INTx and Strategic Thinking

[FarDraft]

I've seen different responses from many different people on the subject of strategic thinking and its correlation to functional strength and preference in socionics. Some argue it's the LII who is most strategic whereas others argue it is ILI. Personally, I think that both are strong and correct cases, implying that both have the potential to be strong strategic thinkers, but I want to present my own interpretation of the functions and how they manifest in this subject area.

Both ILI and LII have 4D Ni and Ti with neither of the types ignoring either one of those functions. Thus, both types would be strong at determining patterns of the past and extrapolating them into the future as well as deterministic analysis from a set of initial principles. The former helps for strategy due to its ability to make accurate forecasts, whereas the latter can calculate in the short-term very precisely, making assumptions that are needed. Both combined would thus give a strong handle on what will be likely to occur in the near and further future.

However, whereas ILI uses Te alongside these two, LII uses Ne. This gives the ILI the advantage in devising pragmatic methods for achieving profit it sees using Ni and Ti and the LII the advantage in seeing more potential outcomes, which gives them the stronger ability to identify and seize opportunities.

Personally, I don't buy the idea that Ni types lack "big picture" thinking. If Ni is about perceiving the flow of events over time, then what part of that isn't able to see the big picture - the detail-orientedness? It's not as if Ni can't detach from the details. It is, after all, an intuitive function, meaning that it makes guesses, picks up on patterns, and leaps from one point to another. It's just that the ILI would be critical of those jumps until all the details are worked out. That isn't the same as not being able to see the bigger picture. "Going off your gut" isn't high intuition since any reasonable person would realize that saying "my gut feeling was wrong" is not a justification of why your plan failed. In other words, intuition is about having those "gut feelings/perceptions" rather than always acting on them. If you're doing something important, you have to think it through, and you better not make a mistake.
In this sense, I think that ILIs have the advantage since their plans are more likely to be better thought through.

However, holographic panoramic thinking is excellent at seeing the same circumstance under a new light. Thus, whereas an ILI would construct a more linear plan with steps A,B,C, etc, an LIIs thinking would be more nonlinear and creative, which would allow for innovative (but not necessarily pragmatic) methods. For example, in mathematics, whereas an ILI would start from the definitions and work up to a conclusion in a linear manner, the LII would observe a symmetry or interesting feature of the system they are working with and exploit it for full benefit, often leading to a more efficient (but not necessarily more effective) solution. It's less reliable but certainly useful in circumstances that call for novel ideas.
Personally, I think that this style of thinking is more useful in academia than in most strategic endeavours since there is usually a very large risk associated with completely novel methods of doing something in strategy. But, when done properly, it could be a big win.

According to Gulenko, ILIs are the more likely strategist of the two types, as explained in this reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypo..._of_vaserlans/ which I find to be quite accurate in my experience.

LIIs are more orderly and conscientious due to being a rational type but not necessarily more strategic. ILIs tend to detach and forecast more, but that doesn't necessarily make them planned. I think that both types have the necessary strengths to be strong strategic thinkers, but, like Gulenko says, I think it's more likely that an ILI would actually become one.

TL;DR: Whereas the LII has the strength of novelty and generality on its side, the ILI has the strength of accuracy and pragmatism on its. While both types have a strong capability to be strategists, in my opinion, due to LII's static nature and unvaluing of Ni and Te, the ILI has the advantage.

EDIT: A number of my thoughts on this subject have changed since the posting of this thread (including what I've written in responses on this thread). If my future posts reflect that, then this edit is to cover my ass.

[Exodus]

Who said Ni types lack big picture thinking??

What you're saying here is generally on the mark. Ti and Ni can result in making lots of detailed plans or analyzing what will go on in the future.

[The Reality Denialist]

The implications of not thinking in big picture is assigned to process types by Gulenko and therefore this does not apply to IEI and LIE.

Big picture thinking here refers to large singular mental view of the things.

[FarDraft]

The implications of not thinking in big picture is assigned to process types by Gulenko and therefore this does not apply to IEI and LIE.

Big picture thinking here refers to large singular mental view of the things.

That was my initial thought, which I think makes sense, but the reason I second guessed it is because the same sentiment doesn't seem to be applied to other process types. For example, I never hear that EIIs or EIEs lack big picture thinking, yet I hear a lot that ILIs do. So, I thought it had to do more with the detailed nature of Ni coupled with a process focus. I also don't hear that results types are more big picture focused than process ones. Maybe that's because Reinin dichotomies are looked down upon on this forum?

[FarDraft]

Who said Ni types lack big picture thinking??

What you're saying here is generally on the mark. Ti and Ni can result in making lots of detailed plans or analyzing what will go on in the future.

I've heard it from a few members and posts on this forum. Won't name names since there's no point now that I have some backing that I'm not holding a deluded point of view. But I'm still not sure, so I guess I'll wait until more people (hopefully) reply to the post.

[Exodus]

I've heard it from a few members and posts on this forum. Won't name names since there's no point now that I have some backing that I'm not holding a deluded point of view. But I'm still not sure, so I guess I'll wait until more people (hopefully) reply to the post.

Fair enough. People say a lot of things

[The Reality Denialist]

That was my initial thought, which I think makes sense, but the reason I second guessed it is because the same sentiment doesn't seem to be applied to other process types. For example, I never hear that EIIs or EIEs lack big picture thinking, yet I hear a lot that ILIs do. So, I thought it had to do more with the detailed nature of Ni coupled with a process focus. I also don't hear that results types are more big picture focused than process ones. Maybe that's because Reinin dichotomies are looked down upon on this forum?

I have thought about similar things. Well, EIE's in my opinion can be good managerial material. Their focus is supposedly wider than ILI's, of course but they function in local sphere quite well. It could be how types can hyperfocus on certain things (like views to details and details to views) and build it from there. Math for example for me is like collection of plausible processes that might lead to the end and not the end result which seems to be problem for many individuals.

As for me and being not big picture is very true in eyes of "view thinkers" as I usually find local "reasons".

[FarDraft]

I have thought about similar things. Well, EIE's in my opinion can be good managerial material. Their focus is supposedly wider than ILI's, of course but they function in local sphere quite well. It could be how types can hyperfocus on certain things (like views to details and details to views) and build it from there. Math for example for me is like collection of plausible processes that might lead to the end and not the end result which seems to be problem for many individuals.

As for me and being not big picture is very true in eyes of "view thinkers" as I usually find local "reasons".

In the same reddit post that I linked in the OP, Gulenko says that ILIs manage large teams better than LII, presumably due to Se valuing and clear Te methods, which leads to a more hierarchical style of management. However, due to Ni's fixation on the details, perhaps actually getting anything done with an ILI would be difficult since it would come across as perfectionistic. In that sense, their focus would be a detriment, but I think that the pragmatism of Te prevents too much Ni precision. It's often not worth the extra time to make something 5% better when you can make more than 5% extra profits doing something else.

