It seems to me that one of the most confusing things about Socionics is the way the is described.
A good example is in the post http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3608. Notice the descriptions of , and the idea that it "Represents itself as the great director, emperor and the like."
Note also on sites, such as the very thorough Socioniko.net site, the descriptions of what LII people are like, and especially the pictures of LIIs. Similarly people talk a lot about having to do with inner confidence.
When I think of people who fit LII via this description, these are people who have a "default" sense of being right....as if they can't be wrong. Trying to show that they might be wrong is like hitting a brick wall. Even if they're wrong about something, they have such a "sense" of being right that everybody believes them.
Then, there's another interpretation of . This interpretation of says that it's really just pure logic, pure understanding of systems, understanding the inner logic of an argument, the essence, the kind of thinking you do when you prove theorems or program computers or solve computer problems...the sort of inner organic logic you use in creating something new that has its own internal logic to it.
That's what I'm using when I think I'm using , and of course here I am on this broken record track still wondering if it's or .
If it is , it's completely different from the "inner confidence" or "default I'm right" attitude in the other interpretation of . When I use what I think of as inner logic, it's something objective, completely pure, completely apart from "who I am," and it doesn't prove that I'm smart. In fact, it only proves how little I know, and how much we can all figure out just by thinking.
I think this distinction between two s is why Rocky says I'm an LII (perhaps intuitive subtype, or ILE) whereas Rick, Phaedrus and others say I'm more probably an ILI.
Do other people see this dichotomy? ...That it seems there are "two s in Socionics"? Or is it really that my "objective," impersonal view of what logic makes it no matter how "inner" and -like it may feel?