Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
I think that you could be right, but in that case I think that he primarily describes the behaviour of ILIs and the thinking process of LIIs. Maybe there is something of both in both behaviours and thinking processes, but the way he describes the differences between Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Thinking I think reflects the differences between Objectivists and Subjectivists in the Reinin dichotomies.

Anyway, if you are mostly right in what you claim, that would help to explain the confusion in MBTT (and Socionics) about which type is the true introverted thinking type -- the INTj/INTJ or the INTP/INTp. And we still need to clear up this mess somehow.
I don't think there is any mess - not in Socionics as I understand it.

LIIs and ILIs have, in relation to other types, some common behavioral characteristics: introversion (Socionically speaking, and usually also socially), logical thinking, a low focus on Se, a low focus on Fe. So it's not surprising at all that one early thinker of types lumped them together: both are "introverts" who are also thinkers.

So Jung's Introverted Thinking type description is a mixture of both - and, again, that was carried over into Enneatype 5, and "contaminated" Myers-Briggs. In my opinion, most Myers-Briggs descriptions of both INTP and INTJ are mixtures of both LII and ILI, and they over-emphasized the damn "J/P" external behavior distinction which for those types is often blurred.

However, for Socionics it's very clear what an LII is and what an ILI is. The LII is an Alpha IJ, Fe-dual-seeking, who likes ESEs and dislikes SEEs. The ILI is a Gamma IP, Se-dual-seeking, who likes SEEs and dislikes ESEs.

So, if there is a mess, it's in Jung's orginal description, in the Enneagram 5, and in Myers-Briggs. In Socionics, there is no mess at all, except the one brought over from those other systems.