Boolean11_: it's tough to say, my MBTI type is hard to pin down directly; I'm more of a T-dominant, because of my drive to logically structure whether to a clear immediate end or not being more compulsive than any other feature - it is most innately there. Overall, the best description of me is cognitively introverted, weak Fi, extroverting primarily through Ne, and intuiting and thinking primarily in an introverted way. 

Today I was shown the supposed 4 subtypes of LII, and I'd identify most with the Ni-LII subtype.



> Personally that has been reenforced through my youth development where I learnt that certainity breeds errors hence a little doubt aways remains.




Very much identify with this. But perhaps as a T type, I approach it a little different, in the sense that my systems are always internally consistent, so that certainty always exists, but I'll always be open to additional objective inquiry to hone a better system. I identify with the static type most in communication/reasoning style overall in the sense I represent truths in this way, but that's mere representation and communication of course, which is but the end result of my processing.


----------



## Boolean11

bearotter said:


> @_Boolean11_: it's tough to say, my MBTI type is hard to pin down directly; I'm more of a T-dominant, because of my drive to logically structure whether to a clear immediate end or not being more compulsive than any other feature - it is most innately there. Overall, the best description of me is cognitively introverted, weak Fi, extroverting primarily through Ne, and intuiting and thinking primarily in an introverted way.
> 
> Today I was shown the supposed 4 subtypes of LII, and I'd identify most with the Ni-LII subtype.
> 
> 
> 
> Very much identify with this.[/COLOR]


can you link me to the subtypes


----------



## bearotter

@Boolean11: here's the link

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/28237-Hypothetical-DCNH-descriptions

I think I could see why the Harmonizing LII description would correspond to the Ni-subtype.


----------



## Boolean11

bearotter said:


> @_Boolean11_: here's the link
> 
> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/28237-Hypothetical-DCNH-descriptions
> 
> I think I could see why the Harmonizing LII description would correspond to the Ni-subtype.


Are those snippets Gulenko & etc's only descriptions on the subtypes?


----------



## bearotter

@Boolean11

I am hoping not, as I would like to know more of them myself. Most references seem to only mention a leading and creative subtype.


----------



## Elyasis

bearotter said:


> @_Boolean11_: here's the link
> 
> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/28237-Hypothetical-DCNH-descriptions
> 
> I think I could see why the Harmonizing LII description would correspond to the Ni-subtype.


Good stuff. Ne-ILI for me.



> Creative subtype:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Victor Gulenko) Ascetic, grumbling, loves to emphasize deficiencies, searches for opponents. Criticizes sometimes with a dose of biliousness. Frequently have a very slim figure; they can provoke conflicts and actions, including commercial ones. Possesses large erudition and memory, frequently gets stuck in details. A scientist and theorist that makes fundamental developments and who also has an eye for social-economic tendencies. Using analogies, frequently they can predict the development of an ongoing process. Outwardly slovenly and negligent. Little regard to their health.


:shocked:


----------



## Boolean11

Elyasis said:


> Good stuff. Ne-ILI for me.
> 
> 
> :shocked:


*
ILI: Ti subtype bitches 
*
Normalizing subtype: 








(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The logical subtype provides the impression of a self-assured, sane and judicious person. Sometimes seems haughty and derisive, but is usually kind and often smiling, despite their smile seeming monotonous and tired. Possess a critical mentality coupled with a sense of humor; skeptical, ironic and mistrustful. Trying to be polite they often limit which ideas they project aloud. Constantly subject everything to analysis and trusts more in figures and facts than in early conclusions. A respectable rationalizer, able to detect and abandon useless affairs. Sometimes heavy-set, however, gait is usually quick while movements are purposeful and resolute. Can gesticulate, appears gusty and impulsive when doing so; usually remains still with silent advantage.


----------



## Zero11

Harmonizing subtype:








(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The intuitive subtype seems to be a quiet, counterbalanced, even sluggish person. Their movements are smooth and slow. They’re internally timid but they attempt to hide this under a mask of irony. Are tactful, polite, and scrupulous. Tries to avoid straightforwardness and criticisms in their conversations; are affable and kind but seldom smile. Despite their attempts to hide weakness they are, nonetheless, internally rather sensitive, inconsistent and vulnerable; thus they often find themselves suppressed and dissatisfied, and from this stems negative moods and emotions. Their moods may further be afflicted due to the state of their health; they rarely discuss such problems with anyone. They keep people, psychologically, at a distance. Like to talk and tell things to people, meanwhile they possess good figurative thinking for they read/reflect much. Gait and movements are smooth, barely ever shaken. 

damn


----------



## Boolean11

@_Zero11 _@Elyasis 
There is a thread for the ILI subtypes: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/131198-intp-ili-subtypes.html


----------



## Cristy0505

“A red breasted robin in a cage puts all the world in a rage.” - what does this mean?


----------



## aestrivex

Cristy0505 said:


> “A red breasted robin in a cage puts all the world in a rage.” - what does this mean?


nothing?


----------



## Elyasis

Cristy0505 said:


> “A red breasted robin in a cage puts all the world in a rage.” - what does this mean?


It's a from a poem by William Blake. "Auguries of Innocence".

It's basically a poem about the mistreatment of animals by humans. And God. And the human races foibles. Basically any William Blake poem ever.

