Bias in Socionics type descriptions and Quadra of author

[Rhaegar]

I recently read an article regarding bias in type perception and have become curious about the perceptions of the different type descriptions based on author and how individual types relate with them.

Here is the article: http://rickdelong.com/socionics/wiki...ocionics.shtml

For example, in the article the author mentions Stratievskaya having a noted Gamma bias, whereas Aushra and Gulenko likely have an Alpha bias. Between theirs and Reinin's descriptions (found in his book) I am curious to know which description or author different members like best and to see if there is a trend. Also curious who Beta and Delta types feel describe them best since I am not aware of authors from those quadras (please post them if you have them).

Post your most preferred type description author and why you like or relate with that one.

[Pookie]

I like Gulenko and Reinin.

[Amber]

I found myself appreciating Filatova over other authors. I don't know her type. Anyone?
Gulenko is neutral enough , not biased , but I feel a lot is schematic perhaps . Like erotic attitudes and stuff.
Stratievskaya is itchy. I wonder if she's psychotic some times or she went through very hard periods in her life.
Aushra rubs me the wrong way. Mby bcause she's Fi POLR.

[The Exception]

I prefer Gulenko and Filatova.

Strateveskaya seems rather off.

[Amber]

I read some on Wikisocionics. Filatova self types EII. It makes sense why I find her the most balanced and sane in her writings . If you want to talk about Quadra influence , you can .

[Words]

If I were to choose I prefer Gulenko's descriptions, but ultimately I prefer my own.

[Amber]

If I were to choose I prefer Gulenko's descriptions, but ultimately I prefer my own.

and where can I read it ? and what's your type ?

[Words]

and where can I read it ? and what's your type ?

LSE it appears to be.

Oh you can't read them as I haven't wrote them lol.

What I mean is that there isn't really anything objective in socionics to base as common understanding and agreement. The closest to an authority imho is Jung's descriptions of the functions. With all this in mind I tend to go with Jung and base my own type perceptions on that which I have experienced IRL.

As for writing descriptions of types, it's really tricky imo as how to fit millions and millions of people into a description? So from that perspective I don't envy those who've taken the time to write them down.... to me it seems like a pointless exercise? But people are always going to write type descriptions so the established socionics people may as well write them anyway as they will be continually asked for them

[Aylen]

On an intuitive level I find this description more appealing than some of the others but it seems dated and probably mistranslated.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...atievskaya_IEI

Overall I like Jung's descriptions of the functions. They really are appealing to me. Mostly the stuff on Ni though.