There are a couple of things I don't like that are attributed to my personal view on Socionics, and other instances that are just plain shameful.
For me personally, I felt like it wasn't that distinct from MBTI. If someone who didn't know about MBTI or Socionics picked up this book and an MBTI book, they would find very little difference between the two systems and the types. Still having my old MBTI books, I compared the two and see that Filatova's book is trying to cover a lot more ground while not offering a typing method to type other people; but there's an obvious advancement of intertype relations that MBTI never really focuses enough on. MBTI books tend to make their books to equip the reader on how to type, and do more of a dichotomy compare/contrast to imply what intertype relations would be like. All of the descriptions were overly stereotyped and two-dimensional descriptions, and there is little expansion on the IAs and IMEs, and as well, not all of the functions. This would be fine if she had a second book, or there was another more advanced book, available in English, because her book on its own poorly equips the reader with Socionics methodology. If it was my choice, I would have picked MBTI for the clarity and more clear definitions of its terms, as well as having a methodology ready for me to mess with.