Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[thegreenfaerie]

I like how people assume that others aren’t thinking critically and are basically just mindless and naive. I am willing to bet every person who has been typed by Gulenko is and has, some of y’all just arrogant af. Sorry if Gulenko’s perceptions happen to resonate far better than that of some of the people on this forum.

[Northstar]

I think my approach to this problem is less theoretical than yours. I'm judging Gulenko based on my own experience of the accuracy of socionics and DCNH. Also the fact that LIIs tend to be good at typing people + other things like his track record. We are talking about Gulenko and not any typist. Socionics is a real phenomenon so lack of standardization is not as important as one might think. I feel that the points you are making could be valid on a more general level, but in this specific case there are other facts that give special value to Gulenko's typings.

I don’t think it is so much theoretical than logical. Why would LII be better at typing than others? I have seen exactly opposite opinions on this as well. I think you are putting Gulenko on a pedestal here, regarding theory I would not mind because he is a well-known contributor and I like his ideas although they aren’t generally undisputed.
He does have a long experience but the question is if Gulenko’s typings should be considered a ”gold standard” for verifying other typings? I would ask the same if it was Aushra herself because this is no exact science and the ”skill in the craft” is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to a typing.
I think knowing yourself and investing a lot into understanding the theories is the best route for self-typing but if there are problems with either then an external typing might help. I wouldn’t consider it a surefire shortcut but an opinion that is worth considering especially if the attached reasoning seems sound.

[Nobody]

I'm just giving the details, they matter. The main point was that betas are by nature collectivist authoritarians regardless of political affiliation. One is like that in the family, at work and so on. I consider the group, don't like to make exceptions from the system, authority matters and it cannot be arbitrary aka Ti-Fe > Fi-Te ... Se-Ni > Si - Ne.

Well that wasn't my main point. Reinin describes beta/Delta as authoritarian and Alpha/Gamma as Democratic. And I haven't found that to be the case after typing people I know well and have typed well. My typings aren't really in question either. I wish you would just stick to criticism of what's said and not make this about something it's not.

I don't see how trying to determine what ideology has more value has anything to do with this. Gulenko is a clinical psychologist and sociologist with 30 years experience in Socionics, trained by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė e_e the founder of socionics, works at the International Institute of Socionics in Kiev in the Ukraine. In as far as the theory is concerned, within the limitations of it's structure, Gulenko IS the most credible authority.

It had nothing to do with Gulenko. You're just a turd if you think Stalin is when he was a murderous asshole who ruthlessly took power and ruled over the USSR killing anybody he didn't like or disagreed with or anyone that posed a risk to his power, only to have the USSR fall apart in a short amount of time regardless. He was a SHIT leader.

I'm pretty sure we aren't ignoring it.

Well then why does no one ever talk about it? Show me where a conversation about it wasn't overshadowed by people saying Jung is different than socionics or that socionics is information metabolism or just that socionics is just different for whatever reason. I bet you can't.

That line of reasoning makes no sense. I am not qualified to determine ppl's type, which is why I went to get typed by Gulenko. I doubt other ppl here are qualified either, they do weird things like mistake PolR for base function., that is all.

Then you also aren't qualified to assume other people can't type just because "you doubt" they can. That is all.

Address the issues, deviating into ad hominem is pointless.

When you stop missing every point I make every time I try and communicate with you, I'll stop seeing you as somebody with a stick up their ass.

I don't see why or how understanding or caring about specific individuals or not affects the validity of my arguments.

Of course you wouldn't understand that genuinely getting to know people might actually give you a real understanding of their problems, or even better their "type". Because you don't type people, you let Gulenko do that for you.

[Nobody]

@Northstar
I agree.

[Nobody]

This isn’t hard to see at all. People fail to see that our obsession and confusion with our typing was due to an issue with accepting possibilities, not an inclination toward/thriving on having so many. Any slight discrepancy in a typing we had finally accepted threw everything off due to struggling with Ne, not thriving on it. This is something I realized and mentioned some time ago. I personally try to shut all possibilities because they stress me out badly and people who thrive on them/have fun with them can tend to annoy me. As I’ve said a million times, I just want to know the truth (in my typing). I’ve still not settled on it, it’s a huge leap. I started realizing some time ago though that I am not a delta NF. In fact, I am not even an intuitive. I was dishonest with myself and others at points. When I joined this forum, I was running from my first typing, which was ESI.

