It's easy to castigate something as "bad" based on one aspect, even a minor one. With Socionics, it is the "typing by face" aspect. Typing by face is an unproven method of typology. But it isn't specific to Socionics, and in fact I've known some Enneagrammists to base e-type on facial features.
Socionics has done something right, however; and that is, to change the nomenclature by which types are named. INTP in Socionics theory is INTj. This is the way things are going anyway, even in MBTI circles. The J is nothing more than to place dominance on Thinking. Every dominant F/T type gets a j, and every dominant S/N type gets pegged with a p.
This effectively eliminates all descriptive content from the labels P and J which traditionally mean perceiving and judging as well as a slew of other things. For some, Se has even been limited to merely "looking." Such confusion has arisen from this function talk that even an intellectual such as Carl Jung is considered by some - an ISTP, as if he were some motorcycle mechanic or something.
So the way things are going, the Socionics labeling system may as well be adopted. At least we can see from its nomenclature that a Ti is not only a thinker and an introvert, but is also judging in accordance with those thoughts, as according to the idea of what is logical and what is not logical.