# Differentiating LII INTj and ILI INTp



## zelder

yanap said:


> I think LIIs would be more outgoing at home, in a comfortable Si environment, while ILIs need Se more (partying etc.), but yeah, like you said, being a HSP (I read about that ages ago) influences your sociability too.


I'm much more outgoing at home. My emotions and sociability come alive at home. 

When interacting with others publicly, I can put on a good show and pretend like I'm outgoing but it's rare for me to do so. I have to make the premeditated conscious decision that I'm going to be outgoing and sociable. My sociable facade can't last long either. Maybe 30 minutes, 60 minutes at most, I eventually get drained and have to withdraw inwardly again.

BTW, Peter Singer seems to be an LII. Yes indeed.


----------



## greco

I will admit that I had never heard of Peter Singer until now, but to me, this guy does not look or sound like a LII at all. And judging from the LIIs I have met or simply observed, I have much trouble imagining a LII coming anywhere near to finding sufficient intellectual nourishment and fulfilment in a subject like the rights of animals and ethical issues surrounding the treatment of animals. Whereas this guy, from what I heard in the first minutes of the video, has somehow managed to find enough intellectual stimulation to this rather mundane subject to make it his life's work... 

Even quasi-dumb Brigitte Bardot only found enough stimulation in the subject when she got too old to do other things, yet this guy has been dealing with it since the 1970s? Lol..


----------



## zelder

greco said:


> I will admit that I had never heard of Peter Singer until now, but to me, this guy does not look or sound like a LII at all. And judging from the LIIs I have met or simply observed, I have much trouble imagining a LII coming anywhere near to finding sufficient intellectual nourishment and fulfilment in a subject like the rights of animals and ethical issues surrounding the treatment of animals. Whereas this guy, from what I heard in the first minutes of the video, has somehow managed to find enough intellectual stimulation to this rather mundane subject to make it his life's work...
> 
> Even quasi-dumb Brigitte Bardot only found enough stimulation in the subject when she got too old to do other things, yet this guy has been dealing with it since the 1970s? Lol..


No. I've spent a lot of time thinking about ethics. I don't find it unrealistic at all for LII's to be interested in that subject. In fact ethics and theology have been some of the most interesting subjects to me.


----------



## aestrivex

madhatter said:


> Hm, interesting. What do you mean by "unstructured"? I've always seen myself as a structured thinker, so I'm curious to hear your opinion on this.


I suppose I have always gotten the impression that you mostly "gather" information with a certain amount of indecision rather than develop it or build structure or interpretations from it. I have also thought of you as openminded and hesitant to make firm statements. Maybe this could be LII I suppose, but I feel that the comparison is probably more centered around SEI/SLI/EII/LII than LII/LSI. I also don't remember very many of the observations I made about you -- I know I made some and I had reasons for guessing those values, but I don't remember what they are very clearly. So I apologize if my statements are rather vague and misdirected.


----------



## madhatter

aestrivex said:


> I suppose I have always gotten the impression that you mostly "gather" information with a certain amount of indecision rather than develop it or build structure or interpretations from it. I have also thought of you as openminded and hesitant to make firm statements. Maybe this could be LII I suppose, but I feel that the comparison is probably more centered around SEI/SLI/EII/LII than LII/LSI. I also don't remember very many of the observations I made about you -- I know I made some and I had reasons for guessing those values, but I don't remember what they are very clearly. So I apologize if my statements are rather vague and misdirected.


It is true that I try to remain open-minded, and how that can appear indecisive. But I always build structure or add new information to my already-existing mental structure. I'm coming from a background of MBTI/JCF, so that will be coloring my perspective here. When I was younger, I was more stringent about adhering to my Ti-framework and disregarding any new information that didn't fit it. But I recognize this in myself and now strive to be more objective. You are right though...I do tend to be more hesitant in making firm statements over the internet. In real life, this is a different matter. I'm actually pretty opinionated and judgmental, but I don't share this side with everybody. I don't know if that translates into LII though, since I don't know Socionics well. What is the difference of Ti between two different systems? Because I see this function as essential to my type.

I do agree with you that I'm probably not LSI. Se in Socionics does not fit me well at all, even though in JCF Se is my second function. I have tested a few times as SLI, but I don't put much stock in internet tests. I have read up on the quadras though, and I really don't relate to the Delta quadra. I relate more to the Alpha values. The Wikisocion profile for LII fits me very closely as well...is this a trustworthy website?


----------



## aestrivex

madhatter said:


> What is the difference of Ti between two different systems? Because I see this function as essential to my type.


that isn't a concise question.

Logic - WSWiki
User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics - WSWiki



> The Wikisocion profile for LII fits me very closely as well...is this a trustworthy website?


I think its okay, not great.


----------



## cyamitide

madhatter said:


> The Wikisocion profile for LII fits me very closely as well...is this a trustworthy website?


