ILIs/INTps and being ambitious

[FarDraft]

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.

This gets to the heart of what I think is the main problem with socionics: what is standard for determining type? If there are multiple standards (descriptions, temperament, IR, VR, IEs, etc.), then there will be various different connections between MBTI and socionics that are equally valid. But that's not a useful construct since it makes socionics relative, which is the exact opposite of what a good theory should be striving for.

For example, if we look at high-level descriptions, then you're correct in saying that LII is closer to INTJ and ILI closer to INTP. However, quadra-wise that connection makes no sense since INTPs are way more likely to be alpha and INTJs gamma. Likewise when we're considering cognitive functions. The Ti definition in MBTI and and socionics are very similar. The main difference is that Ti users are supposed to be rule-abiders in socionics whereas that usually gets associated with Si and Te in MBTI. So, if would make the most sense for INTPs to type as INTj if we're going by the functions. Similarly with INTJs and INTp, though I'll admit that there are some more differences in the definition of Ni between MBTI and socionics.

Personally, I think that the functions are the way to go since socionics is, at its core, a cognitive rather than behavioural theory. The IR patterns make more sense if we look at the system in this way.

Also, you're correct in saying that Te base types are more inclined for research. However, I think that any Te-ego type would be set on obtaining as much knowledge as possible in a field of their choice, especially the Te-subtypes. ILI-Te is called the expert for that very reason. But, being introverts, any direct connection to the outside world would be diminished.

EDIT: MBTI functions are pretty damn inconsistent and incomprehensible. They don't actually tell you how people metabolize information but rather the overall gist of how one uses the function. For example, Ni doms have a "vision" that they are trying to fulfill and they use their auxiliary function as the means to achieve it. However, this only works with big projects. When I'm working on a homework problem, do I have a "vision of the solution" and then use Te to solve it linearly? Maybe something similar, but that particular phrasing is just silly.

EDIT 2: I don't know what my subtype is