I'm an EII, 4w5. I've studied Socionics for about 8 months (as of this post), after switching from MBTI, which I'd studied for 3-5 years. Socionics seemed abstruse and difficult to learn, unlike MBTI, which abounded in cute infographics. However, I'm delighted to have transitioned.
Socionics is far better.
PS: I also forgo translating between Socionics types and MBTI types. Translation's quite a common fallacy, isn't it? It saddens me, to behold an MBTI veteran read nothing about Socionics, yet confidently equate two types.
INFJ ≠ INFj ≠ INFP
Have a nice day, everyone. You might see me around, sometime.
What's the purpose of SEI?
Socionics and MBTI are both trying to describe the same phenomenon. But Socionics does it better and more accurate. MBTI is really messed up with the incorrect understanding of Si and the J/P mess. So there is no need to translate between types. Once a person has found his Socionics type then that's his type, and identifying an "MBTI type" will add nothing.
A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
(Jung on Si)