ILIs/INTps and being ambitious

[vesstheastralsilky]

I agree that the Ni concept would theoretically make someone less inclined to be vocal in such a way as to obtain the title grammar nazis. I think even The Critic is a bit much. I could see artist, scientist, mystic, skeptic, etc, but Critic is not quite right. It makes very little sense. Ni dominants are communicatively distant. Maybe the ones that are more extroverted and less agreeable would? I'm not sure. Their melancholic nature is more of a self imposed standard as opposed to a standard to impose onto others. I would think ExTj would be most inclined.

I'm very tech savy and science oriented. I am very stubborn with what i know and I know it well, but I'm not imposing or intimidating with it. It is just too much effort to put into such things. Of course, there are contradictions in socionics theory, so I can see where it is confusing for everyone. I do think that ILI(INTp) is more similar to INTP in MBTI just based on the descriptions and temperament. LII is more similar to INTJ. It is the difference between Ips and Ijs. Forget the functional stack, just look at overall picture. ILIs are also light researchers, hardly the type that would make a great critic. You have to have people that aren't as lazy as ILI in acquiring knowledge to make at least a good critic.

I know this is the reverse of what people are used to with the theory, but I think it makes more sense.

The ILI Critics exist. I've worked with them. They smile as they shoot down new ideas too. They tend to rely on functional resources they have than favor innovation. The imaginative reputation is undeserved and inaccurate.

[FarDraft]

The ILI Critics exist. I've worked with them. They smile as they shoot down new ideas too. They tend to rely on functional resources they have than favor innovation. The imaginative reputation is undeserved and inaccurate.

Then they're not intuitive types. Ni is, by definition, imaginative. If it weren't, then the basis of intuition would be broken. It's just that Ni users aren't as willing to engage in unlikely possibilities as Ne users. This is partially do to Je being in their ego block. Te also uses established methods when solving problems. But Ni sees the non-linear patterns to where Te methods can be applied. That is imagination.

[vesstheastralsilky]

Then they're not intuitive types. Ni is, by definition, imaginative. If it weren't, then the basis of intuition would be broken. It's just that Ni users aren't as willing to engage in unlikely possibilities as Ne users. This is partially do to Je being in their ego block. Te also uses established methods when solving problems. But Ni sees the non-linear patterns to where Te methods can be applied. That is imagination.

That definition is wrong. Ni is simple deductive introspective rationality, if you want the truth. Any type can potentially be imaginative including me. It is not a valid reference in socionics if one really cares about intertype relations and cognitive functional analysis per model A.

Trust me. It took many years and experiments to figure this out. I always thought I was IN but intertype relations never worked until switching to Si dominant and tweaking a few definitions.

[FarDraft]

That definition is wrong. Ni is simple deductive introspective rationality, if you want the truth. Any type can potentially be imaginative including me. It is not a valid reference in socionics if one really cares about intertype relations and cognitive functional analysis per model A.

Trust me. It took many years and experiments to figure this out. I always thought I was IN but intertype relations never worked until switching to Si dominant and tweaking a few definitions.

I'm not convinced. Your definition of Ni is as "deductive" and related to "rationality". How would this differ from Ti? Moreover, if you say that any type can be imaginative, then what's the point in saying that ILIs aren't imaginative? Lastly, how do you define introspection? If it is defined by the dictionary, then it is "the examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes". If this weren't a judging process, then you're clearly just observing your mental processes. If that's the case, then what would limit Ni from being imaginative? I'm not completely against the definition you've given, but I am against the idea that an intuitive type is not imaginative. It strays too far from a Jungian basis and redefines intuition as a whole, which is something you can't do without redefining Ne, which, I assume, you aren't doing.

[Skepsis]

The ILI Critics exist. I've worked with them. They smile as they shoot down new ideas too. They tend to rely on functional resources they have than favor innovation. The imaginative reputation is undeserved and inaccurate.

Maybe we have different ideas of what makes someone a critic. I'm very critical with the things I know well, but I don't shoot down ideas just because they are new. If they don't make sense, aren't efficient, or effective, then there is good reason to dismiss an idea. Just because it is an idea, doesn't make it on par with other alternative ideas. When people easily dismiss scientific facts or get them wrong, I can get a little more outspoken to correct to state facts, but you would expect that from people that are more knowledgeable and competent. My own boss is ESxx and he very quickly dismisses ideas because he isn't very open minded and doesn't like discussing ideas. He has to act in the here and the now and get things done. He is capable of seeing longer term, but doesn't act with prudence as often as he should. He can be very critical, but not a Critic.

