Wikisocion LII: A Review

[Logos]

While I think that thehotelambush did an incredible job on the LII/INTj page on Wikisocion, I think that it could be improved. I would like to eventually work on expanding some of the function descriptions, especially in regards to the and descriptions since they seem to be one of the sources of frequently misunderstanding about the LII. The Common Social Roles is a minor section which I deemed to be one of the weak points of the LII page. It is very non-descriptive and nowhere as evocative as the Common Social Roles on the other Type pages.

To do a bit of comparison:

Common social roles (ILI/INTp)
1. The computer geek who lives in virtual reality and understands computers and Internet communication, but is at a loss for how to act in real-life social situations.
2. The mystic or spiritual philosopher who is into all things mystical, esoteric, or eastern and makes little sense to the material-minded.
3. The encyclopedist or librarian type who knows literally all there is to know about vast areas of knowledge, but does not use his or her knowledge at work.

Common social roles (ILE/ENTp)
1. The lawyer who will argue about anything with anyone, making no distinction between logic and rhetoric.
2. The clown with a spontaneous and often critical wit.
3. The outgoing nerd who makes jokes about things like parabolas and wears things like fishermen's vests to work and to parties because all the pockets are convenient for holding stuff.

(Of course it is worth noting that this section is the only thing which has been touched on the ILE page.)

Common social roles (LII/INTj)
1. The lone repository of truth — the last stalwart in a crazy world of illogic and delusion.
2. The self-sacrificing workaholic who works so hard not to earn money (usually underpaid anyway), but because he doesn't feel he deserves to slow down and give anything less than 100%.
3. Mr. or Ms. Literal, who says exactly what (s)he means, and trusts that you will too.

Doesn't just about every type in their own way imagine themselves as "the lone repository of truth"? You would think that the ILI would also probably see themselves as such. Are LII's really as much workaholics even stereotypically or generally when compared with other types? Is Mr. or Ms. Literal really an accurate description or image to convey the essence of the LII? I have one possible replacement (which will still need work to write concisely), but we need to adequately complete the LII page.

1. The Architect: The Architect who designs conceptual models from scratch and give them in a precise, ideal and logical structure in theoretical mapped-out blueprints.
- I have not sufficiently developed the "flavor text" of this yet, but this seemed to be a more real and better way to understand the LII. While the image is that of the architect, this could easily be applied to developers of logical systems like Kant and Descartes or political reformers like Thomas Jefferson and Robespierre. This could also possibly be renamed or conceptualized as a Computer Programmer.

[Not A Communist Shill]

3. Mr. or Ms. Literal, who says exactly what (s)he means, and trusts that you will too.

If I'm trying to convey something to someone, I try to use lots of anologies and metaphors, and I try to paint a picture in someone's mind by describing something that's in my mind's eye - that might be more Ne? Things are only 'literal' when thay are in my head - when describing something to someone, it seems that some of the meaning has been lost. I think people holding back their thoughts is more irritating to me than someone who doesn't say exactly what they mean - I think my dual would help me clarify what I mean by asking me questions, and I would help clarify what they mean by asking them questions .

[Logos]

3. Mr. or Ms. Literal, who says exactly what (s)he means, and trusts that you will too.

If I'm trying to convey something to someone, I try to use lots of anologies and metaphors, and I try to paint a picture in someone's mind by describing something that's in my mind's eye - that might be more Ne? Things are only 'literal' when thay are in my head - when describing something to someone, it seems that some of the meaning has been lost. I think people holding back their thoughts is more irritating to me than someone who doesn't say exactly what they mean - I think my dual would help me clarify what I mean by asking me questions, and I would help clarify what they mean by asking them questions .

As I said, the Common Social Roles in the LII page do not seem very apt.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Do you think that the INTj descriptions can be a bit too cold? - I say this when I'm considering the possibility of my type being something else - being 'logical' seems almost similar to being without passion and warmth in descriptions at times. I am analytical about absolutely everything - its second nature to me - but I do see a lighter side of things - I find it easy to mock my intensity .

[aestrivex]

all of the social roles are not very accurate at all. they should be moved to some of the quasi-descriptions that are under construction. they don't belong on a real description, which should consist of an analysis of information metabolism and not much else.

[Logos]

all of the social roles are not very accurate at all. they should be moved to some of the quasi-descriptions that are under construction. they don't belong on a real description, which should consist of an analysis of information metabolism and not much else.

