Recommend a professional socionics typer
Title says it all.
@shotgunfingers just got typed by Gulenko, which is quite cool, but also too expensive for my standards. I'm willing to spend at max 60 euros.
It has to be a person which has published stuff and/or written books and proven to be a knowledgeable socionist.
(Yes, I already know that with my budget I should sacrifice some of these standards, but I'm stretching it just to give an idea)
Timur Protskiy over at the Archetype Center does it for 70$
Link: https://archetype-center.ru/typing/
You have to answer this questionaire: http://archetype-center.ru/Socionics...ype_Center.pdf ... in video format.
As far as I'm aware your options are rather limited to these, unless you speak Russian... or I don't know anyone else.Originally Posted by Reyne
The guy seems LSI and knows his stuff imo: https://www.youtube.com/c/TimurProtskiy/videos EDIT: he has 14 years experience.
For a more reliable typing 120$ https://socioniks.net/article/?id=273
Last edited by SGF; 09-02-2020 at 10:30 AM.
Jack Oliver Aron is a professional typer. 'Professional' as in he doing it as a profession, not as in he being a competent typer.
May i ask you another question: if a professional typer provides you with your type, will that remove your insecurities about your type?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
jack Oliver Aron seems young but I have read a lot of what he is written and I would trust his typing. He has great insights and knowledge.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I think he's an idiot who meets all the criteria scientists have listed for charlatans in the fields of astrology, psychics, tarot card reading etc.etc.
But if people want to lay their destinies into his hands, they deserve to be fooled, and I do not pity them.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
You sound so SLI here! (And I am not trying to rush your own conclusion about your type).
My (SLI) husband once, some years back, got way into the true study of astrology for the same sort of reasons that you describe. I also delved into astrology once, years back, before I knew my husband, for the same reasons I got into Socionics [and I like Socionics best, but these two are apples and oranges], which is that I love understanding people deeply. And like everything else my husband and I both look at, we see completely different aspects of the same thing. Like, if we both took the same quick glance of a photo of a scene that we'd never seen, I can almost guarantee that we would see completely different things in that same glance, and we could each describe at length something that the other didn't see at all because of the briefness of the look).
My husband took a very scholarly approach to astrology and he can explain conjunctions and charts and all the like things that I never took time to understand, as it seemed unnecessary to the overall understanding I sought. I instead fully absorbed all I read on the many aspects and relationships of sun-signs, until I understood them so well (back then) that I could guess everyone's sun sign, even if I just met them - if not on the first guess, then the second (in cases when I'd been hastily overconfident with my first guess).
Now my husband tells me, as I talk to him about things I read and learn here, that he truly enjoys hearing my thoughts on Socionics (one of the joys of duality - what the other one says you continue to find interesting), and on what I have learned, and how Socionics applies to the people in our lives, and how it explains this or that aspect or action of them. But! In spite of this interest he has NO INTEREST in delving into a Socionics study himself, as he feels he does not have "room in his head", what with all that old astrology stuff swimming in there still! Its all a bit much to learn this system too.
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 09-02-2020 at 05:30 PM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I'd go for Gulenko anyway. It's only 60 euros more than what you are willing to spend so it doesn't matter that much. And he is probably the best. What is the point of getting yourself typed for less if you still can't be sure? It's not that expensive considering it's a once-in-a-lifetime cost.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think it is important to note (and this is from my experience from being typed), that the socionics type refers to the information metabolism and not necessarily to the resulting behavior.
Example: in my videos imo I was describing stereotypical NTP behavior on my part, such as being messy & disorganized, having a big picture perspective and it wasn't different from my initial VI here.. however Gulenko somehow saw beyond that and understood my information metabolism as LSI imo correctly, at least based on model A & G his observations are accurate.
imo @Reyne you should watch this video and consider what he says be4 typing.
The problem with Gulenko is that he is LII: he does not observe, he reasons. That's how he came to type you: you fed him -biased- information, and then he drew conclusions from that.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I dont think thats true. LIIs are very observant. Ive seen this first hand when a LII whom I know learned socionics.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Quoted for Posterity.
So Socionics after four years hasn't given you the answers you looked for? Do you have any knowledge about mainstream personality psychology? It won't work for everyone, but perhaps diving into personality psychology can complement your knowledge of Socionics and make it more clear what is meant by certain Socionic inisghts.
I am a little bit skeptical about professional typers. Although I believe a good typer could give you your type in a very short amount of type, it would still take quite an amount of time to observe you to arrive at good reasoning about that type.
I have no memory of your previous typings, but your answer to my question already seems to have triggered my Creative-Fi. Have you been typed ILI/SLI/LIE/LSE in the past?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
The story of my life... ;-)
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I found a post in which I typed you SLI based on photos you posted. What is your Paypal email address? So I can send you a payment request, and your problem is solved.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
You actually do professional typings?
No I don't. First of all, my typing methods are antipositivist in nature, based on the principle of Verstehen. I also believe proper explanation of a typing required an extended period of time of observations, which is for all sort of reasons, impractical.
Also, I believe that a person is not helped by been provided their type without providing an understanding of Socionics. By means of my blog I hope to attribute to people's understanding of themselves and of Socionics, so they can properly type themselves. In the long run, I think that is more helpful.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I'm not much educated in this area, and I can always appreciate being taught something new.
As for myself, i can't say I fully trust the system itself. I have a good grasp of philosophy and political hostory, so it's easy for me to see the presuppositionalism in a system like Socionics - for example, starting with the idea that human behaviour is predictable, which I'm skeptical of. This puts you outside the system itself.
Systems of logical reasoning, are by their very nature, consistent. So i can create a new socionics system in which I'm say, LSI. All it takes then, is to create certain narratives around that. Because this is all done online, there's a substantial lack of any real evidence of anything. What proof is there that I'm LII or that sbbds is SLE or whatever? It's almost like a game where the stronger ideology will prevail.
You could say that I'm outside of Socionics looking in. I also am skeptical of historical narratives and even scientific narratives and anti religious narratives.
Ofc, i could also be mentally ill, so ignore me if you wish to. I think it's funny that there is this much fighting over what type someone is. It's also exhausting. Maybe @sbbds will give me a hug
I’ll be your Daddy4You Teddy4YouOfc, i could also be mentally ill, so ignore me if you wish to. I think it's funny that there is this much fighting over what type someone is. It's also exhausting. Maybe @sbbds will give me a hug
Socionics/Jung is empirical. The discovery of certain typical things in the psyche. Learning Socionics is maybe 99.9 percent about dating, working with different people, life experience etc. so that you check the theory that way and maybe 0.1% about studying the theory itself.
The predictability of human behaviour is not really an "idea" in Socionics. It follows from the discovery of the types. Of course predictability within certain limits.
But you can't change reality. There is such a thing as Se or Ne etc.Systems of logical reasoning, are by their very nature, consistent. So i can create a new socionics system in which I'm say, LSI. All it takes then, is to create certain narratives around that.
You mean online, in this forum? This is a game to some extent. We are amusing ourselves by guessing people's types. People have seen how well Socionics works in real life and then want to practice their typing skills also online. But this forum is only a very small part of the overall Socionics experience.Because this is all done online, there's a substantial lack of any real evidence of anything. What proof is there that I'm LII or that sbbds is SLE or whatever? It's almost like a game where the stronger ideology will prevail.
I'd say put the philosophy aside for now and learn the real phenomenon that Socionics is referring to (if you still haven't done it). Then later, when you have experienced all the relationships, and you have worked with people from all types etc., then you can bring up the philosophy again, if you still think there is a need for it.You could say that I'm outside of Socionics looking in. I also am skeptical of historical narratives and even scientific narratives and anti religious narratives.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Here on The16T, we have some non-professional good ones. Adam Strange is a good typer. There are others. (There are also some very confident ones who will gladly type, but probably wrongly). I am good, when I know (as IEEs often can get this), as sometimes I get a sudden absolute sureness, and those times it that turns out to fit with all the aspects. (But I don't have a sureness about yours. If I ever do, I will tell you.)
Editing to add: Oh, silly me, Reyne, when i wrote that in haste I forgot your penname here, but I did not forget you, or your face. I haven't moved on my "SLI" for you, which I feel sure of. I suggest you check out the opposing Reinins of SLI and the one or two other types you think you might be, and that will likely firm it up for you. https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/dichotomies/r3t1
P.S. Also read this duality description and see if it sounds like that could be you in a relationship, and if you would feel right with the ways of that dual as described: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...Meged-Ovcharov
And then there is another specific duality article here, and you can scroll down to SLI/IEE, and decide whether your weaknesses are kind of like that, and perhaps, yes, that Dual's weaknesses wouldn't be so hard to put up with.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ity-Work-Meged
Once you are sure, if you are SLI, that is, likely the IEE you spot will need to be the one to make more moves to establish a relationship, as she is the Extrovert. But she will sense if you have her in your eye, and take interest. Just be patient because with more interaction you can hook her!