Pure math is completely deterministic, meaning that if we stick by the initial principles and logically connect the dots, then it is true by definition since we assumed the initial principles (axioms) and rules of the game to be true. Thus, if we only use those principles and rules, there is no room for error.
However, within the context of an application, say physics, this no longer need be true since our ideas of what the initial principles and rules are need not match reality. In other words, we guess that the world should be like this from what we have observed in the past and it sometimes works but sometimes doesn't because there is some new effect that must be discovered. When the math doesn't lead to something that makes sense, theorists can predict what the cause could be by performing thought experiments and mathematically testing a number of hypotheses, making new assumptions that may be required. It is important since it narrows the number of hypotheses the experimentalists need to test, but it can't be considered truth since that would be conflating mathematical elegance with physical reality, which we can't do until someone shows that there is an isomorphism between every mathematical physics discovery and physical phenomenon.

I see what you mean about the "view thinkers" vs "local reasons" idea. I too don't search for grand unifying truths since I'm painfully aware how futile that journey is. Instead, I develop expertise in fields that matter to me and try to make accurate deductions and predictions based on that knowledge. The only place I would consider searching for grand unifying truths would be mathematics since there is only one possible solution: the one that's based upon the initial principles. That's why I've only limited my future education options to pure math or experimental physics.

[Rebelondeck]

There's a big difference between strategic planning (more LII-like) and strategic maneuvering (more ILI-like); both require big-picture insight. I'm not implying that LIIs aren't capable of maneuvering or adapting on-the-fly but they're not usually as comfortable with it or as potentially capable given that all other aspects are equal; ILIs are capable of planning but not potentially as effective. LIIs seem to need to have things thought out in advance whereas ILIs prefer to see how things develop before fully committing so motivational forces tend to be very different for the two types.

a.k.a. I/O

[Skepsis]

I don't think Jung was thinking of a strategic type when he wrote about the Ni and Ti dom.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Eh idk, on paper a LII or ILI would be very good with strategy but in reality their one-dimensional Fe fucks them both up too badly. Strategy takes a lot of Fe, can't under-estimate the Fe.

[FarDraft]

I don't think Jung was thinking of a strategic type when he wrote about the Ni and Ti dom.

Jung didn't think of a lot of things that have been integrated into MBTI and socionics, though. I think that there's a limit to how far we can go with "interpretation" and "addition to the theory", but since things like planning and long-term thinking have been so integrated into these systems, I think it's worth the effort to try to see how they precisely fit in.

[FarDraft]

Eh idk, on paper a LII or ILI would be very good with strategy but in reality their one-dimensional Fe fucks them both up too badly. Strategy takes a lot of Fe, can't under-estimate the Fe.

Type checks out.

But seriously, I agree that the execution of a plan normally requires a fair bit of Fe, but the development of the plan itself need not require it. It's also not that hard to fake Fe, imo. But it may not fool people for very long.

[FarDraft]

There's a big difference between strategic planning (more LII-like) and strategic maneuvering (more ILI-like); both require big-picture insight. I'm not implying that LIIs aren't capable of maneuvering or adapting on-the-fly but they're not usually as comfortable with it or as potentially capable given that all other aspects are equal; ILIs are capable of planning but not potentially as effective. LIIs seem to need to have things thought out in advance whereas ILIs prefer to see how things develop before fully committing so motivational forces tend to be very different for the two types.

a.k.a. I/O

I remember your talking about this idea on one of my earlier threads, and I still don't fully understand. Most of the ILI functional descriptions I've read talk about how being a process type and Ni dominant leads them to think through every detail before acting. How is this different than planning? Other descriptions talk about how ILIs dislike improvisation due to Ne ignoring - they often suck at coming up with things on the spot. An LIE I can see being a strong strategic maneuverer, given that they have 4D Ne and stronger Se action orientation, but the ILI seems more like a planner despite being an irrational type.

Most Ti-LIIs I've met are a lot less adaptable than the Ne-LII. In fact, I find that the subtype makes a world of a difference in this regard. Ti-LIIs seem to want everything set in stone before hand due to heightened rationality, whereas Ne-LIIs are more irrational and adaptable. However, due to Ti caring more about non-linear logical connections than a linear evolution of time, I find that they miss a lot of the details I end up picking up. For example, my IEE friend's LII-Ti girlfriend was trying to solve a math problem in the homework assignment. She had made the general connections and was writing it out, but in my reading of it, there were quite a few mistakes since she hadn't fleshed out the details of the connections she noticed. Since I'm more linear and step-by-step, I noticed that she made an unreasonable jump between a couple of her steps whereas since she's more nonlinear and synthetic, she missed those same details.

I'm not trying to exert superiority or anything like that since LIIs are certainly stronger than me in many areas. However, thinking through both the big picture and the details is my strength and most of what I've read correlates that to ILI rather than LII.

In my experience, Ne-LIIs are often some of the best strategic maneuverers since they have an almost ILE-like ability to adapt coupled with non-ignoring Ni and strong Ti. Like LIE in this regard but with fewer entrepreneurial tendencies.

Perhaps the differentiator is thus more along the lines of "structured" vs. "thought-through" since the LII is likely to miss details but have much more structure in what to do whereas the ILI wouldn't miss a detail but the structure is missing.

On that note, in your opinion, which subtype of the ILI do you think thinks through things more? I'm fairly certain I'm of the Te subtype, but I'm still not sure what that completely entails. If it means I'm more impulsive, then that doesn't really fit me. But I also remember you saying before that you didn't use subtypes. This could just be a figment of my imagination, though.

EDIT: I see how it's possible to think things through without planning. If we define planning as structuring actions you will take in the future and thinking something through as forecasting the likely outcomes of others' actions, then you need not structure your own actions to think something through. This makes a lot of sense to me.

EDIT 2: So I've thought about it some more and read more literature. The nature of an ILI is to search for potential sources of error and to minimize those sources of error using as few resources as possible. This leads to thinking through a method for how to get something done but not necessarily a detailed plan, though it would depend on subtype (Ni more inclined to think through all details in advanced with Te thinking through core elements mostly). Given that the literature doesn't talk so much about planning with respect to LIIs (I've seen some talking about how they like to plan things in advance), I really can't comment on them objectively. It seems like the INTP LIIs are a lot less prone to planning than the INTJ LIIs, though it's a crapshoot. Both INTJ and INTP ILIs should think through potential problems and stuff, though, as that's the very nature of NiTe.

[nefnaf]

LII is far better at correctly identifying the optimal solution from far distance. ILI is far better at implementing profitable solutions at short distance.

