Differences between ILI-INTp and SLI-ISTp

[meatburger]

Thanks for the replies. I will have to interract with her a little more and see what i find. I think she is comming to a party tonight so perhaps i will just kiss her. I have heard that ILI's taste like apples and SLI's like oranges so i think the taste test will be definitive.

I don't want to come off rude, but none of these things are type related.

While i was partially joking, i disagree at least partially for some of them

- ISTp's are better at sport in general than ILI's. They are more athletic. Plus ISTp's have a habit of knowing how to mimic other sporting players ive seen it before. I think its related to Si.
-Zelda yes probablly has nothing to do with it. From my experience though ILI's are more nerdy so thats where i got that from lol.
-Paying out her brother for driving i didn't elaborate on enough. She was paying him out because they are from Canada and he kept hitting the windscreen wipers in my car because he thought everything was opposite. She explained to me later that they are on the same side in Canada as Australia lol. While i think you are probablly right both would be quite aware of this it seemed to be more of a SLI conversation.
-Often in pictures shes doing the same smile, and jumping up in the air ILI. That is a funny one, and i agree not characteristic of either really. Its possible she isn't even one of these types lol.
- Interest in the stockmarket in general im sure could be both types. She actively wants to get into it to be a trader. From my experience though trading is a + type of thing in general. Its often to do with what the market has done in the past and will do in the future. I know a number of ILI's who are into it but no SLI's as of yet so im just going by the themes ive seen previously. Thats how i use Ne, i dont focus on any one element, i try to see how they are all intertwined to form the whole.

These are better, but also not very good criteria. What I suggest is really concentrating on identifying ways of thinking and seeing things, and ones. Because this is a difference in leading functions, their natural mode of living, or knee jerk observations, will be the most indicative, because the creative function is more of something people "use," while we "live" in our leading function and take it for granted almost.

Yeah i will try to do this. Shes just a hard one for me to pin down for some reason.

And becoming bored .. well, you need to elaborate more on your interactions if you want any valuable feedback.

I cant really give an example of exactly the conversation this has happened. Its almost as if the way she is conveying the information to me is not having enough of an impact on me. Like she is kind of soft spoken so i zone out. Ive only just met her so i will look closer :tongue:

[Warlord]

She was pretty good friends with an LSE here. SLI > ILI

I had a TeSi friend in high school, although I "bullied" him a little bit.

Said she is interested in the stockmarket ILI > SLI!!!

= sexy

[jewels]

It can be hard to tell SLI from ILI at first, but I think it unfolds fairly quickly.

A few months ago I somehow attracted tons of INTps. It was like, everyone I met, once I figured them out, they all were INTPs. Guys, girls, on sports teams, in dance classes -- they were everywhere. And each time I thought, "Oh! an ISTp!" And then I was of course wrong (don't get me wrong, I really like INTps too!)

The thing that tipped it off was that if I raised a topic, they'd tend to seem to be overcomplicating it. For instance, if I said "Well, mean people hurt people's feelings and that's bad." They might say, "What? We NEED mean people. They are vital for society." And then they'd go on to explain that with many, many logical points. The logical points would branch out like a tree, in many directions I didn't really want to go in. I would have probably been looking for an ISTp to sum everything up in one snide comment (that grounding affect). Or maybe a shorter discussion where they'd at least get that point before maybe debating it. anyway...

So I would suggest raising a topic and see if they sink deeper into the topic (maybe using specifics), making it narrower in a grounding, real way (ISTp-ish), or if they expand the topic into other things you may/may not care about.

Sidepoint -- I'm actually wondering about a new person I met today in a class -- either ISTp or INTp. Not my type, but he seems to be the don juan of this class. I only talked about surface level things, but am curious to see which he ends up being. I suspect INTp though.

I think he may be INTp based on one comment alone -- he kept saying it takes six months to fully grasp all the things we are learning (sounds a bit Ni). I never implied I was having trouble with it, and already took classes in the past (so some of it was review) and found that to be kinda annoying, as he didn't know my level w/ the info. I didn't really want a time line put on it, and kept thinking "shouldn't it be different for everyone?" I don't react well to Ni.

So I would use the Ni thing as a test to distinguish. And the tree branching idea thing also.

[meatburger]

= sexy

I totally agree. Im also interested in the stockmarket. I might give her my munny and get her to make me rich.

It can be hard to tell SLI from ILI at first, but I think it unfolds fairly quickly.

A few months ago I somehow attracted tons of INTps. It was like, everyone I met, once I figured them out, they all were INTPs. Guys, girls, on sports teams, in dance classes -- they were everywhere. And each time I thought, "Oh! an ISTp!" And then I was of course wrong (don't get me wrong, I really like INTps too!)

The thing that tipped it off was that if I raised a topic, they'd tend to seem to be overcomplicating it. For instance, if I said "Well, mean people hurt people's feelings and that's bad." They might say, "What? We NEED mean people. They are vital for society." And then they'd go on to explain that with many, many logical points. The logical points would branch out like a tree, in many directions I didn't really want to go in. I would have probably been looking for an ISTp to sum everything up in one snide comment (that grounding affect). Or maybe a shorter discussion where they'd at least get that point before maybe debating it. anyway...

So I would suggest raising a topic and see if they sink deeper into the topic (maybe using specifics), making it narrower in a grounding, real way (ISTp-ish), or if they expand the topic into other things you may/may not care about.

Sidepoint -- I'm actually wondering about a new person I met today in a class -- either ISTp or INTp. Not my type, but he seems to be the don juan of this class. I only talked about surface level things, but am curious to see which he ends up being. I suspect INTp though.

I think he may be INTp based on one comment alone -- he kept saying it takes six months to fully grasp all the things we are learning (sounds a bit Ni). I never implied I was having trouble with it, and already took classes in the past (so some of it was review) and found that to be kinda annoying, as he didn't know my level w/ the info. I didn't really want a time line put on it, and kept thinking "shouldn't it be different for everyone?" I don't react well to Ni.

So I would use the Ni thing as a test to distinguish. And the tree branching idea thing also.

Thanks Jewels i totally understand what you suggested there. That is the kind of information i have also been looking for aswell. If i look at it from that perspective she seems SLI. haha

[meatburger]

The girl was ILI in the end. Suppose it wasn't too suprising. I personally think typing people based on relationships is very very effective. I seem to type people quickly and with very high accuracy this way. Its just harder if you cant observe them interacting with others who you have typed. It is also important to take into account how you personally feel during interaction with this person.

Still, this may not be as useful for other types. I think being a strong Fi type, the type of information i commonly look for is peoples relationships between each other and with me so im playing to my strengths.

[DividedsGhost]

I have a teacher that is definitely Te-creative and Fe-PoLR. He's a really good teacher and simplifies and tries to explain things with as much brevity and completeness as possible - chooses his actions and words very carefully. So he's really Te-creative.

He seems Si base because he's very taciturn and laconic and doesn't ever say anything other than what is pertinent to whatever it is we're doing. His stories are also very short and to the point, usually just as a means to contrast extreme emotions and differences between people. Contrast this with the ILI teacher I had last semester that would often make philosophical generalizations about the purpose of motivation of school and homework and study methods and Si-base just makes sense.

But he gives off this gaze that makes me think of a lion glaring at me when I talk to him. It's a little surprising at first. The ILI doesn't give off this. Is this glare more characteristic of Si base? I guess I've never noticed this in the SLI friend I have because I tend to be pretty comfortable around him, so it's easier for me and him to be silly, but on vague recollection at the moment I think he has this same gaze, but it's more relaxed, probably because we know each other.

So have anyone else experienced this??

I was thinking Ni leading would have more of an 'Se-presence' in their demeanor, but perhaps it's more of a 'passive observing nature' for Ni leading and more of an 'active observing nature' for Si leading that comes across like a lion's glare or gaze?

