Talk:Intuitive Logical Introtim

"unrestricted acceptance of the world as it is as fundamental values. To an ILI, a person who cannot accept and possess a basic understanding of the workings of the world around him is unfit to live in it. "

• What does that mean..."unrestricted acceptance of the world"??
• Don't you think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that ILIs believe that "a person who cannot accept and possess a basic understanding of the workings of the world around him is unfit to live in it. "?
• Perhaps the viewpoint of "you're unfit to live if you don't subscribe to my values" is something that's not really type related? --Jonathan 21:14, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

let me ask this: do you think the section is at least on the right track? are you suggestint that it is more or less appropriate to ILIs, but just a tad extreme? or is it completely alien to you? Niffweed17 05:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are on the right track. The first seems a little alien, plus I don't understand what you mean by "unrestricted acceptance of the world." I prefer the description in Extroverted logic: "It is manifested as a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency, and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere. A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to their well-being and sense of inner peace, but they do not feel a pressing need for being proactive or productive themselves in that area."

It's interesting because I wrote that description particularly to address the aspects of Te that I thought were absent from the description on the Te page. For one thing, I don't like the part about "factual accuracy over ideological consistency." I can see where ideological consistency plays out as a Ti-esque concept, but actually clinging on to a particular ideology is neither necessary for a Ti system nor impossible for NiTe. Similarly, "factual accuracy" is fine, but I think that factual accuracy alone is a poor descriptor of just why an ILI sees the Te aspects as more important than Ti. I see the Te of an ILI being more connected to the ILI's Ni worldly vision. In constructing this vision, the ILI is attuned completely to the facts around him and cannot accept those who ignore those facts and perceive something contrary (think of Darwin's reaction when many around him rejected his theory of evolution; he was unable to understand why they would not, so to speak, look at the facts). I know other ILIs (myself included, assuming that I'm ILI) that find it difficult to tolerate when other people similarly ignore realities that appear incredibly obvious. Maybe that doesn't apply to all, but I found that section to be a rather critical part of my own experience. Niffweed17 12:43, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I guess it's a matter of words. Making "factual accuracy" so important causes the description to sound like someone who's overly nitpicky about minute and unimportant factual details. I think ILIs, while they want the facts to be correct, are more concerned with the overall message than getting mired in exact dates, etc., that really don't matter. "Factual accuracy over ideological consistency" sounds like something Expat would say. I think it means that when presented with facts that contradict a theory or ideology, a person who values Te would be inclined to change or discard the theory/ideology, rather than disregarding the facts. I think that's particularly true about ILIs.

Anyhow, I think we're meaning exactly the same thing, but somehow the exact wording used suggests something different in our minds. Another example is the word "worldy." That word has connotations of materialism that may be not be what you meant.--Jonathan 13:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

You're probably right. Niffweed17 14:47, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

By the way, looking again at your example, it sounds as if you're saying that ILIs tend to assume that there's one set of facts that should be obvious to everyone, and tend to be surprised or disdainful if other people don't see those same facts. Is that what you're saying? I can see why that might theoretically be true about ILIs, but I don't identify with that personally. --Jonathan 13:28, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. Niffweed17 14:47, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if other people think that's a typical ILI trait (?). --Jonathan 01:16, 16 July 2007 (BST)

Of course, this leads to an interesting question regarding format: Why don't we just have a bot automatically update the descriptions under each of the types from the descriptions under the IM elements? For example, for ILI, Ni should be the same as "Ni as a base (1st) function" in the Ni page; Te should be the same as "Te as a creative (2nd) function" in the Te page, etc. Otherwise, we're just redoing the same work, right? (Unless the intent is to have two versions of each of these, just because one wants to express different viewpoints....or maybe the descriptions under the types are meant to be more subjective, "personalized" and less general?) --Jonathan 08:14, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

