IEI-INFp: the hybrid type of INTp and INTj

[Joy]

This isn't about any one person in particular, just pretty much any "disputed INTp" and perhaps those who can't seem to choose between INTp and INTj.

It makes a lot of sense to me that "disputed INTps" could easily be mistyped INFps. While they for whatever reason (being male, not having great social skills, etc.) they believe themselves to be a logical type, others see a Ti > Te preference and say that INTp doesn't fit. Because they (and others typing them) assume that they're a logical type (and of course insist that they're introverted and intuitive), INTj seems to be the other other option. They then point out that INTj doesn't quite fit (they identify a lot more with the INTp descriptions, the IP temperament, etc.), and then the old "INTp vs. INTj" subject comes up. Again.

My point is that if a person relates to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions, yet seems to display a preference for Ti, it's quite possible that they're INFps and they should seriously consider that type.

This gives me an idea.... that I don't have time to think or write about... perhaps later.

[Phaedrus]

My point is that if a person relates to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions, yet seems to display a preference for Ti, it's quite possible that they're INFps and they should seriously consider that type.

I (or more accurately Smilingeyes) have already explained that phenomenon. People confuse accepting with creating . Those who relate to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions DO NOT seem to display a preference for . The only reason people think so is becuase they don't understand the functions correctly. It is as simple as that, but it seems to be very difficult to get people to realize that they are wrong in their understanding of Socionics, because they refuse to READ and LEARN.

[Slacker]

That would explain some appearances of Fe>Fi preference too.

[Expat]

That would explain some appearances of Fe>Fi preference too.

Yes, and I agree that creative Fi can appear as Fe; I myself have made this point several times. This confusion is most clear when actually observing a person's behavior. However, it's also possible to see the difference. The difference, in my opinion, is that creative Fi is, argh, "irrational Fi", or to use an even worse term, it looks like "dynamic Fi".

It is the pseudo-dynamism that makes it look like Fe. But it remains Fi.

[Joy]

My point is that if a person relates to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions, yet seems to display a preference for Ti, it's quite possible that they're INFps and they should seriously consider that type.

I (or more accurately Smilingeyes) have already explained that phenomenon. People confuse accepting with creating . Those who relate to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions DO NOT seem to display a preference for . The only reason people think so is becuase they don't understand the functions correctly. It is as simple as that, but it seems to be very difficult to get people to realize that they are wrong in their understanding of Socionics, because they refuse to READ and LEARN.

I posted a thread a while back asking if anyone had a link to an article or site with a good explanation of accepting vs. producing functions and if I recall correctly was not provided with one. I am certainly willing learn more about accepting vs. producing functions... but it seems that there isn't even agreeance among the actual socionics professionals (as opposed to hobbyists) about which functions are accepting and which are producing. If anyone knows of a link to say... Augusta's explanation of accepting vs. producing functions, I'd be extremely grateful if they'd share it. (:

[machintruc]

I observed that ILI's tended to be more aggressive than LII's.

I was expelled from school in November 2005 because I slapped a school supervisor (ESI), because he had unjustly tolerated that two pupils (one ILI and one probably LSE) harmed me.

I'm a LII, and although I seem "cold", I like people and am very empathetic, like ILI's usually don't.

[Slacker]

My point is that if a person relates to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions, yet seems to display a preference for Ti, it's quite possible that they're INFps and they should seriously consider that type.

I (or more accurately Smilingeyes) have already explained that phenomenon. People confuse accepting with creating . Those who relate to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions DO NOT seem to display a preference for . The only reason people think so is becuase they don't understand the functions correctly. It is as simple as that, but it seems to be very difficult to get people to realize that they are wrong in their understanding of Socionics, because they refuse to READ and LEARN.

I live with someone with creative Te and it doesn't feel like what you do. It doesn't feel particularly different than any Te.

[UDP]

I observed that ILI's tended to be more aggressive than LII's.
I'm a LII, and although I seem "cold", I like people and am very empathetic, like ILI's usually don't.

ILI looks down on Fe and (secretly) longs for Se
LII looks down on Se and (secretly) longs for Fe

everyone acts in ways- though it may take many varying forms - that subconsciously seek to trigger dual responses in relation to their dual seeking functions.

[machintruc]

I observed that ILI's tended to be more aggressive than LII's.
I'm a LII, and although I seem "cold", I like people and am very empathetic, like ILI's usually don't.