That sounds good to me. But I still think that the LII/INTj page should be expanded a bit more, so we can spend the rest of this thread working on that one piece at a time.

[aestrivex]

by all means.

[Logos]

That sounds good to me. But I still think that the LII/INTj page should be expanded a bit more, so we can spend the rest of this thread working on that one piece at a time.

Pick a piece and lets get started.

One piece at a time.

Ego block

With a combination of dominant and , the LII is usually a conceptual thinker with clearly delineated views and ideologies. Unless life forces him to earn a living doing physical labor, the LII prefers to apply his analytical thinking skills to non-material aspects of things: planning organizational structures, developing ideas, analyzing data, and reaching conclusions. No matter what he does or where he works, the LII will have a distinct focus on clarifying thought and ways of looking at things.

1. Introverted logic

The LII naturally assesses statements, opinions, and actions in terms of conformance to certain principles. These principles may in practice be rules of thumb based on experience, but LIIs will usually appeal to more general, "self-evident" systems of justification, if the need arises. The LII is often highly critical of others if he believes that they are being intentionally idiotic or making decisions that do not make sense. His dual the ESE appreciates the LII's judgment, but also softens the edge, gently reminding him that how something is said is equally important as what is said.

"Just because" is not in an LII's vocabulary. If there is a reason for something, the LII will probably want to find it. The LII is able to reduce things to their most essential aspects, and recreate the whole from the bottom up. The LII's theoretical tendencies can often leave him out of touch with reality, and if unchecked may lead to "crackpot" theories that are internally consistent but completely nonsensical to others.

The LII may explore many avenues of thought, but in the end only tell others his refined conclusions, as the intermediate steps are seen as irrelevant. He is often too concise for his own good, making it difficult for others to understand his ideas.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The LII naturally assesses statements, opinions, and actions in terms of conformance to certain principles. These principles may in practice be rules of thumb based on experience, but LIIs will usually appeal to more general, "self-evident" systems of justification, if the need arises. The LII is often highly critical of others if he believes that they are being intentionally idiotic or making decisions that do not make sense. His dual the ESE appreciates the LII's judgment, but also softens the edge, gently reminding him that how something is said is equally important as what is said.

I think when I see the whole world, it seems too large for me to able to understand absolutely everything about it - so I try to understand what is familiar to me in great depth, and then look for parallels in larger systems - I don't need to know absolutely every detail about something in order to know how it works. I don't expect people to know everything - partly because I don't think that is possible - but I do expect them to think carefully about what they are doing - if they can't, I have sympathy for them - but, as it says, people who intentionally do the wrong thing deserve scorn .

[tcaudilllg]

PS: Is it just me, or have numbers of INTjs frequenting this forum significantly dropped off over the last couple of months?

It's generally had to do with hmmkr and Gilly. It's too biased here anymore for reasonable debate.

I had made a statement about HA's relation to vulnerable (I prefer "vulnerable" over the PoLR acronym, and according to Rick it's the way the professionals do it anyhow). The point I made is that INTjs tend to avoid dealing with altogether if they can, although now I think that may not apply to all INTjs. Certainly there are some who believe it best to use , and this always comes back on them in a big way. It's a matter of action vs restraint, in my view, that cannot be correlated to type itself. A matter of opinion, you might say. If I use at all, it's always to try securing something related; though I am sometimes forced to provide (money) as a result of inactivity. An example happened just recently, when I delayed sending in proof of insurance to an Ohio BMV random sampling inquiry until the deadline had already passed. When the deadline passed my license was suspended. I was stopped on the very day the suspension began after a curious cop scanned my license plate, and being the overzealous Expat-style empricist type he gave me a ticket. I've got a $320 fine to pay off now, vulnerable if I've ever seen it.

On the other hand I find hmmkr's the most annoying thing ever, and he would benefit in my view from relying on it less. So who's really at fault, and should you or shouldn't you rely on your vunerable function? Depends on who you ask.

[Not A Communist Shill]

PS: Is it just me, or have numbers of INTjs frequenting this forum significantly dropped off over the last couple of months?

It's generally had to do with hmmkr and Gilly. It's too biased here anymore for reasonable debate.

I have to say I really love hkkmr and Gilly.

Last edited by the Conservative Anarchists on Fri Sep 21, 2007; edited 1 time in total

[Logos]

* Add something about how the LII wants to do the thinking for him or herself. (Ie: Point the LII in the right direction and let them discover things and play with ideas; rather than overload them with information from a factual-type book or from many "dry" lectures.)

