Talk:Logical Intuitive Introtim

can we use LII instead of INTj in this description just for conformity? Niffweed17 02:35, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Eh, sure. Thehotelambush 02:41, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Although I think this is the best format, I'm finding it extremely difficult to decide where to put all this stuff! Thehotelambush 03:31, 20 July 2007 (BST)

General critique

Very well done, compellingly written (so compelling that it makes me start wondering if I'm really LII again). It seems to me, however, 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. In particular, for this one, I wonder if it applies to less-intellectual LIIs (or is there such a thing). Similarly, I wonder if a number of things in would apply to intellectually oriented ILIs just as much as LIIs. --Jonathan 05:57, 20 July 2007 (BST)

that was almost exactly my impression of the description as well. most of the functional descriptions in this particular description are not really describing the functional manifestations themselves, as they should, but rather characteristics of the type. the problem again here is that these types of descriptions base themselves too much off of common stereotype and common perception than actual, functional manifestation.

a question for all of you (not just jonathan): take a look at the ILI description on this site, which i've primarily written. it's obviously not finished yet (i am waiting for further inspiration... i promise that i will do it eventually), but out of what's already there, do you think that it's any different from the typical stereotypical-esque images of the types that many of these functional descriptions seem to be about? if so, might that sort of in-depth description of the functions be more appropriate for other descriptions? Niffweed17 06:11, 20 July 2007 (BST)

just as a side note, i'm perfectly aware that the ILI description bases some of its material off of examples of functional material that is actually a description of myself or of someone else (more often myself than not, because i know myself a lot better). whenever i did these, i tried to integrate them into the surrounding material so that they were truly an effect of the functions rather than stereotype. Niffweed17 06:13, 20 July 2007 (BST)

Thank you both; I did my best. I do agree that the strong elements ended up sounding a bit too intellectual. We have plenty of INTjs on the forum that can go over it, if it sounds too specific.

Niffweed, the "pure" manifestations of each element/function can still be found on the corresponding page for that element or function. As I said above, some qualities are difficult to attribute to a single element (like crackpot theories, for example). It should be easy to make cookie-cutter descriptions based on the element pages, once I get a bot up and running. Thehotelambush 06:56, 20 July 2007 (BST)

The more I think about it, the more I believe that having three (or more) kinds of descriptions is a good idea. 1) The most common stereotypes (i.e., social roles), 2) tell-tale impressions and behavior, and of course 3) strictly functional aspects. Smilingeyes has pointed out that #1 and #2 have been somewhat non-PC from an NeTi perspective. Currently this description is somewhere between #2 and #3, like most descriptions (not that it has to be one or the other). Thehotelambush 07:37, 20 July 2007 (BST)

You don't understand what I'm talking about at all, do you? Niffweed17 07:40, 20 July 2007 (BST)

That had occurred to me. Please explain. :) Thehotelambush 07:47, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I don't think I can. Niffweed17 08:28, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I think the idea of having different kinds of descriptions is a great idea. I think you hit on the basic three. How do we organize it and make it happen though? --Jonathan 04:43, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Like I said, we basically have #1 and #2 started, and a bot could produce #3 (perhaps at '[LII (functional)]'). Thehotelambush 05:45, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Once the wiki community really starts to expand, these descriptions are going to be insane. We already see the difficulties with just a few editors; pages and pages of discussion will be required (maybe the forum would be better for that purpose). If most parties involved understand the types well, the descriptions will far surpass all others. So far the forum has had plenty of idle criticism of other descriptions, but hardly any constructive efforts. We should incorporate those if possible, especially if they represent some kind of consensus. The amount of information contained in the type descriptions (if we get into all the nitty-gritty details and variations) will probably be far greater than most of the theory pages put together. And we don't even have pages for subtypes yet. Thehotelambush 05:45, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Of course, the first two are totally and completely useless with regards to what socionics actually is. Stereotypes and trivia are fine, but they shouldn't even be considered in the same universe as functional type descriptions. Niffweed17 06:50, 21 July 2007 (BST)

I have discussed with Bionicgoat a new project to add once the current type descriptions are more or less complete -- type pages (or sections) for people of each type to expand as they see fit to reflect their type's viewpoint and attitudes. The type descriptions can then have links to these pages. --Admin 16:48, 21 July 2007 (BST)

They are not "completely useless". In conjunction with functional descriptions, stereotypes (if at all valid) can lead to a greater understanding of the type than descriptions alone (but they are by no means independent). Plus, they are especially useful for teaching beginners (like in BG's project). Eventually we might even try to make dichotomous descriptions, as Smilingeyes has done. Thehotelambush 02:40, 26 July 2007 (BST)

thehotelambush: this is excellent work. I added a bit on the :Fi: section relating it to :Se:. The functions are actually rather well described, here, I think.

@Jonathan: there is indeed no such thing as a non-intellectual LII. ;) Reason demands justification through reason. Tcaudilllg 21:24, 20 July 2007 (BST)

About that: The LII accepts roles for one purpose: to move a force they perceive as encroaching upon their freedom. What kind of roles is this talking about, exactly? This whole paragraph is a bit vague. Why are LSE and SEE mentioned specifically? Thehotelambush 21:29, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I agree -- that paragraph is vague. Overall the description is very good, I think, but the and descriptions are still a little unsatisfying. --Admin 13:19, 21 July 2007 (BST)

And it does it even belong under Fi? Perhaps some more speculative or personal ideas connected with with each type could be on their own page (with a link) or in their own section on the bottom. Then we'd have a clear view of the "classical" understanding of the type, plus a place to add lots of additional investigations and creative ideas about that type. --Jonathan 14:02, 21 July 2007 (BST)

I think that if the author can give a sufficient functional explanation for the trait in question, we can include it. If there's too much objection to something, we'll have to remove it. --Admin 14:25, 21 July 2007 (BST)

ok, I'm copying it here for now:

"Should one offer a role to the LII they feel unsatisfactory, they will reject it out of hand. The LII accepts roles for one purpose: to move a force they perceive as encroaching upon their freedom. They perceive this force as an unnecessary restraint that must be removed, and until it is they will feel no security. The LII is often at odds with the LSE and the SEE, who have explicit powers over these forces, for just this reason."

Thehotelambush 23:01, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Social Roles

By the way...I don't think the "inquisitive child" belongs under social roles at all. It seems to me that several types, as children, might ask "why" a lot. It's probably associated with the NT club; I don't see it as particularly related to LII. What do others think? --Jonathan 14:02, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Maybe this role could be clarified. What is the child asking "why?" about? Is he asking for a logical explanation of everything? (also, I don't think this kind of inquisitiveness can be related to the NT club)

Is he asking for a logical explanation of everything? Yeah, that's what I had in mind. If it's still not distinctive enough, feel free to remove it. Thehotelambush 20:43, 21 July 2007 (BST)

I removed it; it's not distinctive enough. Thehotelambush 01:56, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Fe

There are a couple problems I have with the Fe section. I replaced "doubt their attractiveness to the rest of humankind" with "doubt that they are appreciated", because I thought it sounded too global, and I think this more accurately describes the reason behind it. I personally don't give a %*^& what the rest of humankind thinks. Fe is more about the subjective feel of it, right?

Second, "LIIs can often be fooled by insincere displays of affection, even if he realizes that they are only in jest." That just doesn't make sense. I originally wrote "are susceptible to". It's a subtle distinction, and it probably wasn't very clear what I meant. I was trying to say that an LII will "go along with it", even if he realizes that nothing is meant by it. One-sided flirting is the best way I can describe it. It probably has something also to do with subdued Fi, or even an LII's attraction to demonstrative Fe in SEEs.

Last, "social behavior to apply" sounds more like Fi. It's more about going with the natural flow of the situation. Thehotelambush 20:43, 21 July 2007 (BST)

OK, feel free to make changes. --Admin 21:31, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Robespierre, Augusta, and LII

Looking at the LII description on this page, I get a different "flavor" from most Russian descriptions...and I think maybe here's a good place to discuss the differences. Augusta choose the notorious French dictator Robespierre to represent what LIIs are like. Robespierre, as I understand, was chosen to lead France because his uncompromising nature was seen as an asset during a time when people were concerned about corruption. Of course, that uncompromising nature and tendency to see things a bit in black & white led to the political executions of many, many people.

The point I'm raising here isn't the historical typing of Robespierre, but rather Augusta's choice of using him to represent LII. It seems that most Russian descriptions of LII emphasize the "fighter" aspect. They talk about someone who fights for his concept of "justice," someone who is very sure of his own position.