No, no, no. The point is that Ni in an ILI is very different from Ni of an IEI. It makes all the sense in the world to give a better understanding of the type in question by writing the functional descriptions from the perspective of that type; otherwise, you get a jumbled mess of information without the central focus of that particular type. Niffweed17 12:43, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I see the two tasks as being slightly different, though highly interrelated. Expat took the functional descriptions to form the ESI description, whereas I have been writing from scratch. Plus, in the type descriptions we can also describe blocks (which I have started to do). For an example see the IEE description. This is an important issue to debate: how much additional information does the blocking of one element with another carry in addition to each separate element? Let's find a good place in some article to debate that one :) --Admin 12:50, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, you're right...Ni in ILI is different from Ni in IEI. I was just being lazy in suggesting automation. My own tendency would be to copy the descriptions from the other place and modify them as needed. --Jonathan 13:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I intended - and I still do - to elaborate on the ESI description; actually I started that as an exercise to see if the type is recognizable if you just do that. My conclusion is that it is; but the descriptions can be improved. As for the "Factual accuracy over ideological consistency" , yes I did write that, and what I mean is that there is a recognizable difference in attitude. When I discuss things (politics, economics, whatever) with my LSI friends, their first instinct is to brush aside, explain away, or question the accuracy of facts that flatly contradict something they believe in (for instance, some conspiracy theories etc) that fits a broader worldview. I also have worldviews, but if I am presented with such a fact my first instinct is first to check its accuracy, and if it does contradict my worldview, I store it in my mind for consideration, because any worldview I may have is totally fickle anyway. And I agree with Niffweed's comments regarding Darwin, that is precisely the sort of thing I meant. Expat 16:27, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Introverted sensing

This description is quite good, I think. However, there might be a mixture of and in it. I'm curious what kinds of situations or people might make an ILI defensive or apologetic? Regarding the aspects, it seems that they are simply oblivious, whereas other people's emphasis on things tends to make them defensive or unsure. How can we differentiate? I'm trying to recall how the ILIs I know have behaved. Maybe an emphasis is more about how a person lives his day-to-day life, what he takes in his body and how he manages his needs, cares for his sense of inner comfort and relaxedness. From what I have seen of ILIs, they are pretty simplistic and lacking in these areas. What they do know about "how to live" generally remains 'abstract knowledge' with elements of either mysticism or 'what science says,' rather than a personalized approach based on careful study of real-life experience. In contrast, seems to be more about their activities, actions ("just do it!!"), maintaining a decent appearance for the rest of the world, and external things like that. Here they seem really oblivious to start with, but they warm to attention and can even get carried away in a good sense. With the aspects, it seems they "bone up" on it without any prodding, but don't really apply their knowledge. Does this ring true at all? --Admin 20:36, 15 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah, that sort of makes sense (I have a few minor quibbles with it) but what does that have to do with the description itself? What part of the description that's there do you think has to do with Se? Niffweed17 21:12, 15 July 2007 (BST)

I was sort of talking out loud :)

The first paragraph is about Si. The second -- "ILIs are largely indifferent to the organization of their living areas" -- I think the way you've described it, this is actually Se. We had an interesting forum discussion once about this. The Ne types were touchy about people trying to introduce order into their environment, while the Ni types seemed to welcome it.

The third paragraph seems to be more about Si again (except, debatably, "effort to maintain surroundings," but I'm not sure), and the "lifestyle changes" in the fourth probably is more about Si again. After all, Ne types crave lifestyle changes that involve a whole new set of sensory stimuli and living habits.

Tricky stuff, I agree. But I think what you've written is quite good. --Admin 21:28, 15 July 2007 (BST)

I had my doubts that the information in the second paragraph even belonged in a type description, but I thought it was a very characteristic ILI anecdote, and not something I've seen only from myself. I'll try to incorporate it in to the Se description when I write it. It would be helpful if in the meantime it stayed where it were. Niffweed17 22:20, 15 July 2007 (BST)

I very much identify with Rick's comment about welcoming having others introduce order into the environment. The article as it is seems to suggest that ILIs like their clutter. Personally, I dislike clutter but not enough to do much about it. If someone helps me de-clutter things, I like that...as long as I'm there to make sure that nothing really important gets thrown out. :) --Jonathan 01:26, 16 July 2007 (BST)

As to "ILIs are often feel very hesitant and resistant towards new ideas": One sees that in a lot in ILI descriptions. Niffweed, do you really identify with that? Of course, that's more of an Ne issue anyway, not Si, and not something that an SEE would likely help with, but besides that, I don't find that to be true about anybody that I consider ILI. I frankly think that all the stuff in Socionics about ILIs being against new ideas comes mainly from the fact that they tend to like to criticize, and also that they don't see their role as being primarily implementers. So naturally, Alpha types, who've written a lot of the descriptions, see them as being opposed to new ideas. But in my experience, a new technology, a new scientific theory, a new philosophical approach...these are all highly intriguing to ILIs. Of course the first thing they will do is criticize, but that's just an ILI's way of showing interest. --Jonathan 01:26, 16 July 2007 (BST)

