Page 49 of 49 FirstFirst ... 394546474849
Results 1,921 to 1,939 of 1939

Thread: Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

  1. #1921
    Escaped Experiment Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni-C 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    531
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    When it comes to the scope of Model G, Gulenko is the one who defined the model, but having read his book of type descriptions, I don't think he's always applying it correctly. It's like his type descriptions and function breakdowns are detached from his typing methodology.

    When it comes to socionics in general, I don't think there's one authority, and it's not useful to have one because in the end it's just a way of giving names to things we all see in people. Everyone categorizes people, just without using the terminology of socionics.
    I see your point, but given the fact that the guy is a result over process type, I'm still willing to give him a generous interpretation, overlooking the peculiarities of his thinking to see the logic of the sample itself.

    In my opinion, all models of human personality currently existing are wrong, they're just wrong in different degrees and about different things. The reality is infinitely more complex than what these simple models account for. They can be useful for sure, but too many things attributed to type are just random genetic traits that don't neatly form coherent clusterings around a single type.
    I'm more optimistic. I think each model is more or less right, but they cover different aspects, layers, and dimensions of personality and psychology.
    That being said, I think Gulenko's statistics smell like a systemic bias. Obviously there's biased sampling to begin with and he's done some correct typings as well, but there's some kind of methodological bias in there. Also the central/peripheral skew thing is something I just don't see any logical reason for, Ne/Si seems common in my experience so Gulenko might be culturally biased. Without any actual statistical research on type distribution it's just a bunch of opinions and personal anecdotes.
    I'm riffing off this article: https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=156

    Central and peripheral in socionics


    In a general sense, the sign "centrality" means the potential readiness (as well as an unconscious craving) of the psyche for pushing itself to limits in conditions of fierce competition (or forced cooperation). "Peripherality", respectively, characterizes the opposite pole — a predisposition to moderate loads and a preference for voluntary cooperation over competition.
    1. Intellectual level. Central and peripheral in socionics
    The "centrality" sign forms a unipolar picture of the world. It is based on the belief that someone is more right than the other. Central intellectuals tend to have more (especially secret) knowledge than others, and claim to have a deeper understanding of things. They are characterized by attempts to deduce all the consequences from one beginning. Knowledge is primarily a tool of influence: a way to achieve competitive advantages. A peripheral intellectual is quickly slowed down and displaced if it gets into a forced mode and is forced to compete for a place in the hierarchy. He is a stranger to hierarchy and ambition.
    2. At the social level. Central and peripheral in socionics
    Centrality controls the ability to seize or retain power in one way or another (from authoritarianism to sophisticated technologies for manipulating elections). The central types predominate over the peripheral ones in the lists of rulers, businessmen, cultural figures and other celebrities.
    Peripheral types themselves do not seize power and are not able to retain it. If they find themselves at the top of formal structures (for example, the state machine), it is only as satellites or allies of the central types.
    3. On a psychological level. Central and peripheral in socionics
    Between the central and peripheral there is a contrast in the values of life. The aggressive-victim value complex characterizes the central ones. It is realized through the possession of intimidating power (its use is not necessary) or through the need to feel like a victim. The caring-infantile complex characterizes the peripheral ones. This complex acts as a need to take care of someone who is poorly adapted to the material world, or to adequately accept such care (not to take the caring one for granted).
    4. On the physical level. Central and peripheral in socionics
    The central ones have a tendency to use doping agents to spur the body when overloading occurs. We are talking not only about smoking and alcohol, but also about the use of any other substances that have tonic or hallucinogenic characteristics. For the central ones, periodic checks of their competitiveness are vital: training in extreme situations, long hikes and other attempts to find the limit, conquer the top, prove that I can, etc. The peripheral ones are born for a more relaxed life without shocks and the need for excessive stimulation.
    To paraphrase, you essentially have two camps of people. One camp prefers to have a central vision (ie. valuing Ni) and the other camp prefers to have a plurality of vision (ie. valuing Ne). Those that prefer to have a central vision prefer to push the limits of said vision and develop the depth of their vision as much as possible. Those that prefer to have a plurality of vision prefer to have a more "live and let live" approach to intuitively based perspectives, content with a broader scope (that I would contest has a greater tendency toward dabbling in abstract perspectives).

    Consequently, you have one group that's much more likely to push themselves extreme measures to realize their vision, including paying 100+ dollars to have themselves typed by an authority who has a deep understanding of the subject matter. You even have a subgroup (Betas) for whom money isn't as much of an object. Therefore, I think it makes a lot of sense that Betas are more likely to get typed by Gulenko, while Deltas are least likely. Bias is literally the shape of things you're dealing with when it comes to personality types that display different motivations, so it's important to parse out the factors of the system itself before looking at the biases of the creator if you really want to give Gulenko, Aushra, and the rest of them a generous, fair, objective, and critical interpretation.
    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

  2. #1922
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,594
    Mentioned
    182 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    I see your point, but given the fact that the guy is a result over process type, I'm still willing to give him a generous interpretation, overlooking the peculiarities of his thinking to see the logic of the sample itself.


    I'm more optimistic. I think each model is more or less right, but they cover different aspects, layers, and dimensions of personality and psychology.


    I'm riffing off this article: https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=156



    To paraphrase, you essentially have two camps of people. One camp prefers to have a central vision (ie. valuing Ni) and the other camp prefers to have a plurality of vision (ie. valuing Ne). Those that prefer to have a central vision prefer to push the limits of said vision and develop the depth of their vision as much as possible. Those that prefer to have a plurality of vision prefer to have a more "live and let live" approach to intuitively based perspectives, content with a broader scope (that I would contest has a greater tendency toward dabbling in abstract perspectives).

    Consequently, you have one group that's much more likely to push themselves extreme measures to realize their vision, including paying 100+ dollars to have themselves typed by an authority who has a deep understanding of the subject matter. You even have a subgroup (Betas) for whom money isn't as much of an object. Therefore, I think it makes a lot of sense that Betas are more likely to get typed by Gulenko, while Deltas are least likely. Bias is literally the shape of things you're dealing with when it comes to personality types that display different motivations, so it's important to parse out the factors of the system itself before looking at the biases of the creator if you really want to give Gulenko, Aushra, and the rest of them a generous, fair, objective, and critical interpretation.
    I don't really believe in this dichotomy the way it's defined and especially when it comes to him typing people as central when according to his own description they should rather be peripheral.

    Personally I didn't pay Gulenko his hundred bucks because I believed that he would be correct in typing me, I paid it (not a significant amount of money for me) to have a little fun with the "Gulenko Cult" (mostly Kiana) who were claiming Gulenko would never type me SLE. It was worth the amusement when he did, though it's less impressive now seeing he types most people central / beta. However, I really do detest all kinds of cultish behavior and refuse to put anyone on a pedestal, I never had idols or heroes either, the whole mindset of glorifying a person is alien to me. So yes, I was typed beta like most others, but my motivation had absolutely nothing to do with a vision or belief in authority. In fact, I find zealous visionaries, prophets, cults and religions all very detestable. All that is behind a lot of the evil that has happened in the world, and substituting adoration, obedience and belief for critical thinking.

  3. #1923
    Escaped Experiment Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni-C 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    531
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    I don't really believe in this dichotomy the way it's defined and especially when it comes to him typing people as central when according to his own description they should rather be peripheral.

    Personally I didn't pay Gulenko his hundred bucks because I believed that he would be correct in typing me, I paid it (not a significant amount of money for me) to have a little fun with the "Gulenko Cult" (mostly Kiana) who were claiming Gulenko would never type me SLE. It was worth the amusement when he did, though it's less impressive now seeing he types most people central / beta. However, I really do detest all kinds of cultish behavior and refuse to put anyone on a pedestal, I never had idols or heroes either, the whole mindset of glorifying a person is alien to me. So yes, I was typed beta like most others, but my motivation had absolutely nothing to do with a vision or belief in authority. In fact, I find zealous visionaries, prophets, cults and religions all very detestable. All that is behind a lot of the evil that has happened in the world, and substituting adoration, obedience and belief for critical thinking.
    Do you view yourself as an authority?
    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

  4. #1924
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,594
    Mentioned
    182 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Do you view yourself as an authority?
    No, except for when it comes to defining myself.

