@
Singu ok, I think I see the disagreement, but it is still really meta. You think that socionics is an arbitrary categorical system, that imagines the definitions first, and then imposes them on reality (there are no correct definitions, and type change based on how you define it). I am assuming that the socionic types are an archetypal feature of psychology that Schopenhauer, Jung and Augusta all noticed, and then attempted to classify (they can get it wrong, and there are some definitions that work better than others).
None of this matters in terms making the best application of socionics, and then testing it against reality.