LII struggles when the optimal path isn't clear and set themselves back by not making local progress. ILI has a tendency to ignore alternatives to their current plan, even when a far more suitable solution is possible, and can run into problems in this way.

Overall I think your analysis is fairly sound.

[Rebelondeck]

I remember your talking about this idea on one of my earlier threads, and I still don't fully understand. Most of the ILI functional descriptions I've read talk about how being a process type and Ni dominant leads them to think through every detail before acting. How is this different than planning? Other descriptions talk about how ILIs dislike improvisation due to Ne ignoring - they often suck at coming up with things on the spot. An LIE I can see being a strong strategic maneuverer, given that they have 4D Ne and stronger Se action orientation, but the ILI seems more like a planner despite being an irrational type.

Most Ti-LIIs I've met are a lot less adaptable than the Ne-LII. In fact, I find that the subtype makes a world of a difference in this regard. Ti-LIIs seem to want everything set in stone before hand due to heightened rationality, whereas Ne-LIIs are more irrational and adaptable. However, due to Ti caring more about non-linear logical connections than a linear evolution of time, I find that they miss a lot of the details I end up picking up. For example, my IEE friend's LII-Ti girlfriend was trying to solve a math problem in the homework assignment. She had made the general connections and was writing it out, but in my reading of it, there were quite a few mistakes since she hadn't fleshed out the details of the connections she noticed. Since I'm more linear and step-by-step, I noticed that she made an unreasonable jump between a couple of her steps whereas since she's more nonlinear and synthetic, she missed those same details.

I'm not trying to exert superiority or anything like that since LIIs are certainly stronger than me in many areas. However, thinking through both the big picture and the details is my strength and most of what I've read correlates that to ILI rather than LII.

In my experience, Ne-LIIs are often some of the best strategic maneuverers since they have an almost ILE-like ability to adapt coupled with non-ignoring Ni and strong Ti. Like LIE in this regard but with fewer entrepreneurial tendencies.

Perhaps the differentiator is thus more along the lines of "structured" vs. "thought-through" since the LII is likely to miss details but have much more structure in what to do whereas the ILI wouldn't miss a detail but the structure is missing.

On that note, in your opinion, which subtype of the ILI do you think thinks through things more? I'm fairly certain I'm of the Te subtype, but I'm still not sure what that completely entails. If it means I'm more impulsive, then that doesn't really fit me. But I also remember you saying before that you didn't use subtypes. This could just be a figment of my imagination, though.

I do follow different models than those proposed by Socionics.

ILI are input oriented and will often dwell on details obsessively but most of this insight doesn't end up in realizable plans that others can follow; however, they seem to be able to effectively use this information to govern their own ad hoc behaviour and responses.

As far as any two sub-types are concerned, I have never witnessed worlds of differences between them. I try to distinguish between the observer-perceived behaviours and actual output; when all the smoke is filtered, output and directional trends don't seem to vary much.

I agree that LIIs are more prone to miss detail than ILIs but they're usually far more likely to get greater detail into a realizable plan than ILI....

a.k.a. I/O

[Rebelondeck]

@FarDraft I neglected to mention that there are two types of strategic maneuvering. LIEs tend to follow the old adage that the best defense is an offense whereas for ILIs, it's all about walls and defense. ILIs can be offensive in their words, which are usually spawned from some perceived threat from outside, but usually can't be interpreted any more than a simple (and likely appropriate) parry whereas for LIEs, it's all about thrust.

a.k.a. I/O

[Exodus]

@FarDraft what kind of strategy do you mean? Like business strategy, playing a game, etc.? Which elements are involved will depend on which kind.

[Adam Strange]

@FarDraft I neglected to mention that there are two types of strategic maneuvering. LIEs tend to follow the old adage that the best defense is an offense whereas for ILIs, it's all about walls and defense. ILIs can be offensive in their words, which are usually spawned from some perceived threat from outside, but usually can't be interpreted any more than a simple (and likely appropriate) parry whereas for LIEs, it's all about thrust.

a.k.a. I/O

@Rebelondeck, this is exactly correct in my experience. ILI’s tend to think, think, think, and rarely do, while LIE’s want to do, do, do, but are forced to think just enough to keep from going off in the wrong direction.

On this forum, I’ve sometimes said that I do “Ready, Fire!, Aim” all the time. I do it too often, but I can’t seem to not do it. My whole approach to projects, or everything for that matter, is to gather enough information to be about 85% sure of success, then start right away and course correct as things progress and we get more information.

ILI’s, on the other hand, seem to prefer to endlessly study a problem and never implement it. In my experience, they are attracted to fields like financial planning where you can screw around with numbers all day but only have to make a trade for your clients rarely.

One other thing I’ve noticed: When the market recently dropped, I looked at it as a buying opportunity, but when I visited my ILI financial advisor, he was nervous as hell because, I guess, he thought I’d hold him responsible for picking stocks that suffered huge losses (but only if you sell them at that lower price, obviously). He tried to put a better spin on the losses by reframing the picture and emphasized how the rising value of my real estate had covered the losses. It was funny to watch this reframing in the context of Socionics.

One thing that I’d say holds ILI’s back from realizing their enormous potential is a strong aversion to being held accountable when things go very wrong. This is probably baked into them by their drive to cover all the bases, or maybe I have it backwards, but it causes them to prefer to keep their plans hidden and thus deniable. But their aversion to risk-big-and-correct-on-the-fly makes them miss a lot of opportunities.

I have a lot of ILI friends and associates because I like and respect them. Sometimes, when I’m alone for a day or three, I find myself descending into depression and endlessly worrying about the details of something I should be actively doing. At those times, I feel like I might be turning into an ILI. It is horrible.

[FarDraft]

@FarDraft what kind of strategy do you mean? Like business strategy, playing a game, etc.? Which elements are involved will depend on which kind.

I'm thinking about strategy in general, but if you think that the specific type makes a big enough difference, then I'll be more specific.
- Business strategy/financial planning
- Strategy games like chess (primarily tactical) or go (primarily strategic)
- Military strategy
- Political strategy

[FarDraft]

@Rebelondeck, this is exactly correct in my experience. ILI’s tend to think, think, think, and rarely do, while LIE’s want to do, do, do, but are forced to think just enough to keep from going off in the wrong direction.

On this forum, I’ve sometimes said that I do “Ready, Fire!, Aim” all the time. I do it too often, but I can’t seem to not do it. My whole approach to projects, or everything for that matter, is to gather enough information to be about 85% sure of success, then start right away and course correct as things progress and we get more information.

ILI’s, on the other hand, seem to prefer to endlessly study a problem and never implement it. In my experience, they are attracted to fields like financial planning where you can screw around with numbers all day but only have to make a trade for your clients rarely.

