Why is Gulenko one of the most frequently cited people on socionics?

[Disturbed]

He makes too many generalizations and putting everything into 4 groups doesn't represent reality very well, and his need to put things into 4 makes him exclude other things from his work making what he writes boring, his cognitive styles which is one of his ideas that seems more based on how people really think didn't seem really clear to me because he didn't take the base/creative subtype system into account. He's very factually inaccurate and he's very imprecise.

EDIT: I meant to post this in general socionics discussion.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Gulenko is the Wizard of Oz doing a bad copy-paste of Aristotle and asking you not to look at the man behind the curtain.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Oh, and I made an avatar for you just in case you wanted your avatar to match what I expected it to be since you don't have one. It's from an album cover by the band Disturbed.

[Disturbed]

Will the mods move this to General Socionics Discussion?

[Sol]

there are not many texts in English in total. and there were followers/fans of Gulenko active on English sites. their part appeared to be significant _on English resources_. in Russian he should be lesser cited

one of authors who has books, does consulting, studing. stays from early times. rather active in Internet, including with English talkers. so is among good known. has good dichotomy test. made not so bad functional test LOGIT with Talanov. has seems 2 interesting books "Jung in a school" and "Management of well-done group"

his texts until middle of 90s are among good ones. where he've switched to "own views" (psyche layers, subtypes, cognitive styles, etc) he's not interesting for me. his speculations with Reinin's traits also doutbtful

[Protozoa]

Because he is the best socionics typer. That's why people pay attention to his types. That's why his types are always right. He's the father of Socionics and we are his children.

[mr provocateur]

Seems like he has put lots of thought to make it bit more objective. Actual field experience and some diagnostics. There are things such as Model T but it is not really made digestible.

[FreelancePoliceman]

He wrote a lot. Not necessarily much of quality, but much.

[ashlesha]

Look at that face!
Anything for daddy.

[mr provocateur]

https://socioniks.net/article/?id=301

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1696480094...XxiIZG19oyIvyg
Psychological Types: Why Are People So Different?: 64 Portraits in Socionics. How each of the 16 Jungian types varies in 4 main ways

A book from Gulenk regarding socionics including DCNH subtypes

[Number 9 large]

because hes our lord and savior

[Alive]

https://socioniks.net/article/?id=301

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1696480094...XxiIZG19oyIvyg
Psychological Types: Why Are People So Different?: 64 Portraits in Socionics. How each of the 16 Jungian types varies in 4 main ways

A book from Gulenk regarding socionics including DCNH subtypes

it's interesting to see that most normalising subtypes don't really like his recent ideas and observations ("or baseless fantasies" as sol calls them)



Gulenko mostly attracts creative subtypes nowadays. I personally think that the things he discovered are really impressive.

[EUDAEMONIUM]

Socionics has some seriously dogmatic followers that will get offended by what I'm about to say...

Socionics needs to learn from western personality typing systems like...MBTI. To type yourself you only need to know very simple straightforward things, first choose either NT, NF, SF, ST. After that you basically have the same dimensionality of functions no matter the type. Then choose temperment, EJ, IP, EP, IJ. Then you're done. There is no need to make it complicated.

Another flaw is VI. VI is pseudoscience and it veers away from the actual point of personality, which is everything inside not outside. What do you do with someone that looks like an LSE that acts and behaves like an EIE? At that point you're attempting to make the world fit your theory and not the other way around.

There may be facial expressions or body language that types may have in common you can't do a study on a personality system that is based on a series of dichotomies that have yet to be proven, once you get to Visual Identification you are so far into basing your theories on "facts" not at all backed by scientific analysis. That means it must be replicated by numerous actual social scientists numerous times to be accepted, it would take decades of research to verify the most basic claims of socionics.

What I'm saying is that none of this is going to be all that objective so you shouldn't take it too seriously.

[Number 9 large]

Socionics has some seriously dogmatic followers that will get offended by what I'm about to say...