I treated this very specifically as to how I thought it applied both to Si-related criticism and how it applied to me. New ideas is perhaps a poor way of putting it; I'll get rid of that. I don't think that I am particularly resistant to new ideas, per se. What I am resistant to is when someone forces me to change my lifestyle in some way that I don't want to. You have heard about the current extermination project going on in my home; that's a perfect example. Though I see the necessity of his actions in actually cleaning out the house to get rid of the bugs, I'm not really happy with my dad for making me deal with all the clutter that I have learned to live with and accepted completely. I think this is really where the ILI's Si becomes defensive; I've lived this way forever and anticipate difficulty adapting to a new set of circumstances. It's not like he's handled the situation in an Se way, but rather in a forceful Te way (I've changed my mind on again; I used to think he was LII, then LIE, now SLI, but I really think it makes sense this time.) The same sort of situation is also present when people ask me to try certain foods that I don't think I'll like; I instinctively don't want to have anything to do with them.

Do you think this more general resistance to lifestyle changes is more appropriate in the context of ILI Si? I would agree that resistance to new ideas is a very bad way of describing this, but wasn't focused on the language particularly while writing this (while I was pondering what to write I might have unconsciously included it due to having seen it before). 01:38, 16 July 2007 (BST) too many tildes Niffweed17 01:41, 16 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, I think we're more in agreement now. It's largely a words issue again (I think you're right about the fact that descriptions often include stuff that was was added unconsciously due to it being seen in previous descriptions). As for me, I'm not that averse to lifestyle changes (I like trying new food and am quite adaptable regarding unimportant things about my surroundings); however I am averse to any lifestyle change that makes me feel that my freedom to imagine, think, etc., will be threatened. I could see how trouble with having to pick stuff up for the exterminator could be an Si-related thing somewhat (but see below). Si people don't really mind the mechanics of having to focus on physical stuff, whereas for Ni types, it can be more overwhelming, plus there's the thought "will I have to give up my own thoughts and daydreams and spend the rest of my life cleaning this up?" (Actually, I don't mind being Si-like for brief periods of time, if I can direct my own transition into and out of that state.) Se types seem to take care of this kind of stuff because they want the result of having it all done, whereas Si types actually like doing it (I think). It's a mystery to me as to why (at least theoretically) Se types are the best for helping Ni types clean up their mess, whereas Si types are best for helping Ne types clean up their mess. (What I gather though, from one of Rick's posts when I asked something like that on the forum, is that Ne types aren't really as disorganized with their stuff as Ni types to begin with. First of all, they're out doing stuff more, so they're not making as much mess to begin with; and secondly, they can summon the energy to take care of it themselves.)

However, I agree with Rick that taking care of all sorts of stuff that needs to be done is probably more an Se issue than an Si issue (and if SEE helps with it, it's probably Se). I think that perhaps where Ni conflicts more with Si is that Si types have less mess to begin with, and then they expect that one should be able to get everything done so one can watch T.V. or sit on the beach, etc., whereas an Ni person doesn't value those activities and would get nothing done if he had to do that stuff too.

I would say that it has to do with Se solving Si problems. The theory here is that the Si problems basically are that the ILI is too uncertain and cautious about dealing with Si issues to actually risk doing something about them, whereas an outside influence of Se will actively change the surroundings and make the Si uncertainty a moot point. Niffweed17 07:40, 16 July 2007 (BST)

But I think an important aspect here is Fi. You mentioned the forceful T way in which your father mentioned the issue. Possibly, Se with Fi leads to a more conciliatory, diplomatic way of handling stuff. --Jonathan 05:36, 16 July 2007 (BST)