One other thing I’ve noticed: When the market recently dropped, I looked at it as a buying opportunity, but when I visited my ILI financial advisor, he was nervous as hell because, I guess, he thought I’d hold him responsible for picking stocks that suffered huge losses (but only if you sell them at that lower price, obviously). He tried to put a better spin on the losses by reframing the picture and emphasized how the rising value of my real estate had covered the losses. It was funny to watch this reframing in the context of Socionics.

One thing that I’d say holds ILI’s back from realizing their enormous potential is a strong aversion to being held accountable when things go very wrong. This is probably baked into them by their drive to cover all the bases, or maybe I have it backwards, but it causes them to prefer to keep their plans hidden and thus deniable. But their aversion to risk-big-and-correct-on-the-fly makes them miss a lot of opportunities.

I have a lot of ILI friends and associates because I like and respect them. Sometimes, when I’m alone for a day or three, I find myself descending into depression and endlessly worrying about the details of something I should be actively doing. At those times, I feel like I might be turning into an ILI. It is horrible.

It seem like the "think think think and rarely do" mentality comes from weak Se. In that case, how would an LII be different in this regard? Would they be different?
I will concede to a lot of the things you say, though. I hate missing bases in plans, and I hate revealing too much information in case I might be wrong. I think it's definitely a negative about my personality. You're right in saying that I would probably enjoy something like financial planning. More like corporate financial planning and strategizing but similar nonetheless. It's one of my main career prospects besides academia and entrepreneurship.
However, I think you're wrong about the way ILIs think about details. It's less about fear of something going wrong (sounds more like a type 6 fixation) and more of a certainty of things going right. Since ILIs are process oriented, they focus on all the things that need to get done without missing one. While negativism keeps them constantly looking for more things that could be better thought-through, detailed planning is done so that "on-the-fly" adaptation doesn't have to occur.

How would you say to improve as an ILI since you claim they have "enormous potential"? Developing Te and Se? Ne?

EDIT: I have to disagree with my disagreeing with Adam since, through further reading, it seems as though ILIs are incredibly focused on what could go wrong and how to mitigate it. An emphasis is placed on not repeating past mistakes, though the Ni imagination is capable of seeing ahead other possible ones. This leads to cautiousness and preparation (different than planning, though planning is also likely).

[FarDraft]

I do follow different models than those proposed by Socionics.

ILI are input oriented and will often dwell on details obsessively but most of this insight doesn't end up in realizable plans that others can follow; however, they seem to be able to effectively use this information to govern their own ad hoc behaviour and responses.

As far as any two sub-types are concerned, I have never witnessed worlds of differences between them. I try to distinguish between the observer-perceived behaviours and actual output; when all the smoke is filtered, output and directional trends don't seem to vary much.

I agree that LIIs are more prone to miss detail than ILIs but they're usually far more likely to get greater detail into a realizable plan than ILI....

a.k.a. I/O

While I don't know the data you've compiled over time, I think you're underestimating the power of the creative function. I definitely agree that ILIs dwell on details obsessively, but an ILI, with creative Te, feels the need to use his knowledge for personal gain (gamma fixation). I assume that this drive decreases the more Ni-heavy the ILI is, but the secondary function certainly affects a personality more than I think you give it credit for. In the same way, an LII would plan and logically connect all the necessities, but they would be less averse to adaptation because of creative Ne.

It may not just be subtype. Enneagram-socionics correlations seem to make a huge difference in this regard. For example, Ni-ILIs tend to have double or even triple withdrawn tritypes whereas Te-ILIs tend to have more competency fixes. That would certainly affect their outlook.

[FarDraft]

@FarDraft I neglected to mention that there are two types of strategic maneuvering. LIEs tend to follow the old adage that the best defense is an offense whereas for ILIs, it's all about walls and defense. ILIs can be offensive in their words, which are usually spawned from some perceived threat from outside, but usually can't be interpreted any more than a simple (and likely appropriate) parry whereas for LIEs, it's all about thrust.

a.k.a. I/O

This is true. The only thing I'd say is that words being used in defense against a perceived outside fear sounds more counter phobic 6-ish than ILI. I'm not very reactive since I don't really care.

[Exodus]

I'm thinking about strategy in general, but if you think that the specific type makes a big enough difference, then I'll be more specific.
- Business strategy/financial planning
- Strategy games like chess (primarily tactical) or go (primarily strategic)
- Military strategy
- Political strategy

All of those things have a significant amount of Se involved as well. An LII is not nearly as likely to be interested in competitive, goal-oriented strategy as an ILI or LIE.

[FarDraft]

All of those things have a significant amount of Se involved as well. An LII is not nearly as likely to be interested in competitive, goal-oriented strategy as an ILI or LIE.

That's similar to my style of reasoning, but the LII being a result type and rational would be goal oriented, no? I've seen contradictory information on this regard, with some saying Ti is and others saying it isn't. Personally, I don't think it is since Ti is focused on the inner world rather than the outer one, meaning that it wouldn't create goals in the outside world to reach over time. This seems more consistent with the theory.

In my experience, LIIs are structured and planned because it gives them stability whereas ILIs plan for personal gain. They care less about stability, which can leave them either in high highs or low lows.

[myresearch]

If the rules and principles are set and clear for everyone and if they are not able to manipulated to some extent, then ILI has a higher chance to come up with a strategy or a plan that is more farsighted, realizable and well thought. If rules and principles are set and clear, then ILI knows how to manipulate and how to move around it smoothly. If the rules and principles aren't set or clear or if they are able to be manipulated from inside or outside of the system, LII has a higher chance to come up with a strategy and plan that is more farsighted, realizable and well-thought. LII can see the set of rules and principles of a system which seemingly has no principles nor rules, once the rules and principles are set, LII can manipulate and move around it smoothly. Overall, I think ILI's have better strategy in games such as chess. In real life, I agree that LII's plans are more realizable as Rebelondeck suggested. I think it is because rules and principles aren't set and clear for everyone. LII's plan doesn't seem sophisticated at all. ILI's plan reminds me grandiose plans that a movie character have planned, it is beautiful, but in real life, it wouldn't work.

I agree that LII identifies solutions better from far distance as nefnaf suggested. I think that LII has an easier time seeing the rules and principles from far, because they are able to see the system from different perspectives much more easily when they are at a far distance. If LII doesn't see the set of rules and principles, LII seems frozen to others and also maybe to themselves, however, I think they still try to figure out the set of rules and principles at that time, so they are still making progress, although it doesn't seem that way. It takes too much time to see the set of rules and principles of a complicated system that we live in. I think that's why it is very hard for LII to choose what they actually want to do with their life and the way they want to do it. ILI doesn't have or need to identify a solid goal, or ILI can identify a goal even the rules aren't clear, ILI can change their goal or their direction if they become sure that doesn't work for them. ILI is more flexible when there is no clear rules or principles, however, they are very strict the way that they do it even their way isn't optimal or their way isn't working but they haven't noticed yet. LII is very static when there is no clear rules or principles or they can be very strict about their goal even their goal isn't optimal, however, they are very flexible about their way.

Both types think in detail and miss details in different ways. ILI doesn't look at things from different perspectives, so if that thing is perceived differently under a new light, one can think that ILI isn't thinking in detail or one might think ILI misses the whole point in your words the big picture. LII can miss steps in the process or they can be vague in order to keep the view clean, in that case one might think that LII misses details or LII doesn't know what s/he is doing or talking about.

[FarDraft]

If the rules and principles are set and clear for everyone and if they are not able to manipulated to some extent, then ILI has a higher chance to come up with a strategy or a plan that is more farsighted, realizable and well thought. If rules and principles are set and clear, then ILI knows how to manipulate and how to move around it smoothly. If the rules and principles aren't set or clear or if they are able to be manipulated from inside or outside of the system, LII has a higher chance to come up with a strategy and plan that is more farsighted, realizable and well-thought. LII can see the set of rules and principles of a system which seemingly has no principles nor rules, once the rules and principles are set, LII can manipulate and move around it smoothly. Overall, I think ILI's have better strategy in games such as chess. In real life, I agree that LII's plans are more realizable as Rebelondeck suggested. I think it is because rules and principles aren't set and clear for everyone. LII's plan doesn't seem sophisticated at all. ILI's plan reminds me grandiose plans that a movie character have planned, it is beautiful, but in real life, it wouldn't work.

I agree that LII identifies solutions better from far distance as nefnaf suggested. I think that LII has an easier time seeing the rules and principles from far, because they are able to see the system from different perspectives much more easily when they are at a far distance. If LII doesn't see the set of rules and principles, LII seems frozen to others and also maybe to themselves, however, I think they still try to figure out the set of rules and principles at that time, so they are still making progress, although it doesn't seem that way. It takes too much time to see the set of rules and principles of a complicated system that we live in. I think that's why it is very hard for LII to choose what they actually want to do with their life and the way they want to do it. ILI doesn't have or need to identify a solid goal, or ILI can identify a goal even the rules aren't clear, ILI can change their goal or their direction if they become sure that doesn't work for them. ILI is more flexible when there is no clear rules or principles, however, they are very strict the way that they do it even their way isn't optimal or their way isn't working but they haven't noticed yet. LII is very static when there is no clear rules or principles or they can be very strict about their goal even their goal isn't optimal, however, they are very flexible about their way.

Both types think in detail and miss details in different ways. ILI doesn't look at things from different perspectives, so if that thing is perceived differently under a new light, one can think that ILI isn't thinking in detail or one might think ILI misses the whole point in your words the big picture. LII can miss steps in the process or they can be vague in order to keep the view clean, in that case one might think that LII misses details or LII doesn't know what s/he is doing or talking about.

I think this makes a lot of sense. Instead of specifying the functions used, you're specifying the circumstances under which the functions would most effectively be used, in a consistent way. I think the entire first paragraph can be summarized in terms of a left vs right fixation. LIIs, being leftists, work much better outside a system since they ignore Te and value Ti as well as have a holographic panoramic cognition style. They want to implement their own system rather than go with the system that's already in place. This leads to innovation and perhaps revolution in some circumstances. ILIs, being rightists, work better within a system. They understand and internalize its premises and are thus able to predict where it is headed with high accuracy and create plans to make the system work for them.

Thus, in a structured setting, like a game, the ILI wins; in an unstructured setting, the LII wins. Personally, I think the real world is a little bit of both. In areas like corporate finance, while there aren't hard rules or facts that are universally true, there are enough generalized principles that dictate a firm enough foundation to where the ILI can take them as fact and predict outcomes. However, in an area like technological entrepreneurship, which is highly chaotic with little rhyme or reason as to what will and won't work, an LII would best an ILI due to their ability to innovate and create structure where none exists.

Ti, being an introverted function, should create structures it thinks works. However, Ne doesn't really care about implementing it in reality as much as it does furthering the system by looking at it from different angles. So it seems to me like the quintessential Silicon valley entrepreneur would be more LSI than LII (alongside LIE), but that's not what we're talking about anyway... just a thought. Doesn't even make complete sense, though, since Ne PoLR wouldn't want to innovate anyway. Maybe just LIE then.

It seems to me like ILIs need a goal in the sense that they need something to work towards if they want to get anything done. This is due to three facts: 1) gamma fixation on personal gain; 2) Te goal-setting; 3) Se dual seeking. They need external pressure to keep them from doing nothing. While LIIs (often) don't need something to work towards, they need a purpose to what they're doing that goes beyond personal benefit since they are in the opposing quadra to gamma. I think I've understood more about the nature of results-types now. Moreover, LIIs don't react well to external pressure - they have to derive internal purpose for what they want to do. Maybe they have less of a goal and more of a vision for how they want their life to be?

Your last paragraph makes sense, but I wouldn't say that not seeing things from another perspective is "missing details". For example, it's often possible to solve a physics problem using a variety of methods (conservation of energy, momentum, dynamics, etc.) As long as you're considering all the effects that occur in the system, you will get the right answer, regardless of whether you look at the problem in every possible angle. Maybe conservation of energy is the general method of problem solving but you need to consider the effects of changing momentum to get the right answer. Then, looking at kinematics isn't "missing details" so much as it is missing insight​.

[Exodus]

That's similar to my style of reasoning, but the LII being a result type and rational would be goal oriented, no? I've seen contradictory information on this regard, with some saying Ti is and others saying it isn't. Personally, I don't think it is since Ti is focused on the inner world rather than the outer one, meaning that it wouldn't create goals in the outside world to reach over time. This seems more consistent with the theory.

In my experience, LIIs are structured and planned because it gives them stability whereas ILIs plan for personal gain. They care less about stability, which can leave them either in high highs or low lows.

I find the classical descriptions of the "result/process" and "rational/irrational" dichotomies to be irrelevant in practice for the most part. Rationals might be more like "ok so if I want to do this, that means I have to do this other thing first". But, focusing on a goal itself (especially one with real-world impact) is Se/Ni.

[FarDraft]

I find the classical descriptions of the "result/process" and "rational/irrational" dichotomies to be irrelevant in practice for the most part. Rationals might be more like "ok so if I want to do this, that means I have to do this other thing first". But, focusing on a goal itself (especially one with real-world impact) is Se/Ni.

Ok then. Full on functions. I think that works well, but sometimes certain aspects of a person's personality can be explained by certain reinin dichotomies that are well documented. For example, if a person continually looks for things that are missing rather than reinforcing creation, then they're probably negativist. But I agree that the best way to type people is by the functions.

