ILIs/INTps and being ambitious

[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.

[FarDraft]

@Evolution
I'll address both of your posts in this reply.

Not necessarily. The Creative function isn't always "on", like the dominant function. Compare extroverted intuition as a creative function vs ignoring; not that different really.


Ne in different functional positions: (different ways to say the same thing?)

First post: there are a few problems I have with the idea that the creative function and the ignoring function are the same between quasi-identicals.

First, an LII values Ne whereas an ILI doesn't value it. This is an essential part of model A that would prevent the two types from using the function in "the same way" since, if they did, then it would imply that either both of them or neither of them valued the function. That's because one type actively tries to use the function as an extension of their base whereas the other actively tries to prevent using the function so as to not take away energy from their base. If they did use the function the same way, then which would it be? I guess the conclusion we can draw from this is that while the LII values Ne, the function is limited in scope when they use it i.e. they only use the function for particular purposes, which makes it seem as though it's ignored. The ILI, on the other hand, just doesn't want to use it. Likewise, the ILI only uses Te in a limited number of ways. For example, maximizing productivity for its own sake is never the goal for an ILI like it may be for an LxE (similar to how generating ideas for its own sake is never the goal of the LII); instead, the ILI uses empirical facts and productivity to solve problems directed by their Ni. The LII just doesn't want to use the function.

The second problem I have relates to this quote:

*This really isn't all that different than LII. These descriptions are to contrast LII and ILI with Ne dominants. The difference in emphasis though is to direct these types into different quadras, because that is the objective of socionics.

If we want a consistent system (as we should since socionics is not falsifiable), then we'd have to apply this same reasoning to other functions as well. For example, an ILI and LII would use Si in similar ways but model A distinguishes their relative value to be able to separate the two types into different quadras. I don't buy this idea since it would literally make ILI and LII the same type except for their base function, which simply doesn't hold in reality. Like, I know many individuals who are obvious Ti bases (and intuitives), and I can tell you for a fact that they value Si more than I do. Health, comfort, convenience, wellness, etc. are all things they make time for whereas it's almost a nonissue for me. When I do engage in those things, it's for ulterior (usually Se) reasons. For example, I may go to the gym to make myself look more attractive to a potential partner rather than for the purposes of health or wellness. I may only go to the gym for the purposes of developing physical strength, too.

Here's the thing: if the difference in emphasis is only to direct these two types into different quadras and this difference in emphasis keeps the functions values consistent with how model A predicts, then we'd have to concede that the functions aren't used in the same way. If we want to have the idea that the functions are used in the same way, then we'd have to abandon model A's ideas of function value. We can't have both. I think that keeping model A's idea of function value makes more sense and is more consistent with reality (even if we can't test it scientifically), which makes it a more useful system to employ.

Second post:

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.

I have noticed that Gulenko's work is much closer to ideas presented in MBTI, but there are many notable differences. For example, I don't think he ever made the claim that ILIs plan as much as MBTI says INTJs do. He claims they think further ahead than LIIs, which is consistent with the INTJ/INTP distinction, but he doesn't extend it to the illogical conclusion that Ni bases would be "set in stone" like MBTI does. Maybe this is his part of his attempt at unification.

I don't buy the 1-1 formula that LII = INTP, ILI = INTJ, etc. for the same reason you suggest and others. First, you say that there is inconsistency with how MBTI describes the inferior function. Let me add to this for Fe in INTP. Part of what MBTI says is that an INTP wants to be emotionally expressive and welcoming to others but they comes across as awkward when they try to do so. This is more reminiscent of Fi role and Fe DS. An INTJ just doesn't care since they value Fi rather than Fe, which means that they value genuine emotional connection rather than "putting on an act" to welcome somebody else. This is rather consistent with Fe PoLR for ILI and gamma values. However, MBTI also describes INTPs as recluses and loners that dislike emotional contact with others, which is like PoLR Fe. It's inconsistent and therefore problematic.

I don't think we can do the same analysis with INTJ and Se inferior and LII and Se PoLR since the fixations of Se vary so drastically in between the two systems to where they aren't even comparable. In a lot of ways, Se inferior sounds like Si PoLR in MBTI and Se PoLR sounds like a mix of Te and Se inferior in MBTI. To compare Se inferior to Se PoLR would therefore be a pretty useless comparison.

Here are my thoughts as to why there isn't a 1-1 connection.
I think that it really depends on how you type yourself in either system. For example, if you type yourself INTJ via descriptions in MBTI, then you're probably a rational type in socionics since socionics is more consistent with the idea that a rational leading function leads to a rational temperament than MBTI is. MBTI places more emphasis on the dominant extroverted function (but is also inconsistent with this). However, if you type yourself INTJ by thoroughly analyzing the functions, you're much more likely to type yourself ILI in socionics since you'll notice the similarities in their function stacks when you don't get caught up in the "mastermind" stereotype.


I find that quadras are only useful for seeing general trends among types. For example, I've noticed that people I type LII often care about finance/business a lot less than people I type ILI or LIE. And I'm not being confirmationally biased here (well, as much as that's possible for an unscientific study) since I'm typing these people on a standard that's independent of financial competence and understanding. It just seems to be the case that alphas don't care about this stuff and gammas do, despite the ideas of "quadras" being abstracted to all the way to hell. Similarly, gammas just don't seem to care about health or fun (in the abstract) nearly as much as alphas do. This is part of the reason I like the subtype system. It makes certain aspects of the type stronger than others. For example, an LII-Ne is much more alpha-like than an LII-Ti, though the latter still has many traits that are stereotypically considered alpha.

Overall, I think that it's a crapshoot as to whether an INTJ or INTP would be LII or ILI in socionics. It isn't so black and white either way you spin it.


Also, out of curiousity, what do you type as in MBTI and socionics?