Socionics needs to learn from western personality typing systems like...MBTI. To type yourself you only need to know very simple straightforward things, first choose either NT, NF, SF, ST. After that you basically have the same dimensionality of functions no matter the type. Then choose temperment, EJ, IP, EP, IJ. Then you're done. There is no need to make it complicated.

Another flaw is VI. VI is pseudoscience and it veers away from the actual point of personality, which is everything inside not outside. What do you do with someone that looks like an LSE that acts and behaves like an EIE? At that point you're attempting to make the world fit your theory and not the other way around.

There may be facial expressions or body language that types may have in common you can't do a study on a personality system that is based on a series of dichotomies that have yet to be proven, once you get to Visual Identification you are so far into basing your theories on "facts" not at all backed by scientific analysis. That means it must be replicated by numerous actual social scientists numerous times to be accepted, it would take decades of research to verify the most basic claims of socionics.

What I'm saying is that none of this is going to be all that objective so you shouldn't take it too seriously.

Bruh

[Investigator]

A lot of his earlier ideas were Ti centric producing very useful deductions. Lately his work just seems like a Ne exercise. What is very interesting, his later work, despite all the abstraction is still logical equivalency to his earlier work, but being stuck in the doubt that his Ne produces he doesn’t realize it.

[Disturbed]

I mean, he's not terrible, he's just not the best. The biggest problem I have with him is that he's not very precise; inaccuracy isn't really a huge problem (lack of precision bothers me more than lack of accuracy; I love precision so I really favor scientific papers done by ILE-Ti, although sometimes they aren't precise enough). He doesn't give enough facts and with enough precision.

[Alive]

I mean, he's not terrible, he's just not the best.

and who is?

>ILE-Ti

this made me laugh. anyone who has studied DCNH knows how dumb the two subtype system is.

[Investigator]

and who is?

>ILE-Ti

this made me laugh. anyone who has studied DCNH knows how dumb the two subtype system is.

Strange, when I read up on DCNH, I saw it as equivalent to the two subtype system, but I won't getting into how. I am planning a big thread soon.

[mclane]

and who is?

>ILE-Ti

this made me laugh. anyone who has studied DCNH knows how dumb the two subtype system is.

It's not. This only shows that you are unable to observe it.

[Alive]

Strange, when I read up on DCNH, I saw it as equivalent to the two subtype system, but I won't getting into how. I am planning a big thread soon.

I'm looking forward to it. in general it seems to me that the two subtype system describes the dominant and creative subtype, but it doesn't make sense. an LII-Ti would be a dominant subtype, but with accentuated introverted Ti. the basis of it is very questionable imo. I'm also critical of Meged and Ovcharov, who wrote stuff like sexual behaviour of subtypes...

"ILE-Ne: May show little initiative, but once he is assured of reciprocity of feelings he becomes kind, affectionate, and agreeable. Not inclined to hurry, likes extended preparations. Strives towards new impressions, but tries to be diplomatic to avoid conflicts. His sexual interest is periodic in its nature. With him it is necessary to show patience, modesty, and restraint. First of all, one must evoke his respect and confidence in one's feelings, and then lightly and diplomatically nudge him towards showing some initiative in physical enjoyment, as a great source of health, happiness and pleasure.

ILE-Ti: Somewhat distrustful of feelings and may be tactless. But if he is certain of love, he shows initiative, becomes kind, tries to do something enjoyable and pleasing for his partner, improves sexual techniques. Needs a decisive, emotional, and sexual partner, who is able to quickly convince him of his feelings and evoke reciprocity in him. With him it is necessary to constantly use emotional stimuli: quips and jokes, coquetry and jealousy."

but let's discuss it in a seperate thread.