Wikisocion is one of the better sources of Socionics information available to English-speaking community. 

For typing yourself it is better to go by information elements and functions (I also recommend temperaments and reinins) rather than by descriptive profiles.

FYI, the links that aextrivex has provided lead to Socionics Workshop, which is his own work and theorizing.


----------



## madhatter

aestrivex said:


> that isn't a concise question.
> 
> Logic - WSWiki
> User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics - WSWiki
> 
> I think its okay, not great.


The Logic link is useful, thank you. I'll read the other link in greater depth when I have more time to devote to it after Christmas.


----------



## aestrivex

cyamitide said:


> FYI, the links that aextrivex has provided lead to Socionics Workshop, which is his own work and theorizing.


it's true.


----------



## madhatter

cyamitide said:


> Wikisocion is one of the better sources of Socionics information available to English-speaking community.
> 
> For typing yourself it is better to go by information elements and functions (I also recommend temperaments and reinins) rather than by descriptive profiles.


Thank you.  Yes, profiles are never good as a final say...I've just been using them as a starting point. I believe that I use Ti in Socionics, but I have trouble relating to any of the perceiving functions. Even in the LII profile, I'm not sure how much I relate to the function of Ne. I think I'll just need to find a source that describes the perceiving functions independently of type profiles, and make a judgment then. And are these temperaments similar to temperaments used in MBTI? Or are they different?


----------



## cyamitide

madhatter said:


> And are these temperaments similar to temperaments used in MBTI? Or are they different?


They are different. In MBTI you have Judgers and Perceivers as your two main temperaments. In Socionics you have four temperaments based on dominant function: Ip, Ij, Ep, Ej LII/INTj belongs to IJ temperament.


----------



## sinigang

I am an LII and my girlfriend is an ILI. One easy way to spot them is to look at their second, creative functions. LII would have Ne, ILI would have Te. This means, the LII would be more 'crazy' random, as they would seem like quiet ENTPs/ILEs who would do more wacky stuff when not everyone is looking (when they're comfortable) and on the other hand, ILI's would be more boring (no offense seriously). Te is simply pragmatism manifested in saying things bluntly which is why ILI's are too honest at saying how much you suck. 

Also, LII's require only the principles and systems to be correct to agree, while ILI's tend to prefer more concrete evidence and facts.

Another way to spot them, is that LII's tend to not care about hygiene, in the most traditional sense. I'm quite guilty of that. This is due to the Introverted Sensing being in the weaker super Id block. While the ILI is quite squeamish and do not respond well to disgusting displays like showing off your nose goo. Not that its a very smart thing to do. Why is this so? Because the Si is the POLR of the LIE/ENTJ who have the same functions in every block except they're reversed. So basically, they're annoyed and attracted by the same things.

I'm pretty sure people who read MBTI are quite confused by the INTP and INTJ descriptions in that system, because they've got them both mixed up and thus mistyping themselves. Socionics made me more sure of the differences between them.


----------



## Boolean11

sinigang said:


> I am an LII and my girlfriend is an ILI. One easy way to spot them is to look at their second, creative functions. LII would have Ne, ILI would have Te. This means, the LII would be more 'crazy' random, as they would seem like quiet ENTPs/ILEs who would do more wacky stuff when not everyone is looking (when they're comfortable) and on the other hand, ILI's would be more boring (no offense seriously). Te is simply pragmatism manifested in saying things bluntly which is why ILI's are too honest at saying how much you suck.
> 
> Also, LII's require only the principles and systems to be correct to agree, while ILI's tend to prefer more concrete evidence and facts.
> 
> Another way to spot them, is that LII's tend to not care about hygiene, in the most traditional sense. I'm quite guilty of that. This is due to the Introverted Sensing being in the weaker super Id block. While the ILI is quite squeamish and do not respond well to disgusting displays like showing off your nose goo. Not that its a very smart thing to do. Why is this so? Because the Si is the POLR of the LIE/ENTJ who have the same functions in every block except they're reversed. So basically, they're annoyed and attracted by the same things.
> 
> I'm pretty sure people who read MBTI are quite confused by the INTP and INTJ descriptions in that system, because they've got them both mixed up and thus mistyping themselves. Socionics made me more sure of the differences between them.


Maybe your girlfriend might be a boring ILI, but I find that "Ni", "Se" and "Fi" make good socializing. "Ni" looks a lot more like "Ne" when it is expressed here you notice the childish curiosity. I find Jung's definition that it is more like "Ne" but coerced under a subject, to be more accurate. "Se" brings out ILI when its active allowing the charm but that is really embedded with "Fi".

BTW the homologies between MBTI:INTJ & INTP and Socionics INTj & INTp are not on popular opinion here, since type correlation is not popular.


----------



## Elyasis

INTj rational, static, strategic, emotivist, merry,  judicious, result, asking

INTp irrational, dynamic, tactical, contructivist, serious,  decisive, process, declaring

They have far less in common than not.

How this will play out in the individual level is, of course, up to the individuals. 

Both are obstinate, democratic, far-sighted, and negativists.

I think a lot of the confusion between the two is due to them both over emphasizing those aspects of themselves and not so much advertising their differences.

Each's Ego functions are in the Id Block. How this manifests itself is INTp are more expressive but reveal less. For INTj it's the opposite. INTp are more like closed systems. INTj like open systems. INTj more amiable at first, become comfortable with criticizing you the *better* that they know you. INTp more apt to find flaws, warm up to being sociable with you the *longer* you have known them.

I did intentionally use the bolded words up there.


----------



## sinigang

@_Boolean11_

Well if we would analyze the functions through the socionics definitions and orders, we would have INTJ/ILI have them almost in this manner: Ni>Te=Ti>Fi>Se=Si>Fe more or less with Ne as an ignored function. So yes there is the presence of Se and Fi but they're really very inferior functions in the order. Most of the time they would be subjugated by the upper functions although Fi is quite apparent when were not working on something. Forgive me for the Ne bias but what I meant by 'boring' is fun, exciting or whatever because at the time I was comparing Ne and Te as creative functions. But I would agree ILI are quite nice when we're not in business mode.

Anyways, I would still have to read up on Jung's main work. But for lack of better words for now, I would say Socionics Ni is imagination (fantasies for internal subjects) and Ne is exploration (ideas for external subjects). Although I am aware some regard Ni as super computers for completing trends inside peoples heads in MBTI terms.


----------



## Boolean11

Elyasis said:


> INTj rational, static, strategic, emotivist, merry,  judicious, result, asking
> 
> INTp irrational, dynamic, tactical, contructivist, serious,  decisive, process, declaring
> 
> They have far less in common than not.
> 
> How this will play out in the individual level is, of course, up to the individuals.
> 
> Both are obstinate, democratic, far-sighted, and negativists.
> 
> I think a lot of the confusion between the two is due to them both over emphasizing those aspects of themselves and not so much advertising their differences.
> 
> Each's Ego functions are in the Id Block. How this manifests itself is INTp are more expressive but reveal less. For INTj it's the opposite. INTp are more like closed systems. INTj like open systems. INTj more amiable at first, become comfortable with criticizing you the *better* that they know you. INTp more apt to find flaws, warm up to being sociable with you the *longer* you have known them.
> 
> I did intentionally use the bolded words up there.


"Better" and "longer" there also represents the difficulty in uncovering them: the uncanny similarities. Nicely put good post, though you forgot to add the rationality irrationality difference since that is where the major point is. INTjs are quick to judge and quicker to adapt their judgement whilst INTps are slower to judge and slow to adapt their judgement. 

I personally notice that with @_LeaT_ on my earlier days on the site, she noticed I was slower to come to a conclusion yet still demanded me to give an explanation as to why I disagreed. I found this confusing since my irrationality was still perceiving and not comfortable with reaching conclusions, plus what made it was my unhealthy state that destroys the quality of my writing: word pattern error recognition (I make so many grammar & sp errors). With her being a "judger" she came to a rushed conclusion that I was stupid and misguided/stubborn, so she resorted to an abrasive conduct launching ad hominem attacks at my ability to reason. 

However bizarrely being an irrational type with my Se Fi (dealing with social conduct), I had chosen to remain courteous being slow to end communication with her since oddly I believed that all intuitive thinkers were a different breed of human beings. I was more interested in gathering the complete data about her different way of reasoning since it intrigued me that it was quite unusual, too different. What came was a barrage of her Fe-Si hostility I didn't even get. And finally this thread broke the camel's ending causing me to take the "Fi" judgement http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/106859-most-intjs-here-arent-intj.html . 

And what resulted is the fact that I hold grudges, the other side to being slower to judge is that I'm slower to change. Yet oddly I kept it a secret that I had negatively type cast her. Static irrational types seem to have harsh judgement on concrete ethics principles. Whereas with her Fe Si she seemed to change and be quickly adapt, rational dynamic concrete ethics principles seem to be like that. They care more about the continuous image a person exhibits as opposed to statics who take screenshots judging by what they see in front of them (rational statics are quicker to adapt though).

Her bizarre INFj typing intrigues me because I don't see and "Fi" in her but rather "Ti" and "Fe", which is frankly incompetent as in line with lead thinkers who shun feeling judgement. "Fi" is emotions in her worldview so she perceives INFj as her types; I guess under that dichotomy everyone with an emotional heart of some kind becomes an automatic IxFj. When I go to the MBTI:INFP I understand socionic's "beneficiary" concept since I can understand INFPs' Fi yet I'm unable to respond to their standard, with weaker my Fi driven Se; this is obviously on an purely information processing "ease" plane as opposed to factoring natural interpersonal premises which overall dictate whether people like each other or not.


