opinion on Gulenko
Check out the "Editorial Opinion Site".
[web:5163c62e92]http://72.14.203.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://socioniko.net/ru/authors/gulenko.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DGulenko%2Bsocionics%26num%3D50%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3Dlang_ru%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DG%26as_qdr%3Dall[/web:5163c62e92]
Yes, I mentioned that page in one of the threads about hitta's system. It appears Gulenko is somewhat controversial. That doesn't mean he's wrong, of course. But he shouldn't be viewed as the only source or as infallible.
this was my favorite part
...will inevitably come into conflict with " the main "sotsionikoy.
Think of one or more of the LII's here that are really into Socionics, and you'll probably have a pretty good idea of how the Russian Socionists see Gulenko.
hmm yes.Originally Posted by Joy
It seems LII's like to make up their own hypothesis.
Question rises that wich of his theories, belong to the 7-8 year old ones, and wich are older.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
I suspect that's partly true, especially because many of the people you're probably thinking of got many of their ideas from him. However, I think he does get a bit more respect in Russia because he does have a considerable knowledge of Socionics and a record of contributions. He's at quite a bit higher level of skill than the average "way out" theorist.
Here's what Rick said when I posed the question on WikiSocion:
How are Gulenko's theories viewed by other Socionists? While he's apparently prolific and frequently cited, he also seems to be the inspiration for many of the more bizarre and non-standard Socionics-related theories. Some people seem to consider him the ultimate authority on Socionics. What do other Socionists think of this? --Jonathan 17:10, 8 November 2007 (GMT)
Gulenko's authority in socionics is based on two things — his lucid thinking, writing, and speaking style that sets him apart from most other socionists and his earlier works on classical socionics. His current, "non-classical" (i.e. last 10-12 years) work (including the "theories" you are probably referring to) is viewed by many with interest due to his overall reputation, but much or most of it is not widely accepted outside of his own school. --Admin 18:11, 8 November 2007 (GMT)
I can only be grateful to Gulenko. While I don't agree with all his hypothesis and wordings, he is one of the most productive socionists and one of those that have added the most to the discipline.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yeah, I was saying something along those lines to someone I was talking to when I found that page.
You know, I found a list of his articles somewhere...
[web:734f5f2e2f]http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://socionics.kiev.ua/index.php%3Fid_s%3Da_vg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2 &ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DGulenko%2Bsocionics%26num%3D50%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3Dlang_ru%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US
It seems they're dated.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote