# INTPs: What's your Socionics Type?



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

Interesting, I got ILE with ILI second.

I thought it was LII all along...


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

*I'm positive that I'm an ILI. And alas...
-----


Test Results*

*Your Sociotype: ILI-0 (INTp)*

*Brief Description of the ILI*

Using introverted intuition as his base function and extroverted thinking as his creative, the ILI is capable of deep and vivid imagery as well as the ability to analyze the correctness of conclusions. In fact, the ILI is excellent at critiquing everything from someone's statements and conclusions to the food he eats. They have an inherent understanding of the weak points in any argument, and they are particularly adept at identifying both empirical weaknesses and logical inconsistencies. As paradoxical as it might sound, the ILI has both the ability to foresee future trends and events, while at the same time refusing to make any assumptions that lack a thorough empirical backing. At his best, the ILI will act as a very useful advisor, pointing out weaknesses and flaws that he sees, while also making suggestions for improvements. At his worst, the ILI's penchant for deep and secluded thoughts, coupled with his refusal to sacrifice truth and accuracy in favor of diplomacy, can result in leaving him socially isolated. Learn more about the ILI here!


----

Before anyone asks me how I can be an INTP _and_ an INTp in socionics, thinking that I have to be an INTj or INTJ in one of the systems, nope. 
And nope, to all of you who think that an MBTI type is just translated into socionics in some straightforward way. 
The definitions of the functions are different. 

http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm



Charles Darwin was an INTP, and an INTp.


----------



## gorilladiver (Apr 14, 2011)

ILIYour resultILEThese types might also be consideredSLI SLE 


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ILI or LII, can't remember which one is INTj but that one.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Navi said:


> *I'm positive that I'm an ILI. And alas...
> -----
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure the subjectivity of the tests makes them as void as the MBTI ones, did you study the cognitive functions instead?All of them as listed by them? 

To me they fairly correlate with MBTI, they really seem like the same. I'm struggling to see how others don't see that, but I guess everyone seems to perceive whatever their want with this psuedo science stuff. I fit perfectly into INTJ and INTp, to me the functions descriptions seem to correlate, but that is just me I guess. 

_ I don't really mean to say perfectly since socionics' visual typing elements seem dubious to me personally._


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Muser said:


> Interesting, I got ILE with ILI second.
> 
> I thought it was LII all along...





Navi said:


> ..


Introverted logic - Wikisocion
Try this site, I think its the best one out there for socionics, I really like how they describe the functions there.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

kingdavidANC said:


> "ILIs are often uncertain about the messages they receive from their bodies. An ILI might feel some irregularity in their own body and not realize its significance to the overall functioning of the body. An ILI will often try to determine the consequence of such symptoms through their own understanding of anatomy (or 'google it'), often blowing things out of proportion. An ILI's sense of self doubt may lead to such assumptions as the presence of a brain tumor as the result of a mere headache."
> 
> Story of my life.


It makes sense since being an ENTP, you suppress Si also, whilst for us INTJs its pretty accurate too since we suppress Se so much. It means we get the worst of both worlds with both characteristics of sensing in general. For ISTPs and ESTPs, Si is seen as being largely stupid due to their overall proficiency with Se.


----------



## jono (May 29, 2012)

Iamtp said:


> I got IEI - INFP
> 
> With other likely possibilities:
> ILI - INTP
> ...


Haha, yeh i got ENFP :/

IEE - ENFP

Other considerations 

ILE - ENTP
IEI - INFP
ILI - INTP


----------



## tberg (Feb 11, 2012)

My junk food binge has made me less sensitive to my interior reality, that is, basically more stupid. This slothfulness has made it more difficult for me to take the test with sufficient confidence. Does this happen to anyone else?


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm sure the subjectivity of the tests makes them as void as the MBTI ones, did you study the cognitive functions instead?All of them as listed by them?


Yes, fairly positive. Hence why I said so.
While I could, personally, _possibly _be an INTj, from the books I have read, I conclude that I am more likely to be an INTp. Being an INTj is unlikely, though very slightly possible.




Boolean11 said:


> To me they fairly correlate with MBTI, they really seem like the same. I'm struggling to see how others don't see that, but I guess everyone seems to perceive whatever their want with this psuedo science stuff. I fit perfectly into INTJ and INTp, to me the functions descriptions seem to correlate, but that is just me I guess.
> 
> _ I don't really mean to say perfectly since socionics' visual typing elements seem dubious to me personally_.


Please elaborate on how exactly does socionics correlate with MBTI?
Quote sources if you can, please.


