# INTJ in MBTI, LII-INTj in Socionics?



## Wolfskralle

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Yes, it's possible to be an MBTI INTJ and a socionics INTj. They are two different typology systems, they don't define the functions in quite the same way. I do agree with @wolf12345 that MBTI INTJ is more likely to be socionics INTp but I've seen quite a few MBTI INTJs that identify with socionics INTj.


Oh I was misunderstood, sorry. I actually meant something contrary to the popular belief (popular at least on english-speaking part of the Internet)... What I meant was that I see no reason to switch the P/J letter in MBTI/Socionics, at least if you type yourself by standarized MBTI test. So INTp is more likely to test as INTP in these 4-letters tests and same applies to the INTJ/INTj. The only reason it might be different is when INTp/INTj has very developed auxiliary function, which IMO is unlikely to happen until one is 20+ and is in environment which supports active usage of auxiliary in everyday life. 
One might argue that definitions of P/J and p/j are different, since former focus more on extroverted judging and perceiving and latter on perceiving/judging in general. Still though, if you compare perceiving/judging desciptions in both systems they are almost the same and ip temperament in socionics is pretty close to the IP type in MBTI.

It won't apply to typing by functions, cause functions, like @Draki said, should generally transfer between systems.


----------



## Draki

wolf12345 said:


> Oh I was misunderstood, sorry. I actually meant something contrary to the popular belief (popular at least on english-speaking part of the Internet)... What I meant was that I see no reason to switch the P/J letter in MBTI/Socionics, at least if you type yourself by standarized MBTI test. So INTp is more likely to test as INTP in these 4-letters tests and same applies to the INTJ/INTj. The only reason it might be different is when INTp/INTj has very developed auxiliary function, which IMO is unlikely to happen until one is 20+ and is in environment which supports active usage of auxiliary in everyday life.
> One might argue that definitions of P/J and p/j are different, since former focus more on extroverted judging and perceiving and latter on perceiving/judging in general. Still though, if you compare perceiving/judging desciptions in both systems they are almost the same and ip temperament in socionics is pretty close to the IP type in MBTI.
> 
> It won't apply to typing by functions, cause functions, like @_Draki_ said, should generally transfer between systems.


It's true that I have a lot of trouble in MBTI with P versus J. I sometimes type as INTJ in MBTI but I'm sure I'm INTP. Also in socionics I'm actually the rational ij temperament (LII) but I feel more like the ip temperament. But I have traits of both. It's just like ILI doesn't fit for me because I'm Ti and not Te for example and alpha quadra instead of gamma. Now that I think about it, I guess it's true that the P in MBTI is the IP temperament description in socionics. Nevertheless I think it's also true that I'm a judger (rational - IJ temerament) and not a perceiver (dominant function). I solved this "problem" with DCNH  Harmonizing strengthen the IP temperament. 
It's kind of totally mixed up actually.


----------



## Wolfskralle

Draki said:


> It's true that I have a lot of trouble in MBTI with P versus J. I sometimes type as INTJ in MBTI but I'm sure I'm INTP. Also in socionics I'm actually the rational ij temperament (LII) but I feel more like the ip temperament. But I have traits of both. It's just like ILI doesn't fit for me because I'm Ti and not Te for example and alpha quadra instead of gamma. Now that I think about it, I guess it's true that the P in MBTI is the IP temperament description in socionics. Nevertheless I think it's also true that I'm a judger (rational - IJ temerament) and not a perceiver (dominant function). I solved this "problem" with DCNH  Harmonizing strengthen the IP temperament.
> It's kind of totally mixed up actually.


I actually don't know much about DCNH and other intricacies of Socionics yet, but I get your point. And for what it's worth the way you write gives me Ti vibe. By the way, Socionics system seems to be written in a very Ti-ish way, don't you think?
I find particulary interesting that in Socionics ILI is supposed to have good use of Ti and LII have good use of Ni - these are just not as strongly valued functions. I think it's pretty accurate.


----------



## nichya

" so I don't really understand how a person suddenly switches from Ne (INFP MBTI) to Ni with devalued Ne (IEI). "
See me neither and it does bother me that I cannot explain and understand it fully as well, but it does bother me more that INFj profile or delta quadra does not speak to me at all while INFp and beta quadra feels like it is written for me, the profiles and inter-quadra relations apart from individual functions.

Hence I do find that explanation accurate, on how the functions are not defined the same way as MBTI. So if you define Ni as "producing mental imagery and alternative universes wherein the individual's "characters" thrive it is natural that it will be mixed with Ne because the concept you are thinking of applies to both MBTI INFJs and INFPs. I do believe our mental imagery could work differently but we both seem to make good use of it. Say that is why I believe that indeed Tolkien has a different vibe, he feels more INFJ to me without picking his functions and all apart. 