[Coeruleum Blue]

Subtypes have no empirical basis at all. I think Gulenko's two papers on cognitive styles (which also reads like a torture manual) and activity groups are two parts of a really interesting hypothesis besides being good fodder for science fiction. I think it would be awesome to test some claims of socionics empirically and Gulenko does provide empirical claims, though all the Soviet and tabloid stuff and people declaring themselves ILE geniuses are scaring too many scientists away. Such is the life of a fringe science (I mean fringe science as a neutral term even though it can be somewhat stigmatized despite fringe theories like plate tectonics sometimes being proven right, so if anyone has a better term please tell me.)

[mr provocateur]

That obviously applies if a person sees socionics as sterotyping and not informational system. In it there lies very little room for actual adaptation.

[Tallmo]

LIIs with a Creative subtype will always be the grand masters of Socionics. It has to do with the analytical nature of this subject. Types are not equal in this respect. Should be no surprise.

[Chillaxe]

Well, I for one got that damn book of big G's on express to my home. Never a huge fan of DCHN, but I'm totally ready for him to prove it to me.

[mr provocateur]

I prefer model G for the simple of fact of IE manifestation. While LIE's suck at Fi they are really active getting it (mostly from wrong places ) and do not live with Ti systems.

[Computer Loser]

Socionics has some seriously dogmatic followers that will get offended by what I'm about to say...

Socionics needs to learn from western personality typing systems like...MBTI. To type yourself you only need to know very simple straightforward things, first choose either NT, NF, SF, ST. After that you basically have the same dimensionality of functions no matter the type. Then choose temperment, EJ, IP, EP, IJ. Then you're done. There is no need to make it complicated.

Another flaw is VI. VI is pseudoscience and it veers away from the actual point of personality, which is everything inside not outside. What do you do with someone that looks like an LSE that acts and behaves like an EIE? At that point you're attempting to make the world fit your theory and not the other way around.

There may be facial expressions or body language that types may have in common you can't do a study on a personality system that is based on a series of dichotomies that have yet to be proven, once you get to Visual Identification you are so far into basing your theories on "facts" not at all backed by scientific analysis. That means it must be replicated by numerous actual social scientists numerous times to be accepted, it would take decades of research to verify the most basic claims of socionics.

What I'm saying is that none of this is going to be all that objective so you shouldn't take it too seriously.

100%. Yea, most people shoot themselves in the foot over analyzing

[mr provocateur]

Basically one LII said that I was like him - analytical but I had very weird fuzzy figurative associations and more powerful emotional states. My focus was also more social and I didn't interpret things in similar manner. This is from LII who probably has no experience in socionics.

[Chae]

i'm grateful. gulenko = mvp. i like him. my boy.
bad idea to bite the hand that's feeding us graciously with actual explanations of one of the most complex personality typing systems. strati could neva.

[AkuManiMani]

Socionics has some seriously dogmatic followers that will get offended by what I'm about to say...

Socionics needs to learn from western personality typing systems like...MBTI. To type yourself you only need to know very simple straightforward things, first choose either NT, NF, SF, ST. After that you basically have the same dimensionality of functions no matter the type. Then choose temperment, EJ, IP, EP, IJ. Then you're done. There is no need to make it complicated.

Another flaw is VI. VI is pseudoscience and it veers away from the actual point of personality, which is everything inside not outside. What do you do with someone that looks like an LSE that acts and behaves like an EIE? At that point you're attempting to make the world fit your theory and not the other way around.

There may be facial expressions or body language that types may have in common you can't do a study on a personality system that is based on a series of dichotomies that have yet to be proven, once you get to Visual Identification you are so far into basing your theories on "facts" not at all backed by scientific analysis. That means it must be replicated by numerous actual social scientists numerous times to be accepted, it would take decades of research to verify the most basic claims of socionics.

What I'm saying is that none of this is going to be all that objective so you shouldn't take it too seriously.

I'd say typing is even simpler than that. All one has to do is identify their base function -- i.e. the element one's center of awareness automatically defaults to. Just by having a solid understanding of what faculties the elements refer to in practice and honest, disciplined self-awareness is sufficient to accurately self-type.