ILI looks down on Fe and (secretly) longs for Se
LII looks down on Se and (secretly) longs for Fe

everyone acts in ways, thought they take many varying forms, that subconsciously seek to trigger dual responses from their dual seeking functions.

I'm not ethical, that's a contradictory trait.

[UDP]

I know you are not ethical. (I may have phrased things poorly)

[aestrivex]

the suggestion that disputed ILI/LIIs might be IEI could conceivably be true, but certainly doesn't apply in my case, and there are undoubtedly others like me (i don't know or care particularly whether the almighty gods of forum consensus have deemed me an ILI or LII or are split, but i myself am not completely sure so i consider myself disputed).

under any circumstances, to suggest creative Fe would be rather absurd in my situation. there have been times in which i've paused to consider aspects of myself and my behavior that have seemed to conform particularly well with typical alpha behaviors, but i have never considered IEI nor do i think it would be pertinent to do so; the possibility of my being an Fe type, frankly, seems absurd.


i'm sure phaedrus would probably feel the same way about the possibility of him being an Fe type, although it's difficult for me to evaluate because i've never actually seen or interacted with him on any significant level. but, from this same sort of analysis, i can vouch for my own self that i am definitely not an emotional reservoir, and i sort of think that phaedrus is on that same wavelength.

bottom line: i don't think IEI is a likely type for phaedrus. LII is much more probable.

[Phaedrus]

the possibility of my being an Fe type, frankly, seems absurd.

i'm sure phaedrus would probably feel the same way about the possibility of him being an Fe type

You are right of course. That possibility that either one of us would be a creative Fe type is absurd, maybe slightly more so in your case, but not much less absurd in mine.

i can vouch for my own self that i am definitely not an emotional reservoir, and i sort of think that phaedrus is on that same wavelength.

Correct.

bottom line: i don't think IEI is a likely type for phaedrus.

Correct again.

LII is much more probable.

Hard to say. Since I was undecided between LII and ILI when I started to study Socionics, maybe that is correct. But both LII and IEI are now so unlikely that it would be ridiculous of me to take any of those two possibilities seriously.

[aestrivex]

Hard to say. Since I was undecided between LII and ILI when I started to study Socionics, maybe that is correct. But both LII and IEI are now so unlikely that it would be ridiculous of me to take any of those two possibilities seriously.

you are wrong and the fact that not one person understands or acknowledges the accuracy of your position should at least lead you to consider why that might be the case, and perhaps what the fact of the matter actually is.

[MysticSonic]

The direction this topic has taken is not surprising.

[aestrivex]

how could an LII/ILI topic not essentially be intended to do that?

[snegledmaca]

This isn't about any one person in particular, just pretty much any "disputed INTp" and perhaps those who can't seem to choose between INTp and INTj.

It makes a lot of sense to me that "disputed INTps" could easily be mistyped INFps. While they for whatever reason (being male, not having great social skills, etc.) they believe themselves to be a logical type, others see a Ti > Te preference and say that INTp doesn't fit. Because they (and others typing them) assume that they're a logical type (and of course insist that they're introverted and intuitive), INTj seems to be the other other option. They then point out that INTj doesn't quite fit (they identify a lot more with the INTp descriptions, the IP temperament, etc.), and then the old "INTp vs. INTj" subject comes up. Again.

My point is that if a person relates to the INTp descriptions better than the INTj descriptions, yet seems to display a preference for Ti, it's quite possible that they're INFps and they should seriously consider that type.

This gives me an idea.... that I don't have time to think or write about... perhaps later.

I think that's possible, for example every single person I know who I've had type me or independently describe my personality and so on unanimously place me as ILI, when looking at type descriptions and personalities I also unanimously come off as ILI (INTP in MBTI) but when looking at functional preferences I'm Ti > Te. If I did not use intertype relationships I would be firmly divided between ILI and LII.

I think this happens because a person's personality type is independent of their informational metabolism structure which is especially true for IEI-s.

What I think happens is that creative Fe in the hands of Ni conforms to the dynamic internal belief structure or subjective perception (IMO subjective perception is equivalent to a dynamic internal belief) so a person creates an aura around themselves with the Fe that matches this internal state. This would mean that they are able to parade as other types.

To give an example a IEI thinks they are creative so they silently ooze this through their Fe, unnoticeable to them and others but enough to be picked up so others people pick it up and start treating the IEI as creative which only conforms Ni so an affirmative loop forms. Or low self esteem causes the individual to ooze self deprecatory haze which in term causes people to treat them deprecatory and again forms a self sustaining loop. It's like pheromones that trigger automated reactions. To stop this one needs to alter their internal structure.

