# Are you an INTp in socionics



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Are you an INTp (ili) in socionics?


----------



## Kim Ward (Aug 18, 2012)

If you haven't taken the test, you can find one here:
Socionics Tests


----------



## Mmmm (Jul 6, 2012)

I'm INTJ=MBTI & (LIE) ENTj= Socionics

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LIE-ENTj/#Description-of-LIEs-Model-A


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm ILI. All the tests I did put me either ILI or LII. I thought I was LII there for a while. It wasn't until I looked into it a bit further that I realised I was ILI. It was the same for INTP/INTJ when I first started looking into MBTI (I'm relatively close on the P/J). I think it's because I'm surrounded by INTPs in my family, I adapt so much I sometimes forget I'm me.


----------



## Immemorial (May 16, 2010)

Yes.
-------


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

I'm not sure. The socionics test can't make up it's mind about me, I invariably end up having to answer the 'decider' question, but both options make sense. On the other hand, the socionics INTp profile sounds a lot like me and the INTj doesn't really, except for a few passages.

edit to add: strangely enough I never get INTP in MBTI, although I wish I was more INTP-ish. Sometimes I get ISTJ and on cognitive functions I sometimes get ENTJ.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

FlaviaGemina said:


> I'm not sure. The socionics test can't make up it's mind about me, I invariably end up having to answer the 'decider' question, but both options make sense. On the other hand, the socionics INTp profile sounds a lot like me and the INTj doesn't really, except for a few passages.
> 
> edit to add: strangely enough I never get INTP in MBTI, although I wish I was more INTP-ish. Sometimes I get ISTJ and on cognitive functions I sometimes get ENTJ.


I never trusted the tests in general, without trying to understand the underlining philosophies. And since realizing that the tests are more like a heuristic short cut to your actual type it makes sense to assume that you are likely an INTp (ili).

Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion
This site is the best one for it, socionics.com is just horrendous.


----------



## greco (Jul 10, 2010)

yep


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

*Test Results*

*Your Sociotype: LIE-1Te (ENTj)*

*Brief Description of the LIE*

Using extroverted thinking as his base function and introverted intuition as his creative, the LIE has an amazing ability at not only predicting future trends, but also understanding what is necessary to make these future trends profitable. The LIE has an innate understanding of the most valuable use of capital and labor, and has the energy and drive to align these tools to achieving his goals. The LIE easily assesses the validity and usefulness of any information he happens to run across. Like the EIE, the LIE has great leadership potential, but unlike the EIE, the LIE is less concerned with the effects of his decisions on people's relationships or emotions, and more concerned with the impersonal results. At his best, the LIE is a visionary leader who understands the the big picture as well as the risks and rewards of every decision. At his worst, the LIE can become so focused on the future and the bottom line that he loses touch with the present and his personal relationships. Additionally, the LIE can be so focused on achieving his external goals that he forgets to take care of his own personal needs. Learn more about the LIE here!*Other Possible Types*



ILI (INTp): 99% as likely as LIE.
LII (INTj): 72% as likely as LIE.
SLI (ISTp): 51% as likely as LIE.
*Sociotype Characteristics*


Small GroupsFirst Tier DichotomiesSecond Tier DichotomiesThird Tier DichotomiesFourth Tier Dichotomies

Quadra: Gamma
Club: Researcher
Temperament: EJ
Romance Styles:
Primary: Victim
Secondary: Caregiver



Extrovert
Intuitive
Logical
Rational (Judging)


Dynamic
Yielding
Democratic
Strategic
Emotivist
Carefree


Serious
Decisive
Positivist
Result


Declaring



*Model A Function Strengths and Values*


YouIdeal DualFunctionInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative Value

Leading
Creative
Role
Vulnerable

Suggestive
Mobilizing
Ignoring
Demonstrative
Te
Ni
Fe
Si

Fi
Se
Ti
Ne40%
35%
10%
15%

10%
15%
40%
35%40%
35%
10%
15%

40%
35%
10%
15%Fi
Se
Ti
Ne

Te
Ni
Fe
Si40%
35%
10%
15%

10%
15%
40%
35%40%
35%
10%
15%

40%
35%
10%
15%


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Cetanu said:


> *Test Results*
> 
> *Your Sociotype: LIE-1Te (ENTj)*
> 
> ...