There is a lot I could say and maybe I will. I only have a phone right now, but I do feel a bit obligated. As time went on, there is information on my typing thread and elsewhere on this thread, that seemed to go ignored. I’ve talked about how I’m naturally a very Ij temperament, to start, there are a ton of reasons Ep/IEE is beyond ridiculous for me that it seriously makes me laugh at this point. I’ve talked about how my most fitting personality type was the melancholic temperament. I’ve talked about how people in my real life tend to view me as more logical and I how I struggle with emotions around people (unless it’s my boyfriend, my dog, or kids I am close to). I’ve talked about how I’m a hermit. I’ve talked about my cool, analytical and even deadpan approach with people irl. There are hinters all over this forum. I was contradictory though and I put a lot of the blame on a stupid typing such as IEE on myself.

I also ran from Sol’s spotting good sensing and weak intuition. He was absolutely right on that, which is something I figured out the more I learned. I am very aware of both my body and environment, and as I’ve mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I am tidy and anal-retentive. My true nature is fairly uptight. At one point, as I mentioned before, I decided to change. The loss of my sister followed by my time spent working in behavioral health were game changers as well, and honestly, I am 100% miserable in the field. I have never been help or service-oriented, I hate to admit. There is a lot I haven’t talked about or admitted here, and for good reason.

Gulenko’s typing of me isn’t crazy at all and makes complete sense. There is only one minor detail I caught which wasn’t quite accurate, but everything else was pretty spot on. Gulenko saw Ij, Gulenko saw sensing and yes he saw beta values. Aspects of my history, my romantic situations and my views on certain types of other people (the latter of which I didn’t even mention to him, but was identified elsewhere in typing sessions)... there is a lot here I have not said or admitted and I’ve started to come clean elsewhere. Something happened a couple of years ago that pushed me to change some of my ways further. I do value treating others people kindly and am remorseful when I am a dick, but there is way too much against delta NF at this point pertaining to my true nature... which I really mean EII when I say that because IEE/Ep is so stupid lol. Se PoLr has always been a serious issue for EII as well, but I rationalized it as I could seem to make all the other IE’s work. Fi base I realized, before Gulenko’s typing session even, doesn’t seem to work either. I suck with relations to others and I am also generally paranoid.

See this is what I was trying to say before to Shotgun, you type "LSI", but you don't represent the stupid stereotypes of say an authoritarian dickwad that doesn't care about being kind or isn't remorseful and such.
My SLE step-father is Canadian and he's actually really nice. He's actually anti-authoritarian and values that everyone should be free as much as possible. I think the only thing that gets him into trouble with people is when he's too honest without considering their feelings, which probably relates to Fi polr. I have a similar problem and it's even described in the Fi role descriptions for LII. He can be brutally analytical, but it's not that he wants to hurt people and he's not really into violence or just being intimidating and aggressive either. He just likes to experience things and have fun and use his thinking for practical and business pursuits.

But anyway, I wasn't against you being LSI, just for the record if anyone cares what I think or might have said about it, just seemed odd to see so much convergence of Gulenko typing people LSI when I have theoretical issues with some of his LSI typings being justified with DCNH, like with Elon Musk.

edit: and I think my point is that "real" types aren't cookie-cutter. Everyone thinking everything falls nicely into categories and specific perceptions is probably biased. Things just fall where they do. That's reality.

[thegreenfaerie]

See this is what I was trying to say before to Shotgun, you type "LSI", but you don't represent the stupid stereotypes of say an authoritarian dickwad that doesn't care about being kind or isn't remorseful and such.
My SLE step-father is Canadian and he's actually really nice. He's actually anti-authoritarian and values that everyone should be free as much as possible. I think the only thing that gets him into trouble with people is when he's too honest without considering their feelings, which probably relates to Fi polr. I have a similar problem and it's even described in the Fi role descriptions for LII. He can be brutally analytical, but it's not that he wants to hurt people and he's not really into violence or just being intimidating and aggressive either. He just likes to experience things and have fun and use his thinking for practical and business pursuits.

But anyway, I wasn't against you being LSI, just for the record if anyone cares what I think or might have said about it, just seemed odd to see so much convergence of Gulenko typing people LSI when I have theoretical issues with some of his LSI typings being justified with DCNH, like with Elon Musk.

edit: and I think my point is that "real" types aren't cookie-cutter. Everyone thinking everything falls nicely into categories and specific perceptions is probably biased. Things just fall where they do. That's reality.

I think stereotypes do really cloud people’s judgment in this. For the record, as stated, I am not completely settled on the type as of yet, but there is way more about it that makes sense.

[SGF]

Well that wasn't my main point. Reinin describes beta/Delta as authoritarian and Alpha/Gamma as Democratic. And I haven't found that to be the case after typing people I know well and have typed well. My typings aren't really in question either. I wish you would just stick to criticism of what's said and not make this about something it's not.

Because you typed them wrong. Obviously.

It had nothing to do with Gulenko. You're just a turd if you think Stalin is when he was a murderous asshole who ruthlessly took power and ruled over the USSR killing anybody he didn't like or disagreed with or anyone that posed a risk to his power, only to have the USSR fall apart in a short amount of time regardless. He was a SHIT leader.

I agree, yeah, so your point with this is?

Well then why does no one ever talk about it? Show me where a conversation about it wasn't overshadowed by people saying Jung is different than socionics or that socionics is information metabolism or just that socionics is just different for whatever reason. I bet you can't.

It is addressed in Gulenko's book, see up to page 36 from the beginning. Socionics is based on Jung's work and it is explained how and why they came up with the 16 types.

Here is just one an extract from page 19:

Jung distinguished four main foci of reality perception: Thinking,
Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition, which, in combination with extraversion
and introversion, provide eight main psychological types (Jung also
outlined some of the 16 types via the Auxiliary function, e.g. “practical
intellect for instance paired with sensation,” which we call “LSE” and
“speculative intellect breaking through with intuition” which we call
“LII”). This model was first offered by Jung in his work on the psychology
of individuation: Psychological Types. His theoretical constructs were
coined in parallel with their practical verification. Second only in
importance to extraversion/introversion (vertness), Jung emphasised
another scale marker: rationality/ irrationality (this was later expanded
upon in Humanitarian Socionics in its formulation of the socionic
temperaments). So, the system of differentiation characteristics is a set of
four dichotomous scales (that divide into two poles): logical/ethical,
sensory/intuitive, extraverted/ introverted and rational/irrational.
Combining these characteristics creates the following types.

Another one from page 15:

Considering Jung’s contribution, I would give the following definition
of the sociotype: a sociotype is a structure of the collective unconscious,
which controls the interaction of physical, informational (intellectual),
psychological, and social (mnemonic: PIPS) manifestations of personality

Then you also aren't qualified to assume other people can't type just because "you doubt" they can. That is all.

Thats what I said. I'm a merry aka subjectivist according to quadric dichotomies. I place weight on reputation. You guys have no reputation, I have no reputation, we aren't trained in this, so I disregard anything you guys say and I question my own observations and reasoning on other people's types. I did type myself across several models and systems, LSI is the only type that makes sense across the board for me due to many reasons. Idk about other ppl, I'm satisfied with knowing this about myself.

When someone comes to me saying they are my dual and they haven't been typed by someone with reputation, I don't believe them lol.. why would I?

When you stop missing every point I make every time I try and communicate with you, I'll stop seeing you as somebody with a stick up their ass.

Idk, you seem to me like you are emotional and angry. Its pointless to converse with you, I'm mainly writing this for other ppl reading.

Of course you wouldn't understand that genuinely getting to know people might actually give you a real understanding of their problems, or even better their "type". Because you don't type people, you let Gulenko do that for you.

yeah, but I don't care about your problems, nor do I want to type you. e_e I'm not your shrink, friend, parent or nanny..

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I don't know how expensive it is to get typed by gulenko, but if you're unsure about your typing, he is probably the best person to help you figure it out. he has decades of experience and makes most people on this website look like amateurs (no offense). I had four skype conversations with his team which lasted around 3 hours each and the knowledge they have about the theory is just much greater than that of any english socionics researcher I've read about so far. (I translate a lot of his work into german and his team explained their theories to me). even when I disagreed on a typing from their gallery, they usually offer me a very good explanation on how they came to a certain conclusion.

