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

[JohnDo]

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?

[tcaudilllg]

Dude the jig is up.

[Krig the Viking]

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.

[JohnDo]

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...

[tcaudilllg]

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.

[Capitalist Pig]

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?

[Crispy]

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.

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.

[Krig the Viking]

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.

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.

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.

[tcaudilllg]

Wisdom is only for the wise.