Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Okay, maybe you're right about that. But I benefit from reading them anyway, and maybe you could too, since you already have got things straight. If one only focus on the described behaviours and statistical differences found between those who have taken MBTI tests, one can get some new insights.
I wish it were true, since I wish we could use the MBTI statistics somehow. But I think they work at best negatively -- that is, Socionics LII is extremely unlikely (to say the least) to test as ESFP in MBTI. It would be complicated to use them even in that way, though.



Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Yes, I know that you mean that. And you are still wrong about it. Desks tidy and such stuff are also mentioned in the socionic type descriptions, in almost exactly the same way as it is done in MBTT. There is no real difference between how the types INTj, INTJ, INTp, and INTp are described in that respect. Maybe there is a difference between how other types are described. I haven't checked them as thoroghly.

So, if you think that is wrong, you are criticizing the socionic descriptions as well.
I am focusing on the descriptions as a whole, not just on those. In the case of LII and ILI, perhaps they make sense since the LII is more Si-focused. But in the case of other types that focus leads to confusion.

And yes, I can find a lot to criticize in Socionics descriptions, also in Stratiyevskaya's and Filatova's. For instance, I think Jonathan identified with stuff that Stratiyevskaya attributes to the Te PoLR in the IEI and SEI descriptions, which I would attribute to the IP temperament.

And as I have said before, regardless of the descriptions, MBTI tests - and most people will continue to over-focus on their tests - do emphasize silly things in their J/P scales, as well as in their I/E scales, and those silly things contaminate their type descriptions as well.