What? It says you are extroverted? You tackle problems by laying out the facts first then perceiving afterwards with Ni?


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> What? It says you are extroverted? You tackle problems by laying out the facts first then perceiving afterwards with Ni?


I have zero faith in the accuracy of these tests.

I'm 99% sure I have inferior Se in MBTI.
I don't know how that transfers with Socionics.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Cetanu said:


> I have zero faith in the accuracy of these tests.
> 
> I'm 99% sure I have inferior Se in MBTI.
> I don't know how that transfers with Socionics.


So ILI rings for isn't it. Out of interest, what's your common social role among these?
I can easily fit all of them when I want to.


> *Common social roles*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> So ILI rings for isn't it. Out of interest, what's your common social role among these?
> I can easily fit all of them when I want to.
> 
> Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion


I can also fit into all of them.

I would like to say "A combination of all with some of the weaknesses removed."

In order of how common each one occurs(most to least):
4.
1.
3.
2.

But I would say I am at least one of them every single day.


----------



## KittyKraz13 (Jan 3, 2012)

I just took the test and got ILI. ENTj, INTj, and ENTp were the second, third, and fourth possibilities.


----------



## that (May 22, 2012)

This description is exactly why I always thought I was an INTP, but the MBTI kept saying I was an INTJ.


----------



## Ford Prefect (Jul 25, 2012)

The test put me as INTp with ENTp being 88% as likely, the later part doesn't really seem right to me but I could just be interpreting it wrong. What is socionics supposed to determine? That's never been explained to me.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

The jargon is confusing. INTp in Socionics is not the same as an INTP in MBTI. The functions are different.

In MBTI, the last letter indicates whether or not your *strongest extraverted function* is a perceiving or a judging function.

In Socionics, the last letter indicates whether or not your *dominant function* is a perceiving or a judging function.

Socionics is based on Jungian function typology just like MBTI. The only difference is that Socionics doesn't put as much emphasis on the extraverted auxiliary function with introverts. Thus, the portrait of "INTJs" that we get from Socionics ("ILI" or "INTp") is quite different from the one MBTI gives.

The MBTI one puts way too much emphasis on the Te auxiliary function, and you get this description of Ni-doms as being very structured and organized, either by Fe or Te (INxJ). This is only in some magical fantasy land where everyone has strongly developed auxiliary functions. In _reality_ Ni-doms would be the complete opposite - _messy, disorganized perceivers, because *perception is their dominant function and dominant mode of being*_.

The two models are not reconcilable with each other. Socionics emphasizes the dominant function as being what truly defines a "type", along with the "vulnerable" and "suggestive" functions. So, for Ni-Te types, it goes Ni-Te-Fe-Se. The reason why Fe is listed instead of Fi (even though Fi is preferred) is because it is more important to look at Fe, and because how a Ni-Te type uses Fe is going to be more definitive of that type, making it more obvious and easier to spot.

Essentially what this is trying to model and explain is that Ni is the dominant "ego" of the individual, their most actualized function, the heirarchial "master" function, the lens through which all else is seen and processed. Ni is the "core program" - and Te is the "program execution." This does suggest that the extraverted auxiliary function is important to analyze when trying to understand an introvert's preferred way of expressing themself - but it is not definitive of the type itself. Thus, Ni-doms are not "judging types" as MBTI would put them. Ni is a perceiving function, so Ni-doms are perceiving types first-and-foremost.


----------



## carlaviii (Jul 25, 2012)

LII - 1Ti INTj. 75% chance of being and ENTp, 73% for ISTj. Interesting.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_LXPilot_ _Abraxas_ 
What about the judgement function differences between the two systems?

I've noticed that within MBTI, "Te", is stereotyped as the get things done function. Bulldoze and make everything work according to objective reasoning. Whilst "Ti" is seen as the focused function that is less interested in results but simply pursuing its own endeavors. And contrary, with the sensing functions, MBTI has "Si" stereotyped as the dogmatic/traditionalist (compare to the past) function, get things done according to known and practiced methods; whilst, "Se", the more adventuresome function is taking things as they are, being in touch with the immediate sensations.

On the contrary socionics has things differently, the sensing functions, are actually the get things done functions, with Se assuming MBTI, "Te"'s, aggressive nature. Whilst "Si" gets the more focused nature that could be attributed to MBTI "Ti" a bit. It just seems as if the evaluation, rational functions, are not even seen as the get things done functions at all. They are just evaluative functions. 



> *Si vs. Ni: a focus on one's environment and how it's affecting one's physical state vs. a focus on a situation's development over time and other underlying meanings
> 
> Se vs. Ne: active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects vs. active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations
> 
> ...


----------



## Verthani (May 8, 2012)

I've never really taken a Socionics test in before so I took it now and got INTp. I guess it sounds like me, at least as much as the MBTI INTJ sounds like me.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Statics and dynamics - Wikisocion

In Socionics static-types are Ps in MBTI and dynamics are Js.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> _LXPilot_ _Abraxas_
> What about the judgement function differences between the two systems?
> 
> I've noticed that within MBTI, "Te", is stereotyped as the get things done function. Bulldoze and make everything work according to objective reasoning. Whilst "Ti" is seen as the focused function that is less interested in results but simply pursuing its own endeavors. And contrary, with the sensing functions, MBTI has "Si" stereotyped as the dogmatic/traditionalist (compare to the past) function, get things done according to known and practiced methods; whilst, "Se", the more adventuresome function is taking things as they are, being in touch with the immediate sensations.
> ...


As I understand it, Carl Jung is saying that Te is a decision making process that generates choices entirely based upon either generally accepted ideas - that is to say, prevailing wisdom and (if you are familiar with this concept from his Red Book) the Zeitgeist, or "Spirit of the Times." Being an extraverted thought process, it is entirely dependent upon objective sources for making decisions and thus "borrows" from existing methods, facts, models, and assumptions. In essence, Te just "mirrors" or "regurgitates" whatever information is already present within a society or culture, much in the same way that Fe simply borrows and adopts whatever ethical standards are already there in order to function.

Ti is entirely the opposite. Conclusions are generated based upon subjective principles that develop out of the subconscious of the individual, and thus have no basis within prevailing wisdom and generally accepted ideas. If they come to resemble anything generic, it is entirely by way of semantic convention, but their nature is in fact completely abstract and highly theoretical. Thus, Ti dominant types largely reject outside sources of information in favor of their own subjective opinions, and will avoid giving a generic answer as much as possible, feeling compelled to produce something subjective with every decision they make. Their language is subjective, reflecting that their way of thinking is personal and rejecting anything but a personal standard. Like Fi, they are concerned with how an idea sounds to them - not how it sounds to you. Insofar as they care whether or not you comprehend them, it is only because it appeals to them subjectively that you understand them, but they will not want to modify their opinion in the slightest to make it appealing to conventions and wisdom that they do not personally agree with.

So, as I understand it, Ti is not really _merely_ a "focus on precision" and nor is Te _merely_ "based on an objective standard." Socionics Ti does sound more accurate to Jung with the "impersonal logic" description, but that is very vague and I wouldn't use that alone to explain it to someone. With Te, I would not tell someone that it is just "objective" - I would explain it by comparing it to Fe, because the two are essentially just the same thing with a different standard - one is ethical, the other logical - but, both are based upon the reactions of other people. For example, Fe learns that when you say X, you get Y emotional response from somebody, thus, if Fe user wants to get Y, they will say X. This decision is made empathically, but it is rational, you see? Whereas with Te, the decision is made logically, but it follows a similar rationalization - Do X -> Y happens -> Y is needed -> so I will do X.

As far as Si and Se goes, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Socionics and MBTI both do a good job interpreting Jung's work with regard to those functions - but, I do agree with you about Ti and Te, and I think Socionics may be the lesser of evils with respect to those interpretations.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

@Boolean11 and everyone else interested in the functions between the two theories:

Here's a bit of a study I did on the comparisons, from here and here: 


Augusta/Gulenko MBTI 











Te​

How, what, when, and where of events 
External activity and its rationale/functionality/usefulness 
Factual accuracy and consistency as demonstrated  


Te​

Planning, scheduling, and organizing 
Efficiency and productivity 
Reasonable conclusions based on external facts 
Urges one to follow someone else’s logic, sequence, order 


I'd say these two are _very_ similar. 

I'm not ready to say that the sensing functions in Model A are more about action, though I can see why this could be interpreted given the descriptions. I find that the descriptions of a function typically describe the _end results _or _observations to be made _as output from the function - not the use of the function itself. Mostly because perceiving is information gathering - visible in what the person does, but not in entirety what the person does - and it would be very difficult to describe such abstract mental processes without SOME sort of simple thing to look for. 

So, for example, I tend to find an Se dominant, yes, perceiving the world the way Se is described, but acting on it a different way, based on what their Creative is. In other words, I see these descriptions as going a bit beyond the discreteness of each function itself. They include the way the function looks, as well as a very broad description of what follows. This only seems to be the case with the descriptions of the perceiving functions.


----------



## HippoHunter94 (Jan 19, 2012)

Test ResultsYour Sociotype: LII-1Ti (INTj)Brief Description of the LIIUsing introverted thinking as his base function and extroverted intuition as his creative, the LII is adept at creating a concept of reality through the synthesis and application of preformulated principles and rules. When formulating new principles, the LII methodically analyzes new information, taking the salient aspects and discarding the extraneous. Staying within the boundaries of his principles, the LII is capable of generating new ideas and possibilities of how the world could work. At its best, this ability gives the LII an aura of confidence and insightfulness into areas of abstraction and possibility that many other types don't have; at its worst, this ability may lead the LII to possibilities so impractical or unreachable that he is perceived as others to be out of touch with reality. Additionally, the LIIs inclination for deep isolated thoughts often leaves him disconnected from societal interaction--as if he is constantly an observer but never a participant. Learn more about the LII here!Other Possible Types

LIE (ENTj): 99% as likely as LII.
ILI (INTp): 97% as likely as LII.
LSI (ISTj): 74% as likely as LII.
Sociotype Characteristics
Small GroupsFirst Tier DichotomiesSecond Tier DichotomiesThird Tier DichotomiesFourth Tier Dichotomies

Quadra: Alpha
Club: Researcher
Temperament: IJ
Romance Styles:
Primary: Infantile
Secondary: Aggressor



Introvert
Intuitive
Logical
Rational (Judging)


Static
Obstinate
Democratic
Strategic
Emotivist
Farsighted


Merry
Judicious
Negativist
Result


Asking


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_LXPilot_

I totally see your point about the sensing action conflict, its as if amassing information based on what is actually there and then producing an "action" that is some how related to the "present"/sensed data can be somewhat confusing. I mean if the action produced bears "no relationship" (absolutely none*) to observable reality/"sensed information" then it becomes something beyond idiotic.

*Basing "action" based on what is not there is a bit hard to describe since it seems as if it can never occur. Though at the same time what stops such decisions from ever becoming 100% absent from sensation is when intuition is involved providing an insight that can be beyond what is there? This is a bit hard to describe this image but I hope you guys get the point that they (actions) are related and, at times to a vague point, based on what is sensed/present.

On the other hand stemming from this mode of thinking I can somewhat see why "Se" was summarized as being a bit more "aggressive" out there since its lack of focus forces it to be a bit more "out there" in comparison to "Si" which limits its self to the subject at hand. Thus with "Si" being more focused with its sensory input (else understanding isn't reached), bearers are less likely to be more intrusive since anything which could disturb the subject at hand is likely to be tossed away more so. But with "Se" that is less likely since by being objective its unlikely to segregate any sensory input thus its "out there" more so than Si.


----------



## Ford Prefect (Jul 25, 2012)

So socionics is about how you percieve things and MBTI is how you act on them? That's how I read into it and it makes enough sense to me but is that observation correct?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Ford Prefect said:


> So socionics is about how you percieve things and MBTI is how you act on them? That's how I read into it and it makes enough sense to me but is that observation correct?