Good discussion. It's making more sense to me, too. "Si types have less mess to begin with, and then they expect that one should be able to get everything done so one can watch T.V. or sit on the beach, etc., whereas an Ni person doesn't value those activities..." I don't think the nature of the activities here matters (Si types sometimes have lots of intellectual pursuits). I just recalled a mom-SLI and son-ILI that I know. The mom tries to be encouraging and help out with the son's day-to-day problems, but she has to switch into Se mode to make anything happen (basically, start herself energetically and "organize" him). Of course, this is tiring for her, so she only does it from time to time. So, instead, she tends to tell him how to live and change his habits and asks about his health and state of mind, which he often tries to ignore or sheepishly goes along with. She criticizes him inside and to other people, and, of course, he senses her attitude and is self-conscious about it. From this I can see that Si is more about keeping a certain lifestyle and caring for yourself, whereas Se is more about doing things that are required by objective external circumstances, because other people need it, for example. Around Si types an ILI may feel like they criticize him for neglecting himself or not caring for himself in the right way, whereas a Se type would make him feel more comfortable because they either don't talk about these things or relate them to external demands and "making things happen" rather than "how much you care about yourself." So for an ILI Si comments make it sound like he doesn't "care enough" about himself (criticizing his person), whereas Se comments make it sound like external forces are "to blame" (switching attention to what can be changed in the outside world). --Admin 08:04, 16 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, I like that. External forces are always to blame. How come other people don't see that? :)

So, to build on what you're saying, would you consider the view that a person should maintain habits such as putting things away, washing at regular times, and just basically living in a way that creates good maintenance "because it's good for you" or "because these are good habits to have" an "Si thing"? Whereas if a person says "let's clean up this mess because I like to live in a clean place" it becomes an "Se thing" because the reasoning given is external? --Jonathan 06:17, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Those quotes are perfect. They even show static vs. dynamic. I also would like to say that I (as well as another Ne ego friend of mine) identify with the other Ne types; I hate it when people rearrange my stuff. Ne has its own peculiar way of organizing, I think. Maybe I'll work that into the INTj description. Thehotelambush 08:12, 20 July 2007 (BST)

No, that's not it at all. The Se quote in particular has nothing to do with Se, which isn't nearly as much about "living in a clean place" than getting things done for the sake of doing them and because they have to be done. Niffweed17 08:33, 20 July 2007 (BST)

My intention was that "because I like it that way" (or because we're having guests over, or whatever) is external reasoning, whether or not the issue is "living in a clean place" or something else. Doing things for the sake of it, or because they "have to be" (but nobody knows why) sounds perhaps like someone who is unable or unwilling to explain himself (?). --Jonathan 13:49, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Yes, perhaps the content is not specifically related to Se, but the form and way of thinking most certainly are. It can be rephrased accordingly. Thehotelambush 23:38, 20 July 2007 (BST)

General critique

Great effort and good ideas. Hope you don't mind some very general, big-picture comments...although these are quite subjective, personal opinions. As I mentioned with the LII description, I still get the sense here that these type descriptions are shaping up to be more portraits of individual representatives of each type, rather than general descriptions of the types themselves. A number of things, such as the idea that ILIs have such poor control of their emotions, or that they don't care for aesthetics at all, seem to me to possibly either be exaggerated or not really applicable to ILIs in general. There are quite a number of things here that seem as if they come from past descriptions, and I think those should be specifically annotated or sourced, if included at all, because one of the biggest problems in Socionics as a whole is that descriptions are gooked up by all the plaque that forms from previous descriptions. (I hope I'm not seeming too harsh here...that's just my general impression of Socionics descriptions, and I was thinking that this wiki is an opportunity to get away from that somehow.) I realize I'm partly at fault by not contributing....hopefully I'll be able to contribute something at some point. :) --Jonathan 06:05, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, I see now from your response to what I said in the LII description that this was exactly what you were trying to avoid. I may be over-reacting to certain things too...maybe I should read it more carefully. I personally don't identify with certain things such as "ILIs have an extremely limited command of their emotions." Anyhow, it is a hard task...I think we agree about the general concepts of how it should go, though. --Jonathan 06:23, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I agree that there are some elements of these descriptions that don't at all belong there. The limited command of emotions thing definitely qualifies; I would especially expect that from the Fe part because I almost completely synthesized that from parts of other descriptions which I found to be particularly accurate. If you see things like that, please feel free to get rid of them; chances are it didn't fit anyway. If it did, I'll certainly inquire as to its deletion. Niffweed17 06:34, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Okay, I made some edits to Ni and Te. See if these still fit your conception of ILI, or if they seem to indicate some other type. I realize that the flavor is a bit different (going from a very self-confident, hard-nosed, practical, "other people are unfit to live in the world" view to a more self-questioning, introspective view). This may, again, reflect my own particular personality, but I tried to consider other people I consider to be ILIs. --Jonathan 14:29, 20 July 2007 (BST)

