Totes McGoats Figured out Gulenko's Model

[Lao Tzunami]

Ever wonder why Gulenko drew his model sideways and with a different function order from Model A. I was messing with some socionics and I figured it all out!

First, here is a table of benefit (left) and supervision (down). You will see the bottom half of the table is a repeat of types because this only cycles through the process types, but I think it is easier to read like this.

	↓		↓		↓		↓
←	ILE	←	LSE	←	SEE	←	EIE	←
	↓		↓		↓		↓
←	LSI	←	SEI	←	EII	←	ILI	←
	↓		↓		↓		↓
←	SEE	←	EIE	←	ILE	←	LSE	←
	↓		↓		↓		↓
←	EII	←	ILI	←	LSI	←	SEI	←
	↓		↓		↓		↓

Now replace each type with their leading function and add Gulenko's numbering and energy flow direction and you get his completed model.

	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	1I	→	2P	→	3F	→	4E	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	5L	→	6S	→	7R	→	8T	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	3F	→	4E	→	1I	→	2P	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	7R	→	8T	→	5L	→	6S	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓

I haven't seen this in his model yet but let's add the cascading dual functions on the diagonal

⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡
→	1I	→	2P	→	3F	→	4E	→
⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡
→	5L	→	6S	→	7R	→	8T	→
⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡
→	3F	→	4E	→	1I	→	2P	→
⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡
→	7R	→	8T	→	5L	→	6S	→
⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡	↓	⤡

Seems pretty legit to me. It is kind of weird that his is substituting an information element for an entire type. Maybe he is just thinking on a high strategic level that just takes blocking (which if you didn't notice are all vertical pairs) into account. Some next level cross contextual thinking.

This also explains how he renamed the functions. His #7 is the brake, which is synonymous with model A's #4 vulnerable function. If you look at the first table of types, you'll see that is the supervisor type to ILE.

[Chae]

Once again for the Ti PoLR please, what's important about this reasoning?

[Muddy]

I'm with @Chae here. All this work here is great and all but.... has any useful information been uncovered here for someone who is interested in learning about type behavior instead of just the models themselves?

[Lao Tzunami]

Once again for the Ti PoLR please, what's important about this reasoning?

Gulenko is trying to model energy flow inside the psyche. It is still being developed and nobody knows if it will be better than model A. Even though Gulenko redefines all of the terms, his model is structured identically to Model A, so I don't see why both models can't be used together.

[Chae]

Gulenko is trying to model energy flow inside the psyche. It is still being developed and nobody knows if it will be better than model A. Even though Gulenko redefines all of the terms, his model is structured identically to Model A, so I don't see why both models can't be used together.

Mmmh thanks, ah okay need to ponder that

[niffer]

@sindri If I'm not mistaken, Gulenko also observes people in work groups and the energy movement throughout these groups-- so energy movement both within individuals and also of groups. His Model G is based off of his observations of groups, as is DCNH.

Also .. like others I don't get the point of this LOL but if it was interesting to you and helped you understand something, then congrats I guess. But the title is cute and totoro avatar so you get from me

[silke]

@sindri would you like to write an article about Gulenko's Model G on Wikisocion? Right now this stub is all we have and it sounds like you have some insights into it.

Now replace each type with their leading function and add Gulenko's numbering and energy flow direction and you get his completed model.

	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	1I	→	2P	→	3F	→	4E	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	5L	→	6S	→	7R	→	8T	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	3F	→	4E	→	1I	→	2P	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓
→	7R	→	8T	→	5L	→	6S	→
	↓		↓		↓		↓

Why are the arrows in the rows reversed? Doesn't the energy flow from LSE to ILE i.e. it is the benefactor (LSE) that passes social order to the beneficiary (ILE) and motivates the later to activity? At least according to the feedback I've seen on forums it is the benefactor that gets de-energized in benefit relations and the beneficiary who gets inspired to act.

[Lao Tzunami]

@sindri would you like to write an article about Gulenko's Model G on Wikisocion? Right now this stub is all we have and it sounds like you have some insights into it.

I would be interested, but I'm in the process of writing a few other articles, and I'll like to finish those projects first. It looks like Siuntal is the author of the current stub, if you know him, I'd love it if you could put us in contact. I've also been wanting to interview Gulenko for a while now, maybe I could set something like that up and ask him some more questions about his model.

Why are the arrows in the rows reversed? Doesn't the energy flow from LSE to ILE i.e. it is the benefactor (LSE) that passes social order to the beneficiary (ILE) and motivates the later to activity? At least according to the feedback I've seen on forums it is the benefactor that gets de-energized in benefit relations and the beneficiary who gets inspired to act.

I can only speculate but I have two answers. First is, I assume the energy that is flowing is conscious awareness. I don't see the difference between seeing the dynamic like the benefactor is transmitting information verses the beneficiary's awareness is moving to be more like the benefactor.

