Victor Gulenko's Descriptions

[jason_m]

The descriptions at Socionics.com, and some of the subtype descriptions on Wikisocion are based on Victor Gulenko's work. What I like about his descriptions is that they are based on real behaviours, as opposed to function descriptions. I relate to his descriptions of types that are similar to me somewhat more than I can relate to the descriptions created by others. This doesn't mean that the other descriptions are bad, I just prefer his descriptions. What do you think of his work? Can you relate well to his descriptions of your type?

Jason

[Expat]

As far as subtype descriptions go, I prefer Meged's to Gulenko's.

I think his descriptions are generally ok. As for his work generally, I think he's probably the most original of socionics writers after Augusta; a lot of his contributions and suggestions are really good, such as the erotic groups. Others are a bit more arcane, like the rings of supervision.

If you read all his articles, you see that he seems to go into all kinds of directions; more recently he's gone into directions that other socionists are skeptical about.

[Jarno]

The descriptions at Socionics.com, and some of the subtype descriptions on Wikisocion are based on Victor Gulenko's work. What I like about his descriptions is that they are based on real behaviours, as opposed to function descriptions. I relate to his descriptions of types that are similar to me somewhat more than I can relate to the descriptions created by others. This doesn't mean that the other descriptions are bad, I just prefer his descriptions. What do you think of his work? Can you relate well to his descriptions of your type?

Jason

I agree totally that behaviour descriptions are better then function descriptions.

[Logos]

As far as subtype descriptions go, I prefer Meged's to Gulenko's.

Does Meged have translated descriptions of the types? (I am not talking about his subtype descriptions though).

[Exodus]

I agree totally that behaviour descriptions are better then function descriptions.

They're only better until you realize how much behavioral, "holistic" descriptions are leaving out, and how they could never possibly capture the true nature of a type and its Model A.

[Expat]

Does Meged have translated descriptions of the types? (I am not talking about his subtype descriptions though).

Valentina Meged is a woman.

And, in the texts where she describes the subtypes, she also gives a general description of the type.

[Logos]

Valentina Meged is a woman.

Noted.

And, in the texts where she describes the subtypes, she also gives a general description of the type.

And these are subtype descriptions that can be found, translated, on the Wikisocion page?

[Expat]

You can find everything - type and subtypes - here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=7322

[Jarno]

They're only better until you realize how much behavioral, "holistic" descriptions are leaving out, and how they could never possibly capture the true nature of a type and its Model A.

Sure both descriptions have their positive features. But behaviour descriptions give a better image of the type.

To give an example, ISTJ's are best known for their reliability.

This word is not used when the type is described by functions.

[Blaze]

Sure both descriptions have their positive features. But behaviour descriptions give a better image of the type.

To give an example, ISTJ's are best known for their reliability.

This word is not used when the type is described by functions.

yeah it's almost like socionics describes the interworkings of the mind and the communication process that leads to the behavioral result....but then leaves out the behavioral result. whereas MBTI leaves out the lead-up and only describes the behavior.