Quote Originally Posted by Expat
However, for Socionics it's very clear what an LII is and what an ILI is. The LII is an Alpha IJ, Fe-dual-seeking, who likes ESEs and dislikes SEEs. The ILI is a Gamma IP, Se-dual-seeking, who likes SEEs and dislikes ESEs.

So, if there is a mess, it's in Jung's orginal description, in the Enneagram 5, and in Myers-Briggs. In Socionics, there is no mess at all, except the one brought over from those other systems.
I think the confusion is that both Socionics and MBTI are models, whereas actual people are more complicated. For example, I like SEEs, and I like ESEs. And even if I'm not an INT type, I think that in real life the behaviors and intertype relations are more subtle and complex than what either theory can represent. That's, of course, why Tcaud, Gulenko, etc. try to come up with extensions of the theory.

Probably people who don't "fit" the theory well in some respects will see more ambiguity; focusing on observing other people (rather than oneself) may help one get a better sense of what "pure" types are like.