Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[Number 9 large]

clearly didnt think about this shit

[Number 9 large]

I can only really say I'm an INXX type at the moment, and that for me, I find typologies like Socionics as only being able to tell me what I already know about myself.

not IN, you clearly come up with little facts and statements that ignore the broader whole, like zooming in on verses from the quran, ignoring the broader side of history.

[Subteigh]

not IN, you clearly come up with little facts and statements that ignore the broader whole, like zooming in on verses from the quran, ignoring the broader side of history.

Something is true or it isn't.

[Number 9 large]

Something is true or it isn't.

HUAHEUHAUHEU

[Subteigh]

HUAHEUHAUHEU

Yes, probably.

[Number 9 large]

Yes, probably.

as long as you think you smart thats important

[Subteigh]

as long as you think you smart thats important

Oh dear.

[Nobody]

you're really irritating. you can't comprehend what other people are talking about, yet you constantly insult them.

youre fucking stupid. give me back ur LII badge

But you can have mine. I made it out of chocolate.

So you're ALIIve again.

[SlytherinPower]

Niki and Gabi are twins who both have separate YouTube channels & a channel together. Apparently they haven't always gotten along well, & they don't seem to have the same personality imo but what do you guys think?

https://youtu.be/3IGmzTE4rik

[SlytherinPower]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

Niki

https://youtu.be/qULTK5DdW58

[Alive]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

ugh , couldn't watch more than 3 minutes. might be my conflict type. the other girl seems extroverted too, maybe ENxx but they are both so uninteresting I can't really watch them.

edit: wow their main channel has 10 mio subs. maybe I will force myself to watch more. Gabi seems like an SEE, shouldn't take long to figure out Niki who seems a bit more interesting to me at least.

[SlytherinPower]

ugh , couldn't watch more than 3 minutes. might be my conflict type. the other girl seems extroverted too, maybe ENxx but they are both so uninteresting I can't really watch them.

Thought I'd post since people in here were talking about identical twins & as far as I know they're identical (although Gabi's gotten plastic surgery on her face). Gabi easily could strike me as being SEI tbh. She seems so into everything to do with aesthetics. Niki easily strikes me as being ENxx agreed.

[Alive]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

Niki

https://youtu.be/qULTK5DdW58

yeah I think Gabi is an ESFp and Niki an ENFp. both are normalising subtypes. quite similar types imo. it's interesting to see the differences in how they present themselves bc of their type

https://ibb.co/qg1D5gy (Niki)

https://ibb.co/C8Rztxh (Gabi)

[SlytherinPower]

yeah I think Gabi is an ESFp and Niki an ENFp. both are normalising subtypes. quite similar types imo. it's interesting to see the differences in how they presents themselves bc of their type

https://ibb.co/qg1D5gy (Niki)

https://ibb.co/C8Rztxh (Gabi)

Yeah I follow both on Instagram & the style difference is interesting to see.

[shotgunfingers]

Also

Gabi

https://youtu.be/3Ymbo9g9sKA

Niki

https://youtu.be/qULTK5DdW58

kekw, neither looks like they could do yard work or deal with much hardship. Gabi also seems to be overly fussy and a bottomless pit where money would vanish. What a waste.

[SlytherinPower]

kekw, neither looks like they could do yard work or deal with much hardship. Gabi also seems to be overly fussy and a bottomless pit where money would vanish. What a waste.

I mean.. as long as it's her money that she's making & spending what's the difference? Lol But the point was that I don't think twins are automatically the same personality type.

[shotgunfingers]

I mean.. as long as it's her money that she's making & spending what's the difference? Lol But the point was that I don't think twins are automatically the same personality type.

IDENTICAL twins. Not twins. There is a difference:

Fraternal, or dizygotic, twins are 2 separate fertilized eggs, they usually develop 2 separate amniotic sacs, placentas, and supporting structures. Identical, or monozygotic, twins may or may not share the same amniotic sac, depending on how early the single fertilized egg divides into 2.

If twins are a boy and a girl, clearly they are fraternal twins, as they do not have the same DNA. A boy has XY chromosomes and a girl has XX chromosomes. Girl-boy twins occur when one X egg is fertilized with an X sperm, and a Y sperm fertilizes the other X egg.

Sometimes health care professionals identify same-sex twins as fraternal or identical based on ultrasound findings or by examining the membranes at the time of delivery. The best way to determine if twins are identical or fraternal is by examining each child’s DNA.. as identical twins have identical DNA and fraternal twins don't.

[SlytherinPower]

IDENTICAL twins. Not twins. There is a difference:

Fraternal, or dizygotic, twins are 2 separate fertilized eggs, they usually develop 2 separate amniotic sacs, placentas, and supporting structures. Identical, or monozygotic, twins may or may not share the same amniotic sac, depending on how early the single fertilized egg divides into 2.

If twins are a boy and a girl, clearly they are fraternal twins, as they do not have the same DNA. A boy has XY chromosomes and a girl has XX chromosomes. Girl-boy twins occur when one X egg is fertilized with an X sperm, and a Y sperm fertilizes the other X egg.

Sometimes health care professionals identify same-sex twins as fraternal or identical based on ultrasound findings or by examining the membranes at the time of delivery. The best way to determine if twins are identical or fraternal is by examining each child’s DNA.. as they have identical DNA.

Well I just Google searched it & Niki & Gabi are identical twins. Gabi's gotten plastic surgery on her face though. She's had her nose & eyes done. So in that case, do they seem like the same type?

https://youtu.be/Toe1YAi--QE

[Sol]

I don't think twins are automatically the same personality type.

What makes a type is not known.
Definetely it's not made by Gulenko typing or by what people like to fantasy at yourself today, though some noobs seems to act so.

Also when a trait has genetic factor this does not mean that as the only factor.

Based on known there are no reasons to claim that identical twins can't have different Jung types.
It's possibly to suspect genetic factor among the ones which make it, based on that identical twins mostly seem to have same or close types. Would be good to give them tests, as similarity of the look may distort VI perceptions.

Well I just Google searched it & Niki & Gabi are identical twins. Gabi's gotten plastic surgery on her face though. She's had her nose & eyes done. So in that case, do they seem like the same type? youtu.be/Toe1YAi--QE

On left has ISFP. On right mb too.

[Olga]

You don't know what is my method and what is Butterfly model. I recorded a video where I compare subtype theories of Gulenko and mine. You are welcome to watch it.
I will post it on the forum.

I'm not sure why you're complaining so much when you literally use a Butterfly to type people (and a model which has nothing to do with Augusta's original concept of socionics).

[Megatrop]

You don't know what is my method and what is Butterfly model. I recorded a video where I compare subtype theories of Gulenko and mine. You are welcome to watch it.
I will post it on the forum.

Hey I tried contacting you without success. How can I contact you to get your typing service?

[Olga]

Hi, Megatrop
Not sure, why you did not manage to reach me. My email is on my website olgatangemann@gmail.com I am not often here but always on FB where I have a few groups like Socionics International and a few small other groups by TPEs. Sometimes I noticed that I do not see straight away the messages from new people. I would suggest to request a friendship and say in a message that you wish to be typed. Or to write to me by email. For all who wishes to be typed I have a link on my website - Information for clients.
http://socionics4you.com/информация-...#1074;?lang=en
I use clients preferences in art and music as well as test results for teaching the method to others. I archive them on the forum. The clients identity is protected by the nickname.
Pictures and videos if the client does not mind to share it I post as well. But if the client wishes to stay fully confidential then no pictures or videos appear anywhere. No information by which you can recognise the client either.

Hey I tried contacting you without success. How can I contact you to get your typing service?

[Sol]

I have a few groups like Socionics International

You are using "typing" by colors. To relate this to Socionics needs be in texts of Jung or Augustinavichiute or to have an experimental proof. Without this what you do is not Socionics and to call it as Socionics is a misleading.

An experimental proof for typing by colors as an aproach may be a match of results with normal dichotomy/8 functional test or when a type was claimed before. You should take a human and offer him to get a type by both these approaches and to see how much higher than accidental chance those results match.
For example. I'm using mostly nonverbal VI. Augustinavichiute texts have this approach in impressions what people of different types give by nonverbal behavior. Then I've did an experiment (with the usage of random people on a forum) which shaw that they match by nonverbal VI method with higher chance than accidentally (~17%) what means such info is useful for a typing.

Gulenko is in similar situation. He uses significantly what is not Socionics and what is baseless fantasies. Besides incorrect usage of "Socionics" for the name of his practice, those doubtful hypotheses are much possibly wrong, what predisposes him to higher number of mistakes and to farther types from correct ones. By usage of strange methods you also should do more mistakes than could by normal methods.
Also you have a problem which I've noticed as not a single case among practicing typology - incorrect understanding of own type, which is not ESI as you think (but seems EIE). With such mistake you may do more typing mistakes when compare people with yourself in common behavior and should not understand correctly IR theory.

If you have an interest to use Socionics - you'd better used normal hypotheses of Socionics. Any principle additions need an experimental proof to trust them. Such would be more use for people and mb for you too.

[Aramas]

You are using "typing" by colors. To relate this to Socionics needs be in texts of Jung or Augustinavichiute or to have an experimental proof. Without this what you do is not Socionics and to call it as Socionics is a misleading.

An experimental proof for typing by colors as an aproach may be a match of results with normal dichotomy/8 functional test or when a type was claimed before. You should take a human and offer him to get a type by both these approaches and to see how much higher than accidental chance those results match.
For example. I'm using mostly nonverbal VI. Augustinavichiute texts have this approach in impressions what people of different types give by nonverbal behavior. Then I've did an experiment (with the usage of random people on a forum) which shaw that they match by nonverbal VI method with higher chance than accidentally (~17%) what means such info is useful for a typing.

Gulenko is in similar situation. He uses significantly what is not Socionics and what is baseless fantasies. Besides incorrect usage of "Socionics" for the name of his practice, those doubtful hypotheses are much possibly wrong, what predisposes him to higher number of mistakes and to farther types from correct ones. By usage of strange methods you also should do more mistakes than could by normal methods.
Also you have a problem which I've noticed as not a single case among practicing typology - incorrect understanding of own type, which is not ESI as you think (but seems EIE). With such mistake you may do more typing mistakes when compare people with yourself in common behavior and should not understand correctly IR theory.

If you have an interest to use Socionics - you'd better used normal hypotheses of Socionics. Any principle additions need an experimental proof to trust them. Such would be more use for people and mb for you too.

Experimental proof doesn't exist for the basis of jungian typology, let alone Socionics.