It's interesting that hitta's system is so polarizing. Despite the fact that he has obviously worked hard and thought very carefully about his system, people who are usually very mild-mannered on this forum suddenly react with extreme anger when confronted with his system. Other people tend to defend him.
NON-NEUTRAL DEFINITIONS MEANS POLARIZING
Actually, the reason is quite simple. It's not just because of the theoretical underpinnings I've mentioned in the past and hitta's insistence that a person typed correctly in traditional Socionics should come out the same in his system.
What's so polarizing is that his understanding of the +/- IM elements, or at least his wording for them, isn't value-neutral.
Typically in Socionics and Jungian typology in general, the intent is to understand every dichotomy in such a way that people on both sides can think of their side as better (at least for them). That's why Socionics uses the term "values." Expat and others, for example, have discussed why they like Te>Fe, but someone could just as easily defend liking Fe>Te. It's equal.
But in hitta's system, we've found that fully half of the types value Fi-/Fe+, which means that although they seem outwardly nice, they don't understand "true love." Clearly, most people, including people of those types, would agree that it would be much better to be Fi+/Fe-, that is, actually being able to love people even if one may appear cold externally.
To compound the non-neutrality here, every single type that "doesn't understand what love is" according to hitta also tends to make assumptions and stereotypes rather than truly "understanding" things. Now although hitta has hedged and said that "stereotyping" is just "systemmic logic," the fact is that with the words he has chosen (which I believe reflects the way he understands it), it's clearly better to really understand things than to merely make assumptions and stereotypes. Even the types whom he sees as stereotyping would agree.
So, fully half of all types sound really bad, and those are all Gamma and Beta types. In Reinin terms, this would be the "resolutes" as opposed to the "reasonables." Now one may wonder why being resolute (valuing Ni/Se as opposed to Ne/Si) would cause one to stereotype and not love. One way to view this is to understand hitta's system as merely a "left-shifting" of the Socion. That is, if you reinterpret + to means "values" and - to mean "doesn't value," then every type is equivalent to the type to the left of it in a standard chart. By this interpretation, the "bad" types are actually the merry/subjective types (people who value Ti, which is systemmic logic, and don't value Fi, which hitta associates with being able to love).
IDEA VS. ANTI-IDEA PEOPLE
Furthermore, hitta has characterized all Gammas and Deltas (serious/objectivist) in a way that paints them as conformist and blockers of all the great ideas coming from the Alphas and Betas. (In the left-shifted interpretation, it's actually the Betas and Gammas, or resolute types...or people who value Ni>Ne.)
ANGELIC ALPHAS VS. BIG BAD GAMMAS
The end result is that in hitta's system, Alphas look great, and every other type looks bad, with the Gammas coming out the worst. Although there's some history of Alpha-centrism in Socionics, hitta takes it to a new level. Alphas are idea people who understand true love and really try to understand things. Gammas are conformist idea-blockers who don't truly love and just make assumptions and stereotypes. No wonder people are upset.