----------



## Boolean11

sinigang said:


> @_Boolean11_
> 
> Well if we would analyze the functions through the socionics definitions and orders, we would have INTJ/ILI have them almost in this manner: Ni>Te=Ti>Fi>Se=Si>Fe more or less with Ne as an ignored function. So yes there is the presence of Se and Fi but they're really very inferior functions in the order. Most of the time they would be subjugated by the upper functions although Fi is quite apparent when were not working on something. Forgive me for the Ne bias but what I meant by 'boring' is fun, exciting or whatever because at the time I was comparing Ne and Te as creative functions. But I would agree ILI are quite nice when we're not in business mode.
> 
> Anyways, I would still have to read up on Jung's main work. But for lack of better words for now, I would say Socionics Ni is imagination (fantasies for internal subjects) and Ne is exploration (ideas for external subjects). Although I am aware some regard Ni as super computers for completing trends inside peoples heads in MBTI terms.


Point noted, though I wanted to add that the standard Socionics description of the functions assumes that ILI are incompetent with Fi and Se, but the bias is that they are socially incompetent. Although surprisingly that social incompetence is attributed to both types: see this uncovered caricature of the INTj and INTp profiles. 
INTj INTj uncovered
INTp INTp uncovered

Anyways the innate workings of "Ni" are perceived to be useless imaginations (unproven intuitions) by the INTj psyche supposedly rationalizing why it undermines the function. And as you probably know the INTp psyche mutually supposedly undermines the innate functioning of "Ti" by seeing logical systems (unproven logical categorizations). I just added the links below for reference on the id perceptions by each type: INTp Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion and INTj Logical Intuitive Introtim - Wikisocion . INTps are adept at "Ne" by the way just as INTjs also are with "Te".

By the way what to you feel about the supposedly inter-type relations Quasi-Intetical types have? I think it's too biased thinking that it would always be difficult.


----------



## sinigang

> INTj more amiable at first, become comfortable with criticizing you the better that they know you. INTp more apt to find flaws, warm up to being sociable with you the longer you have known them.


I would completely agree with these and I have seen these in action. As an INTP/LII, I would usually see how correct/good something is, but I don't really have any impulse to say my thoughts about something immediately, they just stay in my head until I am compelled to say something. Because of this openness, I am perceived to be quite friendly even though I have high standards which I don't tell anyone anyway.

On the other hand, my ILI girlfriend is quick to say what flaws she could find of something and has no real issues about saying them. For that, she would seem quite stingy and on top of that, she has the Fi which makes her prefer only being with a few close friends. This is in contrast to me having many friends but no hard distinction for closeness.

Notice that this is because, the first three dominant functions in the model A in order, Ti Ne Ni for the LII, Ni Te Ti for the ILI. Basically, Te is the only extraverted judging function in immediate reach of one of them, which is the ILI. Then there's LII Fe which is generally a friendly trait and ILI Fi is for close and warm friendships.

And for social incompetence, yes, the bias is there. But I would think a way to look at it is that it is because of the existence of more socially adept people. If the world only had LIIs and ILIs, would we still be socially incompetent? But anyway, age and development is also into play so probably later in life, we would be at least more sociable right? Unless of course we end up in some unfortunate accident, then we would not be able to speak about parties and football.


----------



## Entropic

Boolean11;3247786[snip[/QUOTE said:


> I still think your thinking is largely irrational without much content, opting for a flair that appears rational at surface but lacks depth.
> 
> And you clearly don't know me well if you think the EII typing is bizarre. I clearly do not favor Fe in socionics. Being in a chat with an LII and two IEI, this couldn't be more evident. I prefer Fi socialization all the way, which is evident in how I prefer talking to the Te-Fi types in the same chat, and this is also apparent when it comes to my private life and what social values I actually exhibit. I am so delta it hurts.


----------



## Boolean11

LeaT said:


> I still think your thinking is largely irrational without much content, opting for a flair that appears rational at surface but lacks depth.
> 
> And you clearly don't know me well if you think the EII typing is bizarre. I clearly do not favor Fe in socionics. Being in a chat with an LII and two IEI, this couldn't be more evident. I prefer Fi socialization all the way, which is evident in how I prefer talking to the Te-Fi types in the same chat, and this is also apparent when it comes to my private life and what social values I actually exhibit. I am so delta it hurts.


Keep telling yourself that, at this point there are multiple forms of Socionics to work from which have all been firmly defined. The version of Socionics I work from is based on innate thought processes people seem to have not the stupid caricatures that are there. Your proficiency in Fi judgement for an ego type is pretty much equivalent to rate of my dyslexic posts here, you are the antithesis of Fi.


----------