I'm not sure where the imagination reputation is undeserved. There are many INTp artists, musicians, authors, etc. The very definition of Ni is basically being bound to one's imagination and ruminations. In my opinion, it is the creative function that is given too much weight, especially since creative functions aren't "on" all of the time like the base. It skews archetypes. One Ni is the Critic and the other the Poet?

I'm sure ILI's critics exist, but they exist in other types as well and aren't exclusive to just ILI. I know plenty of ISFps that are critical with their art, ISTps with their craft, ESTp as a boss, etc. There is nothing unique about being a critic per se, just as there are many types that can be the Artist. When I think Critic, I think of some professional food or movie critic, and perhaps those people fit the archetype. Maybe they are ILI, maybe they aren't, but it is what they are interested in and knowledgeable about. Logically, not all critics are ILI, and not all ILIs are critics.

Other than professional critics, the more general term critic are usually just immature and insecure people who think they are always right. Not what one would expect from a Gamma in a "adult quadrant". But if the "critic" is competent and knowledgeable, then critic isn't really necessary. They are just good at what they do and have an intuition toward what works and what doesn't.

I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies I observe

[myresearch]

I am LII socionics and mbti INTP. People have different ideas about mbti and socionics correlations, this one is about mbti INTX: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Socionics-type. I always scored higher in openness than 90-95% of other people and my conscientious percentile has been always extremely low. There are lots of factors that could affect person's openness scale and tendency to criticism. Agreeableness level can affect the appearance of individual. I know that I can be very critical sometimes. I can admire or like or appreciate an idea even it is logically inconsistent or inaccurate in my opinion, but it doesn't mean that I will agree and accept it.

Generally, both ILI and LII can be like a critic at some moments. I agree that not all critics are ILI and not all ILIs are critic. However, as I said before LII is called the Analyst and ILI is called the Critic for a reason. The general function alignment of ILI is more prone to fit "the Critic" role. I have work experience with two ILIs and one XLI. I think one of them is extremely conscientious and disagreeable, he is very good at time management and planning, he can be visionary in some aspects. I think he is ILI-Te Normalizing type enneagram 6w5. He doesn't accept any new idea or new methods while we are working on a project. He accepts or sometimes appreciates new ideas or new methods, if he isn't working on a project. I think he wants everything to go according to his plan, that's why he automatically rejects anything if he didn't consider those before, so his plan shall remain on track. Maybe, I am wrong and he does this because of other reasons. Besides that, he always criticize people for everything, his criticisms sometimes don't even make sense. He is definitely the Critic. The other ILI is also conscientious and disagreeable, he sometimes can be critical but nothing extreme. He seems more introspective and I wouldn't describe him as the Critic. However, he is also resistant to accept new ideas during projects, but he considers them and accept them if they could be proven to be useful. XLI accepts new ideas and new methods during projects, but he could be SLI, I am not sure yet.

[FarDraft]

I am LII socionics and mbti INTP. People have different ideas about mbti and socionics correlations, this one is about mbti INTX: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Socionics-type. I always scored higher in openness than 90-95% of other people and my conscientious percentile has been always extremely low. There are lots of factors that could affect person's openness scale and tendency to criticism. Agreeableness level can affect the appearance of individual. I know that I can be very critical sometimes. I can admire or like or appreciate an idea even it is logically inconsistent or inaccurate in my opinion, but it doesn't mean that I will agree and accept it.

Generally, both ILI and LII can be like a critic at some moments. I agree that not all critics are ILI and not all ILIs are critic. However, as I said before LII is called the Analyst and ILI is called the Critic for a reason. The general function alignment of ILI is more prone to fit "the Critic" role. I have work experience with two ILIs and one XLI. I think one of them is extremely conscientious and disagreeable, he is very good at time management and planning, he can be visionary in some aspects. I think he is ILI-Te Normalizing type enneagram 6w5. He doesn't accept any new idea or new methods while we are working on a project. He accepts or sometimes appreciates new ideas or new methods, if he isn't working on a project. I think he wants everything to go according to his plan, that's why he automatically rejects anything if he didn't consider those before, so his plan shall remain on track. Maybe, I am wrong and he does this because of other reasons. Besides that, he always criticize people for everything, his criticisms sometimes don't even make sense. He is definitely the Critic. The other ILI is also conscientious and disagreeable, he sometimes can be critical but nothing extreme. He seems more introspective and I wouldn't describe him as the Critic. However, he is also resistant to accept new ideas during projects, but he considers them and accept them if they could be proven to be useful. XLI accepts new ideas and new methods during projects, but he could be SLI, I am not sure yet.