[DirectorAbbie]

I don't know a variety of either type, but I've seen an SLI glare and I haven't seen an ILI glare.

[Jarno]

Sensors land their eyes.
Intuitors look but don't see.

[Pa3s]

Sensors land their eyes.

What exactly does that mean?

[DirectorAbbie]

What exactly does that mean?

Their eyes fix on something and hold it.

[EyeSeeCold]

What exactly does that mean?

- Tunnel Vision + Ballistic
- Peripheral + Ballistic
- Tunnel Vision + Directed
- Peripheral + Directed

Directed = Always tending toward one object / point(looking for one thing).
Ballastic = Always scanning the area(not knowing what to look for; seeing everything)
Tunnel Vision = Tending towards keeping eyes on the subject.
Peripheral = Tending towards straying eyes to the side - the wider view.

[DirectorAbbie]

- Tunnel Vision + Ballistic
- Peripheral + Ballistic
- Tunnel Vision + Directed
- Peripheral + Directed

Directed = Always tending toward one object / point(looking for one thing).
Ballastic = Always scanning the area(not knowing what to look for; seeing everything)
Tunnel Vision = Tending towards keeping eyes on the subject.
Peripheral = Tending towards straying eyes to the side - the wider view.

Nice description. Peripheral ballistics are nuts.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Since ballistics pertains to the trajectory of projectiles you'd more clearly describe visual scanning by calling it scanning, even though it sounds less hardcore. Alternately I'd suggest nutation, illustrated below.

Also, I'm an ILI who sometimes glares.

[EyeSeeCold]

Ne: Internal Abstract Statics of Objects
Se: External Involved Statics of Objects
Si: External Involved Dynamics of Fields
Ni: Internal Abstract Dynamics of Fields

Se Tunnel Vision + Ballistic
Ne - Peripheral + Ballistic
Si - Tunnel Vision+ Directed
Ni - Peripheral + Directed

Found correlation.

[DividedsGhost]

- Tunnel Vision + Ballistic
- Peripheral + Ballistic
- Tunnel Vision + Directed
- Peripheral + Directed

Directed = Always tending toward one object / point(looking for one thing).
Ballastic = Always scanning the area(not knowing what to look for; seeing everything)
Tunnel Vision = Tending towards keeping eyes on the subject.
Peripheral = Tending towards straying eyes to the side - the wider view.

Awesome, thanks! That makes sense.

Nice description. Peripheral ballistics are nuts.

I know

Since ballistics pertains to the trajectory of projectiles you'd more clearly describe visual scanning by calling it scanning, even though it sounds less hardcore. Alternately I'd suggest nutation, illustrated below.

Also, I'm an ILI who sometimes glares.

YouTube - Gyroscope precession and nutation

Grrrr, you had to post that.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8...es/lecture-24/

So the gyroscope doesn't fall from the string because it creates a surrounding high pressure of air that keeps it in place, kind of like an airplane? And adding the weight makes the pressure on the weight side less so the axis tilts a little more toward the ground causing it to spin in the direction of the torque direction on the bottom of the wheel at the ground?

So the faster someone or a thing moves, the less the effects of gravity that the person or thing experiences? That would explain why planets gravitational forces don't cause each other to suck each other in, or at least if they do it's probably a really slow process that we can't really tell. Wouldn't that mean that the molecular makeup of the universe is dependent on rotation of individual objects to create their gravitational distances and that if time goes to infinity that all matter will collapse into one state of being? Unless I guess if everything is collapsing at the same rate, then everything would remain with constant relativity of gravitational distances between matter, but would get smaller like a sphere shrinking, but still being the same reality relative the sphere's perspective.

Nevermind...I'm going to bed.