[QueenTiger666]

I like how people assume that others aren’t thinking critically and are basically just mindless and naive. I am willing to bet every person who has been typed by Gulenko is and has, some of y’all just arrogant af. Sorry if Gulenko’s perceptions happen to resonate far better than that of some of the people on this forum.

If his perceptions resonate better with certain individuals, there is no issue with that. However, I think what people are trying to say is that his typings shouldn't be just accepted at face value. If people are just accepting his typings at face value cause he's an "authority figure" then they do lack critical thinking and are mindless and naive.

Just because someone creates a typology system that does not mean they will necessarily be good at applying said system to actual people.

[khcs]

Have accurately identified the type of so many in the famous people section, but no one seems to accept them. Is it time to write my own book in psychological types? Anybody interested?

Anyway. Very strongly believe Maya Plisetskaya corresponds to the ESFP Napoleon category.

[QueenTiger666]

Have accurately identified the type of so many in the famous people section, but no one seems to accept them. Is it time to write my own book in psychological types? Anybody interested?

Anyway. Very strongly believe Maya Plisetskaya corresponds to the ESFP Napoleon category.

I think I speak for everyone when I say no one is interested in that.

[khcs]

I think I speak for everyone when I say no one is interested in that.

Do you speak for everyone? Are you sure?

Nobody believes that Paris Hilton type is ENFJ Hamlet. What a pity!

[QueenTiger666]

Do you speak for everyone? Are you sure?

Nobody believes that Paris Hilton type is ENFJ Hamlet. What a pity!

What type are you?

[WVBRY]

I think I speak for everyone when I say no one is interested in that.

No, you don't.

[QueenTiger666]

No, you don't.

Would you be interested in their book?

[WVBRY]

Would you be interested in their book?

Possibly.

I always thought @khcs's typings to be interesting, personally, so I'd be interested in readings their reasonings behind said typings.

Btw, I didn't mean to be a dick or anything, but it's kinda tough to speak "for everyone" usually.

[khcs]

What type are you?

Pink with a pie.

[WVBRY]

Have accurately identified the type of so many in the famous people section, but no one seems to accept them.

Well personally, I'm just as interested in the reasoning behind a typing as I am in the conclusion.

[QueenTiger666]

Irrelevant.

No need to be so harsh on yourself

[thegreenfaerie]

I don't know how expensive it is to get typed by gulenko, but if you're unsure about your typing, he is probably the best person to help you figure it out. he has decades of experience and makes most people on this website look like amateurs (no offense). I had four skype conversations with his team which lasted around 3 hours each and the knowledge they have about the theory is just much greater than that of any english socionics researcher I've read about so far. (I translate a lot of his work into german and his team explained their theories to me). even when I disagreed on a typing from their gallery, they usually offer me a very good explanation on how they came to a certain conclusion.

Nice to see you again, Sound

[QueenTiger666]

Possibly.

I always thought @khcs's typings to be interesting, personally, so I'd be interested in readings their reasonings behind said typings.

Btw, I didn't mean to be a dick or anything, but it's kinda tough to speak "for everyone" usually.

Well I mean of course I didn't literally mean everyone but just seeing the general reception to their typings it seems reasonable to assume most people wouldn't be interested.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Nice to see you again, Sound

I need an account to read some messages about Model G on here and I have too much time because of covid...

[thegreenfaerie]

I need an account to read some messages about Model G on here and I have too much time because of covid...

Understandable, I am being genuine though not giving you a hard time

[khcs]

Well personally, I'm just as interested in the reasoning behind a typing as I am in the conclusion.

Spent a lot of time with the definition of the Jungian functions. Have different explanations of them from.

For example. What is the difference between empathy and sympathy?

What are the positive and negative aspects of them? Are they type related or not? Are they related to the Jungian functions or not?

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Nice to see you again, Sound

haha thanks. the place itself isn't too bad, but most typings here give me a headache, and sol + khcs spamming every thread I find interesting doesn't help. gulenko wanted to travel to berlin to visit me with his team a couple of months ago but covid ruined that, feels bad. maybe next year.

[WVBRY]

Spent a lot of time with the definition of the Jungian functions. Have different explanations of them from.

