People clearly want to consider certain types as good and evil, and this probably makes complete sense. However, the types they pick are different from the ones Jung picks. Jung makes Goethe what would be EIE in socionics and Schiller LII. EIE is usually just treated like the Satan type for being supposedly Hı̇tler, though. And many beta quandrant descriptions are not all that flattering, though they're at least cool-bad usually rather than dumb-bad like gamma is usually described as (but staunch capitalists usually read gamma like a Soviet slander of capitalism and identify with it out of contrarianism.) Who's wrong here?
For the record, I think Jung is wrong about Impressionism being great because it's unfiltered perceiving. Besides the fact that I personally dislike Impressionism, Impressionism is not unfiltered perceiving. Impressionists took black out of their paintings because they thought you can't see black. Case closed. However, socionics seems to go back to Aristotle more than Jung's personal opinions of how much he liked Impressionism because it doesn't use black and you supposedly can't see black because it's nothing (all false except him liking Impressionism, that's a fact at least.)