[Beautiful sky]

- Tunnel Vision + Ballistic
- Peripheral + Ballistic
- Tunnel Vision + Directed
- Peripheral + Directed

Directed = Always tending toward one object / point(looking for one thing).
Ballastic = Always scanning the area(not knowing what to look for; seeing everything)
Tunnel Vision = Tending towards keeping eyes on the subject.
Peripheral = Tending towards straying eyes to the side - the wider view.

i'm kinda Ne

I'm not very well contained as you can see from the way I scan the forum...that's how you know I have Ne in my ego block And how I know others don't.

[Pa3s]

- Tunnel Vision + Ballistic
- Peripheral + Ballistic
- Tunnel Vision + Directed
- Peripheral + Directed

Directed = Always tending toward one object / point(looking for one thing).
Ballastic = Always scanning the area(not knowing what to look for; seeing everything)
Tunnel Vision = Tending towards keeping eyes on the subject.
Peripheral = Tending towards straying eyes to the side - the wider view.

Thanks!

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

Sensors land their eyes.
Intuitors look but don't see.

[EyeSeeCold]

Sensors land their eyes.
Intuitors look but don't see.

This is Tunnel vision / Peripheral vision or External Involved / Internal Abstract perception.

On the OP:
If the guy usually has a distant view it's Ni. Looking at what's in front him would be a strain(Role Si) as there's a functional unconscious need to look far off.

As for Si, being Directed and "Near sighted" will show in him doing one thing after another. There's a functional need to finish the task in front of you before continuing, which means more just pile up in the queue.

[717495]

I've found that from an external VI perspective, -valuing eyes often look more tunneled/directed and -valuing more ballistic/peripheral. I also think introverted + intuitive eyes look the most spacey, and extroverted + sensor eyes look the most aware.

Here are some examples of vs :
Ni eyes (first two sections are gamma, last two beta)
Fe vs Fi eyes

[ashlesha]

i made a post about how different eyes feel to me then felt silly and didnt post it. but i realized i had nothing in mind for Ti vs Te, weird. somebody talk about Ti and Te eyes.

anyway since i'm posting this i might as well go ahead:

Se: sharp, heavy
Ni: ya, "spacey," sometimes cold, sometimes wet
Ne: floaty? light?
Si: comforting, confident (i'm not biased!), sometimes blank
Fe: assessing, expressive (derp)
Fi: assessing, warm, crinkly (not literally but the "feel" lol)

[EyeSeeCold]

I've found that from an external VI perspective, -valuing eyes often look more tunneled/directed and -valuing more ballistic/peripheral. I also think introverted + intuitive eyes look the most spacey, and extroverted + sensor eyes look the most aware.

Here are some examples of vs :
Ni eyes (first two sections are gamma, last two beta)
Fe vs Fi eyes

I'm aware of these and it's compatible with my little addition. Though I couldn't explain right now without sounding like I'm making excuses / patching holes.

The other part to the equation like dom / creative eyes etc is more intuitive even though you know it's there.

[DirectorAbbie]

i made a post about how different eyes feel to me then felt silly and didnt post it. but i realized i had nothing in mind for Ti vs Te, weird. somebody talk about Ti and Te eyes.

anyway since i'm posting this i might as well go ahead:

Se: sharp, heavy
Ni: ya, "spacey," sometimes cold, sometimes wet
Ne: floaty? light?
Si: comforting, confident (i'm not biased!), sometimes blank
Fe: assessing, expressive (derp)
Fi: assessing, warm, crinkly (not literally but the "feel" lol)

So what about Te and Ti?

[ashlesha]

So what about Te and Ti?

i dont know! i should write all my posts in list form.

[DirectorAbbie]

i should write all my posts in list form.

Of course you should.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Te is Sharp, not Se. Te is linear, whereas Se is just a frozen localized point of strength that's frozen in time.

Te is like rogue daggers or something: That's why 'soft' types like ISFp and INFp are so stereotypically weak against it.

It doesn't make sense for Se to be sharp because that's like saying somebody likes to be stabbed. And in truth, an isfj likes to be 'stabbed' more than an infp. Look at the vi faces of the types and tell me that isn't true???