Of course all types have this, for example for a LIE it would theoretically be Te oozing into Ni creating a Te haze with Ni, foresight will be stained by current external dynamics like for example unfavorable political circumstances would make them ooze a haze of negative foresight like for example this article.

But back to IEI, this would mean that they could condition people to assume a stance towards them, to treat them a certain way, so they could present themselves as logical types with ease. But the degree would depend upon their natural ability and others receptivity, a person with no talent can't fool anyone but almost anyone can fool a fool.

Personally I ooze an aura of logical competence and intelligence so people treat me accordingly despite the fact that my logical abilities rely solely on how much I intuitively understand a subject before hand and my impression of it and not at all on the logic of the subject at hand and my intelligence amounts to an ability to tell people what they want to hear in a way they haven't heard it before. Or in other words my logical competence and intelligence are no better then theirs but I can ooze superiority in the realm of disposition that people mistake for my natural sent and calibrate their disposition to match this sent of mine so in the end I may as well be superior to them as they treat me as such (Also a very useful mechanism to completely avoid Te or objective facts cause I just make it apear things are true).

[Phaedrus]

you are wrong and the fact that not one person understands or acknowledges the accuracy of your position should at least lead you to consider why that might be the case, and perhaps what the fact of the matter actually is.

Why do people keep making false statements all the time? That is really hard to understand. Am I the only one here who can make a true statement?

[Phaedrus]

I think that's possible, for example every single person I know who I've had type me or independently describe my personality and so on unanimously place me as ILI, when looking at type descriptions and personalities I also unanimously come off as ILI

Now THAT is VERY interesting ...

but when looking at functional preferences I'm Ti > Te.

And how the hell do you know that? This is VERY suspicious.

If I did not use intertype relationships I would be firmly divided between ILI and LII.

Another very striking remark. Just like that all of your arguments for IEI are reduced to ... nothing. I really thought you had a better case than that. Now the likelihood for you being an ILI has increased to at least 90 %.

[aestrivex]

you are wrong and the fact that not one person understands or acknowledges the accuracy of your position should at least lead you to consider why that might be the case, and perhaps what the fact of the matter actually is.

Why do people keep making false statements all the time? That is really hard to understand. Am I the only one here who can make a true statement?

unfortunately the truth value of the derivative of -1/3√(7φπ) suggests that as long as d=b^5 then it is plausible that 21x^x=α(8i)/((e^4/5π)^(Σ(∞)(j=1)(Xj^k), suggesting that your suggestion regarding the truth value of your statement has lost some of its incandescence at a rate of 34π/α T/caHz² and thus should not be taken seriously after k=1000/φ (~618), which corresponds to approximately 34.5 million years ago.

[Exodus]

you are wrong and the fact that not one person understands or acknowledges the accuracy of your position should at least lead you to consider why that might be the case, and perhaps what the fact of the matter actually is.

Why do people keep making false statements all the time? That is really hard to understand. Am I the only one here who can make a true statement?

lol. That's real funny.



Just think about what the forum would be like if Phaedrus didn't exist.

[mikemex]

I know both types from close. My father is INTj, my girlfriend is INTp and I have another female INTp friend I know very well.

The difference in reasoning power is abysmal between them. INTp often make use of pseudo-factual information to back their opinions up. Looking closely they have serious flaws in reasoning.

For example, INTp consider metaphysical stuff that INTj would never do. For an INTj such things are neither true or false; rather unproven and for that reason not deserving being taken in consideration. To put it in a few words, INTj cares about having sound reasoning behind anything. INTp, on the other side, do not feel the need to justify everything through reason; probably they trust their intuition too much.

INTp are very unstable emotionally speaking. They never feel comfortable in relationships with others. However, I find curious that even if they don't feel comfortable, the last thing in the world they want to do is to end a relationship with a person they feel are connected with. They are rather skeptical, always fearing the worse in such situations.

In my view, all types with extroverted judgment (Fe and Te) are irrational. Fe types are logical through Fi and Te types through Ti. Also, I don't see Ni as intuition, rather, it seems to me like Ni intuitives are intuitive through Ne. In any case, having such functions in the subconscious block causes severe flaws in "raw thinking".

[MysticSonic]

"For example, INTp consider metaphysical stuff that INTj would never do. For an INTj such things are neither true or false; rather unproven and for that reason not deserving being taken in consideration. To put it in a few words, INTj cares about having sound reasoning behind anything. INTp, on the other side, do not feel the need to justify everything through reason; probably they trust their intuition too much. "

This seems only true for the intuitive sort of INTp. Makes sense, too, doesn't it? That an intuitive sub-type might depend on their intuition a bit more than their logical faculties?

