When I first arrived at this website, I noticed an alternate personality matrix - Socionics. Something about unnerved me to no end, as the descriptions for the archetypes were less than palatable, brimming with double-standards and irrelevancies that just screamed "We want you to experience the Forer effect. Happy fucking birthday, sunshine".
Now, MBTI becomes more questionable the more you process it, but Socionics is just blatantly stupid and inferior as observed. Why are we even using it?
At least when you look at the MBTI matrix, everything is neat, formatted, and comprehensive. At least as a theory, it stands to reason because of its structure (be it by flimsy reasoning or not).
P / J Divide
IST - Ti-Se-Ni-Fe / Si-Te-Fi-Ne
ISF - Fi-Se-Ni-Te / Si-Fe-Ti-Ne
INT - Ti-Ne-Si-Fe / Ni-Te-Fi-Se
INF - Fi-Ne-Si-Te / Ni-Fe-Ti-Se
EST - Se-Ti-Fe-Ni / Te-Si-Ne-Fi
ESF - Se-Fi-Te-Ni / Fe-Si-Ne-Ti
ENT - Ne-Ti-Fe-Si / Te-Ni-Se-Fi
ENF - Ne-Fi-Te-Si / Fe-Ni-Se-Ti
The archetypal descriptions found in various sights superficially describe behavior patterns found in people of the archetypes, while the functions expound upon a detailed analysis of why they so. The functions then analyze the cognitive "orientations" of the archetype, describing the aftermath of the brain and its various processes.
The archetypal descriptions pertain to personality, while the functions are more pertinent to psychology.
But you see, the Socionics system claims to do the exact same thing using the same methods, but with a disorderly orientation analysis and frivolous archetypes. The introverted archetypes have an ass-backwards J-P divide because the function orientations are are inconsistent, but then we label the functions with shapes (somehow this clarifies things? Yeah, I just happen to have a fucking geometry function of my keyboard. It's gratuitously trying to be separate from MBTI). Why are we attempting to describe the same things with different nomenclatures? It's illogical. It's like we're trying to describe gravity by scientific means, but then on the side we say that it's also caused by invisible space worms or telekinetic pig people or some alternate shit.
Now, Enneagram is only excused because it illustrates various unique behaviors at an even more detailed level, so it can be used as a facet of MBTI. (Though, I think its utility is marginal, only revealing itself when we integrate it with typology). However, when we attempt to fuse MBTI with Socionics, it's like we're trying to fuse Western Religion with Eastern Religion, or contemporary medicine with voodoo. They both claim to do the same, founded on the same premise of understanding, but they establish different outputs. We either need one or the other, and I would go with MBTI only because it is less vapid, more straightforward and more organized, though its premises are still highly questionable... as Victor chimes, there has never had a double-blind test.