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 09-02-2020 at 04:06 PM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
There is no objective certification for typing skills. The main differences are in the typing experience, what theory is used by the typer. Also what useful typing info is taken into account - the more of it, the better. The ones who uses heretical theories should be avoided in the degree they use that - as those heresies are baseless nonsense, generally.
What can be supposed, that all even experienced typers have low typing matches not far from 50%. This points that most probably almost all of them have significant typing mistakes of tens %. They just type better than most people, but not good.
After geting opinions from others about most possible your types, read the types theory, type people near and understand your best fiting type by your behavior _and IR effects_. If _all fits good_ then you can be sure in that type. With tens % of mistakes you can't rely on any today typer. You may trust only after own checking of the type.
Ask sol to type you
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
If typology is really unnatural for you, you might be an SF.
SFG, first I will say something, all these people who are doubting your type only have access to your interactions in the forum itself, and not to your personal life, and from what I understood in your comments, Gulenko did have access to your personal life and your decisions, but you don't want to post that analysis for the sake of your privacy. With that in mind you are right when you say that you are LSI, but let me recommend something, and that is that if modern socionics deciphers your informational metabolism and lets personality be defined by psychosophy, then those behaviors that questioners blame on you, that are clearly related to personality, could be explained through your attitudinal psyche.
I'm going to what I wanted to tell you about, and I hope you don't take it the wrong way, because in no case do I bring bad intentions with this, but rather the opposite, I seek to clarify doubts. If first of all socionic has nothing to do with personality, then MBTI has nothing to do with socionic, so if your MBTI type is, say, INTP, you are INTP in your personality and LSI in your informative metabolism, that is the first conclusion that can be drawn if we adhere to what has been said.
Second but not least, if socionics is a discipline that specifically seeks to decipher what is our natural internal makeup, then it needs a single methodology to be credible. If there is a vague and diffuse basis on which different schools determine a sociotype by means of different conceptions of IM and by means of different methodologies, then you can be SLI in the old system, ILE in any personal system and LSI in the modern system. If there is no common and definite answer about an aspect of life that should be unique and exact, such as the information filters through which someone processes external stimuli, and if different interpretations can be given of the same cognitive processes depending on the individual theory of each one, then socionics is so abstract and undefined that it is completely useless and does not deserve more attention than a banter, because if we want to study what makes us what we are then we need concrete and unique answers, we shouldn't be content with disparate and half explanations.
Over time, even being unable to determine my own sociotype (On the one hand, I know myself and my own trajectory in life much better than all the members of this forum, so certain typings that have been made of me do not fit , nor its quasi-identity types, but on the other hand, I have faith in visual identification, because throughout my life I have observed very specific patterns of speech and behavior and I think I can determine some types based on similarity, which is not I can do is determine what types they are, so when someone assigns me X sociotype puzzles me) I doubt the idea of pursuing a professional diagnosis, because different professionals will assign me different sociotypes, since, informational metabolism doesn't have a lot of validity because it is studied with such diverse approaches.
If Gulenko says one sociotype, but the Archetype Center says another, and both could be valid because they follow the same foundation, then the task of discovering one's own sociotype is almost completely meaningless. Also, what kind of bullshit are intertype relationships if really depending on the approach everything is going to change. Anyway, in the end I will end up opting for Gulenko or something simply to have a definitive answer that explains my behavior and my actions in detail taking into account my own personal trajectory, but I will really have to take it for Hobby because I really cannot have a real accurate response. I'm simply searching for an answer or an argument, made by someone more experienced in the field, that has the knowledge on the subject to disprove this.
Last edited by RBRS; 09-03-2020 at 02:55 PM.
I haven't seen what you look like and that's important but based on your posts you seem SLI or ESI-Se.