"To put it in a few words, INTj cares about having sound reasoning behind anything."

INTjs want a Ti view on everything. INTps want something that fits their Ni intuitions, ENTps their Ne intuitions, and so on.

"In my view, all types with extroverted judgment (Fe and Te) are irrational. Fe types are logical through Fi and Te types through Ti"

Why would this be true? Each form of information is true on the matters upon which it is concerned. Perhaps you are viewing this through too much of an emotional context to truly apprehend an accurate view on the matter?

"Also, I don't see Ni as intuition, rather, it seems to me like Ni intuitives are intuitive through Ne. In any case, having such functions in the subconscious block causes severe flaws in "raw thinking"."

Again, I believe you are taking the matter from a perspective that's a bit more emotive and based upon how positive and negatively you view each function, because there is clear evidence(obvious to most other people, I assure you) that INTps are NOT lacking in "raw thinking."

[mikemex]

"For example, INTp consider metaphysical stuff that INTj would never do. For an INTj such things are neither true or false; rather unproven and for that reason not deserving being taken in consideration. To put it in a few words, INTj cares about having sound reasoning behind anything. INTp, on the other side, do not feel the need to justify everything through reason; probably they trust their intuition too much. "

This seems only true for the intuitive sort of INTp. Makes sense, too, doesn't it? That an intuitive sub-type might depend on their intuition a bit more than their logical faculties?

Yes.

"To put it in a few words, INTj cares about having sound reasoning behind anything."

INTjs want a Ti view on everything. INTps want something that fits their Ni intuitions, ENTps their Ne intuitions, and so on.

Not really. More below.

"In my view, all types with extroverted judgment (Fe and Te) are irrational. Fe types are logical through Fi and Te types through Ti"

Why would this be true? Each form of information is true on the matters upon which it is concerned. Perhaps you are viewing this through too much of an emotional context to truly apprehend an accurate view on the matter?

Maybe I have a different understanding about "irrationality".

"Also, I don't see Ni as intuition, rather, it seems to me like Ni intuitives are intuitive through Ne. In any case, having such functions in the subconscious block causes severe flaws in "raw thinking"."

Again, I believe you are taking the matter from a perspective that's a bit more emotive and based upon how positive and negatively you view each function, because there is clear evidence(obvious to most other people, I assure you) that INTps are NOT lacking in "raw thinking."

Socionics claims that all types are equal, but that's not true. Such arguments are only valid in the eyes of those who doesn't know much about biology. You see, one of the fundamental claims of socionics, complementarity, is largely against the fundamental concept behind evolution. When we humans gave up on having sharp teeth, claws and other natural weapons, we didn't form two races. And we didn't because there is no point about keeping such rudimentary adaptations having much better weapons at hand. But, above all, we lost such adaptations because we are so powerful now that there is almost nothing in this world that poses a treat to us and thus we (should) no longer consider violence an important factor in our lives.

There is a lot of stuff inside the brain that is redundant. For example, we have a visual cortex in the upper layer of the brain, but very little people knows that we have another inside the reptilian brain. So, people with damage in the visual cortex can still grab objects, even if they can't consciously see anything.

So here comes the difficult thing: if we possess different ways of doing the same thing, then one must be better than the others. By "better" I don't mean a panacea. Every adaptation is a trade-off. Once in a while a poor guy gets eaten by a bear or a crocodile for not having natural weapons, but in general terms we are far safer now than if we had to rely on them.

So I don't see why is it off to claim that INTp is less skilled at reasoning than INTj. They can't be equally skilled, otherwise they would work the same way and thus be the same thing.

[MysticSonic]

"So I don't see why is it off to claim that INTp is less skilled at reasoning than INTj. They can't be equally skilled, otherwise they would work the same way and thus be the same thing."

Because Ti isn't the sole basis of reason.