So would you say that the goal then is to discover the structural basis of the system or how these ideas operate as opposed to the facts of the system.

* LII is a massively independent thinker. Can sometimes be a "rebel".

We will need to define what it means be being a "massively independent thinker" as well as why it is that contributes to this behavior.

* Add something about how the LII will ask "why?" when presented with something new or with something that doesn't fit into their current system/understanding.

This is partially covered with the below, but perhaps we can ask what the LII does when presented with things which run counter with their system.

* Something about how the LII wants everything to make sense ... including people, and asks "why" do they do such "stupid" or "weird" or "illogical" things sometimes. (Ie: "Why did they act like that? ... (Shakes head) ... I don't understand.")

This is covered already: "Just because" is not in an LII's vocabulary. If there is a reason for something, the LII will probably want to find it.

* Add something conveying LII's enjoyment of logical thinking exercises.

But how might that be manifested and why does the LII enjoy it?

I think when I see the whole world, it seems too large for me to able to understand absolutely everything about it - so I try to understand what is familiar to me in great depth, and then look for parallels in larger systems - I don't need to know absolutely every detail about something in order to know how it works. I don't expect people to know everything - partly because I don't think that is possible - but I do expect them to think carefully about what they are doing - if they can't, I have sympathy for them - but, as it says, people who intentionally do the wrong thing deserve scorn .

This may relate more to though.

PS: Is it just me, or have numbers of INTjs frequenting this forum significantly dropped off over the last couple of months?

I'm more worried about Alpha Quadra's general drop in activity on the forums.

Carla: Who was INTj before? I don't think there have been many "actual" INTj here to begin with.

Namely, thehotelambush.

[Creepy-bg]

PS: Is it just me, or have numbers of INTjs frequenting this forum significantly dropped off over the last couple of months?

It's generally had to do with hmmkr and Gilly. It's too biased here anymore for reasonable debate.

I have to say I really love hkkmr and Gilly.

absolutely, both of them are much more open to honest debate than Tcaud ever is... (and neither is likely to scream "ANARCHIST" at you or some other bogus socio-potitical nonsense pulled straight out of the ass) Tcaud is only willing to debate if you agree with him or are on his side.

*steps out of INTj topic*

[Creepy-bg]

An example happened just recently, when I delayed sending in proof of insurance to an Ohio BMV random sampling inquiry until the deadline had already passed. When the deadline passed my license was suspended. I was stopped on the very day the suspension began after a curious cop scanned my license plate, and being the overzealous Expat-style empricist type he gave me a ticket. I've got a $320 fine to pay off now, vulnerable if I've ever seen it.

that story illustrates nothing besides the fact that you're an idiot who can't get his paperwork in on time

[Not A Communist Shill]

* LII is a massively independent thinker. Can sometimes be a "rebel".

We will need to define what it means be being a "massively independent thinker" as well as why it is that contributes to this behavior.

It's probably because INTj thinking is quite depersonalised, and attempts to deconstruct things, rather than simply allowing them to speak at their face value - they also don't adopt whole systems 'as is' - they take those bits that make the most sense, and reconstruct a new system...or something .

[Logos]

This is a really excellent point. There is a fiction that has been perpetuated on this forum that Ti = logic and Te = raw facts. That view has infected a lot of people here. I think it comes from a misunderstanding of extraverted IM elements being about "objects" and introverted IM elements being about "fields" (or "relations"). Thus, whenever one makes a "connection" between any two things, a number of people here assume "aha, that's an introverted function" (usually the assumption is Ti).

But what they forget is the dynamics part. Obviously, dynamics involves a relationship, so to speak, between things, but it's more of a "temporal" relationship rather than a "static" one.

The idea that people are often missing, also, is that Ti and Te are both "logic" in Socionics. Ti is more about static relationships, such as forming a clear, definitive "map" of how things are (outside of time or any specific application)....such as Model A. Te is still logic, still about rationality, but it deals with questions of how to go about doing thins (e.g., what methods we might use to test Model A; and what research designs are actually valid ways of proving or disproving a given hypothesis).

