Results 1 to 29 of 29

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

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

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

    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.
    Last edited by Disturbed; 10-09-2019 at 05:30 AM.

  2. #2
    Not Sh!t coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,623
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Not Sh!t coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,623
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Will the mods move this to General Socionics Discussion?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,995
    Mentioned
    981 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    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
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  6. #6
    MegaDoodoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    95
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,659
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  8. #8
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    586
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  9. #9
    Socionics is a spook ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    14,253
    Mentioned
    780 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Look at that face!
    Anything for daddy.


  10. #10
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,659
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  11. #11
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Sx/Sp
    Posts
    3,205
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    because hes our lord and savior

  12. #12
    soundofconfusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    570
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic 007 View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    ImOutThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    87
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Sx/Sp
    Posts
    3,205
    Mentioned
    209 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImOutThere View Post
    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

  15. #15
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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 doesnít realize it.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  17. #17
    soundofconfusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    570
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Disturbed View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soundofconfusion View Post
    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.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    716
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by soundofconfusion View Post
    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.

  20. #20
    soundofconfusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    570
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    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.

  21. #21
    Not Sh!t coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    1,623
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.)

  22. #22
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,659
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    That obviously applies if a person sees socionics as sterotyping and not informational system. In it there lies very little room for actual adaptation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  23. #23
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,127
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  25. #25
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,659
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  26. #26
    LifeBeyondEarth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    EIE-Ni
    Posts
    11
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    First and foremost, I type people using Jungian theory and lecture from Jung, Von Franz, Van der Hoop & Daryl Sharp to a degree. I don't really like MBTI because a lot of the ways people teach/comprehend the functions are miscomprensions of Jung's original ideas that started it.

    After reading so much info about how type can be distorted, misconstrued & etc, I've come to the conclusion that it would take at least someone 2-3 years to figure their type out because you have to be honest with yourself, be willing to look at your own cognition, fears, hidden motives and etc. Most people don't like admitting certain things about themselves to themselves.

    On top of that, Jungian lectures are so freaking opposite to what is taught in MBTI that one would quit typology due to lack of patience from being told inaccurate things.

    Due to that, I went back to Psychoogical Types and branches out from there. Jung and his associates gave lectures and wrote books giving examples and going into significant detail about the types and how the creative functions and etc "work".


    With that said, Ive read a whole lot of Jungian material, (lectures from Jung & Co) and Gulenko seems to be the most accurate as far as comprehension of Jung's descriptions of the types and functions go. So, that's why he is my favorite.

    I started my typology journey with MBTI and I mistyped myself to hell and back. It was Socionics that actually resonated more and when I started my Jungian research in 2017, (when I signed up here), I found out why. Socionics is much more consistent with Jung's actual context. It took me 4 years to conclude that I'm an EIE-Ni.

    Also, Re: Subtypes having an empirical basis, actually in Jungian theory subtypes do have some validity. Jung spent time with patients, which I believe is automatically empirical. I've also observed subtypes in the world as well. I am a creative subtype and also a Jungian distorted type where my aux is overdeveloped at an early age.

    To my understanding, the more assimilated the creative function is, the likelier the creative function will be the subtype.

    For example: an ENFJ who has more assimilated Ni will be more expressive and etc because Ni provides fine shades of feeling and expression. (Jung's associate Van der Hoop says.)

    An ENFJ with Fe subtype is more focused on the community he/she is in and being proper. The disagreeable intuitions are especially more hidden and dependent upon one's current peer group.

    Jung and Co frequently talk about one-sided types who fail to fully develop their aux function while they also talk about types that have aux function so well developed that they could be mistaken for the dom. So, sub types are parallel to that as well.

    An EIE-Ni would be the one with overdeveloped creative function and EIE-Fe would be one-sided type who places more emphasis on Fe alone.

    ~ ~ ~

    Now, it is just my own idea & via observation that people who tend to have a subtype that reinforces the dom are one-sided or unhealthy types or mistypes due to miscomprehension of Jung's theory/inaccurate teachings. Most people in society are not full of their main function and really should have no subtype or one that reinforces the aux. .

    After all, in Jungian theory, one does their personality justice by developing a creative function so the rest of the personality can follow. Plus culture plays a huge role in personality as well. ~

    It may be possible that subtypes are specifically for people who are either unhealthy without well developed creative functions or distorted types (as Von Franz calls them) who because of some circumstance overdeveloped the aux function.

    Perhaps it is true as I've stated that realistically, most people don't have a consistent subtype and that they swing between the two.
    Last edited by LifeBeyondEarth; 10-15-2019 at 12:53 PM. Reason: Additions.
    We are spiritual beings having a human experience. After this body fails to thrive, our spirits are released and reborn into another body. ~

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ImOutThere View Post
    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
    He always finds a way

    http://www.onfireee.wordpress.com

  28. #28
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,659
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I donít care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  29. #29
    Kids Turned Out Fine
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    3w4
    Posts
    9,077
    Mentioned
    710 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

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