The first typings I thought of for myself were EIE, LSI-Ti, LSE-Te, and ESI-Fi (in reverse order actually so what I initially thought was right). When I saw that Northstar mentioned I was ESI, that's what I've finally concluded. Northstar is one of those SLE-Ti who is really good at understanding and describing just about anything; Beta STs are the true "people persons" of the Socion with Gamma SF Se subtypes probably the secondary people persons. Due to lower Ti and not being having high Sensing, the NFs just aren't as good at categorizing as the Beta STs are and they don't see people for what they really are like Se-subtype Gammas do. Some of Augusta's original social roles for the types were quite off too as many, many ILE could live 200 years without inventing anything and half a lifetime without searching for anything unusual, and IEE make terrible, disturbing, and frustratingly inaccurate psychologists (due to Aristocracy, Ti-PoLR, unvalued Fe, and bad sensing; if anything IEE are the inventors of things and the creators of artwork and the LSI-Se, ILE-Ti, and SLE-Ti are the psychologists of the Socion and the ones who try to and are often good at reading everything everyone is doing, feeling, desiring, etc.)
Who is this Hector Gulenco everybody seems to talk about ?
For those who are interested, due to variations in the price of the Russian currency, the price of the Archetype Center socionics diagnosis is 58 Euros. For Europeans like me it is a very good price and I will request the diagnosis. I may post the result when I have it finished.
Edit: already paid, and already sent. Soon I will be posting the answer.
Last edited by RBRS; 09-10-2020 at 12:40 AM.
I type people professionally. Then again, I already typed you for free.
Did I type Reyne LSE?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I don't know what you typed him.
Charging doesn't guarantee anything. I would never advise someone to get a typing from Gulenko merely because he charges for typings. He has mistyped multiple people, sometimes quite badly (maybe due to translation issues but anyways). All it means is that people seek him out for typings. You have to look at the track record of the typist to see what you're getting.
Ultimately whether a person is sure or not depends on them. I see a lot of people going around "shopping" for typings - usually it boosts their certainty somewhat, but not completely. Understanding how to apply the theory is what you really need. Unfortunately, this tends to be hard.
Charging certainly doesn't guarantee anything, that's for sure. But when Ibrahim claims Gulenko is mistyping people, all he seems to mean is that he disagrees with Gulenko's views and has a different opinion about their type in his own system. That's not the same thing as a mistype, and it is very unscrupulous to fail to distinguish between these things. To assume that his disagreement with Gulenko amounts to a mistyping on Gulenko's part, without any further reasoning, is mere fundamentalism, which Ibrahim has quite a track record of. The reason people seek out Gulenko for typings is because he is probably the most respected and experienced Socionist alive.
Ibrahim frequently makes things up about Gulenko's views due to his zeal to correct and discredit Gulenko, as I have shown in detail in this article: http://varlawend.blogspot.com/2020/0...ith-model.html. I can't imagine Ibrahim has very good reasons for engaging in this sort of behavior, but that is up to him. Maybe Ibrahim just doesn't want to have competitors.
Simply liking Model A is one thing, and can be very reasonable. But being a fundamentalist of Ibrahim's personal interpretation of Model A is an entirely different story; it is tyrannical and is completely unwarranted epistemologically. Anyways, many people think very highly of Victor Gulenko's typings, his book, and his work, so it is worth checking out at least:
https://www.amazon.com/Psychological.../dp/1696480094
Last edited by Varlawend; 09-11-2020 at 04:14 AM.
Jack Oliver Aaron - ISFJ Dreiser
Has very realistic view of the subject. Rejects nonsensical stuff. (He typed President Trump as SLE which is plain inaccurate.)
Another example of Dreiser
Last edited by khcs; 09-13-2020 at 08:35 PM.
This is the comment you are looking for
Victor Gulenko has identical type as Timur Protskiy.
(Both of them are introverted)
Last edited by khcs; 09-13-2020 at 08:52 PM.
This is the comment you are looking for
My typology results are annoying because most of the time they are accurate. Probably the second best typer on this forum after Beautiful...
This is the model used.
I think if you’d still like to be typed, then get typed by Jack Aaron. You’ll get thoroughly interviewed and he’s able to read your body language and how you answer. It’ll be pretty long, at least over an hour. He’s ILE so I like his thoroughness and being able to catch information that might get missed otherwise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No way. He has absolutely no clue about typing people. He's speaking from his fantasy.
Gulenko is a good typer.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
If that’s so then why does Gulenko associate with Jack? Gulenko typing isn’t personalized. Ti lead rationalizes rather than explains.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
