Socionics Question

[wcp]

Before I get attacked by someone, what's the difference between ILI and LII

I understand myers briggs but just learning socionics

I'm confused because in myers briggs I'm an INTP but I got INTp (ILI) in socionics

but I should've got INTj (LII) socionics because that's the transformation so now i'm just confused as to what my type really is. So if there are specific distinctions between the two feel free to enlighten me because I read both and they both seem like me and similar.
Yet, INTJ and INTP's in the myers briggs context are distinctively different in the way I understand them and me vs. my INTJ friends.

[Jeremy8419]

Before I get attacked by someone, what's the difference between ILI and LII

I understand myers briggs but just learning socionics

I'm confused because in myers briggs I'm an INTP but I got INTp (ILI) in socionics

but I should've got INTj (LII) socionics because that's the transformation so now i'm just confused as to what my type really is. So if there are specific distinctions between the two feel free to enlighten me because I read both and they both seem like me and similar.
Yet, INTJ and INTP's in the myers briggs context are distinctively different in the way I understand them and me vs. my INTJ friends.

That's not the transformation. International Institute of Socionics' (largest school and organization) stance is that INTP is most correlative to ILI. System School of Socionics stance is to disregard any attempts at correlation. Humanitarian School of Socionics is only one that suggests INTP is most correlative to LII, though it has parted ways with mainstream socionics.

In general, don't let MBTI stop you from being a Socionics type.

[wcp]

That's not the transformation. International Institute of Socionics' (largest school and organization) stance is that INTP is most correlative to ILI. System School of Socionics stance is to disregard any attempts at correlation. Humanitarian School of Socionics is only one that suggests INTP is most correlative to LII, though it has parted ways with mainstream socionics.

In general, don't let MBTI stop you from being a Socionics type.

okay thanks. Just a general overview, what's the difference between ILI and LII and how does it differ from the MBTI definition of the type?
if you know ..

[Jeremy8419]

The only difference is your conscious/effortful life and your unconscious/automated life, and which things you value.

I'm unconsciously rhythmical and consciously focused on relationships, so I am EII and not IEI.

[Contra]

You'd probably do well to read the a bunch of their respective descriptions, and just pay attention to some of the longtime members of each type and see which one resonates with you more. Also pay attention to members of each quadra and see which members you feel like you'd naturally get along with more and which ones you'd conflict with. You probably know all of this, but I'm just throwing this out there because I think it's too difficult to really compare and contrast the two types. There is just too much information to cover. Of course, it's possible you are neither of those types so don't narrow down too much.

[Jeremy8419]

@Contra the members have bias that may not be congruent with Socionics. It's better to reference people to resources. If 9/10 people are typed incorrectly, which is possible, any attention to such will steer them away from socionics

[Sol]

Before I get attacked by someone, what's the difference between ILI and LII

You should read basic theory about Jung's/Socionics types. FIlatova's book seems to be best English published source. Ignore Reinin's dichotomies and other things besides Jung's functions, dichotomies and model A. Model A is also doubtful in many things.

ILI = INTP, LII = INTJ. But as MBT uses non-Jungian, wrong functions model for introverted types, it has partly incorrect types' descriptions for introverts.

I'm confused because in myers briggs I'm an INTP but I got INTp (ILI) in socionics

INTP in MBT is ILI / INTP in Socionics. So it's ok. If you were typed correctly, certainly.

[Contra]

f 9/10 people are typed incorrectly...

I highly doubt that. There are a lot of relatively new members who are typed incorrectly, but the ones who have been here for over a year or more are pretty much all correctly typed with the exception of a few people. But those few people don't post a lot anyway or just aren't taken seriously. Of course it's within the realm of possibility that 9/10 are typed incorrectly. It's just not the case.

[Jeremy8419]

I highly doubt that. There are a lot of relatively new members who are typed incorrectly, but the ones who have been here for over a year or more are pretty much all correctly typed with the exception of a few people. But those few people don't post a lot anyway or just aren't taken seriously. Of course it's within the realm of possibility that 9/10 are typed incorrectly. It's just not the case.

That is the assumption, but unless a set of socionists typed them, then the "correct" is an unknown. There are resources showing verifiably correctly typed people, however, but one considering themselves similar doesn't mean socionics will treat it the same. From that point on, you have a non-socionist introducing their subjective views between the types and the individual.

[Contra]

There are resources showing verifiably correctly typed people.

Do you happen to have such a resource that you think is particularly reliable?

[Jeremy8419]

Do you happen to have such a resource that you think is particularly reliable?

Filtovia, stroyvosky, gulenko, all have biographical descriptions. Yermak has technical, rudimentary ones.

Often online, people will get into saying "well, XYZ likes... And is like... And does..." based upon personal observations about people who may or may not be XYZ, when no resources state such. This information can be used to cause people to type based upon hearsay, instead of socionics, and repeat the cycle. This is very prevalent on PerC, where most typings are contradictory to Socionics stances.

[Beautiful sky]

ILI value time and LII don't. LII are.like me...whenever time, listen to your body's desire. If it wakes up at a certain time go with it. ILI keep an eye on the time as if you procrastinate the world will crash down on you and if don't take care of it you'll go to jail! Predictions of events will unfold into the ultimate event. ILI are the critics who will criticize everything except themselves. LII analyze things

[Jeremy8419]

LII is the walking pocket watch. ILI says if he doesn't get to it, he'll see to it next time around.

[Beautiful sky]

LII is the walking pocket watch. ILI says if he doesn't get to it, he'll see to it next time around.

Don't you mean the other way around?

[Beautiful sky]

Criticize: indicate the fault in something in a disappointed way
Analyze: look at the structure of something with the purpose of explaining and interpretation

ILI dual is SEE who is patient smart compassionate and tunes out or blocks out the ILIs critical nature where their conflict the ESE can't handle it
LII makes systems out of analysis. They can get down on themselves and choices but are rarely critical of others.

Please consider typical attitude is where one is more of a presidence

In the about I'm using my Ti role function to analyze. Imagine this all the time?

[Jeremy8419]

Don't you mean the other way around?

No. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/145-The-Clock-of-the-Socion-Energy-Dynamics-of-Quadra-and-Benefit-Rings search for "Kant"

This article is actually good for typing as well, given social projects. In duo's, I'll sometimes do multiple quadras myself. As group size increases, I start to fill just the more Normalizing roles. In a group of 20ish, I'm basically just straight EII role.

[Beautiful sky]

No. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Benefit-Rings search for "Kant"

This article is actually good for typing as well, given social projects. In duo's, I'll sometimes do multiple quadras myself. As group size increases, I start to fill just the more Normalizing roles. In a group of 20ish, I'm basically just straight EII role.

LII are not walking pocket watch. Whoever wrote that is nuts

[Jeremy8419]

LII are not walking pocket watch. Whoever wrote that is nuts

It says who wrote it: Gulenko. One of the major socionists. It's consistent with other schools views.

[Beautiful sky]

It says who wrote it: Gulenko. One of the major socionists. It's consistent with other schools views.

Show me where Filatova says that

[Jeremy8419]

Show me where Filatova says that

Have you read anything outside of your own type's Filatova description? You seem to have views that aren't like socionics at all.

[Beautiful sky]

Have you read anything outside of your own type's Filatova description? You seem to have views that aren't like socionics at all.

Of course you are joking or mad or both. Look under my avatar and read it. I've been involved with socionics longer than you have been alive.

[Jeremy8419]

Of course you are joking or mad or both. Look under my avatar and read it. I've been involved with socionics longer than you have been alive.

I'm 31. What does that have to do with you knowing Socionics?

[yeves]

Before I get attacked by someone, what's the difference between ILI and LII

I understand myers briggs but just learning socionics

I'm confused because in myers briggs I'm an INTP but I got INTp (ILI) in socionics

but I should've got INTj (LII) socionics because that's the transformation so now i'm just confused as to what my type really is. So if there are specific distinctions between the two feel free to enlighten me because I read both and they both seem like me and similar.
Yet, INTJ and INTP's in the myers briggs context are distinctively different in the way I understand them and me vs. my INTJ friends.

I've made this post for SEI and IEI today in another type-me thread--reformating it for ILI and LII.

different reinin traits:
LII is static, strategic, asking, emotivist, involutionary, judicious.
ILI is dynamic, tactical, declaring, constructivist, evolutionary, decisive.
This is too much to write about, so look though these and compare them yourself
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...omies#Overview

different intertype relationships:
LIIs have dual-seeking Fe and are attracted to Fe Ego types (SEI, IEI, ESE, EIE). They supervise IEEs, get supervised by SLEs, benefit SLIs and are beneficiaries of IEIs.
ILIs have dual-seeking Se which pulls them to Se Ego types (SEE, SLE, ESI, LSI). They supervise LSEs, get supervised by EIEs, benefit EIIs and are beneficiaries of LSIs.

different styles of thinking:
ILIs are Dialectical-Algorithmic while LIIs are Holographical-Panoramic.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...thmic-thinking
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...aphic-Thinking