The description on this Wiki says a lot of things that I don't think you'd ever see in a Russian description, such as:

• The LII's theoretical tendencies can often leave him out of touch with reality, and if unchecked may lead to "crackpot" theories...
• The LII may explore many avenues of thought, but in the end only publish the completed, polished results... [This implies that LIIs tend to be academics, concerned mainly with publishing academic papers.]
• LIIs often apply Ti in an academic field such as mathematics
• LIIs often find alternative ways of doing tasks they perceive as boring, if simply for the sake of developing an interesting idea.
• If an LII has no new ideas to explore, he may feel depressed.
• The LII is always in tune with the "big picture", looking at things from the most general perspective possible.
• Thus the LII is often seen by other more practically-minded types as naively idealistic.

Was Augusta just basically wrong? Did the Russian Socionists just basically go down the completely wrong path in their conception of what LII is? If one looks at Russian descriptions, they're really so different from this. (I like this better, but then again it makes me think I'm LII too...) --Jonathan 22:45, 25 July 2007 (BST)

(By the way, I've also mentioned a little about this here: Common biases discussion.)

Anyhow, a key question here (and I don't know the answer) is, out of all the people Augusta could have chosen...all the academics, all the mathematicians, all the people who seem to better fit our view of LII in the West, why did she choose Robespierre? Was it to emphasize the strong, confident nature of LIIs? Or was it just a completely arbitrary choice? --Jonathan 00:54, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, now this is an interesting point. IMO the original Weisband/Augusta description of LII is crap. It makes it sound as though Fi and Se motivate an LII as much as Ti and Ne, and even makes weak Si sound like a positive thing! Fortunately, with functional descriptions you are held accountable for the content of each section.

Many of the points you've listed have to do w/ Ne, and there is no direct mention of Ne in (at least) the Weisband description. As for the second point, I'll try to reword it so as to apply to non-academic activities.

As I've said before, I think they picked Robespierre specifically to avoid a too intellectual depiction for LII, but in doing so went a bit overboard, inadvertently emphasizing some things that are not characteristic of LIIs. But how do the descriptions compare with your own experience? Experience is the final judge, after all. Thehotelambush 02:14, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Well, that's dependent on whether the person judging the description types people correctly. :) There are a few people I can think of that I meet fairly often in person who I'm convinced are LII, though I don't know them well enough to see how well this fits them. Basically, I like this description, mainly because it sounds to me like a real person, whereas most descriptions in Socionics don't really. The odd thing is that except for a few things about LII's tendency for bluntness, I personally identify with almost everything written here....which means that either I'm LII (or Alpha), or the description isn't specific enough to the type (i.e., describes certain intellectual traits that may not be type-specific). Oddly, I think some of the things said under Ne apply even to some Betas and Gammas. For example, I think many "N" types like to think of themselves as "always in tune with the "big picture", looking at things from the most general perspective possible." I suspect that some LIIs are and some aren't.

Maybe, getting back to your idea of writing more than one description, we should add some sort of page or section on "distinguishing" characteristics that would be restricted to things that would differentiate the type from others. It might not sound as much like a full picture of a person, but it may help peopel distinguish between types. Another interesting page would be a comparative analysis of various descriptions for each type. --Jonathan 03:48, 26 July 2007 (BST)

I don't plan to write type descriptions for a living (too much Te), but I think that's a fine idea. OTOH, it is possible to have too much information. People get confused if you just have random factoids all over the place; you have to distinguish between the essential characteristics and the specific manifestations - which are probably impossible to fully enumerate.

I'm still not fully comfortable with current descriptions of Ne creative, especially as to how it differs from Ne leading. The last line is an attempt to clarify that. However, I do believe that what I wrote is related to Ne, not Ni. "Naively idealistic" is not exactly how I would describe most INTps, or even most typical Se quadra types in general. Static IJ Ne types are very much about molding the world into a certain abstract ideal. Do you honestly identify with the other parts, like the Fe description? Of course anybody can find something in a description to identify with; that's unavoidable. (You said yourself that the ILI description was totally different, so how can you identify with both?) Thehotelambush 04:48, 26 July 2007 (BST)