For example. What is the difference between empathy and sympathy?

What are the positive and negative aspects of them? Are they type related or not? Are they related to the Jungian functions or not?

Fi vs Fe?

[khcs]

Fi vs Fe?

Yes, empathy and sympathy are related to the Jungian functions. (In which context are the words empathy and sympathy used? Are they nouns or verbs?)

To which functions are they related? @Uncle Ave You got it almost right. Think about it a bit more.

How people behave when they empathize or sympathize with someone or something?

Most people use the English words empathy and sympathy interchangeably. They do not know the difference. (There are spoken languages in which these words do not even exist.)


It is essential to know the Jungian functions well for accurate typing results.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Did he confirm you as LII?

I didn't do a typing interview with him because I never really had doubts about my type. I wrote him on facebook that I have a german socionics website with a lot ot translations of his work, then he invited me to a skype conversation with his school. one of my friends translated for me since she speaks russian. gulenko understands written english btw, which made the contact pretty easy. the people of his school also speak english very well, so they explained humanitarian socionics to me in a few skype sessions.

[Exodus]

Is Si more aesthetics in socionics vs in mbti?

I would say so yes, I don't recall aesthetics being mentioned in that context in MBTI.

[Aster]

Thank you Aster and @Consilience Gulenko’s observations match much more closely with my own and with that of people who are close to me. I’ve been typed as similar elsewhere as well via live voice/video. This forum/people from it has seemed to be the main hub for the delta NF typing which the more I have read and learned I realized was pretty off... it’s like you said though Aster, some people are very insistent. Consilience, you nailed it. Typing people based off a bunch of text on a forum/server whatever, often yields poor results from what I’ve seen.

Well, I have to admit when I saw you were typed LSI (on sedecology) it threw me for a bit of a loop at first, but I also saw you thought it was right and why. So I began reframing my understanding of a bunch of things. I think when people come to the forum typed as one thing, people can get stuck with that in their minds and forms a stereotype of what that type is like.


I’m going to explain one day soon why I think my typing is right (on here), but I haven’t been feeling well lately, don’t have much free time to write it out right now, and I want to explain it well.


But I will.

[Exodus]

Honestly, I don’t know what to say, but yes, it was the type I was expecting to be typed. Not at first, but after I watched my second video. And I figured there would be people who wouldn’t agree. And yes, some people have consider this type for me such as @thehotelambush and @mu4 after seeing a video I posted on here a few years ago. I did consider it for a time but a few people (not mentioning any names) basically bullied me out of considering it.

I'm fairly sure that's not the best typing for you.

[Exodus]

Gulenko's view is definitely more than "just one opinion among others". You as well as I know his track record and knowledge in this field. Of course he can make mistakes, everybody knows that. Lots of things matters when judging who is reliable: Mr G.s own type (LII), his discovery of DCNH ( a huge improvement for more reliable typings), his experience etc. That doesn't mean that one can't be critical of his typings also, but I would never shoot down a typing by him directly, because his experience has more weight than mine.

DCNH does not increase my confidence in his typings. His model has strayed quite far from Model A.

[thegreenfaerie]

Well, I have to admit when I saw you were typed LSI (on sedecology) it threw me for a bit of a loop at first, but I also saw you thought it was right and why. So I began reframing my understanding of a bunch of things. I think when people come to the forum typed as one thing, people can get stuck with that in their minds and forms a stereotype of what that type is like.


I’m going to explain one day soon why I think my typing is right (on here), but I haven’t been feeling well lately, don’t have much free time to write it out right now, and I want to explain it well.


But I will.

There is far more I can explain, I have on Sedecology as well, but I feel like there is no need also. Those who really know me, know. No need to pain yourself over it, you know yourself best and the opinions on this forum do not matter. My only real reason for sharing anything here was to illuminate that Gulenko is not speaking out of his ass. Hope you feel better soon, I have been a bit under the weather myself

[SGF]

DCNH does not increase my confidence in his typings. His model has strayed quite far from Model A.

He seems to just have re-positioned and renamed the functions based on function strength, but they all still end up being the same overall structure when the IEs are inserted.
All you have to do is put them side by side and contrast. Its obvious. DCNH imo serves as a way to explain behavior differences between people who have the same information element usage within the functional structure.

I for example still have Ni-HA, role Fi, Si demo and Ne-PolR. Thats how I know I'm LSI even in model A. Idk about other ppl who got typed by G, but I always double check with my own reasoning e_e.. its a curse of being Ti and type 6, I always overthink and cross-examine everything right down to the nuts and bolts. Compulsive overthinking.. I even made sure Reinin dichotomies fit.. any way I slice it looking at konwn and understood dichotomies.. only LSI patterns appear.

Considering I'm melancholic in temperament, considering I'm a highly risk averse type 6... e_e it all comes together neatly like a puzzle basically describing the same kind of person across several models and even personality theories.

They say a 6 should stop thinking about it when he is 70% sure, I'm 90% sure lol. Gulenko typed me correctly imo.. in contrast to the forum which is filled with bumbling idiots who mislead ppl. I equate it to a kind of infuriating gas-lighting of ppl trying to understand themselves and I will fight you fuckers down to the bone if I have to.

[WVBRY]

Yes, empathy and sympathy are related to the Jungian functions. (In which context are the words empathy and sympathy used? Are they nouns or verbs?)

To which functions are they related? @Uncle Ave You got it almost right. Think about it a bit more.

How people behave when they empathize or sympathize with someone or something?

Most people use the English words empathy and sympathy interchangeably. They do not know the difference. (There are spoken languages in which these words do not even exist.)


It is essential to know the Jungian functions well for accurate typing results.

"What is difference between sympathy and empathy?Empathy is a term we use for the ability to understand other people's feelings as if we were having them ourselves. ... Sympathy refers to the ability to take part in someone else's feelings, mostly by feeling sorrowful about their misfortune."

From Grammarly

From that point of view, to me, it makes sense that introverted ethics (Fi) is related to "understanding" people's feelings. Whereas sympathy, the ability to take part in them, is more related to extroverted ethics (Fe).

Fi will not try and participate in the emotion, but it can understand and empathize - Fe participates.

Again, this is going by the definition given above from Grammarly, and applied to my understanding of the functions.

Or would you say it is the other way around - that I am mixing up Fi with Fe perhaps?

[Northstar]

You yourself don't even know all of his typing methodology so how can you criticize it? Different Socionists is a different matter entirely and that's why people should look into what methods they like and respect from a Socionist. People are of course going to have different opinions on a theory, but the heart of the matter is most English means are outdated, so why not go to a source itself? There's a lot to learn from there and I'm not sure why this goes over people's heads.

I've seen several of his type assessments with the reasoning attached. He has also talked about it in different publications. I haven't seen it being a special secret sauce, really. He determines the temperament and then goes by dichotomies, finally ending up with DCNH which he uses to smooth out some other inconsistencies. The analysis is pretty surface level, with single anecdotes used to rationalize a dichotomy. That's to be expected when it's basically a short questionnaire with the second part customized. The main work of Gulenko has been translated and there's a lot of stuff you can read with the help of google translate as well. You're underestimating (projecting?) if you think it goes over the heads of people. This is literally not rocket science.

Nobody here got typed by Gulenko because "he's popular". Nobody even mentioned that so that's your perception of "this fad". Also, what you say in terms of someone "being good at a theory but not being able to apply it" is not very logical. If anything that shows how little you know about the theory. The theory is meant just to examine how people think on a cognitive level and how they metabolize information, that's it. This isn't an idea based on things that are physical or tangible that can be put out into an applicable plan. Most people of his caliber wouldn't even need much to examine how people think. This is a theory and anyone who knows a theory inside out, especially from the mind of the woman who created the theory, is going to be able to apply it for what it's meant to do. He's objectively one of the best Socionists out there with 30 years under his belt, trained by the originator, carrying on her theory, and running his own school which still uses Model A and another Model to enhance it. It makes no sense to say that someone with so much experience and who still uses the same Model, and has done so much research, who everyone in the sphere of Socionics talks about and refers to, bears no weight on Socionics or has no credible opinion due to "his method", and this shows how you "apply it" yourself imo.

I didn't say people got typed by Gulenko because he's popular. I said it would be foolish to unquestioningly trust him based on that. Are you implying that you do unquestioningly trust him? If not, then this statement does not apply. Being good with theory but not being good at applying it in the field is something that happens in the real world all the time, in most fields. Is this something you're going to debate?
Here the "applying it in the field" refers to the ability to determine a person's type in the system. That isn't necessarily easy to do even if you know the theory inside out. Unless you redefine your theory so that it locks down a simple methodology that always applies by looking at some specific surface details (thinking Vultology/CognitiveType here), but that doesn't seem to be very useful seeing how complex personality is. The rest of your arguments are basically ethical singing of Gulenko's praises: "Most people of his caliber wouldn't even need much to examine how people think." - seriously?

I mean pretty much everyone is disputed in every field, Gulenko is really undeniably the most credible OG Socionist out there though. Nobody here who got typed treats him like a gold standard, though it's undeniable to see his work in the field. We just see the reasoning we got from him as far superior from which we received from the forum. People here can still think whatever, the forum is largely for fun for most forumites.

No, most facts and theories within fields of actual sciences are not disputed. Socionics is a jungle where few agree with each other outside of basic Model A. I wasn't talking about Gulenko personally being disputed as a "socionist" (although these people undoubtedly also exist), I was talking about how widespread the acceptance of Model G and DCNH is among people working on Socionics. It's good if none of you think Gulenko's typing is automatically gold standard and instead see the reasoning as very solid and fitting. I was hoping this would be the case.

EDIT:

I forgot to mention that I agree with "Don't let this fad turn into a cult and remain critical." Because critical thinking leads to original thought and also leads theories, structures, insights, and the like leading forward and advancing. Though what you say in all your other posts that I've quoted here go against this aspect of critical thinking IMO.

Good. Personally I see it goes against critical thinking if you mostly base your arguments on the weight of someone's perceived reputation in a field where nothing is objectively proven.

[SGF]

could you tell me more about this? if you are comfortable. I am curious what the process is like for people who do seek to be typed (I haven't). Over some time I mean, on this forum.

I came here thinking maybe I'm SLI or ILI for example. I thought I was most likely not MBTI INTP (what i test as), but ISTP based on months long interaction with actual INTPs. I gave a short video in a type me thread. Based on that ppl immediately said Ne lead, probably ILE, either that of SEI aka generally alpha quadra e_e based on "vibes" aka "you have alpha quadra vibes".. some agreed with ILI. I disagreed on Ne, because not having a clear path and having a breath of options was/is infuriating and annoying, it just caused me to be paralyzed and overthink again. I'm not a creative person either (ppl with strong Ne are by default), that only occurred to one ILE here, but was ignored. Then I was told I have Fi PolR based on me saying that I feel nothing about some social disaster half way around the world that has nothing to do with my life lol.. and triggering some ppl. Due to disagreeing with a self typed LIE lmao he kept thinking SEI (cus muh conflictor and ITR). I kept arguing with them, meanwhile I figured out that I am probably beta quadra and that I'm like what the beta quadra describes. I saw LSI as Dolores Umbridge type, because that is the misconception and stereotype here.. so i thought maybe i am IEI and I'm not aware of just how feely I am or something.

The arguments went on, I sincerely thought some ppl were just messing with me at some point saying things like "you change types too often, must be Ne".. when I get conflicting information from multiple sources, have too many options and my own analysis is pointing at some kind of beta type, It was a complete mess and a nightmare for any Ne PolR type (which I eventually turned out to be).

So one day ppl in chat were talking about Gulenko offering typing services and linked to an ILI who was typed earlier. I decided to just cut through the crap and pay Gulenko to type me. Turns out my hunch of being beta was right, came out LSI-Harmonizing... Ne PolR, which is the furthest away from being Ne base type ILE (my supervisor).

I do NOT recommend being typed by the forum nor listening to what they have to say about one's type. At best they will get it wrong and at worst they will try to force a certain type onto you.