----------



## Ezmchill (Aug 13, 2012)

ILE (ENTP) Your result

ILI (INTP) These types might also be considered
IEE (ENFP)
SLE (ESTP)


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Introverted logic - Wikisocion
> Try this site, I think its the best one out there for socionics, I really like how they describe the functions there.


Interesting.
Thank you for posting this. 

Though, honestly, like the books I've read, I still find myself slightly conflicted, but lean more towards INTp. For the time being, at least. 

I do not suppose I meant _positively_ in the sense of "I am 100% sure", per se, but more of a "lukewarm" _positive_. 



Though, they still do not *exactly *correlate perfectly in a straightforward way.


----------



## Anonynony (Jun 24, 2012)

ILI(INTp)Your resultILE(ENTp)These types might also be consideredIEI(INFp) LII(INTj) SLI(ISTp)These types are not very likely IEE(ENFp) LIE(ENTj) SLE(ESTp) EII(INFj)These types are quite unlikely SEI(ISFp) LSI(ISTj) EIE(ENFj) SEE(ESFp)these types are extremely unlikely LSE(ESTj) ESI(ISFj) ESE(ESFj) 


----------



## ThePerfectFit (Oct 19, 2011)

LII is what I got, too. 

ILI, LIE, and ILE were my other possibilities. Havn't read the descriptions yet, we'll see.


----------



## Ablysmal (Mar 17, 2012)

I got ILI.


----------



## gammagon (Aug 8, 2012)

*Test results*


ILIYour result (INTp)
SLIThese types might also be consideredILE IEI LIIThese types are not very likelySLE SEI IEE LSIThese types are quite unlikelyLIE EII SEE LSEthese types are extremely unlikelyESI EIE ESE 

Good, good.


----------



## Polymaniac (Apr 8, 2012)

*Test results*


ILIYour resultLIIThese types might also be consideredILE LIE SLIThese types are not very likelyIEI LSI EII SLEThese types are quite unlikelyIEE EIE LSE SEIthese types are extremely unlikelyESI SEE ESE
 


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Finally, a thread on Socionics (my preferred system).

Try to avoid Model A and look up Model J first. Model J is much easier to understand and simpler for someone new to the subject.


Two things you need to know when you are first learning about Socionics:



1. *Socionics is more in line with Jung than MBTI.* - _In order to derive your four-letter type code, MBTI typology focuses on the auxiliary function of introverts, and the dominant function of extraverts. By doing this, it (in my opinion) puts far too much emphasis on the (often poorly developed) extraverted auxiliary function of introverts as definitive of their behavior. My theory is that it does this to market itself to a largely extraverted society. To cleverly obfuscate this, MBTI declares that about half of people are introverts - a theory that Carl Jung himself denounced profusely, claiming - and I quote, "Westerners are extraverted to all hell!" Socionics, on the other-hand, derives your four-letter type code based on the dominant function only. If it is rational, then you are a J. If it is a perceiving one, then you are a P. Again, I find this to be far more accurate and far less confusing, especially for introverts who will more easily identify with their dominant function than their weaker auxiliary function._

2. *The way Socionics describes the cognitive functions is much more accurate and closer to the way Jung himself describes them in his book, Psychological Types.* - _This means that the type descriptions and profiles given for each of the 16 types within the Socionics paradigm are "truer" to Jung, in the sense that they do not bend or manipulate the actual Jungian descriptions themselves to mean anything other than what Jung intended them to mean._

Socionics does have it's flaws, as do most typology systems. For example, unfortunately Socionics buys into the concept that a person's personality type has a relationship with their physical appearance. This has spawned what is called the "V.I. System" - the "visual identification system" that can supposedly allow you to determine a person's type merely by their facial structure, body structure, posture, mannerisms, style of dress, tone of voice, etc, etc. Personally, I don't agree with this, so if you are willing to overlook this blunder (which I think you should) then Socionics is still more accurate than MBTI.

Finally, I want to address the fact that many of you who have already been brainwashed by MBTI into believing that you use Ti as a dominant function, and base that conclusion purely off of the fact that you identify with the MBTI "INTP" type description, need to get over that belief and let it go. The MBTI type descriptions for all introverted types are misleading because they do not give enough emphasis to the dominant function.* Many of you here are probably NOT Ti users, but are, in fact, Ni users - or possibly even Fi users, which is precisely why many of you in this thread are getting "ILI" as your sociotype.