Maybe Se is 'heavy' though or kinda 'weighty' I give you that.

Te isn't really heavy though. It isn't some hammer it's more like a quick knife stab to me. Te also has a lot of movement, so it can't be too heavy anyway.

[krieger]

Te is Sharp, not Se. Te is linear, whereas Se is just a frozen localized point of strength that's frozen in time.

Te is like rogue daggers or something: That's why 'soft' types like ISFp and INFp are so stereotypically weak against it.

It doesn't make sense for Se to be sharp because that's like saying somebody likes to be stabbed. And in truth, an isfj likes to be 'stabbed' more than an infp. Look at the vi faces of the types and tell me that isn't true???

Maybe Se is 'heavy' though or kinda 'weighty' I give you that.

Te isn't really heavy though. It isn't some hammer it's more like a quick knife stab to me. Te also has a lot of movement, so it can't be too heavy anyway.

well said; i approve.

[Creepy-male]

I agree with BnD too, Te is Linear-Energetic.... meaning it's "energy" could be described like a 1-d accelerator. I like to picture it as sort of a logic of action or events. It looks to the immediate future and asks "What is the next logical course of action".... or "What is the next logical consequence or event".... its very much an event by event process that flow logically. It doesn't systemize the logic but just projects to the next immediate step... which is why Te ego must work with a Pi function also (Si or Ni) to nit these events together into something sensible.

Ti egos are much more different... Ti egos combine normalizing functions with creative functions. These types Exxp and Ixxj types... work around a fixed system or structure and then creatively permute things around.

For example NeTi.... uses fixed logical systems and attempt to intuit various unique attributes, possibilities, and potentials from these. ENTp's can be very action oriented too, but the nature of the action is different, its experimental and exploratory. Much can be said about the ESTp's but their playground for creative is not with potentials, possibilities, and attributes..... but with direct experience through the senses, using a fixed logical system they attempt to creative explore different experiences. Pe base types are very exploratory.... the ENTp wants to know if its possible and want to discover that unique property, like an explorer or alchemist. The ESTp wants to know how it is to experience this in reality, also like an explorer but more for the literal experience of it.

The ENTp is a seeker, they want to find the "holy grail" and search for it, that unique thing, they want to understand its properties and discover if it exists, if its possible, so to speak

The ESTp could care less about the "holy grail" so long as its a fun/exciting/stimulating experience going through it, they don't care what makes the grail unique so long as they can experience in some way with their sense, they don't care about it inner properities, they want to merge with it, experience it, they don't care if its possible that it exists, they just care if its fun/exciting finding it.

This is the difference... the ENTp is a seeker of the unique and a searcher for possibilities.... ESTp is an experience junky. Both are adventurous. Both are creative Ti, hardheaded thinkers, which work around logical systems to drive their creative explorations with reality.

You can see why ENTp and ESTp work well together, but you can also see where they hit each other's role function. The ENTp is off searching and seeking out things while the ESTp is left bored and with their sense unstimulated..... to the ENTp the ESTp just wants to stimulate their sense and doesn't care about anything more deep or profound which draws their intuition in.... ultimately both realize these weakness as it is their role and would like to accomplish them, but their focus on the base functions makes them slow to realize these... so drama is inevitably created and the relationship becomes purely work related.... both effective explorers, but unable to satisfy their deeper meaning behind exploration... the presence of an ISFp or INFp helps. An INFp helps the ENTp realize the feeling behind the intuition and translate this to the ESTp through the duality relationship... allowing the ENTp to translate their intuition to feelings through Ti and dualizing with the ESTp to give their need for sensory stimulation a broader context as far as meaning. The same works in reverse for ISFp, the ISFp allows the ESTp to translate their sensations to feelings rather than just for the sake of stimulation and through dualizing with the ENTp allows the ENTp to understand the motive behind their explorations (for comfort) this helps connect the ENTp with their sensations which brings everyone on the same page.

