I'm honestly not sure how right or wrong the theory is, but it definitely studies the type in more depth than MBTI does. I like that the dichotomies are only of secondary importance and what really matters are the functions. The idea of valuing some functions, while devaluing others is pretty interesting as well. It gives you much more freedom and creativity when putting your type together, 'cause the combinations of what you can value are pretty wast, when you mix it with the different placement of the functions within the ego, super ego and the id, I think it's something pretty challenging for typists. I also quite enjoy the idea of different quadras, it adds an extra dimensions to the whole thing.
I see that, however, it still is a little convoluted though.
Because if the whole point is to go more into depth and expand the limitations of the MBTI, isn't it simpler and neater to just take the MBTI model and add more typing variables and redefining the misused terms though? The intention behind Socionics is definitely "respectable" in my opinion. However, i get the impression that the founder got too carried away in their Ti and forgot to use their Te lol And also, Socionics sill maintains a problem that the MBTI insists on not correcting it: misdefining terms. The MBTI and Socionics (as far as i remember, i could be wrong about this) try to associate functions with specific behaviors that may or may not actually happen in real life. I get that if you prefer Fe over Fi, there might be a cluster of behavior patterns that could be associated with this set-up. However, it's not necessarily true. Or even realistic. A person has way too many dimensions for these behavioral specifications. That's why you either get convoluted or way too simplified and stereotypical.
If we use
J as
Judging functions and
P as
Perceiving functions, then we can state, according to Jung, that:
Je= Collective values/reasons
Ji= Self values/reasons
Pe= Gathering facts/concepts
Pi= Organizing facts/concepts
That's it. Then, if we map out some sort of subtypes to include the manners in which certain functions are expressed and/or stacked and the possible reasons on why the functions would behave like that, then we'd have a perfectly functional spin of the MBTI. In this way, we can still maintain the original MBTI types, but add more dimension to them. Because, wanting or not, what Isabel Myers-Briggs got right, is the original concept behind her system. So, this improved system actually works, it's accurate and it's simple enough so that everyone could understand it. It's specific enough so that we can get the original theory right and not fall into any sort of logical fallacies, and it's open ended enough so that you can fill in the gaps with your own life story and your own behaviors. With that, you can identify and figure out the reasons on why you probably do the things you do, process the world in the way you do and actually work on self-improvement, self-awareness and all these things in a more personal and accurate way, without getting confused, stereotyped and without the need of having to study the system in depth to actually understand it.
The model of Socionics pursues this, however, i still find it convoluted in it's approach and presentation. Making it more difficult to comprehend and to actually use it irl.