Not really.

Neither system can predict actual behavior. Function analysis using either Socionics or MBTI can only show how a person interprets information - that is, how they perceive information (with their perceiving functions, Se, Si, Ne, Ni) and what they decide that information means to them (with their judgment/rational functions, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti.)

In reality, both perception and judgement happen simultaneously. You perceive information, and the meaning of that information is encapsulated in the experience of perceiving it. It's like looking at X and you instantly "know" "X is an apple." The actual experience is seemless and fluid - you just "look at an apple." The "fact" that X is an apple is a decision that you make with your judgment function _at the same time_ as your perception function is "noticing" X. Perception, in this way, does not distinguish apples from oranges. Everything is _purely irrational information_ from the raw input of perception alone. It takes _some form of paired judgment function_ to actually give the raw input from perception definition and meaning.

Make sense now?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Ford Prefect said:


> So socionics is about how you percieve things and MBTI is how you act on them? That's how I read into it and it makes enough sense to me but is that observation correct?


Nah, both MBTI and Socionics are both about how you perceive things. Perception influences your decisions and consequently your actions. Since you cannot easily tell how someone perceives things (it's not written on their foreheads) most usually types get associated with certain types of behaviors, which are more readily observable.


----------



## Iselia (Jun 4, 2011)

I always scored INTj in Socionics. But I'm fairly certain my cog preferences are Ni, Te, and Fi.


----------



## DesertWind (Mar 2, 2012)

I just took mine. 

It says I'm an INT-Douche. 

www.sociotype.com/tests/result/est/15440


----------



## Unforgettable (Aug 3, 2012)

yes , but excuse me i just want to know why this test and cognitive functions test said that i am most likely INTP (well , i don't really relate to most of perceivers characteristics ) or i could be an ENTJ as second possibility (i mean i am an 93% introvert and it doesn't make sense) or INTJ as a "Third" possibility while i have actually taken the personality test 4 TIMES(NOTE, they were 4 different tests on four different web sites) AND ALL OF THEM CONFIRMED THAT I AM AN EXTREME INTJ ???

i am confused if anybody here has a reasonable answer, please, help me understand !!


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Boolean11 said:


> *Basing "action" based on what is not there is a bit hard to describe since it seems as if it can never occur. Though at the same time what stops such decisions from ever becoming 100% absent from sensation is when intuition is involved providing an insight that can be beyond what is there? This is a bit hard to describe this image but I hope you guys get the point that they (actions) are related and, at times to a vague point, based on what is sensed/present.


Right, I think we're on the same page. I was approaching the descriptions from a more linguistic angle, that they almost beg a user of the function to recognize his/her own use of the function as it would appear, then trace that back to an identification of the actual mental process that such descriptions attempt to satisfy. It is, generally speaking, very difficult to identify unconscious mental processes by their content - though their output, maybe not quite so difficult with some experience. I agree that the actionable component of what is embodied by the sensation descriptions is at least to some extent if not all, attributable to the sensation itself. 



> On the other hand stemming from this mode of thinking I can somewhat see why "Se" was summarized as being a bit more "aggressive" out there since its lack of focus forces it to be a bit more "out there" in comparison to "Si" which limits its self to the subject at hand. Thus with "Si" being more focused with its sensory input (else understanding isn't reached), bearers are less likely to be more intrusive since anything which could disturb the subject at hand is likely to be tossed away more so. But with "Se" that is less likely since by being objective its unlikely to segregate any sensory input thus its "out there" more so than Si.


As far as this goes, I have a difficult time extending the theory on the stilts of the language used in the functional descriptions. By this, I mean that "aggressive" may not really be the best way of drawing a bridge between Se and what can be expected from the function as a spectator, primarily because of the varying degrees by which the function, leading or not, is utilized in satisfying various, type-independent motivations. I've met SEE and SLE who I'd say to be motivated to attain, but not precisely "aggressive" in doing so - as well as SLI and SEI who are extremely imposing with their Si despite the introverted nature of the function, because it is used to satisfy motivations that require such functions to be directed in more forceful ways.