  5. #1925
    Escaped Experiment Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni-C 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    531
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    I don't really believe in this dichotomy the way it's defined and especially when it comes to him typing people as central when according to his own description they should rather be peripheral.
    Could you explain this a bit more for me? I'm of the mind that many of the traits and dichotomies can be confused when identified in behavior. For example, peripheral can look like ascending and vise versa because ascending types have a certain preference toward relativistic thinking.
    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

  6. #1926
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,594
    Mentioned
    182 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Could you explain this a bit more for me? I'm of the mind that many of the traits and dichotomies can be confused when identified in behavior. For example, peripheral can look like ascending and vise versa because ascending types have a certain preference toward relativistic thinking.
    Why would Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi somehow be confused with Ni/Se and Ne/Si? I prefer those terms because they're less ambiguous than peripheral/central and ascending/descending which aren't very commonly used and unnecessary window dressing. I'm not sure why you assign relativistic thinking to Ti either, or if so then Fi would do the same thing.

    The description of central makes it seem like anyone with even a hint of competitiveness (situational or not) would be central, but the bolded text is even more silly "The "centrality" sign forms a unipolar picture of the world. It is based on the belief that someone is more right than the other."
    There is hardly a person in this world who doesn't think that someone can be more right about something than another person. Another example: "Peripheral types themselves do not seize power and are not able to retain it. If they find themselves at the top of formal structures (for example, the state machine), it is only as satellites or allies of the central types." Bullshit. There are a plenty of alpha and delta politicians at the top of formal structures.
    Or: "The central ones have a tendency to use doping agents to spur the body when overloading occurs. We are talking not only about smoking and alcohol, but also about the use of any other substances that have tonic or hallucinogenic characteristics. For the central ones, periodic checks of their competitiveness are vital: training in extreme situations, long hikes and other attempts to find the limit, conquer the top, prove that I can, etc. The peripheral ones are born for a more relaxed life without shocks and the need for excessive stimulation."
    Yeah right, I've seen peripheral types addicted to nicotine and caffeine and supposed central types sleeping when they need it. Plenty of druggies in both camps.

  7. #1927
    Uncle Ave ipbanned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    TIM
    LSI-C
    Posts
    5,626
    Mentioned
    219 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess it's something of a subjective matter, but I prefer using central/peripheral and ascending/descending than calling groups of quadras by the functions they value.

    It seems like there are less layers of abstraction when a term is clearly defined and correlates with a concept. Using the functions themselves adds layers of abstraction and thusly makes it harder to grasp because it requires having a concept of each function in pairs, of why they work in those pairs (as in, why Ni works with Se rather than with Si) and what it means to 'value' those functions. Those are all concepts that you have to tie together and that remain very abstract. I like Gulenko's terminology here (WSS also uses terminology this way, though albeit with different terms denoting slightly different concepts) because it describes how the quadras behave in practice with a single term. It is easier to observe and confirm/infirm in practice because there are less conceptual hoops to have to jump through.
    L'âme a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point

  8. #1928
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,594
    Mentioned
    182 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah and you could also say merry/serious or decisive/judicious. Directly using Ni/Se vs Ne/Si and Fe/Ti vs Fi/Te doesn't require you to remember what a particular term means and immediately even defines that which function pairs are on the same axis.

  9. #1929
    Escaped Experiment Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni-C 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    531
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northstar View Post
    Why would Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi somehow be confused with Ni/Se and Ne/Si? I prefer those terms because they're less ambiguous than peripheral/central and ascending/descending which aren't very commonly used and unnecessary window dressing. I'm not sure why you assign relativistic thinking to Ti either, or if so then Fi would do the same thing.