In RPG terms I would describe Te in different ways....
SLI is more ranger like in the woodsman/tracker sense
LSE is more ranger like in the warrior/archer sense
LIE is more of a tactician or strategist in a warrior sense
ILI is more of a tactician or strategist in a caster sense

In the SLI Te is about collecting facts from ones environment and using these to supplement the senses..... i.e. tracker/woodsman/ranger

In the LSE Te is about using ones senses to valid and utilize facts in a meaningful environment.... i.e. warrior/archer/ranger

In the LIE Te is about using ones ability to walk through multiple scenario to determine the most logically beneficial plan of action.... i.e. warrior strategist

In the ILI Te is about collecting facts to run models and thought processes to get a sense of the outcome of various scenarios..... i.e. the caster strategist

[DirectorAbbie]

Te is Sharp, not Se. Te is linear, whereas Se is just a frozen localized point of strength that's frozen in time.

Te is like rogue daggers or something: That's why 'soft' types like ISFp and INFp are so stereotypically weak against it.

It doesn't make sense for Se to be sharp because that's like saying somebody likes to be stabbed. And in truth, an isfj likes to be 'stabbed' more than an infp. Look at the vi faces of the types and tell me that isn't true???

Maybe Se is 'heavy' though or kinda 'weighty' I give you that.

Te isn't really heavy though. It isn't some hammer it's more like a quick knife stab to me. Te also has a lot of movement, so it can't be too heavy anyway.

Yes.

=Broken Bones
=Open Wound

[Korpsy Knievel]

Ballastic = Always scanning the area(not knowing what to look for; seeing everything)

Saccadic. Saccades describe rapid movements of the eye between fixation points.

I can finally sleep now.

[EyeSeeCold]

Saccadic. Saccades describe rapid movements of the eye between fixation points.

I can finally sleep now.

I'll have to look into it, I'm not too familiar.

But this seems appropriate:

an eye movement in which the eyes jump from one point to another, as from one word to the next while reading or around a room when searching for something

Although Directed/Ballistic refer to not just the movements of the eye, but the quantity of objects of interest. Directed yields always one or two major preoccupations, Ballistic takes note of everything.

[Korpsy Knievel]

I'll have to look into it, I'm not too familiar.

Although Directed/Ballistic refer to not just the movements of the eye, but the quantity of objects of interest. Directed yields always one or two major preoccupations, Ballistic takes note of everything.

A quick search of eye movement terminology shows that there's an extensive vernacular describing ocular motion. To wit:

Ophthamologists call your "directed" gaze "fixated" when the object or focal point is stationary. Your directed gaze locked upon a moving object is sequentially re-fixated through what's called smooth pursuit, along with saccades when it's necessary to catch up (usually when velocity is >30˚/second).

A gaze that takes in "everything" results from a prolonged sequence of saccades, usually of both the eyes and the head.

Version is the term used to describe synchronous movement of both eyes in the same direction. Side-to-side scanning could be termed dextro-laevoversion (though not very prettily, I'll admit).

If one cares to continue the fancy-assedness, tunnel vision could be termed foveal, since it relies on the fovea centralis, the central portion of the retina, which possesses the highest degree of detailed visual acuity.

&c. &c.

I'm only making an issue of "ballistic" because unless you're firing a projectile to or from the eyes then it really doesn't apply (photons aside). That kind of expedient redefinition introduces idiosyncratic jargon that can't be understood clearly by consulting a dictionary, as one would do when encountering unfamiliar yet topically pertinent terminology.

[EyeSeeCold]

A quick search of eye movement terminology shows that there's an extensive vernacular describing ocular motion. To wit:

Ophthamologists call your "directed" gaze "fixated" when the object or focal point is stationary. Your directed gaze locked upon a moving object is sequentially re-fixated through what's called smooth pursuit, along with saccades when it's necessary to catch up (usually when velocity is >30˚/second).

