I read the book, I enjoyed it a lot. Unfortunately, he makes things up as he goes along and has contradicted the words in his book in the typing diagnostic he gave me. Unfortunately, it's a cult of personality (no pun intended) and Gulenko Acolytes will hang onto his every word regardless if it's contradictory.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
I have his book but I can't find the pages where he talks about the romance styles.
Pages 375-379Originally Posted by TheLady
I just bought it on Amazon. Let's see what all the hype is about.
I did today too, buy it on Amazon. Extra money from switching phones to different service, I know what to do with it.
My book arrived this afternoon. It immediately open to the ILI detailed description (page 204.) A natural, near middle thing. Or did someone read that and hold it hard before I got it. Hmmm.
Yes, that's it! Thank you! I love that movie and do believe that my book must have been there. (hahaha)
I love this book and frequently reference it. Some may not like Gulenko, but his book really helped me understand Socionics better. I highly recommend it to anyone beginning to get into socionics.
Bound upon me, rush upon me, I will overcome you by enduring your onset: whatever strikes against that which is firm and unconquerable merely injures itself by its own violence. Wherefore, seek some soft and yielding object to pierce with your darts.
-Seneca
Socionics is theory in borders of Jung and Augustinavichiute ideas. Plus what was proved experimetnally related to Jung types (there was no such theory still). Meanwhile not anything even in mentioned ideas is Socionics as can or is wrong. Not anything there deserves a trust for usage, at least.
Theory of Jung types and its expansion in Socionics, which deserves serious interest, is simple and primitive. There are a lot of texts with it. Just good to choose something popular in style, without baseless non-Socionics additions, and with lesser accent on Reinin traits. The example of not bad are Filatova and Beskova books.
As for Gulenko's texts. Significant part of theory what Gulenko uses is not Socionics (!), but his own baseless fantasies about types. In Socionics part he much uses theory of Reinin traits which are baseless too, and most of which even have doubtful formal link to Socionics. Much of theory in Gulenko's usage can be wrong.
In his typing practice he does many mistakes, not much lesser than common for known typers - and this accuracy is at best ~50%.
To think that you "really... understand Socionics better" is appropriate only when you'll get a proof of this by noticing positive results in your practice(!). Obligate part of this is when you (purely yourself) identify significant quantity of people near you and then: 1) their behavior fits to types theory good, 2) IR effects of them with you fit to theory good too (what also will prove your correct understanding of own type).
Other are noobish illusions.
To improve adequate relation to knowledge about types should help experimental prove of it. Until in Socionics stays strong lack of it, there will dominate incompetent idiocy and fanboys illusional mess based on emotions.
Last edited by Sol; 02-26-2022 at 10:02 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote