Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Gulenko's Book

  1. #1
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,100
    Mentioned
    663 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Gulenko's Book

    Gulenko has released a new book, if you wish to learn socionics and have some interest in Model G, it has all 64 DCNH profiles

    https://www.amazon.com/Psychological...3611940&sr=8-1

    Please support Dr Gulenko and all the contributors

  2. #2
    Chillaxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    36
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yup, got it myself. Soon as I saw that he was doing DCHN subtype desciptions I was in. Really liked them, and DCHN function accentuations finally makes more sense. I hope people see the subtype desciptions as I belive not having that was a big part of why people didn't embrace it so much.

  3. #3
    a two horned unicorn renegade Comatose Lamiac 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    tickling your PoLR
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF 7 so/sx
    Posts
    5,782
    Mentioned
    255 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It clears up lots of things about DCNH. Overall seems good but it has some confusing editing errors. If it gets second edition then it should include more in depth Model G.

    I think this is the best printed source in socionics outside of Russian sphere.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  4. #4
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,100
    Mentioned
    663 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic 007 View Post
    It clears up lots of things about DCNH. Overall seems good but it has some confusing editing errors. If it gets second edition then it should include more in depth Model G.

    I think this is the best printed source in socionics outside of Russian sphere.
    I agree, many of the observations in the early parts of the book are interesting and gives us a new framework for analysis of individual behavior vs sociotype. I do think his work require some mechanical explanation of all hypothetical constructions, a narrative to tie the story of the socionic mind together, I wish for a Freudian psychoanalytic reading of the material as well.

    I see this as largely a Jungian interpretation of socionics, which is complementary to Freudian but is not focus on the same topics.

  5. #5
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just purchased. Only the second Socionics book I have/will own after the Filatova book, although possibly two many.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,319
    Mentioned
    1128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    nice to see a professional translation of related to Jung types
    probably those texts existed already in English but with the help of allmighty google's translator Gulenko's views has shifted to other lands at 90s end, so his subtypes texts should be close to the known

    also. model G and Gulenko's subtypes are baseless fantasies and not Socionics
    the heretics who use them have higher risk to go to the Hell of typing and other mistakes
    what Gulenko does is hypotheses based on other hypotheses + a lot of dreams taken from nowhere
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  7. #7
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,319
    Mentioned
    1128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    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
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  9. #9
    Enlightened Hedonist Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-N (self-typing)
    Posts
    16,927
    Mentioned
    343 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    12,319
    Mentioned
    1128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @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.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  11. #11
    Making peace.
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    175
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Was this professionally translated and edited? I saw "independently published" which is a big red flag because it means anybody could have edited it, or nobody at all.
    "A barbarian built civilization, as an illiterate invented writing." - Classical Apothegmist

  12. #12
    a two horned unicorn renegade Comatose Lamiac 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    tickling your PoLR
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF 7 so/sx
    Posts
    5,782
    Mentioned
    255 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SocietyOTLittleFlower View Post
    Was this professionally translated and edited? I saw "independently published" which is a big red flag because it means anybody could have edited it, or nobody at all.
    It is pretty good. It has few mistakes in formatting regarding mixed up paragraphs but nothing very serious.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  13. #13
    Sir that's my emotional support gremlin
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Exisal hangar
    TIM
    LII-Ne 5w6 593 so/sx
    Posts
    479
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just seen it, and checking the preview pages on the Amazon, probably will buy it later as exchange rate at the moment between usd and tl is like 1:7. A lot of what I can see seems to be rehashes of his old type profiles, though that might be because those are the pages available rather than newer stuff?

  14. #14
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    9,055
    Mentioned
    990 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I bought Gulenko's book a couple weeks ago and I didn't really see anything in it that seemed new or different.

    I tend to agree with some other posters on this forum who say that DCNH is not really useful because a person's DCNH type it isn't that strongly fixed, or can change under different circumstances.

    For comparison, I think that oceanmoonshine's descriptions of the instinctual variations of enneatype are easier to see than DCNH, but your mileage may vary.

    FWIW, I hope Gulenko got some cash from my book purchase. In the States, for short run books, the author's share is about 33%, as are the Publisher's and the Printer's shares.

  15. #15
    black Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    4,676
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I asked for it as an xmas gift, I think it's really good. Much, much, more compleat than the socionics sources available in English already imo.

    I really like the dcnh descriptions, though some of the material in Gulenko's dcnh descriptions is taken from Meged's descriptions of the two subtypes. This doesn't really bother me, because both authors should be describing the same phenomena, but trying to understand them using a different system.

    I would say it's worth buying, if you like dcnh .
    Don't quote me boy cuz I ain't sayin' shit

  16. #16
    best jobro BasicallyGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    TIM
    all of them
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I caved and got the book. found it mostly contains rehashed info from profiles you can already find on the internet. they didn't take the time to update occurrences of "logical subtype" and "intuitive subtype" despite that they're now on the DCNH bandwagon.

    speaking of DCNH, I've never been a big fan of this, because it just adds a layer of convolution to an already overcomplicated system. and it is often used as a justification for bad typings. I fail to see how it adds much of substance beyond just stating the qualifications of your typing as in "ok he looks LII but more irrational than usual".

    and of course the book commits the central sin of socionical writing, implying that every little symbol and sub-symbol is worth writing long winded paragraphs about, when the truth is usually just that all you can say about Se and Ne is that they're opposites and just don't fucking get along.

    but the most disappointing thing of all - to the point hard to forgive - is that it doesn't contain a section on quadra values, thus making the tome largely useless for sorting out my personal conundrums.

    I suppose as a general primer it can serve its purpose, but the lack of quadra descriptions is a serious shortcoming even in that vein.

    ps I found it cute that it alternates between referring the person as male and female in the profiles
    why are you typing me, I'm just a frickin dog

  17. #17
    Zero11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Germany
    TIM
    LIE (ENTp)
    Posts
    266
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I got the book too. It may have the stupid model G but it is miles better than Filatovas book.

    no wonder he uses Model G, it's a total break from the jungian functions or not, maybe it is even more jungian than the rest

  18. #18

    Default

    who is DarkAngelFireWolf69? and why does he write books on socionics


  19. #19
    #SpinsterAtHeart Vex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Tonantzintla 618
    TIM
    IEI-Fe C™
    Posts
    1,286
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @DarkAngelFireWolf69 are you a real person (that is on this forum) and if you are, where can I buy your books? Please and thank you.

    EDIT: Damn, didn't work.

    Anyways, talking about the Gulenko book so I don't derail. I have purchased a copy and it's well worth the money in my opinion. I don't have the space or quiet to read it much unfortunately, but the bits I've read are very well structured, well explained, have good translation, and don't use the weird Barney kiddie talk like the Filatova book does. It feels much more official, serious, and adult in tone, which I personally appreciate in an informational book. It very nearly gives off the impression that he is giving the reader an official lecture. If this is your thing, then great! If this is not, then you might like the Filatova book more in this aspect.

    Despite the tone and structure however, the base information on the Information Elements and model is still to the point and easy to understand. I'm not sure I would say it's introductory, but at the same time it never feels overwhelming with the way it deals out information.

    I can't really speak on DCNH much since I didn't get too in depth on what was in the book, but this is probably what will be the main selling point for many people in the western Socionics community, since according to many peoples' sentiments there's already an abundance of information on Socionics on the internet. That may be somewhat true, but in many cases this information is somewhat or partially lost, has poor translation, not all types or elements are described, has to be viewed with internet archives, and so on. So it's very handy and accessible to have a book like this as reference.

    All in all, a good book with more upsides than downsides afaik and I would recommend supporting it.
    Last edited by Vex; 08-08-2020 at 05:56 AM. Reason: added G-Man review


    Idiosyncratic > Mercurial > Aggressive

    Aphrodite

    I am the wound and the blade.
    Both the torturer and he who is flayed.