My second answer is, maybe it makes more practical sense to think about it in that order. In psychological types, Jung said that rational functions can work in tandem with irrational function because the are not antagonistic to each other. Augusta restricted this even more in her blocks by requiring one function to be extroverted and the other introverted, so that the pair was a balanced interface between the person and the outside world. Unbalanced pairing of two introverted or two extroverted functions are still possible, by I can appreciate why the pressures of life would knock a person from staying in that channel. I like that when you tessellate Gulenko's model, the cardinal directions for each function are the four possible rational-irrational pairings allow by Jung.

The question is, does energy always flow in that direction, and if so, why? Gulenko defines the mobilizing function (which he calls the launcher function, in this example of ILE is E4) as a very sensitive function which stimulates the leading function but does not handle energy efficient and so is exhausting. in his model, the launcher function is in the pessimum energy block and the leading function is in the maximum energy block. You can imagine in his way of thinking, the vulnerable function is pressed upon, takes in the information, and then the much stronger leading function pulls the awareness back into the ego block of maximum energy.

So his model work? Like all of Gulenko's work, my feeling is he is discovering valid relationship within socionics, but at the same time, the sum of his laws are much farther from the truth than model A, which is more of a logical structuring of practical experience, and so, much more useful. In the long run, I think Gulenko's work is going to be really important, but if you are relying only on logical laws, you need ALL of them to be known, integrated and balanced before your model works properly. And even then, logic is a way of going wrong with confidence. As a metaphor, think about climate science. When weather events happen, we can very objectively explain the conditions that created certain weather patterns. But when it come to a predictive model, of say, what the weather will be like in a month or even a few weeks, our models are helpful but since there are so many unaccounted for variables, wildly inaccurate.

An example of this is he is convinced that Donald Trump is an SEE, not an SLE, because of his use of extroverted ethics. In the energy model, you are always reacting to your launcher information, but never using it outright because it is exhausting. Since Trump's leading function is obviously extroverted sensing, and in the energy model Se->Fe is SEE. I totally disagree with this assessment, and I think Gulenko is off base because he is a slave to an incomplete model. Also, Gulenko has thrown out the idea of strength and values, two well founded laws in model A.

When I think about myself, I like using introvert logic often, but at the same time, it can be exhausting to develop it. I think what he is saying is true, just that his conclusions are not workable.

But as you can see, the inspiration for his entire model is the benefit and supervision rings, which I would think would only apply to groups of people not internal processes. I think it is strange how a few socionist only see a fractal structure of information systems, not individual people. I'm against assigning types to countries and I'm iffy on the energy model. But even so, if Gulenko is able to use a crazy perspective to discover something good, more power to him, even if I take what he says with a grain of salt. I think his work is only problematic while we do not have strong scientific trails testing everything in socionics.

Side note: if I was trying to model energy flow, I would make a nonlinear system where any function can transform and be used with any other function, but my way would need a ton of research and is not a practical aim at the moment.

[Singu]

An example of this is he is convinced that Donald Trump is an SEE, not an SLE, because of his use of extroverted ethics. In the energy model, you are always reacting to your launcher information, but never using it outright because it is exhausting. Since Trump's leading function is obviously extroverted sensing, and in the energy model Se->Fe is SEE. I totally disagree with this assessment, and I think Gulenko is off base because he is a slave to an incomplete model. Also, Gulenko has thrown out the idea of strength and values, two well founded laws in model A.

Wow... you can view the video here, it has English subtitles. He says that SLEs are predictable, and SEEs are not, and SEEs are good at negotiating deals:



From the comment:

Victor Gulenko replied:
1. The Politician (SEE) (as well as other ethical extraverts) uses Ethics of Emotions (E) to influence society. Politician feels well the needs of people and expresses their needs in emotional form.
And it is often resentments and accusations. His unit social mission FE – power emotions. With the relationship he works much worse. He can just get lost in a relationship. He copes with the role of the contactor (communicator) by using extraverted ethics, not introverted.
2. Trump has a good business logic (P), not for nothing that he became a billionaire, but his leadership in business is due to his dominant subtype. And who said that SEE was bad in business?
3. Neither SEE nor SLE are ideologists. Formulating and spreading of new ideology that would be promising – it was humanitarian challenge of expansive quadra, which dominates in socion. It is the EIE's role.
4. We are not discussing the type of Marx, who relied on the class struggle. He planned to overthrow values of the 3th quadra using the dictatorship of the proletariat. While Trump wants to correct the 3rd quadra. Conservatism should be understood not as a political affiliation, but as a ESI-part of the Gamma Quadra, which becomes critical at the last stage of its existence.
5. 'Making America Great Again' - a slogan that sounds every president differently. In the days of Reagan it was the slogan of the US struggle against the Soviet Union and socialism, then Trump, it sounds like 'The Future of the West: fall or return?' from the last Munich Conference, i.e in terms of perestroika, if you remember what it was. Opponents can stop him from doing restructuring, arranging GKChP. And then really Marshall or other dominant Beta Quadra type comes to power.

--

Not sure if I agree, but it's interesting how some people (outside of Socionics) compare Trump to Gorbachev, and Gulenko types Gorbachev as SEE.

[niffer]

This makes me wish your April Fools prank were reality @Singularity .