Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Gulenko's Book

  1. #1
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,025
    Mentioned
    623 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

    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    17
    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 Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Sol's emo club
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,839
    Mentioned
    209 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

  4. #4
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,025
    Mentioned
    623 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
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,589
    Mentioned
    324 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
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1036 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
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,589
    Mentioned
    324 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
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1036 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
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,589
    Mentioned
    324 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.

Posting Permissions

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