[Northstar]

You say "several" but there's only been a handful of people who have been typed as of late, and even fewer who have been open enough to share something like their analysis. Most people are still getting typed due to how busy G is. You can undermine the methods but clearly most people on this forum don't have the same deep understanding as people who have trained 10+ years in a specific field. This is what I'm getting at in all my previous posts. There's a huge difference in mood and tone from when SGF was typed by Gulenko and your reaction to him and now towards all these different people (don't say I'm dragging him into this because I'm not also lol at your IEI typing of him since he was obviously Ti ego). You recognized him as Beta and even said "Welcome to your Beta home" on his thread. I say there's a lot to learn by going to the source in different posts, which I meant is the case with any Socionist a person gets typed by since I think it's important to see how a specific Socionist would type, why, and how. It's as "hands on" as it gets. That is what I mean when I say it goes over people's heads. You say it's not rocket science but Socionics may as well be at this point, if there have been so many Beta on this forum all along and you haven't been able to recognize them.

Yes, more than two but not dozens of course. They are all the same format, determination of temperament and installation by using dichotomies. It's very MBTI/Keirsey. It's basically still this method: https://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/gulenko-mbti.html
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad method, it's very straightforward and quick but I don't see anything "game-changing" about it. Are you referring to my tone and mood? I haven't been specifically questioning SGF's typing if that's what you mean, I actually commended Gulenko on that typing back then and haven't changed my mind about it. Almost everyone getting typed as betas suggests a systemic bias but I'm not convinced yet that it means most forum members actually are betas.
If you're reading my intention as attacking everyone who has been typed Gulenko, you're reading it wrong.

Why would you say "it is foolish to unquestioningly trust them based on their popularity" if a person didn't trust someone enough to type them? That's just illogical. How can a person know a theory but not apply it? That also makes no sense. Vultology and CT are different AFAIK (though I think inspired by Socionics) so I don't care about those. However, again I will say this isn't a personality theory. That's MBTI or Psycheyoga. Socionics is a psycho-social theory which is meant to look at how people think and interact as a result.

What exactly is illogical now? It's common for people to be good at knowing or formulating theories but not necessarily at applying them in practice. Or do you see a lot of theoretical physicists building bridges despite their knowledge on statics? Yes, the major difference to MBTI is the intertype theories, however I haven't seen this aspect being used for type determination by Gulenko for example.

You're making a lot of assumptions here. I'm pretty critical of Socionics as a whole, which I've spoken about multiple times in different posts. You yourself have not given any actual logical reasoning, just off topic rambles such as "it's not real science" or "Vultology bad", and other opinions like "I've read his publications on his methods which were OK" (which may not have even revealed all his methods that he teaches or uses, that would be too exploitable).

I was talking about Gulenko's contributions to the structural theory when I mentioned his publications, not his skill in the "craft of typing" which is a very debated subject where no two people seem to agree on methodology for typing actual people. It's a sad state of socionics if there are "secret methods" that need to be protected from "exploitation" (of other competing "schools"?), because finally coming up with a workable system of typing real people would do much to elevate socionics as a whole.


Finally referring to this Timur quote:

Socionic type has almost no effect on how you behave, it is not related to the level of intelligence, social success, personal qualities like honesty or kindness. Socionic type shows what kind of information your mind processes better, and which one is worse, which one it needs, and which one it ignores at all. Socionic type is a “skeleton” of our psyche, its deep mechanism, like our temperament.

I find this to be in contradiction to how determining someone's type is literally based on their behavior when answering a set of questions.

[Aster]

There is far more I can explain, I have on Sedecology as well, but I feel like there is no need also. Those who really know me, know. No need to pain yourself over it, you know yourself best and the opinions on this forum do not matter. My only real reason for sharing anything here was to illuminate that Gulenko is not speaking out of his ass. Hope you feel better soon, I have been a bit under the weather myself

Yeah, that’s exactly my thoughts as well. I write some snippets on here from my life, but people don’t really know me (I don’t even get on shoutbox very often). I feel like, as others have said, that Gulenko asked the right questions. I was thinking I was going to get IEI-N before I got my diagnostic back after watching my second video, so I wasn’t surprised, and I think it made a whole lot of sense. But I wasn’t even considering it when I made my first video. Or really even my second. Just afterwards. I’ve definitely been rethinking a bunch of things lately.


Been feeling off myself since around thanksgiving. I noticed my lymph nodes swelling up, body aches, and a lack of motivation, so I’m assuming I might be sick or something. lol hope it’s not the ‘rona. Been staying home just in case.

[Northstar]

@Northstar Low-status monkeys “play dumb” when learning in mixed social groups

So this is why you're "playing dumb"?