One of the interesting things about Socionics in the way it describes ENTps.
Intuitively, and based on observation, it would appear that the type of people who one would think would have to be ENTps are typically among the more worldly-wise NTs.
Between an INTp and ENTp, I would think that the INTp would be the one more into the world of the imagination, and the ENTp would be familiar with the "goings on" around one. Perhaps an INTp may talk about certain ideas that have a certain deep truth and creative insight, but the ENTp might point out some useful information from his/her many conversations and investigations that will help one consider how to implement an idea "out there" in the "real world" of people, organizations, and what's happening these days.
And, intuitively, it would seem that the INTps, being focused in the world of their imagination, would sometimes appear a little a naive about their surroundings, even childlike, not because they can't understand the world, but because their area of confidence is in exploring their own ideas.
So it's very interesting to me the way certain things said in Socionics seem to put it the other way around. I have no intention to pick on Rick here , but his insightful site offers a very good and representative example, when arguing that that Einstein was ENTp. He states:
This seems to portray ILEs as in their own childlike, idealistic world, and ILIs as stark realists, more knowledgeable about how to deal with the "real world out there."Einstein had a childlike naiveté that is foreign to pessimistic, skeptical ILIs. He didn't have the negativism, realism, and sardonic attitude typical of ILIs, but was very much a romantic bohemian, idealist, and believer in "goodness, beauty, and truth."
In a sense, it appears that the Socionics definitions of ILE vs. ILI are reversed from the way many people conceptualize these two types.
How do these various perspectives fit with your understanding?