Where people get confused is that everyone does both and values both to a certain extent. However, extensive focus on Ti without Te may lead to:
1) Not knowing how to test that one's system is valid
2) Believing in a system just because it's symmetrical, internally consistent, and "looks pretty"
3) Trying to educate people on basic knowledge about the system (esp. how it's supposed to work) when that may not be what they need

Focus on Te over Ti doesn't lead to memorizing disconnected facts. In fact, Te helps people organize facts according to what's relevant to the situation, and discard facts that aren't relevant. However, too much emphasis on Te over Ti may lead to:
1) Too narrow a focus...dismissing valid connections because they don't seem relevant to what the person is trying to solve at the moment
2) Solving the same problems over and over instead of seeing the underlying system that explains the issue
3) Failing to recognize various connections that exist
4) Misunderstanding people when systemmatic details are discussed.

For additional use of discussion of , and how it can potentially be applied to an LII.

[strrrng]

Doesn't just about every type in their own way imagine themselves as "the lone repository of truth"? You would think that the ILI would also probably see themselves as such. Are LII's really as much workaholics even stereotypically or generally when compared with other types? Is Mr. or Ms. Literal really an accurate description or image to convey the essence of the LII? I have one possible replacement (which will still need work to write concisely), but we need to adequately complete the LII page.

the lone respitory of truth was decent, but, like you said, general. I wouldn't label INTj's as workaholics because, speaking from experience, they'll do whatever they want - I would have ISTj as workaholic...dutiful and all. And the literal thing is completely off. An N is not literal.....my family tells me I communicate vaguely, leaving things out. Instead of "literal" it should have been "direct".

[Logos]

It's probably because INTj thinking is quite depersonalised, and attempts to deconstruct things, rather than simply allowing them to speak at their face value - they also don't adopt whole systems 'as is' - they take those bits that make the most sense, and reconstruct a new system...or something .

No this works quite well, because they are able to do this both as a means for creative-Ne and through the use of generalization made possible by Ne. But the basic idea presented here, I would imagine would be a part of Ti's attempt to try and structuralize their ideas, the ideas of other systems, as well as the world surrounding them.

[Logos]

* LII is a massively independent thinker. Can sometimes be a "rebel".

We will need to define what it means be being a "massively independent thinker" as well as why it is that contributes to this behavior.

It's probably because INTj thinking is quite depersonalised, and attempts to deconstruct things, rather than simply allowing them to speak at their face value - they also don't adopt whole systems 'as is' - they take those bits that make the most sense, and reconstruct a new system...or something .

Just to kind of repeat what you just said here: LIIs prefer to look at the systems produced by others as they are assembled, but through a process of generalization and reductionism () will deconstruct the systems to their base parts as a means to incorporate the base parts that make sense to them in their own personal system of understanding ().

Ti is more about static relationships, such as forming a clear, definitive "map" of how things are (outside of time or any specific application)....such as Model A.

This bit from the Jonathan's quoted post above, is also I think an essential idea. This seems to go well with the idea I presented regarding the LII as an "architect." While the moniker of "analyst" is incredibly apt for the LII, but it is just the first half of the LII process: Analyze and Construct. These are the two base ideas which seem to be a part of how LII's operate.

So would you say that the goal then is to discover the structural basis of the system or how these ideas operate as opposed to the facts of the system.

Both, I imagine. The second one is more fun; it involves playing with our logical skills and asking "why" and being able to answer as we obtain mastery in the area (which is probably the enjoyment that LIIs want to accomplish in the long run). But the first goal is essential to "ground the system" in the first place, so to speak.

I do think that even if LIIs believe that some other idea or system (either a whole or a part) is deemed incorrect or erroneous - either through an evaluation by or - that they will entertain the idea or system and understand the phenomenon which is going on beneath and between what is being explicitly said. LIIs work on the assumption that while the of a system may be wrong, what the system is trying to address, solve, explain, or rationalize may not be, so the externalities are indeed "made void" in an attempt to derive the essence of the object in question.

Actually, I think too much emphasis might be placed on only the first goal in regards to Ti + LIIs in this forum ... (not by LIIs; but sometimes by other types learning about what Ti + LII is). I think both goals should be taken into account.

Interesting. Then perhaps we should spend time flushing out the meaning of the second goal in relation to LIIs.

* LII is a massively independent thinker. Can sometimes be a "rebel".

We will need to define what it means be being a "massively independent thinker" as well as why it is that contributes to this behavior.

It may have something to do with the previous point. Since LIIs prefer to build their own systems from the bottom up, they can essentially void external "interferences". Therefore, they can easily go against rules or systems already set in place by other people or institutions. LIIs don't care about other people's systems ... they see these systems as "the other person's"; and not their own. "Everyone should have their own systems, because what works for one person may not necessarily work for the other." "Think for yourselves." Maybe that's also why INTjs are "lone wolves"?