I've come across the link you pointed to before. It's really interesting to me how divergent different typing mechanisms truly are.

Part of the reason I think that a lot of INTJs wouldn't identify with ILI in socionics is because of Te creative and Ne ignoring. In MBTI, INTJs are frequently heralded as wildly innovative and idealistic, so when they read that ILIs are generally more conservative and realistic, they immediately feel as though that describes a "senser archetype", which turns them off since most description-yielded INTJs seem to be intuitive-elitists in nature. However, when INTJs actually understand Te and don't conflate it with Si, they realize that pragmatism is the core of how INTJs make logical decisions, and they either reject that notion or re-evaluate themselves. Moreover, most people have very strong misunderstandings of how Ni works in MBTI. It's not just about vision and planning. It's also about patterns understood through experience. This is why INTJs have "gut feelings". In my experience, it's the INTPs who are excellent in calculating the next likely move using logic. INTJs usually just guess or connect the dots using their experience.

The problem with these misunderstandings is that it gives the INTJs undeserved strengths and hides merited ones. An INTJ is usually pretty bad at brainstorming or coming up with novel ideas. What they are good at, however, is making non-linear connections between what they have seen somewhere and how it can be useful in the problem they're solving now. In short, they have strong associative memories, which leads to rapid synthesis and highly efficient solutions. This is also the reason why Ni is symbolic - it's highly personal. Contrast this with Ne, which is excellent at generating new possibilities in the outside world. It's associative in an analytic sense rather than in a synthetic one, meaning that while the memory of an Ne user won't be associative, their thoughts will be. It's a subtle but very useful distinction, in my opinion. That's why xNTPs often come up with ridiculous solutions that are more frequently denoted as creative.

If this is understood, then the connection between INTJ and ILI is a natural one since what I've just described is dialectical-algorithmic thinking. And this is something that I discovered (obviously not in the same depth or rigour) prior to learning socionics, meaning that it should be relatively void of confirmation bias. In fact, some of my earliest posts on this forum (now deleted) were about where associative memories fit into the theory. To be honest, there are some in the MBTI community who would argue that INTPs have an associative memory as well, but I find those arguments inconsistent with the theory.

Your point that your coworker just wants things to go via his plan is certainly a possibility. What's also a possibility is that he has a strong 5 wing, meaning that he very much values competence. Thus, he wouldn't like the premise of having not considered a working method or idea by himself, leading to his criticism/(in this case) defensiveness. Head types with a strong 3 fix can be like this. I would know this because I have a strong 3 fix and can be quite ego-oriented in that way, though I try not to be. I am also very high in openness (90-99th percentile) and conscientiousness (80-90) while low in agreableness (10 or so).

I think the moral of the story is to not lose precision in how we define the big 5 aspects and to not lose sight of the fact that different aspects working in tandem can lead to contradictory behaviours.

[myresearch]

I've come across the link you pointed to before. It's really interesting to me how divergent different typing mechanisms truly are.

Part of the reason I think that a lot of INTJs wouldn't identify with ILI in socionics is because of Te creative and Ne ignoring. In MBTI, INTJs are frequently heralded as wildly innovative and idealistic, so when they read that ILIs are generally more conservative and realistic, they immediately feel as though that describes a "senser archetype", which turns them off since most description-yielded INTJs seem to be intuitive-elitists in nature. However, when INTJs actually understand Te and don't conflate it with Si, they realize that pragmatism is the core of how INTJs make logical decisions, and they either reject that notion or re-evaluate themselves. Moreover, most people have very strong misunderstandings of how Ni works in MBTI. It's not just about vision and planning. It's also about patterns understood through experience. This is why INTJs have "gut feelings". In my experience, it's the INTPs who are excellent in calculating the next likely move using logic. INTJs usually just guess or connect the dots using their experience.

The problem with these misunderstandings is that it gives the INTJs undeserved strengths and hides merited ones. An INTJ is usually pretty bad at brainstorming or coming up with novel ideas. What they are good at, however, is making non-linear connections between what they have seen somewhere and how it can be useful in the problem they're solving now. In short, they have strong associative memories, which leads to rapid synthesis and highly efficient solutions. This is also the reason why Ni is symbolic - it's highly personal. Contrast this with Ne, which is excellent at generating new possibilities in the outside world. It's associative in an analytic sense rather than in a synthetic one, meaning that while the memory of an Ne user won't be associative, their thoughts will be. It's a subtle but very useful distinction, in my opinion. That's why xNTPs often come up with ridiculous solutions that are more frequently denoted as creative.

