Socionics is a theory of intertype relations and information metabolism. Jungian type theory does not include these things so it is fundamentally different and to really understand socionics I would advise thinking of the theories as completely separate even if they are superficially similar.
I have no idea what you're getting at here. What other ways? How can someone be good at (and like) using force without being considered a forceful person?According to what definition? I am aware some socionics portraits essentially distinguish the Se types by being forceful, but more generally all Se is would be noting what is required to change an object's kinetic energy, which you can call a force. This doesn't have to translate to a forceful person in the sense of the opposite of compliant - there are a lot of other ways to set things in motion.
I agree. But this is so closely related to the "definition" that I see no reason to doubt it (unless you think socionic and Jungian functions are mostly the same).My general point is the more abstract definitions just seem to work better, else you essentially end up with a system where you might as well type by the easiest quadra stereotypes possible.