INTp's L+ vs. INTj's L- in SSS Model A

[Petter]

Do you think SSS's descriptions of ILI's L+ and LII's L- are accurate? Can you explain the difference?

SSS: ILI, L+ "In order to be able to understand the overall picture, he will break it into smaller, logical segments. And only then he will be able to do something with this. General abstraction without decompositions will seem to him as delusions and incompetence of the people. Or something like this."

"it's more about the way of thinking. Strict logic with binary-like rules (L+) VS. paradoxical logic capable of processing philosophical abstractions.(L-)"

+L — logicality, compliance with logicality in any details, strict logic, non-recognition of illogicality, orientation on clarification of details, aspiration to split up, detail, concretize. Concrete usage of rules, order, consistency (legislation, resolution, regulations, rules, instructions, etc.).

−L — illogicality and logicality, compliance with orderliness and logicality in the broad sense, lax logic; global, universal, abstract logic, general regularities.

[ouronis]

source?
As to my opinion, yeah you'll see this in ILIs to some extent, not greatly (in the sense of it being to the spirit of the description)

[Soupman]

source?
As to my opinion, yeah you'll see this in ILIs to some extent, not greatly (in the sense of it being to the spirit of the description)

That's the source, here...
http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/d...cii-so-znakami

I've been studying socionics for over 4 years now and to me, it has become clear that with regards to logic ILI & LII experience barrier in communication that makes it difficult to communicate given that the differences in ascribing information are "reversed". The biggest revelation was that ILIs find it very difficult to under LII ideas when naturally assuming that their models are based on real evidence - and secondly that the framework for understanding is objective. For example in the quote below.

+L — logicality, compliance with logicality in any details, strict logic, non-recognition of illogicality, orientation on clarification of details, aspiration to split up, detail, concretize. Concrete usage of rules, order, consistency (legislation, resolution, regulations, rules, instructions, etc.).


−L — illogicality and logicality, compliance with orderliness and logicality in the broad sense, lax logic; global, universal, abstract logic, general regularities.

A mistake an ILI will make when trying to understand the information above is assuming that the LII that wrote the information objectively identified what they ascribe to be "+L" & "-L". The reality is that the LII did not but rather created the framework out of thin air and are now using it to explain divergences in reasoning they speculate based on the behaviours they've seen. Secondly ILIs start doubting when presented with logic they are not sure they can trust, so to regain verification they then ask for consensus on their conjectures that basically cause doubt, they are unsure whether the information is rubbish or contains any validity.

The problem with yermack here is that he's ascribed the functions as strict behaviours instead of thought processes, but it's not his fault he's primarily a static comprehender. I agree he is correct to note that ILIs:

*"observe logicality" (verification of logic to make sure the models aren't absolute nonsense)
"compliance with logicality in any details" (verification.... )
"orientation on clarification of details" (verification.... )
"Concrete usage of rules, order, consistency (legislation, resolution, regulations, rules, instructions, etc.)." ( related to verification this is looking at the objective circumstance)
"strict logic" (standard logic)
"non-recognition of illogicality" (yes this is true when suppressing the subjective side of their logic)

This is correctly observable behaviour in people clearly diagnosed as ILI, however, the mistake Yermak made is failing to understand that this is the actual "P" side of their logic or objective logic. This is the most observable form of their logic most publicly displayed. The "L" perspective of the ILI logic is triggered when sufficiently it becomes clear that the facts in consideration are grounded in reality, whilst for LII "L" is always active by default - for this reason LIIs are less likely to display the attitudes above instinctively.

[Soupman]

LIIs also have a habit of projection, for example, SLIs supposedly have "-L" whilst LSIs get "+L", there was no direct evidence to confirm the existence of "+L" or "-L" in either TIMs all that happened was a rationalisation over the fact that something is peculiar about the use of logic in the four IXTX types so since LSI & ILI so differ in their display of logic, I'm going to project that they both must be "+L".

One thing that needs to be gotten rid off in socionics is the presumption that Gamma NTs' "P" is practical when the reality is contrary; their logic operates on abstract premises as intuitives (or to be more precise idealists - something contrary to realists). They like their logic verified but they are not practical, being into ideas and analysis primarily like Alpha NTs.

[Petter]

LIIs also have a habit of projection, for example, SLIs supposedly have "-L" whilst LSIs get "+L", there was no direct evidence to confirm the existence of "+L" or "-L" in either TIMs all that happened was a rationalisation over the fact that something is peculiar about the use of logic in the four IXTX types so since LSI & ILI so differ in their display of logic, I'm going to project that they both must be "+L".

I don't think SSS agrees with you that there is no "evidence" of -L in SLI.

ILIs also make projections, conjectures etc.

One thing that needs to be gotten rid off in socionics is the presumption that Gamma NTs' "P" is practical when the reality is contrary; their logic operates on abstract premises as intuitives (or to be more precise idealists - something contrary to realists). They like their logic verified but they are not practical, being into ideas and analysis primarily like Alpha NTs.

First of all, SSS defines the informations aspects in a different way than mainstream Socionics, which you probably already know.

I agree with you that Gamma NT's P is not really practical, but neither mainstream Socionics nor SSS actually claims that, despite some of their descriptions. ILI's P is more about efficiency, optimization, conclusions etc.