Also we are really discussing two systems created by different people. It is not like it -must- fit in. Even briggs-myers wrote 2 versions. It has good fundamentals and reasoning and observation but in the end it does not have to be a single fact. But I -do- believe most INFPs are INFjs in socionics, perhaps the majority but I know that I don't and I can guess that not every INFP falls under that either. And it does indeed make sense to me - a lot- that enneagram 9 INFPs are more likely to be INFjs in socionics while 4s are more INFp. I naturally get 4 and then 7 but see last time I got 8 enneagram which is absolutely not common with INFPs. Well I believe it is because I was in a bitter state but I do have that challenger in me which is not quite explained by MBTI but is well described in beta quadra of socionics. Even 4s are known to be more temperamental and passion driven, again very beta quadra.

Also I think even in socionics INFp and beta quadra you find keywords that are significantly used for INFPs in MBTI such as -the most romantic type- tendency to rebel etc.

Ok this is a funny note and by no means I am writing this as proof but notice how Johnny Depp is poster boy of both MBTI INFP and socionics INFp? 




Draki said:


> Interesting post. I agree that an enneagram type can change a lot. There are INTP 5w6s who are often very INTJ-like and so I would imagine they are also more into the INTp decription.
> 
> For me it is very clearly INTP MBTI and LII socionics (like many others are, too)
> I think it is possible to be IEI and INFP (MBTI) it just bothers me that I cannot explain and understand it fully.
> 
> Actually not only one or two functions need to fit but the whole socionics theory plus the reinin dichotomies, Model A function order (ignored function, role function,...)
> That's what really interests me. ^^
> 
> There are some function which are very different in both systems. Like the feeling functions and sensing for example.
> I also first could relate to Ni very well (ILI) but the other functions (Te for example) didn't fit.
> Also you have to remember that your 7th and 8th function are also very strong. So an IEI would have 4D (very strong) Ni (valued) and Ne (devalued) for example.
> 
> But INFP in MBTI have Ne as a second function and Ne is not so different in both systems. so I don't really understand how a person suddenly switches from Ne (INFP MBTI) to Ni with devalued Ne (IEI).
> 
> Same with INTP Ti versus ILI (INTp) Te... but here I could see that a enneagram type 5w6 are more into facts and so on. But I would probably see them more as INTJ in MBTI then... hmmm..


----------



## Draki

wolf12345 said:


> I actually don't know much about DCNH and other intricacies of Socionics yet, but I get your point. And for what it's worth the way you write gives me Ti vibe. By the way, Socionics system seems to be written in a very Ti-ish way, don't you think?
> I find particulary interesting that in Socionics ILI is supposed to have good use of Ti and LII have good use of Ni - these are just not as strongly valued functions. I think it's pretty accurate.


Yes. I also know that I'm LII and not ILI because I see Te as my ignored function. It's strong (3D) but absolutely devalued nd mostly only used when I'm angry or stressed. Also Se in the place of least resistance ist very obvious in me. I think my enneagram type 5w4 4w5 gives me a certain Fi vibe but I'm very sure that I'm actually Ti. 

I always searched good real life example for my 4D Ni, but I'm never sure what Ni actually does. In MBTI they even seem to see images and symbols and so on, I defenitely don't see those. In Socionics it's more about time management sometimes I think, and when you just "get" a topic. Well, I would say that I sometimes have the feeling that I know the answer, for example I'm more or less sure that INTPs also can be INTps, but I never really believe it immediately but am searching for the logical explanation why it is like that. So I guess I'm not fully trusting those hunches. It was interesting that someone in my school said: " You always should believe your first feeling, that's always the right decision, don't think too long about your decision". But I'm very much Ne in that regard. How do you know that it's the right decision and what are with the other possibilities?

For ILI they definitely have 4D Ti, When I tried to explain the difference between INTJs and INTPs (MBTI) and say, "we INTPs want to understand the "why a system works" and not "what you can do with it" they are like: "yeah but we do that, too, a lot".

I especially like the Gulenko descrptions and he is an LII (even the same type as me:


> Gulenko's self-typing is LII (extended typing: LII-Ne sp/so e5


 ). There are also many theorys which are not sure at all (DCNH (developed by Gulenko by the way http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Gulenko,_Viktor or reinin dichotomies ). I could see that ILI would resist more to learn about them because there is almost no proof that they are right. The sources are in russian and so on. However I like to learn about theories just to learn the theory. It's sometimes dangerous because I don't verify enough if they are actually true. But as soon as I can apply it to my real life, see examples and patterns of it in real life in my observations, if it just fits and makes sense to me, then I tend to accept these theories. I think that's a good example of Ti, subjective logic. 
But I also always have this "I'm not sure if it's true, it could be.."-blahblah attitude. Te is probably searching more for real evidence, proofs or studies and are more self-assured in their statements. 

So I somewhere read that socionics is a very Ti-ish theory. Let me see if I find the source... 
On Waves of Aging and Renewal: Progress Orientation in Combination with Jungian Aspects - Wikisocion

It's a long article about the left and right dichotomy. (result and process) ILI is process (right) and LII is result (left)



> Right and left types also differ in how they engage in scientific development. Right type of researcher will carefully collect facts about some problem that is of concern, processes them, derive a system, and formulate the resulting findings. Such path of formal or "correct" research meets the academic requirements for science. Unfortunately the probability of obtaining fundamentally new knowledge in this way is low. Left "informal" science is organized quite differently. It is based on putting forward hypotheses and schemes of a general nature that attempt to explain the nature of phenomenon that is under investigation in an informal setting without much consideration of accepted academic canons. Then the hypothesis or crude scheme is compared to the actual phenomenon. If it works, then it is accepted as a working model and made to undergo further revision. If the hypothesis proves to be unsuitable, then it is simply discarded as unreasonable. It is best when two-three models are developed side-by-side by "left" methods, and as a result of competition the one that is most viable wins.
> Most of the results of socionics have been derived by left methods. It is understandable that the right formal academic science treats socionics with much skepticism. Socionics offers the finished product, but where is the process of lengthy and detailed research and studies? The solution of this problem is, of course, supplementing the quick but unreliable left approach to knowledge with the knowledge and research of the right approach - which is the only one that earns credibility in formal circles.


I'm totally result. I learn about a theory (mostly because I'm curious and want to understand it even if it isn't applyable to the real world) and first will think it is true as long as I see don't see a contradiction. If it makes sense to me I'll accept it. I think ILIs or rather Te perhaps is the other way around. They won't believe something until there is enough evidence. 

So in short you are right that socionics is very Ti-ish (left) ^^


----------



## Draki

nichya said:


> " so I don't really understand how a person suddenly switches from Ne (INFP MBTI) to Ni with devalued Ne (IEI). "
> See me neither and it does bother me that I cannot explain and understand it fully as well, but it does bother me more that INFj profile or delta quadra does not speak to me at all while INFp and beta quadra feels like it is written for me, the profiles and inter-quadra relations apart from individual functions.
> 
> Hence I do find that explanation accurate, on how the functions are not defined the same way as MBTI. So if you define Ni as "producing mental imagery and alternative universes wherein the individual's "characters" thrive it is natural that it will be mixed with Ne because the concept you are thinking of applies to both MBTI INFJs and INFPs. I do believe our mental imagery could work differently but we both seem to make good use of it. Say that is why I believe that indeed Tolkien has a different vibe, he feels more INFJ to me without picking his functions and all apart.
> 
> Also we are really discussing two systems created by different people. It is not like it -must- fit in. Even briggs-myers wrote 2 versions. It has good fundamentals and reasoning and observation but in the end it does not have to be a single fact. But I -do- believe most INFPs are INFjs in socionics, perhaps the majority but I know that I don't and I can guess that not every INFP falls under that either. And it does indeed make sense to me - a lot- that enneagram 9 INFPs are more likely to be INFjs in socionics while 4s are more INFp. I naturally get 4 and then 7 but see last time I got 8 enneagram which is absolutely not common with INFPs. Well I believe it is because I was in a bitter state but I do have that challenger in me which is not quite explained by MBTI but is well described in beta quadra of socionics. Even 4s are known to be more temperamental and passion driven, again very beta quadra.
> 
> Also I think even in socionics INFp and beta quadra you find keywords that are significantly used for INFPs in MBTI such as -the most romantic type- tendency to rebel etc.
> 
> Ok this is a funny note and by no means I am writing this as proof but notice how Johnny Depp is poster boy of both MBTI INFP and socionics INFp?


Yeah, I'm more talking about ILI and LII and MBTI INTJs and INTPs because I know more about the T and N functions . I think the Feelers have it even more difficult because I heard the feeling function are very different in both systems. 
So I can see very well that there are people who don't need the p/j switch. 
I just need to find a rational explanation for that otherwise I will never be satisfied with the answer  

There is an article about it in wikisocion but I didn't read too much into it. I'll do it later:
J/P switch - Wikisocion


----------



## Sempiturtle

Here I was.... thinking only Leonhart was a pro at making big ass paragraphs......


