Gulenko's Book

[Enters Laughing]

I thought the 64 DCNH subtypes were sufficiently (and probably consistently) described for me to now say that the DNCH subtype system is meaningful (probably more meaningful than the enneagram, although determining a DCNH subtype for myself is perhaps not as interesting as attempting to find which enneagram type I am, because the DCNH subtypes are variants of the Socionics types).

I still would not recommend the DCNH subtype system to someone new to Socionics, but I think the 16 type descriptions combined with the 4 DCNH "flavours" for each type will give anyone a good sense of the range of a type's natural behaviour.

If I'm EII, then I'm most probably the N-subtype, with the C-subtype being a somewhat distant possibility. It seems that if I'm ILI or LII, I'd probably be the N-subtype of those also. When looking at the ILI description as a whole with its other other DCNH subtypes, I thought that the ILI personality is contrary to how I am overall. With LII, it was not satisfactory at describing me on the whole.

Unless you fundamentally disagree with the concept of the DCNH system, 80-90% of the book is probably uncontroversial (to those who might be worried that it is too heretical or abstract). I think the DCNH subtype as described has some use, although I'm doubtful that it could be used much beyond self-typing (but perhaps only because determining a self-typing and a typing for others with the 16 types is typically problematic enough: the four DCNH subtypes may inform you for future usage however and I will try to bear them in mind in future). I disagree with the questionnaire limiting itself to only two options per question, but that is only a small part of the book which has a few wondrous things.

I thought the book was well-written and better than Filatova's in terms of content, and I'm happy to recommend it.

[Sol]

I thought the book was well-written and better than Filatova's in terms of content

Gulenko's subtypes and "model G" is baseless fantasy and to claim it's better than classical theory of Filatova's book is a nonsense

[Enters Laughing]

Gulenko's subtypes and "model G" is baseless fantasy and to claim it's better than classical theory of Filatova's book is a nonsense

I don't have an opinion on Model G.

I thought the descriptions for the 16 main types in Gulenko's books were comparable with Filatova's, possibly better due to being longer and more detailed, while Filatova's book was a little MBTI-like in places (but not a fundamental problem).

Naturally, if you think the DNCH subtype system is like astrology, you will only think that the whole of Gulenko's book is confusing and problematic due to the danger of it giving noobs a misleading view of Socionics.

I can only say what I said before: that I thought the DCNH subtypes in the book gave an added flavour and range to each type.

[Sol]

@mu4

There was assigned long block for this account for chat section. This happened when you was in the chat. Long blocks are assigned either by you or with your permission.
This was done for my opinions said in the chat about types, typology, and about what happens in its practice on this site and in general. This was done against the forum's rules you've declared. Against the forum's task. This was typology censorship.

Also there was assigned the block to read "Unofficial Members Picture Thread". I talked there about types, like others did too. I got no explanations or notifications about this, but with previouse case of such block the formal reason could be "offtopic in the form of discussion of types". Besides, other people discuss types in that theme without blocks - the common mods actions in such cases is to move "offtopic" messages to other themes, but not to block the access to themes.
This forum is made for types discussions. So in any its theme it's appropriate to talk about types if this relates to info said there. To say the types analysis based on the info is appropriate where it exists. So many others follow the common sense and say opinions about types in that theme based on the photos.

In both cases there was done by you and mods the personal discrimination against me and outside of the forum's rules, with the motivation of typology censorship. My account got blocks for opinions about types which you and some other ones disliked to see.
Such inappropriate typology censorship against the forum's rules actions were done against me by mods multiple times. They blocked the access to typing themes for me saying the opinions about types and typology there. Blocked to mentioned photos theme 2 times. There was a block to access the site for day. All those blocks were assigned for nothing, for me saying opinions about types and while I did broke the forum's rules. Blocks were done only because those my opinions disliked some members and so mods did the typology censorship against just to give the pleasure to those people (and to help them be misleaded and mislead others). This is the cases of the corruption, the personal discrimination and harmful for people typology censorship which supports the spreading of misleadings and of lie about types.

One of significant reasons you did or aproved the chat block against the forum's rules and its task is that you disliked my criticism about your redundant respect and liking of Gulenko's baseless fantasies.
Socionics is ideas of Jung and Augustinaviciute. Anything other is not Socionics. Ideas of other authors about Jung types, including by Gulenko, - is not Socionics. Until there will appear objective prove to add them. Where base Jung's ideas are more trusty. The more basic, clear and reasonable the idea is - the more trust it should to get. In the example of doubtful Reinin's traits (which are baseless and far from Jung), Augustinavichiute used static/dynamic trait seriously in her articles and I doubt about other traits - so even forumally those should be rejected as she noticed that Reinin's traits is just a raw hypothesis. The said is common formally correct relation to terms as "Socionics" and the reasonable approach which reduces the chances to use wrong theory. To use random baseless theories about types, to list them as parts of Socionics, to list them as equal to basic Socionics ideas - is what you do and what is irresponsibility and misleading which rises mistakes, misleadings what Socionics is, discredits Socionics by mistakes and doubtful baseless hypotheses.
The other my opinion that you and some other ones here could dislike is the objectivity that those who did not studed types thorougly by normal books or special courses (instead of a mess of heretic articles and autotranslations common for English sites), who did not practice much in typing and watching of people with known types - are incompetent noobs with bad types understanding and typing skills. When those noobs also assign to Jung types baseless hypotheses, alike from that Gulenko, - this worsens the situation. The said fits the very majority on Socionics sites, especially English ones. On today, the only good study Socionics source in English is the single book by Filatova; plus Jung's book and mb Augustinavichiute's texts translated by fans/auto ; also can be useful MBTI books in their dichotomies discriptions. Only after normal basis to study types, it's appropriate to look on other texts. As in other case there are good chances to get partially wrong understandings, including because it will not be clear what theory is more core, what followed from it and how.

You and others are insterested in the truth. The typology censorship which you and mods do on this forum support mistakes and misleadings by which people harm their lives.