The Single Most Import Typing in Socionics Ever a Challenge (or Thought-Experiment)
As nearly everyone here knows, Socionics arose in Russia long before most of us were even glimmers in our parents’ eyes. When, early in the last decade, Socionics reared its head in the West, we inherited those early Russian Socionists’ successes, failures, mistakes, and prejudices.
While I feel a great amount of admiration for those early Russian Socionists – likewise, the people who populated this forum way back when quality information was as scarce as gold in a litterbox – it must be said: mistakes were made. In communicating the theory. In typing others. And in typing ourselves. (Influenced by MBTI, early on, personally, I typed myself as Delta – and it took years before I realized that what Socionists’ termed Si was, by far, my own weakest link… Another story for another time.) From those mistakes, entirely new “systems” arose, further muddying the Socio-waters, which were already extraordinarily murky. For years thereafter, Socionics became, for lack of a better term, ‘amateur hour’ in the saddest sense, largely discrediting the whole operation.
But from the ashes like the mighty phoenix..!
In writing this I'm not suggesting that people disregard their own theories about Socionics, because I’m fully aware that people will go on believing what they want to believe regardless of what anyone says. What I'm suggesting, on the contrary, is an challenge for anyone who believes that they are any good (or bad) at interpreting Socionics to make the case for or against this one singular typing – the most heatedly debated typing in the history of Socionics, due to this person’s importance on world-stage and importance in the minds of Socionists from Russia (and thus everywhere.)
Abandon all preconceptions here. (Please, for the moment, whitewash your mind of all you think, thought, or believe you might’ve ever known about Socionics.)
Type not by facial features or how this person reminds you of so-and-so [from a movie].
His actions have been well-documented. And if a person's words and deeds reveal what "information elements" a person values - if Socionics has merit, they do, right? - surely his do too. With this in mind, a challenge:
Use the man's words or deeds to SUPPORT or DENY that Vladimir Putin, above all other elements, projects Ti and Se. (Basically, is he a Ti-ISTj like Socionists like Gulenko believe, or not?)
A general, possibly inaccurate overview of Putin:
Gulenko's Argument For Putin as ISTj over INTj (Googily translated):
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...4lXPFro2qQAlso, if interested, check out Google news "Vladimir Putin"
(P.S. My evidence is en route, and if all goes according to plan, it arrives next Monday.)
Last edited by JuJu; 04-29-2014 at 04:59 AM.
I would have more to say here but I am sleepy and I need to go to the bathroom
@JuJu, I gave the thread a read-through, and the main things Gulenko went over are things I'm in absolute agreeance with, and I'm using the system in a similar manner; I got the thread here, and I've got a hell of a lot more to add. Rooted in Jung, heavy on the Gulenko, unhindered by the overdone strictures of Model A, hesitant towards phrenological approaches, and digging further into Focal/Diffuse, or Limiting/Empowering, whichever works better.
As for typing Putin, most of my typings thus far have been things that just happened as a byproduct of me being casually interested in it here in there, and I've been taking a more breathable approach once again, as I did when I first came into all of this craziness; one that doesn't necessitate concluding a "type".
Tags for this Thread