[aestrivex]

So I don't see why is it off to claim that INTp is less skilled at reasoning than INTj. They can't be equally skilled, otherwise they would work the same way and thus be the same thing.

the reason why it's off is not to do with evolution. it's rather to do with socionics. while accepting that socionics types are extremely different in certain areas and have highly different skills, its simply a flawed interpretation to suggest that the analytical abilities of an LII are greater than that of an ILI; they're merely focused in different areas. both the ILI and LII have very strong Ti and, if use of Ti is necessary for some analytical purpose, will both be capable of making extensive use of it. it is more likely that ILIs, with dominant Ni, would focus their efforts on Ni related areas (such as the nature of reality, the nature of god, dreams, the past and future, etc.) while LIIs might focus more extensively on TiNe-esque proven scientific principles, the application of pure knowledge, etc. the nature of analyzing these subjects is, for obvious reasons, very different. but the point is that ILIs and LIIs both can be adept at crossing into these other areas and creating their own Ni scientific principles or Ti temporal principles to work off of. because they both have an adept understanding of all of the N and T functions, they can generally integrate their own findings or observations with the frameworks that already exist, no matter their functional bases.


a more accurate comparison might be to suggest that an ESE is less skilled at reasoning than an LII. few would dispute such a claim.

[mikemex]

This is not a political discussion on who is better; it doesn't make a sense to claim that one type is universally better than others. Obviously each type has an unique area of strength, but what matters is that some types are more confined to such areas of strength than others. And intelligence is a qualitative change (to be able to do more things) and not a quantitative one.

Also, an INTj is not pure Ti. An INTj can use Ni and Te as well. Every type has the same functions, what matters is the order.

[aestrivex]

This is not a political discussion on who is better; it doesn't make a sense to claim that one type is universally better than others. Obviously each type has an unique area of strength, but what matters is that some types are more confined to such areas of strength than others. And intelligence is a qualitative change (to be able to do more things) and not a quantitative one.

Also, an INTj is not pure Ti. An INTj can use Ni and Te as well. Every type has the same functions, what matters is the order.

i don't disagree with any of this but i addressed all of it in my previous post, if you would care to read it.

[drd252]

you are wrong and the fact that not one person understands or acknowledges the accuracy of your position should at least lead you to consider why that might be the case, and perhaps what the fact of the matter actually is.

Why do people keep making false statements all the time? That is really hard to understand. Am I the only one here who can make a true statement?

unfortunately the truth value of the derivative of -1/3√(7φπ) suggests that as long as d=b^5 then it is plausible that 21x^x=α(8i)/((e^4/5π)^(Σ(∞)(j=1)(Xj^k), suggesting that your suggestion regarding the truth value of your statement has lost some of its incandescence at a rate of 34π/α T/caHz² and thus should not be taken seriously after k=1000/φ (~618), which corresponds to approximately 34.5 million years ago.

I just had to point out how unbelievably hilarious everything to do with "The Great Phaedrus debate" is; the above quotes sum it up nicely

The difference in reasoning power is abysmal between them. INTp often make use of pseudo-factual information to back their opinions up. Looking closely they have serious flaws in reasoning... INTj cares about having sound reasoning behind anything. INTp, on the other side, do not feel the need to justify everything through reason; probably they trust their intuition too much.

I take offense to this. I care about having sound reasoning behind everything, and actively seek to do so. However, there are situations where reason becomes useless (or simply too cumbersome) and I just know the answer; it's a very distinct feeling that I've learned not to ignore. When my intuition kicks into overdrive and defies reason, it's typically best to go with it; ignoring it invariably leads to disaster.

So I don't see why is it off to claim that INTp is less skilled at reasoning than INTj. They can't be equally skilled, otherwise they would work the same way and thus be the same thing.

the reason why it's off is not to do with evolution. it's rather to do with socionics. while accepting that socionics types are extremely different in certain areas and have highly different skills, its simply a flawed interpretation to suggest that the analytical abilities of an LII are greater than that of an ILI; they're merely focused in different areas. both the ILI and LII have very strong Ti and, if use of Ti is necessary for some analytical purpose, will both be capable of making extensive use of it. it is more likely that ILIs, with dominant Ni, would focus their efforts on Ni related areas (such as the nature of reality, the nature of god, dreams, the past and future, etc.) while LIIs might focus more extensively on TiNe-esque proven scientific principles, the application of pure knowledge, etc. the nature of analyzing these subjects is, for obvious reasons, very different. but the point is that ILIs and LIIs both can be adept at crossing into these other areas and creating their own Ni scientific principles or Ti temporal principles to work off of. because they both have an adept understanding of all of the N and T functions, they can generally integrate their own findings or observations with the frameworks that already exist, no matter their functional bases.


a more accurate comparison might be to suggest that an ESE is less skilled at reasoning than an LII. few would dispute such a claim.

Well put niffweed.