*As I already stated, type descriptions in MBTI focus too much on the auxiliary function of introverts, and thus the "P-ness" attitude of MBTI INTPs is based on the weaker auxiliary function, which _in reality_ is usually poorly developed, because *most people do not live an ideal childhood in which they get all the nurturing they need, and thus fail to develop their auxiliary function properly. Sadly, the real world is more bleak than the ideal world in which MBTI might actually make sense, and this is yet another reason why Socionics prevails in my opinion.
*
What we end up getting with strong Ti users is a person who is actually a _judgment type_ who prefers _logic, order, and structure_ and finds it _difficult to let go of their need for everything to be logical and precise_ - whereas it is the _easy-goind, prone to fantasy, aloof and imaginative Ni user who is the true "P" type_. Really stop and take the time to understand why this makes more sense than MBTI. In reality, let us assume you are an easy-going, aloof, haphazard, unstructured person who's dominant function is a perceiving one. Naturally, you resist developing a judging structure and rational commitment because you _most prefer your irrational dominant function_ - this is why in the two years I have spent immersed in Jungian psychology I have seen _countless MBTI INTJs claiming to be lazy, late, messy, unstructured, and wondering if they are actually INTPs._

The fact is that the two systems clash and just don't cross-over at all. If you want to look into your Socionics type, you need to be prepared to start all over from the beginning - and this is much easier to do if you just understand that _both MBTI and Socionics are almost entirely based on the work espoused by Carl Jung in his book Psychological Types._ While Socionics and MBTI both include work from other contributors, it is the work by Jung that forms the core of both systems. So, if you go back to the basics _throw out both MBTI and Socionics for a while and just become completely familiar with Jung, and Jung alone,_ you will be in the proper mindset to absorb both MBTI and Socionics, and decide for yourself which one you feel is the most practical, most accurate, and easier to grasp.


----------



## TogetherAgain (Oct 15, 2011)

*Test results*

IEI - INFp
EII - INFj
ILI - INTp
LII - INTj


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I am highly, _highly _doubtful that most of the "INTP" here are both true MBTI INTP (by function) and socionics ILI. 

The reason for this is that many of the tests measure aptitude for individual functions, which is independent of functional role. In socionics, cognitive functions are called _informational elements_ (IE), and the functions within the hierarchy are called, simply, _functions_. Basically, each person has the same set of functions, but different IE patterns in each function, which defines their type. This makes the theory more about role, therefore, than pure strength - in fact, for both ILI and LII, Te and Ti as well as Ne and Ni are of very level strengths - but are used in very different ways. As you might imagine, then, online tests that give you a "proficiency" rating are not really giving you what you need to determine your type. You need to examine your functional roles - the way energy is metabolized within your functional set - as opposed to your functional proficiencies alone. 

If you are an MBTI INTP for sure, you are very likely a socionics LII. If you test as an INTP in MBTI but an ILI in socionics, one your types is probably a mistype, and the mismatched metrics of the tests could very well be the reason why.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

INTj/LII is the socionics Ti-dominant type. I would expect most MBTI INTPs to be soconics INTjs/LIIs. LII is short for Logical Intuitive Introvert: *INTj-LII profiles*. 

ILI (Intuitive Logical Introvert) or INTp is Ni-dominant and Te-creative type in socionics: *INTp-ILI profiles*. This most closely corresponds to MBTI's INTJ type. And ILE type is basically ENTP.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Haha uh oh I went back to the INTJ side.


ILIYour result
ILEThese types might also be consideredIEI LII 

ILI = INTp ... which from my understanding is an INTJ

ILE = ENTp
IEI = INFp
LII = INTj


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

INTJ the DC said:


> Haha uh oh I went back to the INTJ side.
> 
> 
> ILIYour resultILEThese types might also be consideredIEI LII 
> ...


Did you read the functions for both?
Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion
Logical Intuitive Introtim - Wikisocion


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Did you read the functions for both?
> Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion
> Logical Intuitive Introtim - Wikisocion


Yeah, many times  I am pretty comfortable with the idea that I'm an INTP but there was a time when I was comfortable I was an INTJ haha. A couple things are clear to me: Obviously a T over a F, obviously a I over an E, obviously an N over an S. P over J was primarily due to: being a procrastinator and enjoying my free time as opposed to feeling like i need to get stuff done right away. 

In terms of cognitive functions... I'd say my primary mode is Thinking and I'd say it's mainly busy worrying about things that could happen or getting excited about things that could happen.. much of my time on PerC was initially spent looking at the past and analyzing how things could be improved. I think the reason I got essentially the INTJ is that when it comes to work I don't really find myself getting tons of enjoyment from being in a work environment that is totally chaotic and I actually prefer a loose structure. I appreciate a flexible system and I don't necessarily initially want to re-write the book... perhaps when I feel comfortable enough I would. However I do get annoyed by too much structure and rules.