Obviously, this implies a separation between the function itself and how it is used, and I generally see where you're coming from with the inherent qualities of the functions, but I'm not convinced that the motivations even _can_ be separated. It's as if there's more going on than just the functions themselves.


----------



## Mind Swirl (Sep 7, 2011)

*Test Results*
*Your Sociotype: ILI-1Te (INTp)*

*Other Possible Types*



LIE (ENTj): 80% as likely as ILI.
LII (INTj): 78% as likely as ILI.
LSI (ISTj): 66% as likely as ILI.

This is my result for the test posted. I test INTJ on MBTI and got INTp here. I've taken some tests before and generally get ILI or LIE (which says Te-Ni in their system). I don't really understand their system much though.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Haven't taken the test yet. I'm yet to find out if I'm INTp ILI in Socionics.


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

To be quite honest I have no idea, I've tested as both INTJ and INTP in MBTI, and ILI and LII in Socionics.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

Sollertis said:


> To be quite honest I have no idea, I've tested as both INTJ and INTP in MBTI, and ILI and LII in Socionics.


In that case it may help to look at the differences between valuing Ti over Te, Fi over Fe, and so forth.

A good source for that can be found here: http://socionics.ws/wiki/index.php?title=Logic

(see bottom of page for more distinctions)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

That type description role is kind of poor. Applies to me too but I score LII always on socionics but I feel that applies to me too. It just seems to stereotype introverted thinking types (not Ti but INTs) in general.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

LeaT said:


> That type description role is kind of poor. Applies to me too but I score LII always on socionics but I feel that applies to me too. It just seems to stereotype introverted thinking types (not Ti but INTs) in general.


Since you have quoted no one, I'll assume you're referring to my post.

In which case, how so? It may help to realize it is, in fact, not a type description at all but a way to delineate differences between Ti and Te.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Vincent said:


> Since you have quoted no one, I'll assume you're referring to my post.
> 
> In which case, how so? It may help to realize it is, in fact, not a type description at all but a way to delineate differences between Ti and Te.


It was boolean's post, not yours. I tried to copy paste but it failed.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

The poll confused me and so I did not vote. I am MBTI INTP and Socionics INTj


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

I've tested as ILI and LII in socionics. After looking into other things such as quadras, clubs, and other small groups I've gathered this much:


I'm definitely in the researcher's club.
Beta and Delta quadra are mostly foreign to me.
I'm too serious for the Alphas, but too lax for the Gammas.
I relate to ILI, LII, and even ILE a little bit actually. I've considered LSI as another alternative as well.

If you have any input or good reads and leads, feel free to PM me.


----------



## Anonynony (Jun 24, 2012)

There is a socioinics sub-forum now!
I'm an INTp, but I clicked troll vote.


----------



## Konigsberg (May 10, 2012)

I'd taken the test before and got ILI

I took it again and the result was ILI-- again.

So yeah I'm MBTI INTJ and Socionics INTp.


----------



## RachelAn (Jun 26, 2011)

*Test Results*

*Your Sociotype: LII-2Ti (INTj)*

*Brief Description of the LII*

Using introverted thinking as his base function and extroverted intuition as his creative, the LII is adept at creating a concept of reality through the synthesis and application of preformulated principles and rules. When formulating new principles, the LII methodically analyzes new information, taking the salient aspects and discarding the extraneous. Staying within the boundaries of his principles, the LII is capable of generating new ideas and possibilities of how the world could work. At its best, this ability gives the LII an aura of confidence and insightfulness into areas of abstraction and possibility that many other types don't have; at its worst, this ability may lead the LII to possibilities so impractical or unreachable that he is perceived as others to be out of touch with reality. Additionally, the LIIs inclination for deep isolated thoughts often leaves him disconnected from societal interaction--as if he is constantly an observer but never a participant. Learn more about the LII here!*Other Possible Types*



ILI (INTp): 100% as likely as LII.
LIE (ENTj): 90% as likely as LII.
LSI (ISTj): 82% as likely as LII.
*Sociotype Characteristics*