[yeves]

This isn't about any one person in particular, just pretty much any "disputed INTp" and perhaps those who can't seem to choose between INTp and INTj.

good observation. i read another discussion on this forum explaining that accentuation of hidden agenda leads to mistakes between type and it's beneficiary type (IEI-LII, EIE-SEE, etc.)

[Dionysius]

That's my case.

I've always typed as INTP in MBTI, then in Socionics I identify with the INTp but I disregard Te to a high extent: I don't care about technology and business data, as well as factual knowledge. I focus on creating my own interpretations and viewpoints (Ti), regardless of the objective details. I remember my father (ESTp) trying to teach me mechanics when I was young, and I didn't give a shit.

I consider myself an Ni Ti Fe type. I suspect that my Ti is stronger than my Fe.

IEI males are not always these cute, outgoing boys. They can be rather cold and analytical, resembling NTs.

My girlfriend for example types me as ENTP (Ne Ti Fe), cause I'm an IEI Creative subtype, so I sometimes look like an extrovert, but I'm not.

I use a lot of Ni/Ne + Ti.

[Olly From Wally World]

Yeah, some people aren't really all that well balanced and have a strong emphasis on their dominant function (as per Jungian descriptions, descriptions of types really into their dom) which, if being introverted intuition, can make them seem like NTs and you get some IEIs with a fetish, more so when really introverted or going through reclusive stages. I would say base can sometimes be easily confused as being NT (either themselves or from others). With base types, their discoveries are often visionary in whatever realms they deal in (which can, yes, be science), a product of seeing things that aren't yet present and the dynamics going on in the background (or at least believing they do), and there's an aspect of detachment, it being introverted and furthest away from tangible reality (). Leaps of imagination and visualization. There may be some obsessions but it seems more like attempts to create guidelines or structures for a vision, underlying dynamic or hunch, although it usually seems more vague in actuality and less rigid than base.

[bolong]

I'm totally SP first, and this makes me seem like LII much more often than IEI, at least in situations where I'm not at all comfortable. For a long time I found it easiest to communicate like an LII too - sort of like a sarcastic rain-on-everyone's parade type of comment when I felt obligated to say something. People who know me like this say that I'm cold, logical to the point of ignoring my feelings, that they've never seen me cry, etc.

On the other hand people who know me really well will say that I'm completely goofy, totally emotional, cry for stupid things, etc. I appreciate this second group of people much more, because 1) they see me as I am, and I don't feel a pressure to keep up this mask of being "logical" which I totally know I'm not, that's just Ni working. and 2) these people are either SLE or LSI, and occasionally delta NF, and with all of them I don't feel vulnerable if I show emotionality or ask for help.

[Fragment]

Part of my problem when I started getting into the MBTI was that I heavily related to Ti and Ni in such a fashion that I perplexed many on intjforums. I didn't relate much to Te when they described their relations with it, and once I got into JCog Funcs, I thought for certain it wasn't me. This led me and others to think I was a sort of ISTP, but even at an early age, I displayed a natural detachment from my environment that belied my actual understandings of it.

The only thing that seems a bit sad is that centric IEIs are often cast as having developed through some maladjustment of sorts--that it's somewhat unhealthy to draw upon this function. Is there a reason for this?

[lapa83]

For balance's sake I'd like to play around with the title a bit.

IEI seems like a type stuck in the middle between "feeler" and "thinker".
But if you mix ILI and LII you don't get that middle, you just get an asshole robot who is kinda charming, plotting world domination, too lazy to make it happen and is really, REALLY good at physics. xD

While ILI is more emotional than LII, they aren't as emotion influenced to make an IEI. I'd simply replace the ILI with EII.
Because after all, while SO MANY damn IEIs think they're LII (been there, done that xD), just as many EIIs think they're IEI.

In place of EII, EIE + LII could also work for Fe subtype of IEI. =')

[Skepsis]

If an IEI can misidentify as an LII through well developed Ti, then surely an ILI could misidentify as an EII through well developed Fi, as it is the mobilizing functions that are being emphasized here.

In short, by the reasoning of the OP, one may be an ILI if caught between their identification with IEI and EII descriptions.

This could work with the other types as well.

[Alomoes]

Hrrm, if people know what they are, and thus know what they are not, then this would be rendered invalid. I know what I am, all I needed was to fit my unconcious definition to the socionics definition. Which I did. Probably isn't so simple for other people, who are unsure. Also, to make things worse, people who seem incoherent will take on labels of other types. It is like dissonance in music. Your brain doesn't have any way to solve the problem, so it remains a problem.