Lack of a single socionics paradigm that all socionists agree with that could be considered a finished socionics product.
Limited audience. For socionics to be understood properly one must be well-educated and have a basic knowledge of psychology or philosophy. Otherwise, the risks of people misunderstanding socionics — with potentially destructive consequences — are too great.

The author discusses some of the dangers of actively introducing socionics to the "wrong people" through public schools and government programs. Most people, he says, will use a superficial understanding of socionics for purposes of self-justification ("I won't do X because they said my type is bad at X") or — more dangerously — type-based discrimination on a person-to-person or even on an organizational or government level. In the past, pseudo-scientific or incorrectly understood scientific ideas have been used in authoritarian states to justify atrocities. While socionics becoming part of government programs in the U.S. seems inconceivable, some socionists in Russia worry that something like this could happen in the more authoritarian Russian state.

At the same time, there are some constructive things that can be done to spread and develop socionics:

Propogate socionics selectively among specific groups of highly-educated people — intelligentsia, students, managers, etc. These people can be reached through specialized magazines and in academic settings.
Keep socionics literature limited to two kinds — specialized and popular science. Readers should have to make a mental effort to understand socionics on its own terms. Socionics should not be reduced to "tips for housewives" like, for instance, most of astrology has.

In conclusion, the author states that socionics is a serious and potentially dangerous field that needs to be managed by widely educated professionals who are committed to preserving the intellectualism of the field.