----------



## xLeonhart

Sempiturtle said:


> Here I was.... thinking only Leonhart was a pro at making big ass paragraphs......


Haha, I never expected you to reply to this thread.


----------



## Afterburner

FearAndTrembling said:


> I couldn't believe I was a feeler at first either. INFJ Fe is very different than normal Fe. I consider it be like a Buddha like fairness to ideas and people. It isn't running around and trying to solve problems, or impose on others. Fe is like the ethical anchor that guides one through investigation. Knowing all sides truly. Introversion is projection. It breaks the object. So Ni is like a killer whale that smashes into a tank of water. Dives in, breaks the surface, and goes deep. It disturbs it. That dive to the bottom is Ni. Ni is depth. Then Fe introjects, it circles the whole pool and consumes the environment. It becomes the pool. It sucks it all in. It knows it truly. That is the ethical base. The Ti decides what it means. The Ti has like a coat of Fe on it, that protects it. It is dipped in Fe, like batter. And then fried in Ti.


Your posts are always such a pleasure to read.


----------



## Sempiturtle

xLeonhart said:


> Haha, I never expected you to reply to this thread.


You stated putting this up so I got curious.


----------



## nichya

Just what I am looking for, better explanations. I will be checking this - bookmarked



Draki said:


> Yeah, I'm more talking about ILI and LII and MBTI INTJs and INTPs because I know more about the T and N functions . I think the Feelers have it even more difficult because I heard the feeling function are very different in both systems.
> So I can see very well that there are people who don't need the p/j switch.
> I just need to find a rational explanation for that otherwise I will never be satisfied with the answer
> 
> There is an article about it in wikisocion but I didn't read too much into it. I'll do it later:
> J/P switch - Wikisocion


----------



## Bash

xLeonhart said:


> According to the MBTI-Socionics correlation, LII-INTj is supposed to, in fact, be INTP if it's to be converted to the MBTI. Strangely, my cognitive functions match that of an INTJ, yet, I can relate to the description of LII a lot. I loathe Te (Extroverted thinking) because it's holds such an unreliable and tenuous belief. Not all objective facts and data can be proven to be truth. Truth is subjective, as is everything else on this world.
> Back to the topic, is it possible for me to be an INTJ with Ti in MBTI and a LII in Socionics, or an INTP with a very developed Ni, almost as if it's my dominant function and always has been?


Does the functions match with these, as well?

Block 1 - Ego
1st function - Leading function (your spontaneous first reaction function, you feel well with)
2nd function - Creative Function (used to synthesize what comes from the 1st function into a sellable product)

Block 2 - Super-Ego
3rd function - Role function (your role in society)
4th function - Vulnerable function (Point of Least Resistance, your sensitive function) 

Block 3 - Super ID
5th function - Suggestive function (it's the function you are not good at, but like other people being good at. Subconciously you seek out for information or people using that function. prolonged experience makes you feel good)
6th function - Mobilizing function (is the function that activates you to move, external help here is appreciated but too much help is seen as excessive)

Block 4 - ID Block
7th function - Ignoring function (it is the rival to the base function (1st one) and makes you react with aversion subconciously)
8th function - Demonstrative function (A person uses this element mainly as a kind of game, or to ridicule those who he thinks take it too seriously)

In that case, I'd say you are LII.


----------



## nichya

Before I lose my mind.

Let's check this INFp socionics 

1st function: Ni 

IEIs typically have richly developed mental landscapes. They are highly attuned to trends, patterns, and conceptual connections of past behaviors, experiences, relationships, and their role in the world. They are often highly reflective and imaginative, and the fantastic tendencies of IEIs are often vivid and complex. Many IEIs find an inner calling to express their unique perspectives, and often find ways to make use of a myriad of expressive forms, sometimes including poetry, novels, storytelling, photography, or other media. 

Sounds like any INFP to me...


They can come across as fickle, indecisive and vapid, and their fantasies can be often esoteric; they often may seem idealistic and focused on unrealistic or other-worldly utopias. They also can demonstrate a lack of attentiveness to daily affairs, and sometimes a generally withdrawn, inactive deportment. At the same time, they sometimes can be prophetic, prescient, and profound in their visions, and sometimes reflect a far more rebellious, aggressive, or outspoken demeanor. 

Have you -ever- met an outspoken MBTI INFJ or one that is rebellious, aggressive? 


Also check this conflict?
INFp socionics say:

IEIs are often relatively inactive and indecisive. Many IEIs may be relatively immobile and hesitant to interact with the outside world. IEIs can withdraw from action in many social or working situations, and may come across as inhibited or shy. They may feel as though trapped in their own thoughts and dreams. 

