HomeToolsType-comparisonLII-EIILogin

Differences between LII (INTj) and EII (INFj)

1. INTjs are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than INFjs. That is, this relativity is perceived by INTjs as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.

2. INTjs are often more interested in studying systems, structures, and functionality than INFjs.

3. When conversing, INFjs types are inclined to communicate in the form of monologues, where each party has "its turn." Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a series of monologues. Conversely, INTjs tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.

4. INTjs attitude towards a specific person (more so than INFjs) is based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.) INTjs recognize superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities

5. INTjs pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as INTjs having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, INFjs pay more attention to what is actually present in a situation, and this can be interpreted as an affirmative or positive manifestation of the surrounding world, situations, possibilities, and prospects (e.g. "the glass is half full").

6. INTjs are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than INFjs.

7. INFjs place greater value on their resources than INTjs. For INFjs, resources like their money, time, sleep, etc., fall into their "inner personal space," and the INFjs will be more likely to deprioritize an interest if it starts to drain these resources too much.

8. When working on a project, INTjs experience more discomfort (than INFjs) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result. This happens because INTjs have more difficulty monitoring and understanding how the project is developing than INFjs because they are outside of the process.

9. The "comparison and verification of concepts" is a more common phenomenon among INTjs than INFjs. This comparison not only concerns INTjs methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. INTjs are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. They perceive terminology as well as actions of other people as part of the subjective concept inseparable from personal opinion, position, intent, etc. In contrast to INFjs who perceive terminology as "objective," INTjs understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.

10. INFjs are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than INTjs. This is based on the ability of INFjs to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; INTjs are more reluctant to make these inferences.

11. INTjs are more likely (than INFjs) to seek new and novel experiences rather than returning to something already lived through. They will generally only re-read a book, re-watch a movie, or revisit the same place if they have forgotten it or are hoping to learn something new from it.

12. INFjs, more than INTjs, frequently perceives and defines themselves and other people through group associations. INFjs focus on collectivism over individualism.

13. INFjs are more likely than INTjs to use "emotional anchors" that resonate with their internal emotional condition. These emotional anchors could be a book, a movie, a place, a song, etc. INFjs use these anchors to strengthen their inner emotional state and thus will repeat the experience: e.g., re-reading a book, re-watching a movie, continually going back to a place to experience the emotions associated with it.

14. INFjs are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as INTjs. INFjs assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and INFjs often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than INTjs, INFjs apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; INFjs consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.

15. When meeting someone knew, INTjs are not as likely as INFjs to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. INTjs know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). INTjs, in contrast with INFjs, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather INTjs immediately establish the necessary emotional distance in contact and can regulate it if needed. To bridge the gap between poorly acquainted people in a group INTjs amp up the emotional tone; this can be mutually experienced happiness or misfortune. The name and title of the person are of secondary relevance to INTjs and their relationship with the other person.

16. INTjs place greater value on their interests than INFjs. For example, INTjs will maintain high levels of energy and focus on an interest they value, even deprioritizing their other resources to maintain the interest. For example, INTjs may spend a large amount of energy on an interest they value, often to the detriment of their time, sleep, relationships, money, etc.

17. When INFjs form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To INFjs, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time:, i.e., "you're either with us, or with them and against us."

18. When assessing an option or available choice, INFjs tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than INTjs would. On the other hand, INTjs would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that INFjs may unconsciously minimize.

19. INFjs are more vulnerable to logical manipulation than INTjs. However INTjs in contrast, are often more vulnerable to emotional or ethical manipulations than INFjs.

20. INFjs are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as INTjs often struggle understanding them.

21. When developing a plan of action or process, INFjs tend to see themselves as "within the process"; they are immersed in it. Often because of this, they have more difficulty managing several plans at once. On the other hand, INTjs tend to place themselves "outside of the process"; they dissociate from it. For them the process or situation is something external from themselves.

22. When something is perceived by INFjs as being incorrect, they are more likely (than INTjs) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. INFjs are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.

23. INTjs are more likely to make decisions based on logical reasons than INFjs, who are more likely to make decisions based on their own feelings.

24. When something is perceived by INTjs as being incorrect, they are more likely (than INFjs) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, INTjs attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.

25. INFjs are more likely (than INTjs) to use special rituals or other culturally accepted formalities when forming relationships with others. What that means is that the emotional proximity and relationship status for INFjs be more externally predetermined. Additionally, INFjs generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than INTjs. INFjs tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than INTjs, and INFjs assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.

26. INFjs are more likely to believe in objective truths than INTjs. That is, INFjs are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than INTjs.

27. INFjs tend to prefer using persuasion as a means of convincing others to do something, where as INTjs prefer to use argumentation as a means of convincing others.

28. INFjs tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like INTjs. E.g., INFjs see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. INTjs are more likely to internally separate out having fun with other activities, although the two can be interchanged at a high frequency.

29. INTjs are more likely than INFjs to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. INTjs focus on individualism more than INFjs.

Type Comparison Tool

Compare Socionics Types

Intertype Relationship Calculator

See how compatible you are with someone else based on your socionics types!