Hitta, I'd really be very curious what type you think Niffweed is. He's the only person in this discussion whom I met personally, and he seems to fit Socionics conceptions of ILI much better than most.
One thing that might help the conversation be more civil and productive here, though, is to admit that your system is different from traditional Socionics. So the real question is, what type is he in
your system. Surely he's posted enough for you to have an opinion.
As to the description, it's not as bad as I might have thought. It doesn't sound like a description of LII, so it's not as if you've merely flipped ILI and LII. However, quite a few things in the description sound more like LSI than ILI. This may be because you view LII as having T+ and Si- in the ego block, the very definition of Beta ST.
Quite a number of things sound accurate, but as with most descriptions, many of the statements don't fit all or most ILIs.
Here are some of the most problematic parts:
INTps have a tendency to think in absolutes.
This could be interpretated in two ways. If it means ILIs tend to believe that there is an absolute truth that needs to be discovered, I think this is true. If it means ILIs view things rigidly and fail to see the gray areas, I think it's actually the opposite of the truth.
They usually make their decisions with things very quickly.
Not necessarily true....often quite untrue, in fact...although some ILIs can be good at making quick decisions in certain contexts.
They dislike people that rebel against the norms.
Quite untrue, although certain kinds of boisterous, obnoxious behavior may irk them.
won't be on their agenda to find good things to eat.
Too much of a generalization. I thought you were against stereotyping, anyways...
INTps tend to follow the norms and the rules of society.
Most ILIs probably do try to live within certain ethical and legal rules, but they may be non-conformist in their own way. Actually, it all depends on what kinds of norms you're talking about.
INTps always finish what they start. INTps have an immense amount of will to push themselves through boring and tedious tasks.
This, especially the 2nd sentence, is the exact opposite of what is traditionally said in Socionics about ILIs, and also the opposite of countless observations. ILIs avoid boring and tedious tasks, and often leave things undone. I think it's true that ILIs have in mind to finish what they started, possibly meaning to finish things that are so old everybody else has forgotten about them. But the impression you give of someone who never leaves a task until it's completed is very far from how ILIs behave. Once interested in a task, ILIs will often perform a number of tedious tasks to get it done, and will probably have a clearer idea of what exactly needs to be done than others. But they don't have a particularly high tolerance for tedium; rather, they'll tend to think of shortcuts or ways to automate the process...which may be why a number of ILIs are programmers.
They are usually not interested in other people's ideas. INTps do not like people that try to be different from societies standards. They tend to dislike people that are impulsive and do things without a methodical approach. INTps tend to dislike unaccepted ways. They usually only believe in the ways that are trusted and have been proven to work.
Almost entirely untrue. ILIs criticize people's ideas because they're interested in them; they don't ignore other people's ideas. ILIs don't dislike impulsiveness, and in fact SEEs (and some ILIs) are impulsive. The idea that ILIs only believe in trusted/proven approaches is quite false. This may be more true of LSIs.
INTps dislike the analytical approach to things. They tend to view things as being holistic. INTps do not like to break down things and view the parts as being individual pieces. INTps tend to only appreciate stereotypical logic in which systems are built with people and objects being placed into artificial categories.
Quite untrue and opposite what many, even most, ILIs are like. Also, I think you have the wrong idea of what the 8th function is supposed to be like. In Socionics, the 8th function is often something one enjoys, sees as something fun, but not the "main deal." It's often used for criticism or correction of others. The idea that the 8th function merely represents a repudiation of various categories is a complete misunderstanding.
INTp type description TheSocion.com!!
Reply With Quote
but totally non-religious). Because of everything else described about our lead function, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that A) god does not necessarily exist, B) worshiping something that doesn't necessarily exist is a total waste of time/energy and C) to do so (more often than not) creates unnecessary rifts within human society which D) leads to war, therefor F) organized religion is inherently a divisive and destructive force and must be eliminated for the continued existence and prosperity of humanity (anti-theism for the win!).
Originally Posted by niffweed17