But one of the issues which I also think needs to be addressed is the "bottom-up" approach. What is meant by this? Why do LIIs prefer this approach? How does one go about it? Do they rebuild their system from the "bottom-up" every time they encounter something new? But the rest of what you wrote makes sense, but we will have to decide how to condense it more succinctly and then how and where to fit it into what has already been written.

perhaps we can ask what the LII does when presented with things which run counter with their system.

Good idea. Maybe choose a few particular scenarios and we can input.

Honestly, I am not sure where to begin. Actually, I may have an example: the Thomas Jefferson Bible, in which he went through and cut out all of the supernatural elements of the New Testament to create what he called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.

* Add something conveying LII's enjoyment of logical thinking exercises.

But how might that be manifested and why does the LII enjoy it?

I was thinking of the "Examples of specific tasks that an LII might get significant enjoyment from doing" list I made. Just an example section really.

Eg: Taxonomy - An LII might enjoy this aspect of biology because it concerns a structure.

Have you posted this before? It would be interesting to see it in another thread.

[Not A Communist Shill]

But one of the issues which I also think needs to be addressed is the "bottom-up" approach. What is meant by this? Why do LIIs prefer this approach? How does one go about it? Do they rebuild their system from the "bottom-up" every time they encounter something new? But the rest of what you wrote makes sense, but we will have to decide how to condense it more succinctly and then how and where to fit it into what has already been written.

An analogy might be: if you know that 2xy = 14, and that x = 4, then y must =5...and if you want the result '15', you would need 3 'y's...so INTjs break down things into their constituent parts in order to determine their individual worth, and then reassemble them to achieve the optimum result. A INTj may notice some constituent parts in a new system they come across, and use this to help deconstruct the system - this allows the system to become tangible in the INTj's mind. I think a INTj would recognise that similar objects\systems will have similar rules - i.e. a chair might have 3 or 4 legs, but it must have somewhere you can sit down . I think a skill that INTjs have is that are able to incorporate ideas + rules from other systems into the system they are renovating - there is more than one way to skin a cat - the final system may carry out the same function as before, but it may do it more effectively.

[tcaudilllg]

Do they rebuild their system from the "bottom-up" every time they encounter something new?

Not necessarily. In fact, they resist changing their system at all until they have observed enough information to conclude, definitively, that a change must be made to their thinking. I always try to have my theories account for as much phenomena as possible; I'm very hesitant to add a new dimension to my considerations.

For example, what was the crosstype theory has been broken down into three seperate theories, each of which is rather complex in its own right. I didn't create these theories willingly: it was simply the case that a single set of principles could not describe all the norm variations I witnessed when I put my theories to the test.

[tcaudilllg]

I think being an LII is about trying to see the world through a lense. It is nothing about the world itself or what the world is like; it is only about how elements influence elements. Of course one needs to carefully sort through the elements so that one is considering more and than anything else, but this is primarily a consequence of the pairing's dominance and moreover, a side effect. INTj is about , , and what the two need. What they don't need is of secondary concern.

[Hitta]

Some ideas.

(I think thehotelambush more or less covered these, but I wrote them down in my own words anyway. Feel free to pick apart, discard or totally rewrite.)

* Add something about how the LII wants to do the thinking for him or herself. (Ie: Point the LII in the right direction and let them discover things and play with ideas; rather than overload them with information from a factual-type book or from many "dry" lectures.)
* LII is a massively independent thinker. Can sometimes be a "rebel".
* Add something about how the LII will ask "why?" when presented with something new or with something that doesn't fit into their current system/understanding.
* Something about how the LII wants everything to make sense ... including people, and asks "why" do they do such "stupid" or "weird" or "illogical" things sometimes. (Ie: "Why did they act like that? ... (Shakes head) ... I don't understand.")
* Add something conveying LII's enjoyment of logical thinking exercises.

Some examples of specific tasks LIIs might like to do:
Taxonomy + sketching (biology related)
Logic
Computer code (logical)
Organization (of things of interest to particular LII such as: workspace; cataloguing; diary; trip itinerary; kitchen cupboards; etc.)

= all about structure

INTjs aren't really organizers. INTjs are deorganizers. They break concepts and ideas apart. Cataloging and taxonomy are more +Ti/-Te subjects.