A gaze that takes in "everything" results from a prolonged sequence of saccades, usually of both the eyes and the head.

Version is the term used to describe synchronous movement of both eyes in the same direction. Side-to-side scanning could be termed dextro-laevoversion (though not very prettily, I'll admit).

If one cares to continue the fancy-assedness, tunnel vision could be termed foveal, since it relies on the fovea centralis, the central portion of the retina, which possesses the highest degree of detailed visual acuity.

&c. &c.

There's an issue though. As a subset of Socionics, which is itself, still a pseudo-science, using already-implemented scientific terms for my non-scientific concepts would pull my theory towards science, which it, admittedly, is not. It would skew my own concepts in the process as people would think what I'm describing are actual concrete processes, when they are, at best, abstract and intuitive.

Though I do understand to benefits to using terminology that is more thematically appropriate. I just don't want people to get the wrong idea.

I'm only making an issue of "ballistic" because unless you're firing a projectile to or from the eyes then it really doesn't apply (photons aside). That kind of expedient redefinition introduces idiosyncratic jargon that can't be understood clearly by consulting a dictionary, as one would do when encountering unfamiliar yet topically pertinent terminology.

Considering that these terms initially described "fighting styles", I'd say it was justified. Though, since I'm leaving that association behind, a refinement would be appropriate. The context-less terms leave much ambiguity.

====

What about the teacher?

[ConcreteButterfly]

how do you tell these two apart?

[lemontrees]

they usually move differently

also ILI's don't look like they're looking directly at you

(but you can also look for Si content- SLI's will respond literally to random, discrete parts of what you're saying)

[Contra]

SLIs can tend to be a bit geekier (Ne DS) and they are also usually into mechanical processes and physical tasks/play more than ILIs. SLIs tend to be pretty invested in the physical world (having material things, having multiple hobbies, and being into their self image) whereas ILIs are much more in their head and their hobbies can be a bit more intellectual. ILIs can also be into material things and their self image but they have a harder time caring and keeping up as well as SLIs can (maybe due to Se DS). Where I lived SLIs almost uniformly conformed to the outdoorsmen and mechanics cliques, but, as I said, they can also be fairly geeky. Like into starwars, video games, and like war history and things of that sort

EDIT: I want to add that despite SLIs being invested significantly more invested in their self image I find that they are typically worse dressers because they don't seem to pay attention to the wider trends (or even the particularities) of what people wear. Even if they do they are usually still conservative in adapting to those trends. This may only apply to my experience though.

[strrrng]

SLIs are a bit more tangibly accessible... they have a basic reserve, but on some level give one the sense that their inner states possess a certain steadiness and continuity (like their IEI aristocratic counterparts but not in an ethereal sense)... there's a kind of collective loyalty latent in their basic methodology. ILIs in contrast will seem more in their heads, but also more casual, being democrats. their accessibility is more personal, the values they maintain aren't as sectioned off as SLIs'... overall they're kind of like objects who haven't quite found their place.

[Esaman]

how do you tell these two apart?

What one of them has to say sounds interesting to me. Subjects, and the fact that ILI is like going somewhere/ is making an argument/ exploring an idea, when SLI generally is present centrist perspective and not on things I need see more unlike SEI.

[Beautiful sky]

Critic and craftsman. Craftsman obviously builds wants to do something with their hands like auto related stuff

[Galen]

ILIs I've known have been much more divorced from their own experiences of the world than SLIs. Even the more overtly reserved and soft-spoken ISTps have some moderate awareness of the social sphere around them and are more willing to express their inner experiences/sentiments. ILIs have an apparently diminished natural capacity for talking about these sorts of inner worlds, and are more comfortable intellectualizing observations and events that go on in their lives, cognitively prodding at them from every angle. Not so much "this happened to me" as much as "it happened." SLIs will try to put you in their own shoes, explain the real-world events around them as if they are somehow inseparable from it, leading you through all the steps of their experience as if you were in their place.