I've noticed that a number of posts, especially by Tcaud, have mentioned using Augusta's writings as a primary source.
Personally, I applaud anyone seeking to do original work in a field who goes to the original sources, the classics of the field, to see how the basic ideas originated. This is similar, also, to how people have brought up Jung as a source.
But there's also a problem, because a lot of developments and improvements have taken place in Socionics since Augusta's original writings...and even those writings reflect a growth in understanding over time.
Some people have turned to Gulenko to be aware of more recent developments. But Gulenko doesn't represent the consensus views of Socionists either, and is rather a somewhat controversial figure, apparently.
So the only practical way to have a clear sense of mainstream Socionics (that is, Russian Socionics) is to trust as an authority someone who has first-hand experience and expertise on what the mainstream theory is. And around here that person would be Rick.
But that naturally poses a problem for people who would want to get it all from written primary sources rather than relying on individual experts, no matter how good those experts may be.
If Augusta's writings reflect merely an early state of Socionics, and Gulenko's reflect a maverick point of view, and Jung's a typology from which Socionics was derived but with some differing definitions and emphases, then what should people be reading (other than Rick's site, of course )? It seems it's really a dilemma, especially for those who like to get their information from reading. I know Filatova wrote a book on Socionics; I'm sure there are others....but who knows what's good or not, and what the mistakes are.
Anyhow, I'm just bringing this up as a cautionary note against the view that Augusta is everything.