What is the consensus on Filatova's descriptions?

[discojoe]

Are they considered accurate?

[XoX]

Are they considered accurate?

Some of them are considered more accurate than others. E.g. Gamma descriptions are considered more accurate than Alpha descriptions.

[discojoe]

Some of them are considered more accurate than others. E.g. Gamma descriptions are considered more accurate than Alpha descriptions.

Thank you.

[Gilly]

Where are these descriptions?

[Joy]

I don't particularly care for them. It's like... they're based too strongly on one or two people she's known of those types. Her SEE description is particularly horrible.

I do very much relate to her ILI description though.

[Phaedrus]

I don't particularly care for them. It's like... they're based too strongly on one or two people she's known of those types.

That is the problem with many (most? all?) socionic type descriptions. The LII type description at Lytov's site (from Weisband) is in its entirety solely based on Immanuel Kant's personal life, the ILI type description is solely based on Honoré de Balzac's life, etc.

[Phaedrus]

The INTj description begins with a Thomas Jefferson quote and goes on to quote Descartes multiple times..

But all the details about the INTj's behaviour can be found in biographies about Kant. Reading a biography about Kant is like reading an LII type description. Almost the same phrasings are there. And it was the same situation, perhaps even more accentuated, when I read a two volumes biography of Balzac. Balzac is chosen as the protype INTp (even though he clearly is not a typical INTp, and maybe even not an INTp at all), and everything described in the ILI profile has happened to Balzac in real life.

[Phaedrus]

Does Weisband go into detail somewhere else, in his own words, on who else he based his INTj description on?

I don't know.

[XoX]

I don't know.

Phaedrus I really need to quote this. Has this ever happened before?

[Expat]

Are they considered accurate?

I think they're good, giving an insight on types from a particular point of view.

I don't particularly care for them. It's like... they're based too strongly on one or two people she's known of those types. Her SEE description is particularly horrible.

Yes; if it is taken to mean that SEEs are going to really always behave in that precise way. I think, however, that even the SEE description is good in the sense that it gives an insight on how SEEs may come across to others at times.

I think that Filatova's descriptions should be read along with those of socioscope.com and Stratievskaya's.

Does Weisband go into detail somewhere else, in his own words, on who else he based his INTj description on?

We discussed his descriptions with him in Duesseldorf - not INTj in particular. He was more or less "assigned" the task - or saw it as his assignement - to write the first full set of socionics descriptions. I don't think he thinks he'd write them again like that, today.