Quote Originally Posted by Melody Man View Post
Yeah of course an type can relate in a light to the description, or any type can relate to any of the other descriptions, more or less. But to say each don't represent their type quite well seems just wrong and amateurish, like you think you know the theory any better created from your personal knowledge, one much too divergent, nonpictorial, and sketchy/partial at that. Most established Socionicists wouldn't agree with the assessment that these types of descriptions, specifically these here, are deceptive, and there is plenty more to be criticized about your unorthodox ideas I'm sure. I see no evidence of such sizable amount of translation mistakes either, aside from a few helpful changes.

Like I've said elsewhere to you guys, you can believe what you want to believe, change the theory to your liking, but in the process you're going to divide from what's already here and what has been discussed and established for a while, of that process the same conclusions via the OP being reached over and over again. There is no theoretical progression guaranteed just by dismissing the basics, and I personally don't see how its helping you with figuring out your duals and other Socionics related relationships by straying away from the norms of Socionics in general but to each his own.
I doubt you have much room to say this, as it is obvious you can't apply Socionics well enough with these descriptions seeing that you're a different type every week. Socionics contains all of its divergences, there are a whole bunch of noncanonical theories people accept here only on the premise that some big name came up with it, but just because some authority said it's the right way doesn't make it so, especially when they can't prove it. There is room for different takes because of how abstract it is, and listening to an authority is just one (weak, in my opinion) way to go about Socionics.