On occasion some people insist on going "back to the true source", that is Jung, as if his types were the "true" Socionics types. That leads to a lot of confusion.
I have gone through his types again and I have reached the folllowing conclusions:
-Extraverted Feeling type: he was talking essentially about Fe EJ women, mainly ESEs but perhaps some EIEs too. Useful description for Socionics Fe.
- Introverted Feeling type: he had observed essentially Fi IJ women, mostly ESIs but perhaps some EIIs too.
These two descriptions remain very helpful for Socionics Fe and Fi.
- Extraverted Thinking type: a very misleading description for Socionics. It's a mixed bag of logical-rationals, especially LSE and, yes, LSI, very strongly. There's a lot of Ti in it.
- Introverted Thinking type: he was talking about LIIs and ILIs. Not very helpful for Socionics. Also, that is the reason for Enneagram 5 being a mix of LII and ILI and a source of a lot of confusion.
- Extraverted Intuition type: he was describing mainly IEEs, perhaps ILEs too but the IEE "vibe" is stronger. Limited use for Socionics.
- Introverted Intuition type: those were IEIs he was describing, but very, very "out there" IEIs at that. Not at all a good description of what most IEIs are like. Misleading for Socionics.
- Extraverted Sensation type: it's a good description in as far as he was really describing Se EPs, a mixed bag of SEE and SLE, but he focused on sensation-seeking EP temperament and not so much on the "ready-for-battle" aspect. Misleading in that respect.
- Introverted Sensation type: I see it as a weird description, he seemed to be observing mainly depressed and "negativistic" SEIs. What I see is Si, Ti and low Ne. In fact, I think LSIs would relate to it as well, definitely more so than to the Introverted Thinking type.
For this analysis, I am assuming - and I think it's true - that the Socionics types are the true types, those that are best in reflecting real people. Jung's insights were the first in that respect and he was brilliant. It doesn't mean that his insights couldn't be improved upon, which is what Aushra and others did. I have no time for views like "what Jung said was necessarily more correct".