Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Dual-type theory --- What are Gulenko's opinions?

  1. #1
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Dual-type theory --- What are Gulenko's opinions?

    Tcaudillg often refers to Gulenko when he tries to convince someone of his dual-type theory but he never presents any references. So we should try to find out what Gulenko really believes - and what tcaudillg might have misunderstood...

    I'm not much into machine translation because you never know if you really understand what the author wants to say. The only article I found where Gulenko talks about energy types is Man as a system of types (Russian original).

    Someone who speaks Russian should try to make a readable text out of it. Are there more texts about it?
    Last edited by JohnDo; 09-07-2010 at 04:39 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dude the jig is up.

  3. #3
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's actually the latest article I've been working on translating. It's pretty clear at this point that Gulenko's "Energy Types" are a direct expansion of his DCNH subtypes, and are therefore not related to tcaud's theory.
    Quaero Veritas.

  4. #4
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    That's actually the latest article I've been working on translating. It's pretty clear at this point that Gulenko's "Energy Types" are a direct expansion of his DCNH subtypes, and are therefore not related to tcaud's theory.
    Great! So that's already the first of tcaudillg's misconceptions! He claims that Gulenko is of the opinion DCNH had nothing to do with a second type...

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    That's actually the latest article I've been working on translating. It's pretty clear at this point that Gulenko's "Energy Types" are a direct expansion of his DCNH subtypes, and are therefore not related to tcaud's theory.
    Then I dispute either the quality of your translation or else, your interpretation of it.

    I have been in contact with Gulenko and have formally affirmed that he and I are talking about the exact same phenomena.

    And I quote: "I understanding you are defending the precept that there are two types in the same person. In our socionics such developments have emerged." (emphasis mine) He goes on to state that he is following Jung's example in the development of the theory, developing "first 2, then 4, then a system of types." Because the theory is not yet ready for publication, he has been developing it on his blog.

  6. #6
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,929
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I have been in contact with Gulenko and have formally affirmed that he and I are talking about the exact same phenomena.
    Burden of proof falls on whom? SURVEY SAYS. . . .






    p.s. even so, who the fuck says gulenko knows what he is talking about?

  7. #7
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,097
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Then I dispute either the quality of your translation or else, your interpretation of it.

    I have been in contact with Gulenko and have formally affirmed that he and I are talking about the exact same phenomena.

    And I quote: "I understanding you are defending the precept that there are two types in the same person. In our socionics such developments have emerged." (emphasis mine) He goes on to state that he is following Jung's example in the development of the theory, developing "first 2, then 4, then a system of types." Because the theory is not yet ready for publication, he has been developing it on his blog.
    Has Gulenko specifically told you that the phenomenon is not an extension of DCNH? EM sounds like the 16 after the 2, 4, 8.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    p.s. even so, who the fuck says gulenko knows what he is talking about?
    Afaik Gulenko is among the most influential socionists in the East and has been doing this shit fo' a minute He may not have become a God yet, but I'm sure he's not far from finding the orb.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually the royals didn't hold him in high esteem at all, particularly because of his tendency to make mistakes.

    Gulenko is an LII-LSI. His expertise is in tracing moving energy, not so much personality theory. I think the primary reason for his interest in socionics is to create (EM) dualizing intellectual material. He has a habit of trying to approach socionics in terms of strong and weak traits, as per his strong Se EM. Systematization is secondary.

    And with that I'm leaving this thread because there is a critical shortage of proactive mental energy among the other participants... not fair for me to think for other people, particular T types.

  9. #9
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Then I dispute either the quality of your translation or else, your interpretation of it.
    Gulenko's introduction to his Descriptions of the DCNH Subtypes in which he talks about the difference between a man's words and his deeds, is clearly referring to the same thing as "Man as a System of Types" article. He's referring to the same phenomenon in both places.

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    I have been in contact with Gulenko and have formally affirmed that he and I are talking about the exact same phenomena.

    And I quote: "I understanding you are defending the precept that there are two types in the same person. In our socionics such developments have emerged." (emphasis mine) He goes on to state that he is following Jung's example in the development of the theory, developing "first 2, then 4, then a system of types." Because the theory is not yet ready for publication, he has been developing it on his blog.
    Has Gulenko read and understood your theory, or is he basing his comments on the superficial resemblance between the two (i.e., both propose in some way that each person has two sociotypes)? I have not seen anywhere in Gulenko's theory, for example, where he proposes that Energy types can be linked to particular fields of interest or employment.