In retrospect, I'm wondering if my edits are even helpful, as they may be merging two highly different conceptions of what ILI might be, with the result of ending up with some sort of mud. I know someone who perfectly fits the description of believing that people who don't know facts and the way the world works aren't fit to live in it, and who sometimes seems not to care much about aesthetics. In MBTI I had considered him INTJ (NiTe); in Socionics, I think he's probably LIE. I know a number of people whom I believe to be ILI, but who really don't fit that description at all. Now I'm more curious than ever if upon meeting, I seem to be more like Niffweed, or more like theHotelAmbush (or neither). --Jonathan 15:43, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I thought all of your edits were for the most part good. The only serious issue I had was the idea that ILIs find themselves more capable in the area of criticism than in production. They may be more capable criticizing logical flaws, but they don't naturally see themselves this way, and I don't believe the reason that they criticize rather than contribute practical solutions isn't because they see themselves as "better" at it. Niffweed17 17:59, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks. One part I'm a little cautious about changing is "ILIs place little importance on such aspects as comfort, sensations, and aesthetics." (This gets back to Si again, but I'll mention it here.) I don't know if I'm an extreme exception or what, but I'm actually completely the opposite of what it says.

My living space is full of pictures on the wall. (My wife got me to put them up, but I like them there. Most of them are my own photographs.) I love to eat good food, and I eat slowly to savor every bite. I like to go places that have nice views. I stop a lot and take lots of pictures, and then I pick out the best-looking ones. (I hate pictures that are just for showing that one was at a certain place.) I like it when people dress nicely, and I compliment them for it (although I can be kind of sloppy myself). Also, I like comfortable places to sit, sleep etc. (though mostly so I don't have to be distracted by discomfort). So I'm kind of the opposite of what it says here. (However, I do lose track of my surroundings when I'm in deep thought, and I don't usually like to focus on very physical tasks such as gardening, etc.) --Jonathan 05:10, 21 July 2007 (BST)

That is not something I would delete at all. What you describe differs entirely with both my experience and with my understanding of the ILI type. Niffweed17 05:25, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Well, maybe my "exertion type" has Si somewhere or I'm unique, or am really an Alpha type. But that aside, I know quite a few ILIs who seem to be aesthetically aware to varying degrees...interested in art, good music, etc. Even some ILI descriptions I've seen on various sites distinguish between ILIs who are aesthetically aware, and those who aren't. More significantly, it's easier for people to agree that IEIs are quite aesthetically aware. Many IEIs are into art, poetry, dress nicely, etc. But their orientation to Si should be rather similar to ILI's theoretically, shouldn't it? ...which leads to the question...

To what extent can ILIs be aesthetically aware, and how does it relate to the role function?

Aesthetic awareness and ILI (and IEI)

And related to that, how should we see the role function? Is it a "big 0"? Or something not quite... --Jonathan 15:18, 21 July 2007 (BST)

PS...This also raises what I think is one of the fundamentally issues in Socionics, which is the concept of applying Socionics concepts at different "levels"; for example, on one hand, one might suppose that ILIs are completely uninsterested in aesthetics, and really only interested in more scientific endeavors. But then if you look at the pages on "Music and socionics" or "Images and socionics," you see the idea suggested that there is an Ni/Te approach to aesthetics. Now personally, I like art, but I'm particularly fond of highly dramatic or mysterious images....which might be an Ni thing. --Jonathan 16:23, 21 July 2007 (BST)

This is the same issue as you mentioned regarding and "health." Each of us has our own approach to health; likewise, aesthetics is such a broad concept that it doesn't fit neatly into one element. Information on a page can have aesthetics, music can be aesthetic, etc. Also, as the book The Semantics of the Information Aspects pointed out, objects' aesthetics can be related to both and . Here will focus more on the factual appearance, form, etc. of the 'thing,' while will focus more on the observer's reaction to these qualities. From a functional standpoint, IEIs and ILIs will tend to be oblivious but accepting towards and consistently incompetent in (though tending to possess theoretical knowledge of it which they do not use). One thing I have really never seen is an IEI or ILI who can sit back in a comfy sofa and tell the world how wonderful it feels (and show it in their body language), or outwardly display obvious physical enjoyment of just about anything. I've seen IEEs and ILEs do this a lot, as well as -- naturally -- SEIs and SLIs. IEIs and ILIs seem to avoid this altogether. --Admin 16:38, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Well, if the room...or wherever we end up meeting...has a comfortable sofa, we can do the "comfie sofa test." :) --Jonathan 18:05, 21 July 2007 (BST)

