LII description tier list

[Exodus]

I decided to look over the existing LII descriptions (here and elsewhere) and rate them.

Full-length LII descriptions:

Best
WSS
Wikisocion composite

Good
Gulenko
Zamanskaya
sociotype.com

OK
Filatova
Beskova (male/female)

Bad
Stratiyevskaya
Reinin

Short LII descriptions:

Best
Rick DeLong

Good
Voroschenko
Blohin

OK
Piatnitskiy
techhouse
Metaphysica

Bad
Socionics.ua, Prokofieva and Kuzmina
Weisband
Bukalov and Boiko
Meged and Ovcharov

---

As you can see, in general the Russian descriptions are quite bad. Weisband's description essentially describes an LII as an LSI, and this understanding "infected" many of the earlier descriptions. The best Russian ones were Gulenko's (the classical one online, not in the Model G book) and then Zamanskaya's. I don't know how Gulenko's other descriptions are, but it seemed to escape the old misconceptions essentially. This is his own type after all. Reinin's was possibly even worse than Weisband's, it's indisputably portraying an LSI. Strat was almost as bad, portraying a Beta introvert at times, but maybe more IEI because it also had weak-Se things. Beskova's male description seemed to be portraying an LSE at times. The female one was better but more abbreviated.

The wikisocion "composite" description is quite good; I helped write it but there are things I would change if I was writing it again. (For example, some Fe things are miscategorized as Fi.) I don't know why they were renamed "composite" - they are original descriptions.

The WSS description (which had input from the community, not just Jack) is the most comprehensive and accurate, but still has a few things I don't agree with - here are my comments:

Ti: decent if a bit overdramatic
Ne: asking lots of questions yes, but nosy? what?
Fi: "personal ties are by no means a point of precedence for the LII" is arguably an exaggeration but the follow up is more accurate. "Always" is not a word that should be used in type descriptions, and particularly for the role function.
Se: basically fine, but the last sentence is out of place and not right: "Occasionally LIIs may be sceptical towards the social machinations of others, believing that people are going to gang up on them and try to force them to do something that contradicts their principles." LIIs are really not the paranoid types, that's an Ni valuing thing.
Fe: some parts are good but again:
"may just as easily fall into inopportune bouts of depression that can be inconsiderately expressed to others" - not really, LIIs tend to internalize their negative emotions, especially long-term ones
-doesn't emphasize social inclusion enough.
"appreciate engaging, charismatic individuals" - engaging yes, charismatic less so
Si: the beginning is confusing, but overall this section covers a lot of good points behaviorally at least. Still, talks too much about aesthetics and enjoyment rather than emphasizing convenience and optimizing one's environment, and comfort. Dress also has to do with Se and Fe - "Sensing" is just a bad name in general for Si.
Te: also a bit overdramatic, may not apply to all LIIs
Ni: Doesn't emphasize foresight and criticism enough, ends up talking about Ne and the negation of Ni too much. Also doesn't mention self-doubt.

Also, no way is Albert Speer LII.

Note: I didn't really look at their other descriptions (except for WSS and wikisocion's which I read a long time ago) - Reinin's other ones seem somewhat better, and Stratiyevskaya seems somewhat better for Se valuers. But I do think that WSS and Wikisocion will probably be the best on the whole.

[Adam Strange]

This would be better with links.

[Exodus]

This would be better with links.

fixed

[Northstar]

Lol, arrogant much?

[The Reality Denialist]

Oh well regarding Speer: anyone who shows great interest in architecture is more likely LSI>LII. This seems one way to LSI - EIE dualization (marked by at least two or three socionics sources). I have seen this aspect in LSI's. They seem to measure the buildings they are in.

[Sol]

As you can see, in general the Russian descriptions are quite bad.

It's seen an example of your too speculative thinking.
You used a small quantity of google fans translated texts from Russian language, what speculatively evaluated by unknown ways and criterions. Texts which are types descriptions - to give general understanding to compare types, but not description of the theory. Texts which were published on a paper and hence were shortered, compared to Internet articles.

Besides original language instead of google translation, the other plus factor for English texts is that those were made based on texts made before, while many Russian texts were made in 90s - when were lesser of publications and those authors had no Internet with good access to what existed.

The main aim of types desciptions is to explain the _general_ difference between types for novices, while details of the theory are described separately. Different books of the same author may have different approaches to do types descriptions.
Among best types descriptions in Russian were in the book by Gorenko. It's the book specially made for types descriptions.
Good short types descriptions are Filatova's in "Personality in the mirror of Socionics" in her test with the sorting of types' descriptions.

Now the situation from the point of where the theory is given better.
Besides objectively lesser quantity of English language materials, especially _to study_ Socionics basics, worse is general level of English texts by objective reasons as more limited data which was known to authors, lesser typology practice of authors in average, bad quality google fans translations.

I understood the problematic situation with texts on English. Then I've noticed examples - significant mistake in one of fans translations. Then I've seen strange theory nonsense in your arguments (that Si types feel tired quicker) - of the one who should know theory better than common. The lack of good sources to understand typology's basics leaded you to accept that strange opinion. Certainly, there should be not only those mistakes which I've noticed - there can be a lot of them. I did not read much of translations or checked much of texts written by you - but even small attention was enough to find strong problems.

The theory mess in English heads is the problem to undestand its degree. And the lack of sources makes a problem to understand the comparative texts quality.

Anyway, the main typology problem is not in the theory, but in speculative practice.
While the main problem of English texts is the lack of books to study types basics as a system and with good language to understand, but not problems in google translated types descriptions.