While beta quadra is -decisive- and aggressive( not a word I would use for inactive tendency)

THOUGH

I feel like INFj 4th function (vulnerable) tells the story of my life with this part:
EIIs are typically negligent of their surroundings and have difficulty keeping track of objects or constantly monitoring things and people around them. They can be passive and self-absorbed, often preferring to wait for things to happen rather than make them happen. As such, they tend to have quite a number of lost opportunities. To a certain extent, EIIs can be oblivious to hints from someone who is romantically interested in them. Therefore, this gives the other party the wrong impression that they are not interested in them. 

BUT I also relate to INFp vulnerable one (Te) a lot (although not as much as I would call as story of my life, but maybe story of my academic life)


They may feel threatened and vacillate if pressured into producing critical evaluations of factual information or statistics; they may feel as though they do not know what to do with this type of information, and often prefer to rely on their internal conceptual framework use their understanding of the relevant processes to evaluate a situation. These behaviors can sometimes lead to confusion and lack of clarity, as they may have difficulty clearly explaining and underscoring the information pertinent their ideas. They may seem overly dreamy, lost in their own enterprises, and generally oblivious to the nature of the mundane tasks that surround them.


----------



## nichya

Draki said:


> There is an article about it in wikisocion but I didn't read too much into it. I'll do it later:
> J/P switch - Wikisocion


Okay well so basically yea people just seem to have ideas about a must be switch and equally good deal of opposition to that idea. I wonder why on this forum people have just accepted the conversation though, cause it works for most cases?

from that article
"One argument in favor of this claim is type descriptions. If you ignore the functional ordering and focus on the type descriptions, they say, descriptions of perceiving introverts in MBTI best fit those of irrational introverts in socionics. Based on descriptions, an MBTI INFP could map best to a socionics IEI, or "INFp"."

overall Myers-Briggs Judgement resembles more socionics Rationality, and its Perception more socionics Irrationality, than the other way around, so it makes no sense to say that a rational extroverted socionics type is closer to a judging socionics type, but the other way around for introverts. Types that value extroverted intuition are sometimes described as speculative and open to new opportunities, which may be confused with irrationality.

Empirical data (although the experiment is said to be potentially problematic for reasons)

Dmitri Lytov reports[1] an experiment related to possible mappings between typologies, although it uses Keirsey type descriptions instead of MBTI results. In this experiment, 108 socionists were asked to read all Keirsey type descriptions and rate which Socionics type was being described. Although the main conclusion of the author was that the results simply demonstrated the lack of correlation between the typologies, the table of results could be viewed as mildly supportive of the J/P switch for IN-- Keirsey types, and not at all for IS-- Keirsey types.


Thanks for posting this, it mentions all the points that we have been discussing really so it is funny to look for reasons why the conversation fails when the idea of the conversation itself is problematic. I think the persistence to use same function names while focsing on lumped and mixed concepts is causing all the trouble.

I felt like I was 100% INFp in socionics as well but now I think the conversation or the lack of is totally trash. Even though I seem to be a ton of INFp socionics I think my vulnerable point -as I referred to the story of my life- is also telling something I can't just miss which happens to be in INFj socionics. 

Sigh


----------



## Wolfskralle

Draki said:


> Yes. I also know that I'm LII and not ILI because I see Te as my ignored function. It's strong (3D) but absolutely devalued nd mostly only used when I'm angry or stressed. Also Se in the place of least resistance ist very obvious in me. I think my enneagram type 5w4 4w5 gives me a certain Fi vibe but I'm very sure that I'm actually Ti.
> 
> I always searched good real life example for my 4D Ni, but I'm never sure what Ni actually does. In MBTI they even seem to see images and symbols and so on, I defenitely don't see those. In Socionics it's more about time management sometimes I think, and when you just "get" a topic. Well, I would say that I sometimes have the feeling that I know the answer, for example I'm more or less sure that INTPs also can be INTps, but I never really believe it immediately but am searching for the logical explanation why it is like that. So I guess I'm not fully trusting those hunches. It was interesting that someone in my school said: " You always should believe your first feeling, that's always the right decision, don't think too long about your decision". But I'm very much Ne in that regard. How do you know that it's the right decision and what are with the other possibilities?
> 
> For ILI they definitely have 4D Ti, When I tried to explain the difference between INTJs and INTPs (MBTI) and say, "we INTPs want to understand the "why a system works" and not "what you can do with it" they are like: "yeah but we do that, too, a lot".
> 
> I especially like the Gulenko descrptions and he is an LII (even the same type as me: ). There are also many theorys which are not sure at all (DCNH (developed by Gulenko by the way Gulenko, Viktor - Wikisocion or reinin dichotomies ). I could see that ILI would resist more to learn about them because there is almost no proof that they are right. The sources are in russian and so on. However I like to learn about theories just to learn the theory. It's sometimes dangerous because I don't verify enough if they are actually true. But as soon as I can apply it to my real life, see examples and patterns of it in real life in my observations, if it just fits and makes sense to me, then I tend to accept these theories. I think that's a good example of Ti, subjective logic.
> But I also always have this "I'm not sure if it's true, it could be.."-blahblah attitude. Te is probably searching more for real evidence, proofs or studies and are more self-assured in their statements.
> 
> So I somewhere read that socionics is a very Ti-ish theory. Let me see if I find the source...
> On Waves of Aging and Renewal: Progress Orientation in Combination with Jungian Aspects - Wikisocion
> 
> It's a long article about the left and right dichotomy. (result and process) ILI is process (right) and LII is result (left)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm totally result. I learn about a theory (mostly because I'm curious and want to understand it even if it isn't applyable to the real world) and first will think it is true as long as I see don't see a contradiction. If it makes sense to me I'll accept it. I think ILIs or rather Te perhaps is the other way around. They won't believe something until there is enough evidence.
> 
> So in short you are right that socionics is very Ti-ish (left) ^^