[ApeironStella]

Hmm... Reading this, it reminds me of the times I spoke with an ILI friend at uni, who is also really into video games. But the thing is that, he is one of the players who actively takes part in lootbox economy, ever since the TF2 hat days started from what I recall, he had learned to how to make a profit from his hobby and also saves a lot of money by a lot of cuts on his real life, stuff like some days not even eating and saying he is training his body/working towards building a good gaming PC for himself, while I am staying farthest I can from entire micro-trans actions stuff because when money and profit gets involved, it feels no longer like something I am playing for fun but just a soulless tool. That said, I do keep my spendings minumum too though that is mostly so that I don't have to as actively keep track of what I can spend money on and what I can't, so that if I ever really want something, I can get it at that moment unless it is something extremely pricey.

But at the same time, I have a running joke of having a lot of useless knowledge and hobbies that I could probably turn to something I could earn money from if I was hard pressed for it, while that not being a primary motive in itself while learning things, which is again Te ignoring vs Te creative difference. So while he actively works on step by step to ensure the future he desires, at least on some things, I mostly approach it with a lot more flexible mindset, though there are a few core unchanging principals/things I know that I would prefer if the situation allows it, and having a bit more of a sense for knowing when it is better to push things, though it doesn't mean that I always listen to that 6th sense to take action nor trust it, even if most of the time it turns out to be correct. Despite that, I do have some weird "luck" that while I don't actively push for things, I do plan around what could be the worst case scenario and what to do in that case and mostly go with the flow until I see an opportunity and have an actual NEED to use it, since unless I have to, it is always going to stay as a chance I can take if I need to rather than something I actively purse, yet end up in an alright state at the end somehow.

I can be relentless when it is something piquing my interest, and he has same ability too, but in general, he is either looking for possible personal interpretation in things which he doesn't necessarily share with others and/or some profit from the knowledge, while I try to find one general truth/a principal that is consistent througout the topic by using multiple views. I only resort to "strategic" thinking in the way you described, the Te related profit/seeing long term future benefits, when I am hard pressed to use it, while for him it is an active way of thinking but can cause a bit far too much of a tunel vision at times.

[FarDraft]

Hmm... Reading this, it reminds me of the times I spoke with an ILI friend at uni, who is also really into video games. But the thing is that, he is one of the players who actively takes part in lootbox economy, ever since the TF2 hat days started from what I recall, he had learned to how to make a profit from his hobby and also saves a lot of money by a lot of cuts on his real life, stuff like some days not even eating and saying he is training his body/working towards building a good gaming PC for himself, while I am staying farthest I can from entire micro-trans actions stuff because when money and profit gets involved, it feels no longer like something I am playing for fun but just a soulless tool. That said, I do keep my spendings minumum too though that is mostly so that I don't have to as actively keep track of what I can spend money on and what I can't, so that if I ever really want something, I can get it at that moment unless it is something extremely pricey.

But at the same time, I have a running joke of having a lot of useless knowledge and hobbies that I could probably turn to something I could earn money from if I was hard pressed for it, while that not being a primary motive in itself while learning things, which is again Te ignoring vs Te creative difference. So while he actively works on step by step to ensure the future he desires, at least on some things, I mostly approach it with a lot more flexible mindset, though there are a few core unchanging principals/things I know that I would prefer if the situation allows it, and having a bit more of a sense for knowing when it is better to push things, though it doesn't mean that I always listen to that 6th sense to take action nor trust it, even if most of the time it turns out to be correct. Despite that, I do have some weird "luck" that while I don't actively push for things, I do plan around what could be the worst case scenario and what to do in that case and mostly go with the flow until I see an opportunity and have an actual NEED to use it, since unless I have to, it is always going to stay as a chance I can take if I need to rather than something I actively purse, yet end up in an alright state at the end somehow.

I can be relentless when it is something piquing my interest, and he has same ability too, but in general, he is either looking for possible personal interpretation in things which he doesn't necessarily share with others and/or some profit from the knowledge, while I try to find one general truth/a principal that is consistent througout the topic by using multiple views. I only resort to "strategic" thinking in the way you described, the Te related profit/seeing long term future benefits, when I am hard pressed to use it, while for him it is an active way of thinking but can cause a bit far too much of a tunel vision at times.

Are you an INTP in MBTI by chance? My theory is that Most INTPs are likely to be LII-Ne or maybe ILI-Te, with a lesser chance of ILI-Ni, LII-Ti, and SLI.

Besides that, I should mention that I, too, was an active TF2 player a few years ago. I never got into trading since I could never find a good server to trade on, but that aspect of the game always attracted me: I could make money off playing a game without having to be fake on a youtube video or twitch stream?

It's interesting that as an Ne subtype you approach this from a perspective of flexibility rather than of rigidity. I know you said that you have some things you're very firm about, which is understandable and completely expected, but at the same time, it fits the standard description less stereotypically.

What you describe in the second half of your second paragraph reminds me quite a bit of what Stratiyevskaya wrote about Ni base in ILIs. "One can only envy ILI's manner to not hurry anywhere and yet rarely be late for anything (even intentionally he cannot make himself be late). Traffic jams on the roads similarly in no way complicate his life: despite everything, he still arrives on time." I know that the contexts are different, but the 6th sense for what to do sounds like Ni. LII has Ni demonstrative and Ne subtype boosts intuition, so this makes sense.

Thanks for sharing.

[ApeironStella]

Are you an INTP in MBTI by chance? My theory is that Most INTPs are likely to be LII-Ne or maybe ILI-Te, with a lesser chance of ILI-Ni, LII-Ti, and SLI.

Besides that, I should mention that I, too, was an active TF2 player a few years ago. I never got into trading since I could never find a good server to trade on, but that aspect of the game always attracted me: I could make money off playing a game without having to be fake on a youtube video or twitch stream?

It's interesting that as an Ne subtype you approach this from a perspective of flexibility rather than of rigidity. I know you said that you have some things you're very firm about, which is understandable and completely expected, but at the same time, it fits the standard description less stereotypically.

What you describe in the second half of your second paragraph reminds me quite a bit of what Stratiyevskaya wrote about Ni base in ILIs. "One can only envy ILI's manner to not hurry anywhere and yet rarely be late for anything (even intentionally he cannot make himself be late). Traffic jams on the roads similarly in no way complicate his life: despite everything, he still arrives on time." I know that the contexts are different, but the 6th sense for what to do sounds like Ni. LII has Ni demonstrative and Ne subtype boosts intuition, so this makes sense.

Thanks for sharing.

Yep, I would consider myself INTP in MBTI, and actually was influenced by auxilary Ne development posts to a great degree before I jumped into Socionics (I've spent roughly 4 years actively into MBTI, with cognitive function/function stack knowledge, before I jumped into Socionics) and that is a fair assesment, I would say. More Ti heavy INTPs indeed come off more like SLIs, though can see ILI to a lesser degree as well.