If this is understood, then the connection between INTJ and ILI is a natural one since what I've just described is dialectical-algorithmic thinking. And this is something that I discovered (obviously not in the same depth or rigour) prior to learning socionics, meaning that it should be relatively void of confirmation bias. In fact, some of my earliest posts on this forum (now deleted) were about where associative memories fit into the theory. To be honest, there are some in the MBTI community who would argue that INTPs have an associative memory as well, but I find those arguments inconsistent with the theory.

Your point that your coworker just wants things to go via his plan is certainly a possibility. What's also a possibility is that he has a strong 5 wing, meaning that he very much values competence. Thus, he wouldn't like the premise of having not considered a working method or idea by himself, leading to his criticism/(in this case) defensiveness. Head types with a strong 3 fix can be like this. I would know this because I have a strong 3 fix and can be quite ego-oriented in that way, though I try not to be. I am also very high in openness (90-99th percentile) and conscientiousness (80-90) while low in agreableness (10 or so).

I think the moral of the story is to not lose precision in how we define the big 5 aspects and to not lose sight of the fact that different aspects working in tandem can lead to contradictory behaviours.

Yes, my coworker has a strong 3 fix. I actually do this all the time: What they are good at, however, is making non-linear connections between what they have seen somewhere and how it can be useful in the problem they're solving now. I thought they were provided by my Ne, maybe it is related to both Ne and Ni. How do you differentiate associative thinking from associative memory? (I used google I am just curious about your differentiation) Do you find it easier to differentiate your Ni from your Ne than differentiating your Ti from your Te?


this post claims that Ni corresponds to linear process intuition and Ne corresponds to nonlinear: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...stems-Thinking

I think this article gives a good definition for Ne, you can check if you are interested: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p/395-Ne-Blobs

[FarDraft]

Yes, my coworker has a strong 3 fix. I actually do this all the time: What they are good at, however, is making non-linear connections between what they have seen somewhere and how it can be useful in the problem they're solving now. I thought they were provided by my Ne, maybe it is related to both Ne and Ni. How do you differentiate associative thinking from associative memory? (I used google I am just curious about your differentiation) Do you find it easier to differentiate your Ni from your Ne than differentiating your Ti from your Te?


this post claims that Ni corresponds to linear process intuition and Ne corresponds to nonlinear: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...stems-Thinking

I think this article gives a good definition for Ne, you can check if you are interested: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p/395-Ne-Blobs

I should mention that many of my thoughts have been influenced by Gulenko's work, at least now. You can watch this conversation between Gulenko and Ben Vaserlan for more information. https://youtu.be/9ttGcX59jLc In this conversation, they make the note of differentiating between static and dynamic behaviour. Whereas the LII is static, meaning that they remember things at a particular moment in time, perhaps in more clarity, the ILI remembers many things at different times, leading to an associative memory.

I would generally agree with the link you provided in that Ne is inter-system and Ni is intra-system. Connecting different systems together is what holographic-panoramic cognition does best, but it's not what I'm saying. This leads straight into the difference between associative memory and thinking. Basically, the difference is that associative memory is subjective and associative thinking is objective. If Einstein hadn't connected electromagnetism and relativity, realizing that the speed of light is constant, then someone else would have since there's only one correct theory of the universe. Granted, Einstein is thought to have been an ENTp, which is not holographic-panoramic but an Ne user nonetheless. However, an associative memory need not connect different systems together in an objective manner but rather what worked in a particular moment in time and how that situation relates to the present one. It sees patterns in one's own experience of the systems rather than patterns between the systems themselves, leading to a highly subjective quality to it. In this sense, we can say that Ni users are "in the system".

I can give you an example. I recently took an exam in proof based linear algebra. One of the problems on it looked very similar to a problem I had seen before on a problem set. Thus, I tried using a method that worked for that problem, and it worked. After completing the exam, I was talking to other people on how it was similar to a problem set problem, yet no one understood what I was talking about. That's because I had conceived of a subjective pattern based on what had worked in my past experience rather than an objective one. Contrast this with another student who is an ENTp, I believe. In class, he frequently connects a piece of knowledge that we just learned to another piece of knowledge that we had not learned (if X is true, then doesn't that mean that Y should be true? When X and Y are of completely different domains). This is not a subjective connection based on what works but rather an objective connection based on what is logically consistent. Had he not seen this, then someone else inevitably would have since there is only one possible connection between the two domains in this circumstance.