    The description of central makes it seem like anyone with even a hint of competitiveness (situational or not) would be central, but the bolded text is even more silly "The "centrality" sign forms a unipolar picture of the world. It is based on the belief that someone is more right than the other."
    There is hardly a person in this world who doesn't think that someone can be more right about something than another person. Another example: "Peripheral types themselves do not seize power and are not able to retain it. If they find themselves at the top of formal structures (for example, the state machine), it is only as satellites or allies of the central types." Bullshit. There are a plenty of alpha and delta politicians at the top of formal structures.
    Or: "The central ones have a tendency to use doping agents to spur the body when overloading occurs. We are talking not only about smoking and alcohol, but also about the use of any other substances that have tonic or hallucinogenic characteristics. For the central ones, periodic checks of their competitiveness are vital: training in extreme situations, long hikes and other attempts to find the limit, conquer the top, prove that I can, etc. The peripheral ones are born for a more relaxed life without shocks and the need for excessive stimulation."
    Yeah right, I've seen peripheral types addicted to nicotine and caffeine and supposed central types sleeping when they need it. Plenty of druggies in both camps.
    Look on Sociotype.com and compare valuing types with valuing types. There, you will find descriptions like: INTjs are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than ISFjs. That is, this relativity is perceived by INTjs as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.

    Another significant example in this thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    That's true. It is. Data is always something to point in a certain direction, not anything absolute.
    Refraining from absolutism sets the groundwork for relativism. Essentially, is more focused on whether an idea is logically consistent in itself than it is logically tethered to objective factors such as "conventional wisdom" or empirical findings. Consequently, you will find that valuers are much more comfortable exploring the logical consistency of opposing viewpoints, which generally falls in line with my understanding of relativistic philosophy in that it advocates for a certain level of tolerance for different viewpoints. / valuers, too, have a certain tolerance for plurality in perspectives in that they are comfortable with brainstorming and ideas more based on "the object" or external sources. Therefore, from where I'm couched, valuers and valuers have something in common. As a result, on a conceptual level, confusion can occur. And I should also add that Gamma quadra, valuing and , seems to be the quadra most oriented towards absolutism.

    I also like Gulenko's terminology because it's not only more conceptually efficient than the function pairs, it also points to something connected and consequential.

    The burden of proof is on you to provide examples of politicians who value and . Influential ones off the top of my head include Napoleon, H+tler, Stalin - all / valuing types. Modern examples include Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, and Obama.

    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

  10. #1930
    Escaped Experiment Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni-C 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    531
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Also, I can't speak for Alphas, but Model G seems to be a / system in that it was meant to complement Model A, rather than competing with it like an system would.
    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

  11. #1931
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,600
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    I'm couched, valuers and valuers have something in common.
    I agree. But I see other commonalities about different IEs as well, it depends on the aspect of IE. Ne and Fi are common in one aspect that Ti and Ne arent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    The burden of proof is on you to provide examples of politicians who value and . Influential ones off the top of my head include Napoleon, H+tler, Stalin - all / valuing types. Modern examples include Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, and Obama.

    Angela Merkel is typed as LII by G.

  12. #1932
    Escaped Experiment Rune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    TIM
    ILI-Ni-C 964 sp/sx
    Posts
    531
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by myresearch View Post
    Ne and Fi are common in one aspect that Ti and Ne arent.


    Can you expound?
    Just on the border of your waking mind,
    There lies another time
    Where darkness and light are one,
    And as you tread the halls of sanity
    You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond

    I have a message from another time.

  13. #1933
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,600
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Can you expound?
    Fi and Ne are more prone to notice and think in terms of inclinations, characteristics and qualities of people in the way it monitors things that cannot be changed in a person and makes such conclusions. Besides that both Te/Fi and Si/Ne axis are into convience imo.

  14. #1934
    Northstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    TIM
    ISTP
    Posts
    1,594
    Mentioned
    182 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Look on Sociotype.com and compare valuing types with valuing types. There, you will find descriptions like: INTjs are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than ISFjs. That is, this relativity is perceived by INTjs as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.

    Another significant example in this thread:
    Refraining from absolutism sets the groundwork for relativism. Essentially, is more focused on whether an idea is logically consistent in itself than it is logically tethered to objective factors such as "conventional wisdom" or empirical findings. Consequently, you will find that valuers are much more comfortable exploring the logical consistency of opposing viewpoints, which generally falls in line with my understanding of relativistic philosophy in that it advocates for a certain level of tolerance for different viewpoints. / valuers, too, have a certain tolerance for plurality in perspectives in that they are comfortable with brainstorming and ideas more based on "the object" or external sources. Therefore, from where I'm couched, valuers and valuers have something in common. As a result, on a conceptual level, confusion can occur. And I should also add that Gamma quadra, valuing and , seems to be the quadra most oriented towards absolutism.
    There are no relative truths, there are different opinions. The physical reality has one state or another, whether it's easy or possible to determine is another matter. But anything that isn't objectively verifiable is an opinion.

    I also like Gulenko's terminology because it's not only more conceptually efficient than the function pairs, it also points to something connected and consequential.

    The burden of proof is on you to provide examples of politicians who value and . Influential ones off the top of my head include Napoleon, H+tler, Stalin - all / valuing types. Modern examples include Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, and Obama.

    I don't agree with coining a bunch of new terms or using those silly symbols when you can keep it simple but whatever. It's like trying to make it more arcane on purpose but a pig with make-up is still a pig.
    Empirical findings is the only thing I care about, sure consistent theories are pretty but they're simply theories until they prove to be useful in practice or are consistent with measurements.

    There's a lot of alpha and delta politicians in the northern european countries or for example Canada (Trudeau). Being successful in politics in democratic countries is all about charming the voters one way or another.

  15. #1935
    Enlightened Hedonist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    18,034
    Mentioned
    427 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ipbanned View Post
    Numbers!

    LSI 12
    EIE 10
    ILI 5
    IEI 4
    SLE 4
    SEE 1
    IEE 1
    ILE 1
    LII 1

    Fun facts:

    39 people got typed as of now.
    9/16 types are represented.
    Top 5 types make up 89.7% of forum people typed.
    Top 5 types are the only ones that are represented in multiples.
    All beta quadra types are represented among top 5, plus ILI.
    Beta rationals make up a majority of forum people typed (22/39 or 56.4%)
    My analysis in the chatbox from a few days ago:

    Gulenko typing stats: ISTJ 12, ENFJ 10, INTP 5, INFP 4, ESTP 3, INTJ 2, ENFP 1, ENTP 1, ESFP 1 (Total Typed).

    59% introverts 41% extroverts; 59% intuitive 41% sensing; 59% logical 41% ethical; 62% rational 38% irrational.

    Based on dichotomies only, I'd expect his typings to be distributed as follows: INTJ 5, ENTJ 3, ISTJ 3, INFJ 3, INTP 3, ENFJ 2, ISFJ 2, ESTJ 2, ENTP 2, ISTP 2, INFP 2, ESFJ 2, ENFP 1, ISFP 1, ESTP 1, ESFP 1.

    Thus arguably the most overtyped types (in order): ENFJ, ISTJ, ESTP, INFP, INTP.

    Most undertyped (most to least): ENTJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ENTP, ISTP, ESFJ, ENFP, ISFP, ESFP.

    From seeing Gulenko's typing process, I had thought he typed significantly via the four top level dichotomies (extroversion vs. introversion etc.) - which he probably does, but I certainly think he has a significant bias (cultural norms or whatever). Maybe most LIIs seem LSI when compared to him.

  16. #1936
    Seed my wickedness Sanguine Miasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    7,321
    Mentioned
    311 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    My analysis in the chatbox from a few days ago:

    Gulenko typing stats: ISTJ 12, ENFJ 10, INTP 5, INFP 4, ESTP 3, INTJ 2, ENFP 1, ENTP 1, ESFP 1 (Total Typed).

    59% introverts 41% extroverts; 59% intuitive 41% sensing; 59% logical 41% ethical; 62% rational 38% irrational.

    Based on dichotomies only, I'd expect his typings to be distributed as follows: INTJ 5, ENTJ 3, ISTJ 3, INFJ 3, INTP 3, ENFJ 2, ISFJ 2, ESTJ 2, ENTP 2, ISTP 2, INFP 2, ESFJ 2, ENFP 1, ISFP 1, ESTP 1, ESFP 1.

    Thus arguably the most overtyped types (in order): ENFJ, ISTJ, ESTP, INFP, INTP.

    Most undertyped (most to least): ENTJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ENTP, ISTP, ESFJ, ENFP, ISFP, ESFP.