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    Great! So that's already the first of tcaudillg's misconceptions! He claims that Gulenko is of the opinion DCNH had nothing to do with a second type...
    For the record, I don't side with either of you. My only interest is the truth.
    Quaero Veritas.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wisdom is only for the wise.

  11. #11
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Wisdom is only for the wise.
    Wisdom is for those who seek it.
    Quaero Veritas.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    Wisdom is for those who seek it.
    Those who seek wisdom... will never be wise.

  13. #13
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Those who seek wisdom... will never be wise.
    That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. How else does a man become wise, except by seeking wisdom? Obviously, not everybody who seeks a thing finds it, but to say that the act of seeking precludes the possibility of finding is just irrational amphigory.
    Quaero Veritas.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. How else does a man become wise, except by seeking wisdom? Obviously, not everybody who seeks a thing finds it, but to say that the act of seeking precludes the possibility of finding is just irrational amphigory.
    Remember Solomon?

    Knowledge is not wisdom.

  15. #15
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Consider the scenario that a person seeking wisdom learns that seeking precludes wisdom: that person would then cease searching, and thus become more wise as a direct result of seeking. Hence, seeking wisdom initially cannot preclude finding wisdom in the end. It is still possible that some segment of wisdom cannot be obtained until after the deliberate searching has ended, however.

    I would think that every action under the sun (or above it, depending on your frame of reference) both precludes finding some wisdom and unlocks some other wisdom.

    Naturally, actions performed when precisely on an even plane with the sun have no effect on wisdom either way.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  16. #16
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. How else does a man become wise, except by seeking wisdom? Obviously, not everybody who seeks a thing finds it, but to say that the act of seeking precludes the possibility of finding is just irrational amphigory.
    No, it's not. It's the same way with women. Seeking out a woman just drives her away. You have to be somewhat detached from them to get them. Same thing with wisdom I think - true wisdom comes from detachment from knowledge.
    INTp

  17. #17
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Remember Solomon?

    Knowledge is not wisdom.
    Knowledge is not wisdom in the same way that fuel is not a car. Knowledge is what wisdom acts upon.

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    No, it's not. It's the same way with women. Seeking out a woman just drives her away. You have to be somewhat detached from them to get them. Same thing with wisdom I think - true wisdom comes from detachment from knowledge.
    I have to assume that you guys who think this have some weird new-agey definition of what wisdom is. Wisdom is 1. Insight into the true nature of things, and 2. Good sense and the ability to make good decisions. Both of those are gained from experience and learning.

    Yes, of course, some people who seek wisdom will never find it. And sometimes just living life without particularly seeking wisdom will gain you enough experience to be considered "wise". But to say that those who seek wisdom will never find it is pure nonsense that sounds vaguely profound because it's counter-intuitive like some Eastern mystical proverb. But not everything that's counter-intuitive is true, much less profound. More often, the truth is simple and straightforward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Naturally, actions performed when precisely on an even plane with the sun have no effect on wisdom either way.
    Well, yes, obviously.
    Quaero Veritas.

  18. #18
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazedrat360 View Post
    No, it's not. It's the same way with women. Seeking out a woman just drives her away. You have to be somewhat detached from them to get them. Same thing with wisdom I think - true wisdom comes from detachment from knowledge.
    If I ignore success I shall one day be succesful! Oh wait...

    Anyway, saying that if you're tring to achieve something you will never achieve it and that if you ignore something you will have it is just mumbo jumbo mystical talk. You won't get anything if you do nothing and just because when you're doing one thing you happen upon another does not mean that you must ignore that thing to get it.

    And using women as evidence isn't reasonable. Women are crazy. Many that I have known like to be persued very devotedly also....

  19. #19
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Agreed with the above two posts.

    RE: not pursuing women in order to get them, that only works when it makes you seem more mysterious. Eventually you'll have to let them get to know you, after which time they'll figure out you were full of it and not really mysterious.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  20. #20
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The real trick to getting and keeping a woman: become a strong, confident, and successful man.
    Quaero Veritas.

  21. #21
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you want a woman, just be retarded. If you are wise, never marry. I personally am trying to become full retard myself, but apparently there's a huuuuuge waiting list.

  22. #22
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This thread was not supposed to be a discussion about wisdom and women...

    Conclusion: We don't know what Gulenko thinks about energy types - but being wise and having a woman is more important...?

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    TIM
    IEE, enfp
    Posts
    181
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Those who seek wisdom... will never be wise.
    fools learn wisdom. clever people are never wise, and wise beats clever everytime.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •