[1]. Consequently, it is obvious that Aushra Augustinavichute was mainly interested in different type behaviour, i.e. how they act, in society instead of how they think (and especially why they think so). Interestingly, MBTI theory main goal was to find out how different psychological types representatives think.

So standard Function definition [1] in socionics is:

1) Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time, the understanding of a course of processes in time, and forecasting;
2) Ni understand how things change and evolve over time and throughout history;
3) Ni is acutely aware of events that are occurring outside of the immediate perception of the moment, and sees events as part of a continuous flow;
4) Ni perceives the inevitability of future events and notices ties to the past.

While standard Function definition [1] in socionics is:

1) Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent traits) of a thing, estimating opportunities and possibilities for people and things, and visualising potential outcomes of events;
2) It is responsible for the sense of interest or boredom;
3) Ne will speculate as to why an event occurs, but sees the specific event as static and unalterable.

So in principle Function in socionics stands as idea generation function, while Function is not. But it is logical? No it is not, because Function is introverted while Function is extraverted, thus Ni besides all mentioned things should also generate ideas, while Ne function should not generating ideas, but only take them from environment. Interestingly, in MBTI Ni is responsible for idea generation (just read INTJ [2] type description and you see what I mean). So how we can explain this function "reduction" from socionics viewpoint? First, as was noted before, Aushra Augustinavichute was mainly interested in different type behaviour in society instead of how they think, thus she could fail to fully understand function manifesting nuances. Second, if we assume that is really responsible for idea generation instead of we still see only in reality, because once generate a idea this idea become idea in environment which could be taken by , i.e. if we only observe different psychological types behaviour in society we can't see manifestation as idea generation function. Finally, it is possible that both and are not responsible for idea generation.

To sum up, it is very likely that idea generation function is and not . Even if is not responsible for idea generation processes is still not generating ideas, but only take them from environment, because idea generation then depends on unknown processes. If truly responsible for idea generation then once it create idea, this original idea become idea in environment that can be taken by , thus we never see as creating ideas, but we can understand that. Finally if is responsible for this process then it is very likely that without strong it is not possible to catch these ideas (maybe here is a reason why not all psychological types which have as their strong function show to society many ideas).

Now after we talked about manifestation, we can try to go further and might understand something interesting, i.e. try to compare LII model with INTJ model in MBTI.

Socionics theory states:

MBTI theory states:

As you already know, in socionics LII = id Block [3]. So why in socionics LII = , while in MBTI INTJ = ? Maybe because socionics observing only LII behaviour in society, while MBTI tries to understand how particular type thinks and especially why it thinks the way it thinks. So if we assume that in socionics and not is responsible for idea generation everything might be explained quite simple:

(idea generation) -> (idea realisation) via and . If it is right then the socionics theory now can only describe how LII act in society ( ), while still can't understand why LII thinks the way he do. In other words, socionics understand that strongest LII functions is , but fails to understand for what purpose these functions work (for LII idea realisation!). Consequently, in extreme situation LII idea can be not possible to apply in reality in principle, but if LII not see problems with logic he can dismiss all opponents' arguments with and continue his idea realisation.

Now let's see what situation is with MBTI INTJ? INTJ first functions is , but if we read this type description text [4] accurately we see that this type logic is not , but . So why it is stated that this type second main function is instead ? It is because MBTI INTJ main purpose is idea generation and idea realisation and how INTJ reach its goal, i.e. what his functions ( ) do all hard work, it is mentioned only in the type description text because according MBTI theory it is only a secondary things.

To sum up, what I wrote explains many things about LII in socionics, yet it is still possible that I am not right at all. But if I am right, then now you can fully understand why LII sometimes do everything like in this text [5]:

"What they think themselves is much more important to INTjs. That is why if everybody is certain that bridges have to be built across the river, an INTj may contemplate the possibility of building one along the river. There would probably be a logical reason for that since INTjs view everything through the square prism of logic. And as long as logical rules are obeyed everything is fine."

References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics
2. http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ_per.html
3. http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=LII
4. http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
5. http://www.socionics.com/prof/intj2.htm

Symbols:

- Ni
- Ne
- Ti
- Te

(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")