Small GroupsFirst Tier DichotomiesSecond Tier DichotomiesThird Tier DichotomiesFourth Tier Dichotomies

Quadra: Alpha
Club: Researcher
Temperament: IJ
Romance Styles:
Primary: Infantile
Secondary: Aggressor



Introvert
Intuitive
Logical
Rational (Judging)


Static
Obstinate
Democratic
Strategic
Emotivist
Farsighted


Merry
Judicious
Negativist
Result


Asking






*Model A Function Strengths and Values*


YouIdeal DualFunctionInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative Value

Leading
Creative
Role
Vulnerable

Suggestive
Mobilizing
Ignoring
Demonstrative
Ti
Ne
Fi
Se

Fe
Si
Te
Ni45%
30%
5%
20%

5%
20%
45%
30%45%
30%
5%
20%

45%
30%
5%
20%Fe
Si
Te
Ni

Ti
Ne
Fi
Se45%
30%
5%
20%

5%
20%
45%
30%45%
30%
5%
20%

45%
30%
5%
20%


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm a socionics ILI. I apparently look like one too (visual identification). 

Here are some useful sites

Stratievskaya IEE - Wikisocion 
Socionics - the16types.info - Home


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

bethdeth said:


> I'm ILI. All the tests I did put me either ILI or LII. I thought I was LII there for a while. It wasn't until I looked into it a bit further that I realised I was ILI. It was the same for INTP/INTJ when I first started looking into MBTI (I'm relatively close on the P/J). *I think it's because I'm surrounded by INTPs in my family, I adapt so much I sometimes forget I'm me.*


I also noticed you characterize yourself as enneagram nine. :tongue:


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

unctuousbutler said:


> I also noticed you characterize yourself as enneagram nine. :tongue:


It does take a lot of time alone to understand how much of a prick I really am. Thank the unholy ones I've had time alone to figure it all out.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

RachelAn said:


> *Test Results*
> 
> *Your Sociotype: LII-2Ti (INTj)*
> 
> ...


Pretty much describes me to a T. Even the "at worst" part.


----------



## Ebertdp (Apr 2, 2011)

MBTI INTP socionics INTJ


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

MBTI INTJ and my sociotype is INTp (ILI). I relate to it 50% more than I relate to the MBTI description.


----------



## TriggerHappy923 (Dec 8, 2012)

Yup. 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!
Other possible types:


LII (INTj): 84% as likely as ILI.
LIE (ENTj): 77% as likely as ILI.
ILE (ENTp): 68% as likely as ILI.

YouIdeal DualFunctionInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative Value

Leading
Creative
Role
Vulnerable

Suggestive
Mobilizing
Ignoring
Demonstrative
Ni
Te
Si
Fe

Se
Fi
Ne
Ti35%
40%
15%
10%

15%
10%
35%
40%35%
40%
15%
10%

35%
40%
15%
10%Se
Fi
Ne
Ti

Ni
Te
Si
Fe35%
40%
15%
10%

15%
10%
35%
40%35%
40%
15%
10%

35%
40%
15%
10%
-Nonetheless, an ILI is likely to find the process of accumulating new information tiresome and requiring too much of their energy; consequently, new information is often accumulated and updated in a rather lethargic, periodic, and occasionally incomplete fashion.----- [yup yup yup]
-ILIs predict inevitable disaster not altogether infrequently.
-ILIs typically exhibit a general detachment from day-to-day affairs. While an ILI might devote a great deal of time to his inner thoughts, very little attention is likely to be paid to such tasks as household maintenance or cleanliness, which the ILIsees as trivial matters not deserving of his time or effort.
-They may be prone to excessive day dreaming, in creation of intricate inner worlds or universes, or in mentally replaying elements of their own personal experience. ILIs may even have novelistic tendencies where they create intricate plots, characters, and places, though many ILIs may be generally unmotivated to display such creativity. However,ILIs are not always inclined to share their imaginative tendencies or thoughts with others.----- [this is why it's hard for me in school]


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bump!


----------