That sounds fitting with Fe PoLR, I would say? Seeing making videos about the game on the youtube/twitch as something more of fake reactions, which there are definitely a lot of to be fair, though you might be just referring to your general temperament and how well it would hold for an "entertaining" video, which I would likely suck at if I was being genuine or even if I tried to be fake as well, so a fair point, I suppose.

And it is a bit more of flexibility via self-imposed rigidity, to be more precise. Tying in with your last paragraph, for example, there are times I can be fairly "late" at things, but key point is that, I tend to judge what I can get away with and what I can not. For example, if the teacher of an early morning class is someone who is rather a stickler for students showing up on time, I will prepare as accordingly so that I won't be on bad terms with that teacher to not be left on their mercy when it comes to end of the semester if I pass or fail, but for more relaxed teachers, I might not really mind as much that I was late, though try to keep how much I push the boundaries of what I can get away with to a reasonable level, so that I still have control over general end result to some degree/likelier to not end up in the worst case scenario, even if I already have "if the worst case happens, I can just X and/or Y and it will be still okay" mentality to keep pressure of expectation/need for certain success low.

Ie. I spent my entire high school years in a careful balance of listening the class to the extent I needed and then doing whatever I felt like, while not giving the teachers opening in any area by being able to answer what they asked since I kept an ear on the subject and getting good grades and keeping civil while interacting with them, added to being completely frank with my parents about all of it, so they really didn't have any ammo to impose on my personal freedom no matter how much it pissed them off. It is self imposed rules and rigidity by taking into account what is the bare minumum necessary in any situation to be able to make a rational and sensible sounding argument against someone if they try to impose on your freedom, it is still connected to Alpha "expecting that if you can give a sufficient enough reasoning for your actions in a socially acceptable and/or tolerable way(Fe/Ti), then you can not be publically shamed or attacked for people would rise to defend you and you can defend yourself with your words(Ni/Se devaluing)" with ignoring/being blind to Se based possibility of actually being attacked physically or socially. Ne is mostly a part of it in "If that fails, I can just go with the next best option, it is okay." rationalization process, if that makes sense?

So there is a strategy involved, with a core rigid structure at the start, yet depending to circumstances, can change direction wildly if situation calls for it?

[FarDraft]

Yep, I would consider myself INTP in MBTI, and actually was influenced by auxilary Ne development posts to a great degree before I jumped into Socionics (I've spent roughly 4 years actively into MBTI, with cognitive function/function stack knowledge, before I jumped into Socionics) and that is a fair assesment, I would say. More Ti heavy INTPs indeed come off more like SLIs, though can see ILI to a lesser degree as well.

I'm in the same boat, really. I studied MBTI for about 3 years or so before starting socionics. I prefer socionics as a theory since it has more nuance, but the MBTI subreddit has been getting better over time, I'd say.
SLI in socionics is almost identical to ISTP in MBTI, so it'd make sense for a Ti-heavy INTP to come across as SLI. I have an INTP friend who has the stereotypical INTP use of Ne and Ti, but he's very health conscious and has an accentuated use of Si. I typed him SLI, and he obtained the same result on a test, which, while not too accurate, says something, I guess.

That sounds fitting with Fe PoLR, I would say? Seeing making videos about the game on the youtube/twitch as something more of fake reactions, which there are definitely a lot of to be fair, though you might be just referring to your general temperament and how well it would hold for an "entertaining" video, which I would likely suck at if I was being genuine or even if I tried to be fake as well, so a fair point, I suppose.

That comment was mostly a joke, but I do agree that I'd probably not be the best for making an entertaining youtube video. Maybe in something else I'm interested in, but the gaming community is relatively diverse but with each group being highly specific in their tastes.

And it is a bit more of flexibility via self-imposed rigidity, to be more precise. Tying in with your last paragraph, for example, there are times I can be fairly "late" at things, but key point is that, I tend to judge what I can get away with and what I can not. For example, if the teacher of an early morning class is someone who is rather a stickler for students showing up on time, I will prepare as accordingly so that I won't be on bad terms with that teacher to not be left on their mercy when it comes to end of the semester if I pass or fail, but for more relaxed teachers, I might not really mind as much that I was late, though try to keep how much I push the boundaries of what I can get away with to a reasonable level, so that I still have control over general end result to some degree/likelier to not end up in the worst case scenario, even if I already have "if the worst case happens, I can just X and/or Y and it will be still okay" mentality to keep pressure of expectation/need for certain success low.

That's reasonable. I definitely relate to some of it. Figuring out what you can get away with is the key to minimizing effort, which is always the goal lol.

Ie. I spent my entire high school years in a careful balance of listening the class to the extent I needed and then doing whatever I felt like, while not giving the teachers opening in any area by being able to answer what they asked since I kept an ear on the subject and getting good grades and keeping civil while interacting with them, added to being completely frank with my parents about all of it, so they really didn't have any ammo to impose on my personal freedom no matter how much it pissed them off. It is self imposed rules and rigidity by taking into account what is the bare minumum necessary in any situation to be able to make a rational and sensible sounding argument against someone if they try to impose on your freedom, it is still connected to Alpha "expecting that if you can give a sufficient enough reasoning for your actions in a socially acceptable and/or tolerable way(Fe/Ti), then you can not be publically shamed or attacked for people would rise to defend you and you can defend yourself with your words(Ni/Se devaluing)" with ignoring/being blind to Se based possibility of actually being attacked physically or socially. Ne is mostly a part of it in "If that fails, I can just go with the next best option, it is okay." rationalization process, if that makes sense?

So there is a strategy involved, with a core rigid structure at the start, yet depending to circumstances, can change direction wildly if situation calls for it?

Makes perfect sense to me. I was similar in high school, as I found most of my classes either incredibly boring or easy. I'd pay attention if I knew the teacher focused on lecture material, but I'd be doing something else whenever I got the chance. I think this can come across as rigidity but also as pragmatism. My goal as a student is to get good marks so that I could get into a good university and whatever else... However, I also have other things I could better spend my time on, so I do it. Perhaps the way you do it is more "rule-based", but to me it's more a cost-benefit decision. I hate having to rely on backup solutions, but I will if it's necessary.

I'd agree that this is definitely a light form of strategy.

[superflousman]

I also identify as INTP in MBTI but in socionics SLI seems to fit better for some reason.
What is a clear indication differences between SLI and ILI?

[Adam Strange]

I also identify as INTP in MBTI but in socionics SLI seems to fit better for some reason.
What is a clear indication differences between SLI and ILI?

I can easily see the difference, but that's hard to describe in writing.

