ATTN INTjs LIIs do you identify with this description?

[Mariano Rajoy]

Can you specify some of the problems you see in that description? Rather than throwing the whole description away, I think we should try to understand the exact resons why different types identify with it. I am sure we can learn something important about Socionics from it. And it is still a fact that James is an ILI and that that description fits the ILI type better than any other type, so how can so many other types incorrectly identify with it?

Is James an ILI?

[Phaedrus]

Is James an ILI?

Yes, that is what I claim that he is. He wouldn't have written it in the way he did if he wasn't an ILI, and I can see clearly that he is the same type as I am myself. So, he simply must be an ILI.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Yes, that is what I claim that he is. He wouldn't have written it in the way he did if he wasn't an ILI, and I can see clearly that he is the same type as I am myself. So, he simply must be an ILI.

What way did he write it? How is it ILI?

[Phaedrus]

What way did he write it? How is it ILI?

You don't answer my questions. What problems do you see with the description? How is it not ILI? I have already given an example in this thread of an aspect, pointed out by Expat, of how it is written, and that aspect is in itself an indication of ILI. Compare with how people perceive what I write as repeating the same thing(s) over and over again.

It is a real problem that people don't immediately recognize that type description as portraying an ILI, because it seems to prove that people don't know how to read a type description. Now, try to explain why you are not convinced that it is an ILI description,

[Mariano Rajoy]

Now, try to explain why you are not convinced that it is an ILI description,

I never asserted that it was not an ILI description.