+P — work with concrete objects (properties of objects) , improvement, refinement of technology, skills deepening, elaboration in the area of specialization, efficiency, high quality, optimality, use, practicality, usability.

−P — work, manufacturability, general organization of the process, expanding the scope of competence, tendency to organize work globally, use and uselessness, practicality and unpracticality, high quality and low quality.

[Petter]

I've been studying socionics for over 4 years now and to me, it has become clear that with regards to logic ILI & LII experience barrier in communication that makes it difficult to communicated given that the differences in ascribing information are "reversed". The biggest revelation was that ILIs find it very difficult to under LII ideas when naturally assuming that their models are based on real evidence - secondly that the framework for understand is objective. For example in the quote below.

A mistake an ILI will make when trying to understand the information above is assuming that the LII that wrote the information objectively identified what they ascribe to be "+L" & "-L". The reality is that the LII did not but rather created the framework out of thin air and are now using it to explain divergences in reasoning they speculate based on the behaviours they've seen.

ILI: first behavior -> then speculation/model/functions.... LII: first speculation/model/functions -> then trying to fit behavior into the model... Is this what you mean?

Can't we explain this with Function 8 vs. Function 1, i.e. vital vs. mental, rather than +L vs. -L?

What do you mean by "framework for understand is objective"?

Secondly ILIs start doubting when presented with logic they are not sure they can trust so to regain externality they then ask for consensus on their conjectures that basically cause doubt they are unsure whether the information is rubbish or contains any validity.

What do you mean by "regain externality"?

The problem with yermack here is that he's ascribed the functions as strict behaviours instead of thought processes, but it's not his fault he's primarily a static comprehender. Yes he is correct to note that ILIs:
*"observe logicality" (verification of logic to make sure the models aren't absolute nonsense)
"compliance with logicality in any details" (verification.... )
"orientation on clarification of details" (verification.... )
"Concrete usage of rules, order, consistency (legislation, resolution, regulations, rules, instructions, etc.)." ( related to verification this is looking at the objective circumstance)
"strict logic" (standard logic)
"non-recognition of illogicality" (yes this is true when suppressing the subjective side of their logic)

Wouldn't LII verify the logic to make sure the models aren't absolute nonsense?

"non-recognition of illogicality" (yes this is true when suppressing the subjective side of their logic) ... But this is mental L vs. vital L, right?

"Concrete usage of rules, order, consistency (legislation, resolution, regulations, rules..." ... There seems to be more ILI lawyers than LII lawyers. But does L+ vs. L- really explain this? There are even more SLI (L-) lawyers. Hmm?

This is correctly observable behaviour in people clearly diagnosed as ILI, however, the mistake Yermak made is failing to understand that this is the actual "P" side of their logic or objective logic. This is the most observable form of their logic most publicly displayed. The "L" perspective of the ILI logic is triggered when sufficiently it becomes clear that the facts in consideration are grounded in reality, whilst for LII "L" is always active by default - for this reason LIIs are less likely to display the attitudes above instinctively.

I don't think Yermak has confused L with P, since these functions/aspects deal with completely different things.

[Petter]

ILI has a more obvious R+ than R-, a more obvious I- than I+, a more obvious T+ than T- etc. SSS is right about this, no doubt... but I am very skeptical of many other aspects of their theory. For example, I asked: "Which type is the typical mathematician according to your model?" SSS: "Any type with Leading P or L."

[Exodus]

Roughly, yes. ILIs do tend to zero in on smaller parts of the matter under discussion. But this generally happens in a (seemingly to me) haphazard manner, as needed, rather than in an attempt to present a complete system of thought like a Ti ego would try to do.

The description of LII's Ti as being "paradoxical" (also shared by Model G) seems to me to be a bit over the top. The gist of it seems to be the need to resolve contradictions and gel knowledge together into something more abstract and general, in order to gain insight. But the actual consideration of paradoxes or holding contradictory ideas in the mind at once seems to overlap somewhat with Ne territory.

[Exodus]

but I am very skeptical of many other aspects of their theory. For example, I asked: "Which type is the typical mathematician according to your model?" SSS: "Any type with Leading P or L."

Yeah, that seems clearly wrong.

[Petter]

Roughly, yes. ILIs do tend to zero in on smaller parts of the matter under discussion.

I agree with this... but I think it is due to T+. L asks questions later (sometimes just seconds later).

SSS, Dynamics of actions (T+, Ni+): topicality, timeliness, tendencies

But this generally happens in a (seemingly to me) haphazard manner, as needed, rather than in an attempt to present a complete system of thought like a Ti ego would try to do.

You are right. This is mental vs. vital.

The description of LII's Ti as being "paradoxical" (also shared by Model G) seems to me to be a bit over the top. The gist of it seems to be the need to resolve contradictions and gel knowledge together into something more abstract and general, in order to gain insight.

This is definitely true for LII, but isn't it true for ILI as well? "resolve contradictions... something general... in order to gain insight" It sounds like, for example, an ILI physicist.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-by-V-Gulenko

ILI has L- (or L+) here, but I am not sure if this still is Gulenko's view.