I wrote you a huge bad-ass response 2 days ago, and then my browser crashed oO

OK, let's start again.

Ni is about symbolic images both in Socionics and MBTI, because it is basically how Jung has defined it. I would call these images, hmm, "impressions". This term is perhaps more accurate. If you don't relate to this, Ni is probably your unconscious function (which is correct for an LII). 
The thing is, in MBTI descriptions of functions (including Ni) are vulgarized. Hence all these people who are "Ni doms" because they can "forecast future" or have vivid dreams. Socionics place emphasis on another part of intuition: "recognizing where things head for and from where they come" (I'm paraphrasing Jung). Hence why in Socionics Ni is strongly correlated with time (althought "time" is past as well as future; note that in MBTI Si is the function connected with past, which is why it don't complies with Jung's spirit).
Personally, I relate to this time aspect of Ni. I've always had very personal relation with time; not only it is almost material substance to me, but I can also tell how time works for other people... I remember as a kid I multiplied "elders time" by 4, because I felt that my time flow slower than theirs :x I can't imagine how to "kill time", and now I work as a consultant in various projects; part of my job is to tell people how bussiness models will develop in future. This description is quite appealing also:


> BALZAC is burdened by the slow flow of all possible processes, although himself he does not hurry anywhere and thus makes an impression of sluggish lout. A man of this type can indifferently sit in an armchair, read a captivating book, and then instantly get up, get ready in three-five minutes, and leave the house by the required time.
> 
> Story from real life: Young BALZAC was traveling in a subway car with a female acquaintance. Both of them were engaged in an involving conversation. In retrospect, she said that she was trying to end the conversation when the train came closer to his station, thinking that he will want to make his way to the doors. However, he continued talking. The train stopped, doors opened, people came out, others came in, and only then did he say goodbye and walked out of the car before the doors closed again.


Source. Well, story of my life.
Note, than not everyone who identifies himself as a Balzac has that clear and strong relation with time; another thing is that I can possibly be an LIE either, or even some other type with Te Ni 3+D. I guess functions develop different "sides" in different people, hence why someone identifies more with "time" aspect and another person feel strongest connection with these "images". Either way, I wouldn't concentrate so much on hunches. Everyone have hunches of some sort.

About Te; it is not necessarily "concern about what you can do with things". Basically it is just thinking with use of EXTERNAL structures and references (as opposed to Ti's internal structures). But yeah, external references/structures could mean "things"... hence why Te user is typically portrayed as person who manipulates his surroundings. In reality, Te types often have same interests as Ti types, they just approach them differently, with different methods, and - as a result - are getting different results. To give you an example, my first college major was philosophy. The thing is, that after few years I rejected all epistemological and metaphysical theories and became... pragmatists. "What is usefull is true" was (still is) my philosophy. After that I moved from philosophy to business, lol. Pragmatism is "the pinnacle of Te philosophy", to quote Wikisocion. But fact that I was seriously interested in philosophy would pin me as a Ti valuer in eyes on some people. 
Te is not anti-intellectual though. Note, that Jung listed person such as Darwin as a Te type.