    From seeing Gulenko's typing process, I had thought he typed significantly via the four top level dichotomies (extroversion vs. introversion etc.) - which he probably does, but I certainly think he has a significant bias (cultural norms or whatever). Maybe most LIIs seem LSI when compared to him.
    I don't think he has fixed methodology. He begins construct based on primary signs. Sometimes those dichotomies are the easiest sometimes not. I was typed as an Ej primarily even when conclusions used those dichotomies in the end.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

  17. #1937

    Default

    I have never taken classes with Gulenko but I've spoken with a few of his students and seen how they conduct type diagnostics. Does Gulenko do the same thing? My guess is probably not exactly but this should provide some idea of the techniques being used.

    Gulenko's diagnostics are basic breakdowns of temperament and club, as well as subtype. They are very straightforward and rely on basic info provided in the interview as evidence for his conclusions. Some people have noted that his evidence is sometimes contradictory to what was actually said or doesn't take certain things (or the whole picture) into account. Sometimes what he says in diagnostics contradicts what he has written elsewhere. This is because (according to people who use his methodologies) he is not relying on the above, at least not in itself. He relies on visual signals as well as other aspects. I honestly don't think "vibe" is incorrect in describing what Gulenko actually does - he gets an impression from the first interview video (which is super general and brief, not enough to really get much verbal info from the participant) and narrows in from there in the second interview with specific questions. After the first interview he probably already has things narrowed down to a handful of types if not 2-3 (the astute can probably note what other types were being considered just by the questions he chooses).


    The details of how he does this have been described by some of his students. Again, I think Gulenko primarily relies on intuition and experience at this point (for better or worse) and the details are provided as a way of teaching his method. You can read a lot of the cues on his website in how he describes dichotomies. He also apparently teaches NLP eye movements as a way of discerning type, among other things (you can see some of that here: https://socioniks.net/article/?id=205). This strikes me as full of bullshit, both in the NLP roots, but also it doesn't even agree with what NLP teaches which is more nuanced (contextual, signs depend on the baselines of a person, etc). The diagnostic practices of the students I spoke with relied heavily on this particular method to check their conclusions (eye movements had to coincide with temperament/subtype and if they didn't a result wasn't considered). I am not sure how much this consciously factors into Gulenko's personal methods.

    Also it's probably worth noting that his students have said that Gulenko's type descriptions are inaccurate. The charitable interpretation is that they are old and outdated (they are really not much different from the old descriptions on wikisocion). So if you think his descriptions are good but some of his other stuff is whacky (or vice versa), you are not alone. Many people that seem to be described by his writings would probably be typed by him, his school, or his students as the usual culprits (beta and select gammas). Even real examples used in his type descriptions are apparently not examples of the rarer types. Margaret Thatcher is apparently LSI not LSE. His students were convinced that Jane Fonda isn't ESI but LSI (despite her playing a prominent role in the ESI description). And even Angela Merkel who was mentioned as an example of LII in this thread was hypothesized to be an LSI by his students.




    The TLDR is that I tend to think that Gulenko relies on many things in conjunction and is looking at overall impression, then coming up with communicable evidence after the fact. He has systemized his various post hoc reasonings, but because they are post hoc they can be contradictory or skip over information, and the sytemized writings tend to overlap in describing the same phenomenon. At the end of the day you have to realize that his business model is convincing other people (students or in type diagnostics), not creating an accurate system. Sometimes these two things overlap.

  18. #1938
    Moderator myresearch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,600
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dangerouslandsvape View Post
    Margaret Thatcher is apparently LSI not LSE. His students were convinced that Jane Fonda isn't ESI but LSI (despite her playing a prominent role in the ESI description). And even Angela Merkel who was mentioned as an example of LII in this thread was hypothesized to be an LSI by his students.
    What you are saying suggets that if people were to get typed by his students, there would be more LSI typings.

  19. #1939
    Ready for some fun in the sun mysteryofdungeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Location
    xoxo
    Posts
    328
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    thetwotypes.info let’s go
    how to enlarge your dragon, click here

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    get ready to get cucked
    Quote Originally Posted by roger557 View Post
    got this Socionics stuff caught by the balls

Page 49 of 49 FirstFirst ... 394546474849

Posting Permissions

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