I guess that this comes from the fact that I've try to convey my thoughts in the most unambiguous way; If I were to write my thought process exactly, it would end up in a unreadable mess and I usually take a lot of time to write something clear enough.
I can relate to LII in many ways, but the problem is that the description of Ti as a demonstrative function is much more accurate for me than of Ti as a leading one:
"The individual often criticizes others' views from a logical standpoint, picking apart statements and postulates and showing that they are logically flawed. However, he does not choose to do this excessively and does not expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a neat logical systematic anyway."
For example, I can understand the logic within the cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) from Descartes, but even if it is logical I am not convinced by it personally. Moreover, I find doing Math just for sake of it boring, if there is no connection to a real phenomena I see it as an empty exercise. Probabilities are very interesting, because I can actually imagine myself winning money by using the theory.
My sister,an EII, who may be one the persons who knows me the best, clearly states that I'm not an LII and that ILI description fits me more, so I'm bit a lost between all the possibilities...
But what would be the main differences between ILIs and LIIs?