What follows is an email I sent through the feedback link and its response to the intj.org website.
In the "Interaction with other Types" section, there is a problem with the description of INTJ functions. The functions in their given order describe an INTP. INTJ functions in order from most to least dominant are Ti, Ne, Si, Fe. This is flaw in in MBTI typing, i.e. that someone who tests as INTJ is best described by the INTP model. Perhaps you can address this on your site? If you need more information, socionics.com explains this problem in more detail.
Response by webmaster:
The 8 function hierarchy I describe *is* correct and is based on my own 12 years of professional training and experience in this field. And, by the way, I'm not quoting MBTI typing -- I'm using Jung's theory.
I'm afraid I give little credence to Socionics theory. Although Aushra Augustinavichute claims to have based Socionics on Jung and Freud, it's little more than a rip-off of the 50 years of research that preceded her. She's offering nothing new, apart from a different notation that makes it confusing when trying to compare and contrast systems. Her notations mean the same thing, but she decided to reverse the meaning of J and P for reasons only known to herself. So "INTP" in Socionics is the same as "INTJ" in all other systems.
The majority of authors and experts in this field follow the model as I've outlined it. My recommendation is that you read some of the writings by Berens, Nardi, Beebe, Pearman, Hartzler, Thompson, Thomson, Kroeger, Tieger, Haas, Segal, et al in order to further your knowledge of psychological type, especially of the 8-level model. (And don't confuse the MBTI assessment with the Jungian theory that underpins it -- they are two different things.).
So what is your opinion of his judgement of Socionics? I am curious to hear any responses? My gut feeling is that he's misinformed about Socionics, but I can't articulate why exactly.