It actually goes:
A Robin Red breast in a Cage
Puts all Heaven in a Rage 


So taking something beautiful and wild and locking it up for your amusement.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

LeaT said:


> While Keirsey wants to put me in the NT group I think I prefer the NFs as well, showing how each respective theory differs. The reason why I say I fit Keirsey NFs is because in the end, while I stereotypically appear as an NT my ideals are closer to that of an NF, and I'm most definitely a humanist rather than a scientist. This is true in socionics as well.


No offense, but I'm not sure this interpretation of "humanist" vs. "scientist" is very helpful. I'm a humanist. I help people by forcing them to do work and by making them more independent. Heck, some ENTJs can be humanists, I guess: they help people by kicking them up the bum and commanding them to improve. F-types are more likely to help people by expressing sympathy etc. But humanism isn't about whether you "like" people more than science. Humanism is about seeing potential for development in others (and yourself). After all, scientists don't study science exclusively for the fun of it but also to discover things that can help people or open up new possibilities for us.


----------



## Entropic

FlaviaGemina said:


> No offense, but I'm not sure this interpretation of "humanist" vs. "scientist" is very helpful. I'm a humanist. I help people by forcing them to do work and by making them more independent. Heck, some ENTJs can be humanists, I guess: they help people by kicking them up the bum and commanding them to improve. F-types are more likely to help people by expressing sympathy etc. But humanism isn't about whether you "like" people more than science. Humanism is about seeing potential for development in others (and yourself). After all, scientists don't study science exclusively for the fun of it but also to discover things that can help people or open up new possibilities for us.


I never said it was. If you want to take that discussion do it with Keirsey and why he decided to group people according to type like that  I simply state that I identify as a humanist, not a scientist, so I am therefore not according to Keirsey an NT because to him, NTs are all scientists. And on the question whether I think that's a stupid definition, yes, it is, bit that's the way he formulated his theory, anyway.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

LeaT said:


> I never said it was. If you want to take that discussion do it with Keirsey and why he decided to group people according to type like that  I simply state that I identify as a humanist, not a scientist, so I am therefore not according to Keirsey an NT because to him, NTs are all scientists. And on the question whether I think that's a stupid definition, yes, it is, bit that's the way he formulated his theory, anyway.


Thanks for the clarification. LOL, I somehow took it for granted that we all agree that Keirsey's labels are stupid.


----------



## CataclysmSolace

AirMarionette said:


> That last part about "rarely getting into grave trouble," I find to be quite the opposite, given our tendency to question the irrational and undermine authority. But there are variations to any generalization.
> 
> 
> I thought this one completely nailed it too:


Where is the source for the quote? I'm assuming this is about socionics INTp?


----------



## His Name Is John

Jorge said:


> Have you ever met a MBTI INTP who is also a socionics' INTp? Because every single one of the MBTI socionics has turned out to be an socionics INTj.
> 
> I tested as a INTp in socionics a while ago, but the description didn't fit me at all quite as good as the INTj one did.


I'm an INTP / INTp.


----------



## Aquamarine

AirMarionette said:


> *INTPs in Love
> For the INTP, love has three distinct phases: falling in, staying in, and getting out. These phases relate to their thinking preference and its need for order and sequence.
> When an INTP falls in love, he or she falls hard-an "all or nothing" phenomenon. At this stage, INTPs are likely to be very lively, almost giddy, in their new love. The experience rushes over them and carries them along. They do not structure or control it but simply enjoy and experience it. During this stage, INTPs do many loving things, such as writing poetry, reading to the loved one, and buying gifts that have special meaning. They are curious about their loved one and are able to overlook his or her flaws.
> Even quirky faults are enjoyed because they are something new to experience and examine. They may bravely ignore the realities of distance, weather, and time to be with the loved one.
> As relationships progress to the staying-in-love phase, INTPs begin to evaluate their structure and form. They may withdraw at this point because they are moving toward their more customary inward style. Outward demonstrations of affection lessen, and the giddy state changes. Interactions are more matter of fact, perhaps even impersonal. INTPs take their commitments to their partner seriously; however, they may not discuss these commitments at any length with their partner or with other people, because their commitments seem so obvious to them.
> The third phase, falling out of love, which may not always occur, results from an analysis of the real expectations and needs of the relationship. Often, an undefined line is crossed that neither partner knows about ahead of time. However, the INTP knows after the line has been crossed, and then the relationship deteriorates or ends. If INTPs recognize their emotions and needs as valid, they are able to sever relationship ties fairly cleanly. However, if they misjudge their own needs and those of their partner, the breakup can be messy, perhaps affecting other aspects of their lives for a long time. If the INTP shares some common (usually intellectual or conceptual) interests with the former loved one, the relationship continues, but on a different level. When INTPs have a reason to continue relationships, they do.*


That's exactly what I did to my crushes when I was a teen! o_o I can confirm myself to be a socionics INTp now.


----------



## benoticed

mbti INFP
socionics ILI

:frustrating:


----------



## secretowl

Jorge said:


> Have you ever met a MBTI INTP who is also a socionics' INTp?


Yes, me.


----------



## Catwalk

Ok! (☉‿☉✿)


----------



## Veil_of_Reality

This was phenomenal to read, and resonates far more than IEI does for me. Is there a description like this for IEI? 

XxX


----------