Instead:

ILI's are extremely logical (Te) and are great future planners (Ni). They secretly want to rule the world from behind the curtain and often relentlessly and unceasingly collect education to do so. They like BMW's (Se-seeking). ILI's tend to think that other people are idiots (Fe-PoLR). Males tend to like party girls who can be sexually dominating (Se-seeking). (Victims).

SLI-Te's can also be very logical (Te), but they place a higher emphasis on physical comfort (Si) and and are attracted to frivolity (Ne-seeking), and they want to retreat from the world, not rule it (Fe-PoLR). They tend to collect material resources that will serve them in their old age (Si), which they think can't come soon enough. (Caregivers).
SLI's tend to think that their lives are terminally boring and live in fear that they will lead a life where nothing ever happens. Males tend to avoid women but they do like women who like to travel and who spring infantile surprises on them.

Both types can be perfectionists and both types can be pretty hard on themselves sometimes.

Just from your chosen name, @superflousman, I'd say you are more likely to be SLI than ILI. SLI's tend to think that the world is passing them by as they stand and watch, and that they are entirely superfluous to the world. It is their duals, the IEE's, who forcefully bring them into an exciting reality. As in this clip:

[FarDraft]

I can easily see the difference, but that's hard to describe in writing.

Instead:

ILI's are extremely logical (Te) and are great future planners (Ni). They secretly want to rule the world from behind the curtain and often relentlessly and unceasingly collect education to do so. They like BMW's (Se-seeking). ILI's tend to think that other people are idiots (Fe-PoLR). Males tend to like party girls who can be sexually dominating (Se-seeking). (Victims).

SLI-Te's can also be very logical (Te), but they place a higher emphasis on physical comfort (Si) and and are attracted to frivolity (Ne-seeking), and they want to retreat from the world, not rule it (Fe-PoLR). They tend to collect material resources that will serve them in their old age (Si), which they think can't come soon enough. (Caregivers).
SLI's tend to think that their lives are terminally boring and live in fear that they will lead a life where nothing ever happens. Males tend to avoid women but they do like women who like to travel and who spring infantile surprises on them.

Both types can be perfectionists and both types can be pretty hard on themselves sometimes.

Hmmm, while I relate to everything you wrote, this sounds oddly similar to the INTJ description in MBTI, which isn't usually the impression I get when I read other people's descriptions. I think it's correct since it covers gamma views and correct functional fixations, but it also focuses on the aspects of the functions that aren't as talked about in some other people's descriptions. Most of those tend to focus on Ni's irrationality and imagination.

[Adam Strange]

Hmmm, while I relate to everything you wrote, this sounds oddly similar to the INTJ description in MBTI, which isn't usually the impression I get when I read other people's descriptions. I think it's correct since it covers gamma views and correct functional fixations, but it also focuses on the aspects of the functions that aren't as talked about in some other people's descriptions. Most of those tend to focus on Ni's irrationality and imagination.

@FarDraft, my description is based on my personal experiences with ILI's and SLI's. I may have mis-typed some of them.

[FarDraft]

@FarDraft, my description is based on my personal experiences with ILI's and SLI's. I may have mis-typed some of them.

Oh, I wasn't implicating that you copied it or something. I apologize if that's what it sounded like.
It's interesting how an understanding of functions within different contexts can lead to wildly different perceptions of type. Since you work in business (I assume from what you've written), you probably meet a lot of ambitious ILIs who use their meticulous planning and knowledge for personal gain. I assume that ILIs in academia or "softer" fields would be less like this. Maybe it has to do with subtype? Te vs Ni? I still don't fully understand the differences between them, though, which is why I keep retracting the subtype from my TIM and signature.

[Adam Strange]

Oh, I wasn't implicating that you copied it or something. I apologize if that's what it sounded like.
It's interesting how an understanding of functions within different contexts can lead to wildly different perceptions of type. Since you work in business (I assume from what you've written), you probably meet a lot of ambitious ILIs who use their meticulous planning and knowledge for personal gain. I assume that ILIs in academia or "softer" fields would be less like this. Maybe it has to do with subtype? Te vs Ni? I still don't fully understand the differences between them, though, which is why I keep retracting the subtype from my TIM and signature.

I considered the fact that my descriptions do sound like those of INTJ's in MBTI. It might be because I don't see a big difference between the descriptions in the two systems, and I might have a hard time seeing the Ni because I have Ni myself and kind of swim in it.

Yes, I actually do know a few ILI's in both business and academia who use their meticulous planning and knowledge for personal gain. Most are actually quite well-off. But the two I know in academia are not less motivated by personal gain because they are in academia. Rather, it is because one is probably an e9 and a genuinely nice guy who wants to teach, while the other is a computer systems manager for a college and wants to hide in the machine.
The differences between the ILI's whom I know seem to be based on enneagram rather than job descriptions. I think most of the ILI's I know are ILI-Te's. I think an ILI-Ni would spend most of his time dreaming and very little of his time doing.

[End]

@FarDraft You've just nailed down my relationship with my LII cousin. He's often amazed by my feats of "analytical" thinking. He manages to confuse me on occasion with a riddle or a hypothetical problem, but then the way I eventually solve it and, because I love and respect him, drop all filters and actually voice out my thoughts as I do so, amazes him. He amazes me, in turn, in bringing up things in my analysis that I never dreamed of. I have failed to solve a few of his queries, at first, then he says something really out there from my perspective and then I well and fully get it. He has a good laugh, I kick myself metaphorically for not thinking of that aspect or catching that, in hindsight, obvious hint, then he states how he's surprised at how fast I got it after that little hint and lightly chastises me for being such a linear thinker then immediately praises me for being just so damn good, thorough, and quick about, well, being me.

I have been rather lucky in regards to my family I must say. Could be better, but a thing I have no power over could have turned out far worse than it has. Praise Jesus I was not born into an elite bloodline .

I think an ILI-Ni would spend most of his time dreaming and very little of his time doing.

I will admit to this as an dominant ILI. It is both relaxing and almost involuntary that I lose myself in the void of thought and possibility. Even now, I dream of all the things I could potentially be doing, yet here I am. I must make a greater effort to do instead of dream as if I accomplish but a fraction of my dreams, well, I'll at least get a footnote within future mainstream history books. I mean, people like Asimov, Aldrin, and Tolkien will get at least that a century or two from now at the very least. They are all far greater than I'll ever be, but even a small fraction of their success is well and truly within my grasp. My instincts tell me so, and far be it for me to distrust my primary ability .

The only problem is as you said, the call of the dreamlands is very strong indeed for my kind. It is in fact a fun fantasy of mine. I have days where I'd rather just sleep and dream. Yet biology only lets ya get so far with that. Once more an artifact of Darwin. Dreams are fun and all, but they don't fill your stomach, kill predators, or end threats to your own power/survival...