(Note: On the basis of Rick's comments, I think the phrase about disinterest in aesthetics can safetly be changed somewhat.) --Jonathan 18:32, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Niffweed: I changed it a little bit. The emphasis is now more on a desire not to focus on the senses for prolonged periods, rather than a disdain for "aesthetics" or a general affect of indifference. I'd be curious if this fits with your idea of ILI, or if it seems completely antithetical to your view. --Jonathan 18:48, 21 July 2007 (BST)

I really don't know but I don't identify with it at all. I actually would agree more that ILIs can occasionally be appreciative of sensory stimuli than to say it depends on the patterns of the stimuli involved or that they require "intellectual" stimuli. Niffweed17 18:17, 22 July 2007 (BST)

Eating

By the way, what about food? It seems to me that I can only imagine being particularly in a comfortable sofa if I'm tired; I wouldn't be much interested in it if I realy want to be mentally alert and active, which is most of the time. But everybody has to eat. Is liking food, or preferring certain foods, something completely foreign to IEI/ILI? I sometimes have lunch with someone I'm sure is ILI, and he really loves certain restuarant. He likes places that serve a good steak, for example. Of course, when eating, he's normally talking about politics, law, and other theoretical interests, and never draws attention to his eating. But he certainly enjoys certain foods. For myself, I don't usually like sensations that would put me into a soporific state, but my wife says that I make a soft "mmm" sound when I eat something I like (I'm not aware of it).

Liking foods and having certain tastes is not unusual for ILI/IEIs, I think. What they don't tend to do is absorb themselves in the act of eating or obtaining other kinds of pleasure. "Of course, when eating, he's normally talking about politics, law, and other theoretical interests, and never draws attention to his eating." -- like this, for instance. Or this: "I don't usually like sensations that would put me into a soporific state." My experience is that Ne types enjoy (at least occasionally) getting deep into sensations that turn off their mental activity. "but my wife says that I make a soft "mmm" sound when I eat something I like " -- Si and Ne types would tend to play up these habits and use them for humor, exaggerate them, imitate each other, etc. --Admin 19:50, 21 July 2007 (BST)

What about this way of eating: I've met some people who order only the very best food, very gourmet, and yet they're always disappointed. They can't seem to enjoy it without noticing that something's wrong (let alone enjoy an ordinary hot dog). I believe that could be a trait of some acc-Ne types. Does that sound right? --Jonathan 18:32, 21 July 2007 (BST)

I'm not sure. That's definitely not me. That sounds more like a sensing thing, but I don't know. --Admin 19:50, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Listen, I enjoy good food as much as the next guy, but none of this appreciation sounds remotely like me. Niffweed17 18:18, 22 July 2007 (BST)

That's very Se (i.e. SEE or ESFP / to some extent SLI) - this type greatly appreciates fine wines and good food, and can become quite picky in unhealthy situations (this is likely explained somewhere on the SEE/SLI pages, even if not explicitly in reference to food). Types with Si also have a touch of this, but this really isn't in the Si domain. For example, someone with an ego Si might look at food that has been prepared poorly and experience significant internal tension. ESEs (ESFJs), for example, might ask for the food to be returned, and may feel that not enough care was taken in preparing it.

INTP or INTJ? ILI vs INTP

MBTI gives these mental functions for INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe (in that order). For ILI (INTp), these functions correspond to the id (7th/8th functions - Ti as the strongest (8) + Ne(7)) and super-ego block (3rd/4th functions - Si as the stronger of the two (3) + Fe (4)). So for the most part they correspond well. The problem here is that the id functions (the 7th and 8th ones) are supposed to be completely unconscious, yet in Myers-Briggs these functions are clearly not so. You'd think the ego functions are at odds with the first two of MBTI, and they really don't seem like they're supposed to be. This is extremely confusing to me, because INTP functions actually more closely resemble the functions of an LII, even though the LII descriptions are very clearly INTJ, as intended, and not INTP.

This is further complicated by the strange nature of J and P and the J/P switch, reviewed in depth as it related to INTPs and INTJs here: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch

Can someone give some clarification on this matter? I am quite unfamiliar with socionics, and in the ways it differs from the MBTI, so any help is useful in that regard.