I was looking through some Russian translated descriptions of the LII, and I noticed something peculiar. Some descriptions I didn't identify with at all, some descriptions I identified with to a moderate extent, and some descriptions I really identified with.
In looking at the LII descriptions, some emphasized a very detail-oriented person, others emphasized a very just person, and others emphasized a very abstract, theoretical person. There might be some vague similarity amongst these descriptions, but, in reality, they are basically describing three different types of people. Also, there were contradictions. One description said something to the effect of "highly theoretical reasoning is not for them" and another said that they are "the theorists of theorists." Another one said that they are basically good with details, while a different one said that they are good with complex concepts but can make mistakes when it comes to details.
I would assume that the LII descriptions are not the only ones that are guilty of this problem. Therefore, is it any wonder why many people have such a difficult time identifying their type? If socionics wants to gain any sort of credibility, there has to be some consistency amongst the descriptions.
This is essentially the difference between socionics and the MBTI. The MBTI is a poorly thought out theory, but is implemented effectively. Socionics is just the opposite. The advantage that the MBTI has is that there is "official" information and standards (and there is also a test that is reasonably accurate). Therefore, socionics should seriously consider merging the various schools of thought into one body. That way, there can be standardized descriptions and ideas, which might also lead to the possibility of an accurate test. Some might say that by having official information, you have to select one socionist's ideas over the rest, and that might not be fair. The solution is to get as much empirical feedback as possible. For instance, poll the people of a given type to see which description is most accurate. This way, you're not just arbitrarily choosing one person's ideas over another's. And if someone's description is found to be inaccurate, then there would be good reason as to why it isn't being implemented.
In my opinion, without any standards, socionics basically amounts to only a theoretical construct, not a practical one.
What do you think?