That having said, you are absolutely correct about Te and why it may have problem with Socionics. It's not even that it isn't applicable (I think it is, to some extend). And even if it were unpractical, I can learn for sake of learning, if subject is interesting enough (I see it as usefull then, just cause it makes me happy). But Socionics is pretty much about it's internal structures, without any reference to external sources/systems (without "evidence", as you named it). That is pain in the ass for the Te valuer, cause how could I know if ANY of these is true? Socionics have lots of models, frameworks, sub-systems, dichotomies, etc. But these are not referred to anything apart from... Socionics itself. You can check if it makes sense to you (as you said), but that's it. No way to verify it. It wouldn't be a problem if we were talking about, let's say, some metaphysical system. But Socionics is trying to explain real - life relationships, with real people. 
That's why it could be more appealing to Ti valuers. Because all you have to use to "validate" Socionics is your internal logic. I don't even have "internal logic"; if I speak about logic I refer to formal logic system. And I see all those systems as something apart from myself. With socionics I cannot refer it to anything; Gulenko is not even making statistics about types, because he is leading "humanitarian school of Socionics". 

That being said, it is one thing that saves it: that it actually work 

Damn, I over-answered.

-------------------------------- @Draki
I believe Socionics is Ti-ish not because of it's result - process orientation, but because it is oriented towards it's structures, with little regard of external sources of informations. 
About process - result: I have to admit I need to educate myself. It is one of Socionics intricacies I still have to work on. But if you say it is actually working - why not then.


----------



## Draki

Draki said:


> So in short you are right that socionics is very Ti-ish (left) ^^


well, actually that was a false statement, I wanna correct that^^. Socionics is not Ti-ish, but result-ish. There are result types which are Te users (LIE /SLI/ ESI/IEE)
@_wolf12345_

It probably seems Ti-ish for ILI because they are a process type and Te user. 
So I can imagine that result seems to them like working from the end to the beginning (wrong way), and because it's foreign to them, they probably think that this is one of the Ti-ish things "they are doing it differently, with their own rules"-blahblah, not like it should be in their eyes?!

Interestingly, I witnessed a result versus process fight yesterday. We had group work and a result type started to explain how we could solve the task and was talking about how he sees the end result and the process type was always complaining that the result type is already talking about the end result while we just had begun the exercise. 

To explain it more concrete it was about designing a website. Result type was decribing what a website will need in the end (links which redirect the user to the home site), Process type wanted to start with defining how the design should look like because that was the task, he kept saying that we first have to choose a design. He asked several times if result-type is talking about the design or something else. Result type kept saying that he is talking about the design and that the website will need to redirect the user to specific sites (which was indeed important for the design) and these elements on the website would define the design. 

Actually I think they both were right, they also both kept saying that they don't know where the problem is. The problem was that the result type started to solve the task from the end to the beginning and process type was confused and wanted to begin with the start. There actually was no problem just a huge misunderstanding.
They had a big argument about it for 30 minutes or so... in the end somebody was almost crying and everyone was irritated and depressed. ^^

I found it interesting to observe because I was like "wooow, result versus process in action *.* "
I could understand what the result type was doing because I also work like that. First imagine what the result will look like and then finding a way to implement it. 
I don't know what process types think about it. But the description says they will start to work with a certain method until they reach a result. So I guess they would start to think about the design, colors and whatever, and later also would attack the task with the redirection.

The article even tells me a lot more about it. For example I could see the result type as a concrete result type and the process type as concrete process type, while I'm a general result type. 



> *Left + intuition* = general results (emotivism)
> *Left + sensing* = concrete results (constructivism)
> *Right + intuition* = ideational processes (constructivism)
> *Right + sensing* = concrete processes (emotivism)


On Waves of Aging and Renewal: Progress Orientation in Combination with Jungian Aspects - Wikisocion

So one person was describing the result in a very detailed fashion "the link will be placed here". The other wanted to have a concrete answer about how we will come to a result "How do we start now?". And I am a general result type, I looked at the result but I was more easy-going like "yeah we could do it like this, or this could look like that-blahblah" but I ususally don't decribe something in a concrete fashion, I like to keep my options open^^. 

yea so that happens when a LII, a (probably) SLI and a (probably SEE (I could see the mirage relationship betwen them) or LSE (he is actually quite a busy bee^^ and usually a logical person, but he always needs confirmation for all his conclusions), not sure at all here) work together ^^


----------



## Draki

wolf12345 said:


> But Socionics is pretty much about it's internal structures, without any reference to external sources/systems (without "evidence", as you named it). That is pain in the ass for the Te valuer, cause how could I know if ANY of these is true? Socionics have lots of models, frameworks, sub-systems, dichotomies, etc. But these are not referred to anything apart from... Socionics itself. *You can check if it makes sense to you (as you said), but that's it. No way to verify it.* ( It wouldn't be a problem if we were talking about, let's say, some metaphysical system. But Socionics is trying to explain real - life relationships, with real people.
> That's why it could be more appealing to Ti valuers. Because all you have to use to "validate" Socionics is your internal logic. I don't even have "internal logic"; if I speak about logic I refer to formal logic system. And I see all those systems as something apart from myself. *With socionics I cannot refer it to anything* (why don't you compare it with your everyday life? If you can explain the situation with socionics there is obviously some truth in the theory^^); Gulenko is not even making statistics about types, because he is leading "humanitarian school of Socionics".