For instance right now I am in a coaching program that has a very good system and a very good explanation of the components included in the system. If their explanation suffices then I see no need to change anything and will do as they say. If their answers are obscure that indicates that they don't really know why they do what they do either and I might tinker with it to see what results I could get. But overall the reason I joined the coaching program was because I wanted that structure and didn't want to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

This particular test said I was SEE (ESFp). Interesting. I've never gotten this before.


----------



## Mamaoftwo (Apr 18, 2012)

I tested ILI.


----------



## GnothiSeauton (Sep 11, 2011)

I think much of what @Abraxas and the others explained here is very accurate, and also the reason why I don't believe in the MBTI system anymore. After studying Socionics for a while, I found an incredible number of concepts that I was intuitively aware of, but simply fail to find a correspondance in MBTI. You just need a quick glance to tell that my Ne, although a creative function, works pretty weirdly and often only responds to conscious effort (I'm LII).

The traditional MBTI J/P switch is very confused, because it merely points out how _externally _organized you are, i.e., to which extent you are prone to organizing the external world. As an INTj, I organize stuff very rarely and tend to conceive it as a mostly boring/useless task. Instead, my thoughts and ideas on the world are logically arranged to an outstanding degree. This whole aspect seems to vary a lot between different introverted types: ESIs, for example, are maniacal.

---

But that's enough on the technical aspect. I'd just like to say how much I hate being an LII... that implies my dual is ESFj, which in short means I'm gonna end up in a conventional and maniacally ordered suburban neighbourhood, with an averagely retributed office job, feeling an unjustified love towards anything blood-related to me, lying around in a catatonic state of boredom and shit self-esteem about what I've become and who I've married... or rather, what I've always been. Many descriptions also seem to imply that my imagination, _if _present, will only ever be devoted to witty/semi-formal conversations and dauntingly boring essays I don't feel like writing.

Damn, for dignity's sake, I'm glad I've never experienced duality in my life.


----------



## enmity (Jul 14, 2012)

ILI - INTp

Next highest:
ILE - ENTp
IEI - INFp
LII - INTj


I never did understand why the last letter is lowercase though...


----------



## BeBe (Mar 5, 2012)

Test results
ILIYour resultILEThese types might also be consideredIEI IEE LIIThese types are not very likelyLIE SLI SLE EIIThese types are quite unlikelyEIE SEI SEE LSIthese types are extremely unlikelyLSE ESI ESE

 


----------



## tberg (Feb 11, 2012)

Logical Intuitive Introtim - Wikisocion

This is really like reading an outline of my life.

_Socionics: Not weird, just weirdly accurate._


----------



## Valiums (Aug 29, 2010)

ILI, as well as ILE, IEI, and SLI.







> Logical Intuitive Introtim - Wikisocion


*This is creepy.*


----------



## RachelAn (Jun 26, 2011)

Your result

LII - INTj


These types might also be considered



LIE - ENTj
ILI - INTp LSI - ISTj 


----------



## bales33 (Aug 8, 2012)

*Test results*


ILIYour resultILEThese types might also be consideredLII SLI IEIThese types are not very likelyLIE SLE IEE LSIThese types are quite unlikelyEII SEI LSE EIEthese types are extremely unlikelySEE ESI ESE 


The first one is rather accurate in my subjective opinion.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

FacelessBeauty said:


> This particular test said I was SEE (ESFp). Interesting. I've never gotten this before.


----------



## NT the DC (May 31, 2012)

I feel like this thread is just not informative enough without:  @Faklubrejle


----------



## Polymaniac (Apr 8, 2012)

Also, there are subtypes (two for each type, making a total of 32). These are determined on the basis of the preference that one puts emphasis on.

For example, an EIE (ENFj) could either be of the ethical or intuitive subtype. I myself am an ILI (INTp) intuitive subtype, which is labeled "The Philosopher." In contrast to the ILI intuitive subtype, the logical subtype may behave more like the LIE (ENTj).


----------



## ToriKago (Nov 29, 2011)

I tested as ILI but LII was a close second. I looked at both descriptions and LII fits so much better.


----------



## Bazinga187 (Aug 7, 2011)

I got SEE :frustrating: 

It said ILI is a type to consider though and I've tested as ILI before.


----------



## 37119 (Apr 11, 2012)

I got ILI.


----------



## FillInTheBlank (Dec 24, 2011)

LIIYour resultILIThese types might also be consideredLIE ILE 


Not bad. I see LII and ILI descibing me both pretty well.


----------