The overall consequence of this is that Ni users are frequently misunderstood since the connections they make are very personal whereas Ne users are frequently considered out of touch with reality since the connections they make are very abstract. The difference is, however, that Ne connections are verifiable by logic whereas Ni connections are (often) not - they are only verifiable by empirical means since the connection is not an objective fact but rather one that just works.

I hope this makes my thoughts clearer.

EDIT: My understanding of the IEs has changed since this time. I don't believe Ne makes connections anymore. I still think that the guy in my class is an ILE, but the connections I was noticing were Ti connections, not Ne connections. The connections are still objective since logic is objective (of course, assuming everything that's necessary) and Ti is an external (explicit) IE. Ni is internal (implicit) and so the connections are not so objective yet may still be true.

[Skepsis]

I should mention that many of my thoughts have been influenced by Gulenko's work, at least now. You can watch this conversation between Gulenko and Ben Vaserlan for more information. https://youtu.be/9ttGcX59jLc In this conversation, they make the note of differentiating between static and dynamic behaviour. Whereas the LII is static, meaning that they remember things at a particular moment in time, perhaps in more clarity, the ILI remembers many things at different times, leading to an associative memory.

I would generally agree with the link you provided in that Ne is inter-system and Ni is intra-system. Connecting different systems together is what holographic-panoramic cognition does best, but it's not what I'm saying. This leads straight into the difference between associative memory and thinking. Basically, the difference is that associative memory is subjective and associative thinking is objective. If Einstein hadn't connected electromagnetism and relativity, realizing that the speed of light is constant, then someone else would have since there's only one correct theory of the universe. Granted, Einstein is thought to have been an ENTp, which is not holographic-panoramic but an Ne user nonetheless. However, an associative memory need not connect different systems together in an objective manner but rather what worked in a particular moment in time and how that situation relates to the present one. It sees patterns in one's own experience of the systems rather than patterns between the systems themselves, leading to a highly subjective quality to it. In this sense, we can say that Ni users are "in the system".

I can give you an example. I recently took an exam in proof based linear algebra. One of the problems on it looked very similar to a problem I had seen before on a problem set. Thus, I tried using a method that worked for that problem, and it worked. After completing the exam, I was talking to other people on how it was similar to a problem set problem, yet no one understood what I was talking about. That's because I had conceived of a subjective pattern based on what had worked in my past experience rather than an objective one. Contrast this with another student who is an ENTp, I believe. In class, he frequently connects a piece of knowledge that we just learned to another piece of knowledge that we had not learned (if X is true, then doesn't that mean that Y should be true? When X and Y are of completely different domains). This is not a subjective connection based on what works but rather an objective connection based on what is logically consistent. Had he not seen this, then someone else inevitably would have since there is only one possible connection between the two domains in this circumstance.

The overall consequence of this is that Ni users are frequently misunderstood since the connections they make are very personal whereas Ne users are frequently considered out of touch with reality since the connections they make are very abstract. The difference is, however, that Ne connections are verifiable by logic whereas Ni connections are (often) not - they are only verifiable by empirical means since the connection is not an objective fact but rather one that just works.

I hope this makes my thoughts clearer.

Gulenko is building a new system that combines MBT and Socionics in an attempt to unify the two. He is under the assumption, as many here are, that MBTI INTP= Socionics LII. This only works when you ignore information that contradicts this assumption. For example, INTP in MBTI has a functional stack TiNeSiFe. This is much closer to Jung's idea of infantile Fe, a point of weakness within the individual. However, Socionics goes a step further and assumes that the inferier Fe needs to paired with an Fe dominant to find balance. This is something MBTI INTPs generally reject. Isn't strange that the ILI's polr is so similar to the MBTI's INTPs inferior Fe? The same with MBTI's INTJ's inferior Se. It is very similar to the LII's Se polr. This is relatively important information to ignore. So which is it? I don't think this has been worked out very well. Perhaps some MBTI INTPs would be receptive to being tamed with Fe, but I think with their inferior Fe behavior, they would repel Fe users in a manner similar to ILIs. There are little twists on information that make compatibility and direct correlations very troublesome.

I also don't think quadras are a good way to identify individual types. Since they are largely theoretical, they are essentially "predictions" of what you would expect if the cognitive stack, its interfunctional dynamics, and the effects they are supposed to have, are true. I don't think LII, necessarily fit into an alpha, especially if their weak Fe and strong Ti puts them at odds with the group.