You're an idiot. That much I know already. Guess there isn't so much I need to learn then...
See, the problem is (confirmed by my last foray into an IM discussion) precisely that the functions have been fleshed out. They're the same at their base, but Socionics functions have enough info on top of their MBTI counterparts to provoke ambiguities. Se for example, has some elements that have traditionally been ascribed to Te, as exemplified by Labcoat's post:
This has
nothing to do with how Se is defined in MBTI (and is in fact anathema to the values of most MBTI SPs). Ergo, one cannot interpret that as Se in MBTI unless one uses Socionics functions to type in MBTI -- which would be thoroughly pointless, as then MBTI is just Socionics by another name. Ergo, most Se types in Socionics are not Se types in MBTI. QED.
So in other words, call MBTI primitive or whatever, I don't care. But don't insist that MBTI types necessarily have to align with Socionics types, because it just makes you look dumb.