ILE (ENTp) Vs LII (INTj). INTP sociotypes.
full discussion here: http://www.personalitynation.com/soc...ociotypes.html
MensSuperMateriam of personalitynation writes:
A closer look to the ILE and LII ego blocks.
Many of the upper tricks are based in the idea that functions in Socionics behave differently depending on the position (each type will have the eight functions). This is specially obvious if they're part of different blocks, fut unfortunately this is not the ILE Vs LII case. But even inside them, qualitative differences also exist, not only quantitative (stronger/weaker). The most important and obvious difference inside a block will happen with leading (dom) and creative (aux) functions.
The accepting/producing dichotomy. In Socionics, odd functions are accepting. They're the source of information about reality, the data that an user naturally "see" and forms the picture of reality. Leading function, being first is accepting. Even functions are producing. They use the data took by even functions for creating a new product that is molded to that cross-cut of reality obtained by the accepting function. Creative being even is producing.
Being ILEs Ne leading, they should take Ne information (properties, possibilities) and create Ti concepts with it. Whereas being LIIs TI leading, they should create concepts first and deduce possibilities from them.
Let's suppose the concept "to fall" is unknown. The natural way an ILE would adquire it would be something like this: and object could be in option A state, which would be elevated; an object could be also in option B state, which would be on the floor. Both states are extrapolated (Ne seeks for possibilities) to a general case: state A at greater height than state B. To fall will be moving from state A to state B. The concept (Ti data) is deduced from possibilities (Ne data): Ne->Ti.
What an user of a concrete type naturally "sees" should be the limitant factor. An ILE will not easily conceptualize without seeing/imagining previously properties, states, etc. But at the same time, they will not be subordinated to concepts, because these are for them creations instead natural properties of reality, so they could be redone whenever necessary. If an ILE imagines or realizes new properties that are not included in the concepts, they're inmediately actualizated or reconstructed. What matters are properties that can be perceived or imagined (Ne data).
For LIIs the mind process is reversed. The question will not be constructed as "if an object is moving from the top to the bottom, the object will be falling" (ILE mindset) but "if an object is falling, the object has to move from the top to the bottom". They conceptualize first (Ti data) and deduce properties, possibilities, options, from them (Ne data). Ti->Ne. LIIs perceive reality as made from Ti elements which they use for creating options. Ti is the limitant factor for them; they cannot "see" more options than those which come from what matters for them, that is, concepts.
The key, limitant, factor (leading function) could then be recognized by opposing the two ego functions in the thinking processes. The function whose elements are usually actualized should be the creative, whereas the function whose elements causes the actualization should be the leading. An ILE will usually perceive new properties, aspects of reality not previously noticed that overcome existing concepts, being forced to constantly improve them. A LII will usually notice new concepts, "laws" of reality which will offer options not imagined before.
A consequence of this is a curious behavior that LIIs manifest when compared with ILEs. LIIs tend to be briefs in the descriptions of their ideas. After all, once the concepts are created, their consecuences are more or less obvious, so speaking (or writting) to much is something like being redundant. This is not the case of ILEs, who do not know a concept like "too much data/info". They tend to express their ideas in a very lenghty and detailed way.
A clue that could help is the time spent in each task. An accepting function (leading, limitant factor) should be significantly slower in its tasks than a producing (creative) function. The second one produces an output that is deduced (more or less quickly) from the data that the first one has previously gathered (this could be really slow). For example, an ILE (Ne leading) could imagine a really high amount of positions for an object before making a simple evaluation about what "falling" should be, whereas a LII (Ne creative) will not think about this too much because most of these positions will be equivalents in relation to the idea of "falling".
All of this would justify the j LII behavior when compared with the p ILE behavior. LIIs naturally perceive reality as made from "laws" (concepts), what could easily imply rules of behavior, being organized, etc. ILEs naturally perceive reality as made from properties, possibilities, etc. Every possibility will be translated in a particular behavior in particular context (chaotic, disorganized, etc).
The question of accepting and producing subtypes.
There are several subtype classifications, being the accepting/producing the most commonly adopted. Inside each tipe, an user could focus in leading (which is accepting) or creating (wich is producing) function.
Being accepting subtypes focused in their leading functions, they will be the "hardcore" subtypes, whose behavior would fit better in the general description of their types. Producing subtypes are focused in creative functions, manifesting a "softcore" version. They will have an higher probability of manifesting an external reversed behavior (introverted extratims and extraverted introtims), difficulting determining their correct type. Many INTPs, for example, could be in fact Ti-ILEs instead LIIs, specially those with almost absent j behavior. The same should happen with ENTPs, many of them could be Ne-LIIs instead ILEs.
The sequence of thinking will anyway follow which corresponds to their main types.
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
just seems like a last resort that I'll only use if I have to.
--> perhaps Normalizing 
