Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
It seems to me that one of the most confusing things about Socionics is the way the is described.

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.
What a profound post about the nature of ! As someone who is currently considering LII as my type, I am investigating precisely what is. The one thing that keeps coming back to me about this IM Element is that the process of 'analysis' and 'investigation' appears to stem from it. This makes sense since is all about taking a new concept and applying general logical reasoning skills in order to distill the general essence or meaning of the concept. I agree with Jonathan that it actually does not stress how smart I am, but rather how I am willing and interested in dissecting and investigating all aspects of the concept in order to uncover some larger truths about it. If anything, the process gets at how little I know but how much more willing I am to learn and uncover these emergent truths. I find it fascinating that LIIs are called "Analysts", and assuming that analyzing is the modus operandi of the LII, I can see myself fitting well as this type (and heck, being an Enneagram 6 with its constant analytical mental chatter doesn't hurt this in any conceivable way).

Now it is possible that the additional form of which relatess to fierce adherence and support to one's particular logical truths might reflect a subtype variant of LII. For example, assuming that LII is my type, I am likely the -subtype. I could easily see how the ''fierce adherence' of some LIIs might pertain more to the -subtype, while a more open, investigative style might belong to the -subtype. Perhaps this can be partially chalked up to a subtype diifference. (My confidence in this assertion isn't necessarily high).

Great post Jonathan! Cuts right to the heart of the distinctions!