I actually identify with most of the Fe part, except that bit about taking life seriously; well, I do take it seriously but I'm also able to be silly and light-hearted and "smell the roses" so to speak. The core parts (LIIs appreciate hugs and smiles; ILIs want to make decisions objectively and not emotionally) don't contradict each other at all (if one sees them at face value instead of within the rubric of the theory). However, most of the ILI description under Fe is just basically way over-exaggerated, and I just don't believe most ILIs are like that. Maybe Niffweed is like that, but I suspect he based it on his conception of how ILIs are supposed to be. I would identify with a way watered down version, like not wanting emotional interference in decision-making, wanting to be alone sometimes and away from emotional influences....something like that. I think I shift around quite a bit, and at times in my life have sometimes acted more like an F type, so I may not fit any description completely....which of course makes sense; these descriptions are of the pure types, the primary colors, so to speak. --Jonathan 06:10, 26 July 2007 (BST)

We'll have to test out the hug hypothesis IRL at the conference. As for the description being idealized, I doubt it - what I wrote is entirely based on things I felt were personally applicable to me. Thehotelambush 06:42, 26 July 2007 (BST)

By the way (and this is going to sound a bit far out, and I don't even necessarily accept Tcaud's theories, but...), maybe I could see your view of LII as representing the functions in LII-exertion. I say that because what I see is basically stuff related to LII-like products (mathematical understanding, interest in innovation, academic pursuits, etc.) So, if there's any merit to "Dual Type theory," maybe that could be considered. --Jonathan 04:05, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Behavioral manifestations are not directly determined by functions, but they are indeed closely related. If they weren't, the socionic model would collapse. IMO tc's theory is just an unnecessarily complicated, misguided way of explaining the discrepancy. Thehotelambush 04:48, 26 July 2007 (BST)

On the general issue of Maxime as the template for LIIs -- yes, I think that may have been a mistake. Although I do think that he was LII, the first image people have of him - dictator, guillotine - may confuse things as making him appear like a Stalin figure, which wasn't what he was like at all. Not sure how much Augusta read about those figures, but Weisband also mentioned Garibaldi as LII, perhaps assuming that revolutionaries tend to be LIIs, which is a huge stretch. Garibaldi was a classical EIE revolutionary imo, and rather than Maxime, perhaps Thomas Jefferson would have been a better example. But of course, in the former USSR he was probably less well known. Expat 08:28, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Reconsidering the Weisband descriptions and related conceptions

As to the Weisband descriptions...well, that maybe deserves a separate page too. See, those descriptions have played a key role in my view of what classical, Russian Socionics says about expected behaviors of types. I suspect those descriptions are fairly influential. Adding the Weisband description to the Filatova photographs of very confident, stern-looking, somewhat arrogant-looking LIIs creates an impression of the Socionics view, but it's one that we could always throw out. So, if we say they're wrong, well, it's a matter of drawing a line in the sand...but we should state it publicly and clearly, and take note of the full implications of whatever "damage" these views have caused to the overall understanding of the types. --Jonathan 03:44, 26 July 2007 (BST)

It's obvious where they were coming from with the Weisband descriptions. They weren't inaccurate, per se, but they chose to put everything in a very good light, to the point of distortion. So again, Jonathan, I think you are seeing a problem where there is none. Many Russian socionists have dispelled the early exaggerations. In fact, the Filatova description is much better, IMO. Thehotelambush 04:48, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Have you read other descriptions of LIIs, Jonathan? Weisband's were simply the first. What he probably is describing is the LII who is fixated on his theory. To be fair, the other type descriptions would then have to describe people who are fixated on an aspect of their leading function as well -- the power-obsessed SLE, for instance, the attention-craving EIE (read my EIE description at socionics.us; it's actually rather exaggerated, too), the "martyr" EII, etc. etc. The "new" points you've listed here under LII don't strike me as incorrect or radical at all. They pretty much stem from the theory. In any case, we will soon have a chance to compare LIIs and ILIs in real life :). --Admin 07:17, 26 July 2007 (BST)

I don't think it is very helpful to concentrate on those Weisband descriptions as if they were the "true" classical descriptions and dismiss all the others. If I were to do that, I'd also be arguing about his mention of mountain climbing and anti-abortion for LIEs. In essence, Jonathan, you are raising very good points about those descriptions in particular; it does not follow at all that those should be seen as the "official" ones. For instance, socioscope.com has a very good description of LIIs, as of all types (I have to finish the work of putting them here), and Filatova's is also good imo.Expat 08:22, 26 July 2007 (BST)