I know it's true that Te users think this way but my perspective is quiet different. 

I often mistrust external sources because I don't know if they are right, I didn't make them myself. Even if you have a study or statistics, how do you know they are correct? It's made by humans and humans make mistakes, sometimes on purpose. Actually I think we can never be sure of something. But the things I'm the most sure of are my own observations. Of course I also know that my perception could be flawed. I learned from MBTI that I see the world through a Ti lense and miss all the other point of views. I guess that's why Ti users are usually not so assertive or confident, it's always a "nothing is sure"-approach.

If I learn about a theory which says that all trees have blue leaves and I go out and see that leaves can also have another color, then I know that it is not true. However it could be true that some trees have blue leaves, I just never saw them. 
If I hear from people that god exist, I will search him. I perhaps don't find him and conclude that it doesn't seem to be true. However he could exist, I just haven't found him yet. 
I learn that there is a mirror relationship between LII and ILE. First I have to make sure that I'm LII after theory, then I have to find an ILE, then I can check what happens and if that matches with the theory. Then I can say if I think it's true or not, and of course we shouldn't forget that it could nevertheless be different for other LIIs. 

Back to the process-result dichotomy.
Fact is for me, that I saw something in real life and I know a theory which could explain exactly what I witnessed. So the theory makes sense to me, I'm not saying socionics is 100% truth, certainly not, but it is at least an explanation. I'll get sceptical if something wouldn't fit but as long as everything fits I'm okay with it. 

So I build my inner framework like this and check constantly if everything is fitting. And if it doesn't I want to make it fit or find an explanation why it doesn't work. 

The Ni thing is interesting thanks for posting your point of view. 
Funny that we wrote our posts almost at the same time


----------



## nichya

Draki said:


> I know it's true that Te users think this way but my perspective is quiet different.
> 
> I often mistrust external sources because I don't know if they are right, I didn't make them myself. Even if you have a study or statistics, how do you know they are correct? It's made by humans and humans make mistakes, sometimes on purpose. Actually I think we can never be sure of something. But the things I'm the most sure of are my own observations. Of course I also know that my perception could be flawed. I learned from MBTI that I see the world through a Ti lense and miss all the other point of views. I guess that's why Ti users are usually not so assertive or confident, it's always a "nothing is sure"-approach.
> 
> If I learn about a theory which says that all trees have blue leaves and I go out and see that leaves can also have another color, then I know that it is not true. However it could be true that some trees have blue leaves, I just never saw them.
> If I hear from people that god exist, I will search him. I perhaps don't find him and conclude that it doesn't seem to be true. However he could exist, I just haven't found him yet.
> I learn that there is a mirror relationship between LII and ILE. First I have to make sure that I'm LII after theory, then I have to find an ILE, then I can check what happens and if that matches with the theory. Then I can say if I think it's true or not, and of course we shouldn't forget that it could nevertheless be different for other LIIs.
> 
> Back to the process-result dichotomy.
> Fact is for me, that I saw something in real life and I know a theory which could explain exactly what I witnessed. So the theory makes sense to me, I'm not saying socionics is 100% truth, certainly not, but it is at least an explanation. I'll get sceptical if something wouldn't fit but as long as everything fits I'm okay with it.
> 
> So I build my inner framework like this and check constantly if everything is fitting. And if it doesn't I want to make it fit or find an explanation why it doesn't work.
> 
> The Ni thing is interesting thanks for posting your point of view.
> Funny that we wrote our posts almost at the same time


I'll get sceptical if something wouldn't fit - this is exactly how I feel about the j/p switch.


----------



## TTIOTBSAL

INTJ - LII here. 
MBTI cognitive functions Ni Ne Ti Te Fe/Fi Se Si 

I read both profiles LII and ILI, and I find myself in both, and totally not myself in both, the spirit of contradiction :kitteh: 
I also find common points in the EII profile, like in the INFJ MBTI. A bit in the INTP MBTI. 
But it's always to some extent whatever the profile. 

There could be a beginning of explanation following the cognitive functions put above. It doesn't give a clear answer though. Does it ever? 

My conviction is that odd or not, the combo the closest to both reality and conceptual truth is that INTJ LII works for it seems, and that one being isn't a system or functions. No one I've known has their functions “in the right order“ to fit a type, and I find the idea super relaxing.


----------