    BORN TO TYPE
    WORLD IS A SOCIONIKA
    心理学 Type Em All 1991
    I am jung fan

    410,757,864,530 PEOPLE TYPED



  20. #20
    ♰CHRIST IS KING♰ MrInternet42069's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Monte Carlo
    Posts
    2,874
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nymphaeales View Post
    @DarkAngelFireWolf69 are you a real person (that is on this forum) and if you are, where can I buy your books? Please and thank you.
    Yea i'm a real person


  21. #21
    ♰CHRIST IS KING♰ MrInternet42069's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Monte Carlo
    Posts
    2,874
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    you can buy my books on amazon.com

  22. #22
    #SpinsterAtHeart Vex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Tonantzintla 618
    TIM
    IEI-Fe C™
    Posts
    1,286
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sexy weeb guy View Post
    Yea i'm a real person



    you can buy my books on amazon.com
    Holy SHIT to think I was friends with the legendary DarkAngelFireWolf69 this entire time and didn't even know it... keep it cool DarkAngelFireWolf69...


    Idiosyncratic > Mercurial > Aggressive

    Aphrodite

    I am the wound and the blade.
    Both the torturer and he who is flayed.


    BORN TO TYPE
    WORLD IS A SOCIONIKA
    心理学 Type Em All 1991
    I am jung fan

    410,757,864,530 PEOPLE TYPED



  23. #23
    a two horned unicorn renegade Comatose Lamiac 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    tickling your PoLR
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF 7 so/sx
    Posts
    5,782
    Mentioned
    255 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    DarkAngelFireWolf69 is probably a theme specific string replacement quirk used by kimu.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  24. #24
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,810
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsHimTheAnomaly View Post
    speaking of DCNH, I've never been a big fan of this, because it just adds a layer of convolution to an already overcomplicated system. and it is often used as a justification for bad typings. I fail to see how it adds much of substance beyond just stating the qualifications of your typing as in "ok he looks LII but more irrational than usual".
    Yes, but reality is complicated. You have huge variation within types, and dcnh takes this into account and shows that you can extract a layer that has order.

    Of course it can be used as a justification for bad typings. And it can also be used to get your typings right. In any case, everybody has to deal with intra-type variation when typing, whether you use dcnh or not. It's just easier when DCNH already has sorted out some of these things and hands it over to you.

    It adds substance in the sense that these variations are regular, and they are distinct, it's not just a sliding scale. DCNH reveals secondary functional development and specialization that almost all people have.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  25. #25
    best jobro BasicallyGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    TIM
    all of them
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Yes, but reality is complicated. You have huge variation within types, and dcnh takes this into account and shows that you can extract a layer that has order.

    Of course it can be used as a justification for bad typings. And it can also be used to get your typings right. In any case, everybody has to deal with intra-type variation when typing, whether you use dcnh or not. It's just easier when DCNH already has sorted out some of these things and hands it over to you.

    It adds substance in the sense that these variations are regular, and they are distinct, it's not just a sliding scale. DCNH reveals secondary functional development and specialization that almost all people have.
    if you want to understand personality in its full complexity, I suggest just talking to people, getting to know them fully and not classifying them hastily based on one categorical qualifier or other. the only personality system more complex than basic socionics I have patience for is the one that incorporates all 7 billion of the types.

    as for doing this thing where you slap another layer of abstractions on to your system every time it falls short of having practical predictive ability: this is called the Ptolemaic approach and is historically known for being a spectacularly bad idea.
    why are you typing me, I'm just a frickin dog

  26. #26
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,810
    Mentioned
    212 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ItsHimTheAnomaly View Post
    if you want to understand personality in its full complexity, I suggest just talking to people, getting to know them fully and not classifying them hastily based on one categorical qualifier or other. the only personality system more complex than basic socionics I have patience for is the one that incorporates all 7 billion of the types.

    as for doing this thing where you slap another layer of abstractions on to your system every time it falls short of having practical predictive ability: this is called the Ptolemaic approach and is historically known for being a spectacularly bad idea.
    It's not about "understanding personality in it's full complexity". It is really about the fact that Gulenko has discovered another layer that can be typologized. That's a very valuable thing, in all sciences.

    I know perfectly well that even people of the same type + subtype can still be very different.

    In biology we can classify living beings in plants and animals, but we can go further... If you have patience.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  27. #27
    schwiftyrickty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Kansas City
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    345
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I love the book but it has tons of errors, some are major and make parts nearly impossible to understand especially if you don't already know socionics well enough to use context clues. The DCNH descriptions are very detailed and interesting but I do fear that they might further complicate typing.
    7w6 9w1 2w3 sx/? RLUAI(rl|U|ai)

Posting Permissions

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