Jump to content

Talk:Intuitive Logical Introvert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just saying...

[edit]

This assessment of personality seems uncompromisingly negative as opposed to its Myers-Briggs correspondent, INTP.

And why was "rational" reverted to "irrational"? Volpeculus sagacis (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In socionics ILI is an irrational type, with introverted intuition as its leading function. --Rick DeLong (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its Myers-Briggs correspondent is INTJ (first introverted intuition, second extraverted logic) and not INTP (first introverted logic, second introveted intuition). It's confusing but the same abbreviation translates to different types in these typologies, it's a source of this very common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.91.133 (talkcontribs)

no; a socionics ILI has no demonstrated correlation to INTJ or INTP. the only thing that is shared is notation, hence why ILI, often known as INTp, should direct to INTP. if people want INTJs, it can't be hard to get there from this page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm wondering as to the validity of personality types having a corresponding body language and facial structure. I'm only asking because in the link at the bottom of the page, Intuitive-Logical Intratim - INTp (The Observer), says in the first paragraph,

INTps often have a characteristic round-shouldered posture. Their necks are often not as well proportioned as other types and their heads seem to strain forwards. Their eyes have a sorrowful look about them as if they are about to be victimised in some way. Their noses are somewhat aquiline in shape which combined with often flattened cheekbones giving the false impression that their noses are large.

In my opinion, it does not, but maybe there is evidence of it somewhere. If there isn't I think the link should be taken down. Fantasycheese (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]