Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[WVBRY]

out of 41 people that payed more than 100 dollars for an opinion on an obscure, esoteric, eastern european psychology theory, 13 are apparently LSI, a type with Ne as PolR, and 18 are apparently sensing types, nearly half of the people who got typed. only 4 IEI in here.

in his book he writes on sensing types:

poorly foreseein future, sensory types live for today or to the nearest guaranteed prospect. by their own initiative, they will not seriously engage in anything fundamentally new that's not yet tested.

I dunno, something is just really fishy here and I suspect that Gulenko isn't aware how unknown socionics is in the west.

I think there is a difference between spending 120 dollars (not a whole lot of money for most westerners) on a service that is esoteric and obscure and being active in working on the cutting edge of innovation and scientific research for example - I could totally see sensors doing the former, the latter, not so much.

I think you're actually scratching at a problem which is how Gulenko's terminology is just bad. He says (in his book) "sensors have poor imagination" and then in many reports says that LSI-H actually has good imagination. I also told Gulenko I have good imagination, and mentioned how as a kid I had illustrated my own dreams, and he said my imagination is based on my direct experience, which by the way is mostly true, if you count dreams as direct experience, which he seems to. In his book he mostly describes the imagination of intuitives as being more innovative and causing change, as opposed to the imagination he spots is some sensors, which is more about past experience. But he uses the term 'imagination' interchangably in this case, which is a problem as the same word cannot denote two different concepts in a typology system.

We were looking over the feedback conclusions the other day with my girlfriend (she knows about socionics), and she pointed out how in @hellohellohello's conclusion, Gulenko said the fact his dreams were based on his day to day experience rather than deep symbolism pointed to sensing, which confused her as others (such as myself) have more symbolic dreams and still got LSI/sensing. I said that I believed that Gulenko started by looking at the person first, and then gave them a type but that type didn't have to have every exact trait of others of that type - it fits the person rather than the general descriptions.

I think alot of people misunderstand G' approach but that said, but given that his use of terms is confusing and imprecise, I don't blame them entirely.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I think he's right that most people who use his typing service are Beta. Gamma and Delta value Te, objective, already established facts that they can work with. they usually make a cost–benefit analysis, and maybe you think 120 dollars aren't that much, from a Te perpective, it might be quite uneconomical, especially since knowing your type doesn't necessarily mean that you get pragmatic benefits from it. the only gripe I really have is the low number of Beta intuitives, and the high number of EIE compared to IEI, even though socionics is a rather introspective theory.

[adage]

I think there is a difference between spending 120 dollars (not a whole lot of money for most westerners) on a service that is esoteric and obscure and being active in working on the cutting edge of innovation and scientific research for example - I could totally see sensors doing the former, the latter, not so much.

I think you're actually scratching at a problem which is how Gulenko's terminology is just bad. He says (in his book) "sensors have poor imagination" and then in many reports says that LSI-H actually has good imagination. I also told Gulenko I have good imagination, and mentioned how as a kid I had illustrated my own dreams, and he said my imagination is based on my direct experience, which by the way is mostly true, if you count dreams as direct experience, which he seems to. In his book he mostly describes the imagination of intuitives as being more innovative and causing change, as opposed to the imagination he spots is some sensors, which is more about past experience. But he uses the term 'imagination' interchangably in this case, which is a problem as the same word cannot denote two different concepts in a typology system.

We were looking over the feedback conclusions the other day with my girlfriend (she knows about socionics), and she pointed out how in @hellohellohello's conclusion, Gulenko said the fact his dreams were based on his day to day experience rather than deep symbolism pointed to sensing, which confused her as others (such as myself) have more symbolic dreams and still got LSI/sensing. I said that I believed that Gulenko started by looking at the person first, and then gave them a type but that type didn't have to have every exact trait of others of that type - it fits the person rather than the general descriptions.

I think alot of people misunderstand G' approach but that said, but given that his use of terms is confusing and imprecise, I don't blame them entirely.

It's such an annoying thing sometimes to find the exact word for one thing and remember enough of what we say to never ever use words in a contradictory manner.
That shit gives me nightmares.

One one hand, I understand the confusion, but on the other, I understand that moving forward can make seemingly contradictory conclusions. Seems to me like G's building the reports from the ground up more so than bring past definitions and make them fit, but idk, it's just an impression I got.

[hellohellohello]

It's such an annoying thing sometimes to find the exact word for one thing and remember enough of what we say to never ever use words in a contradictory manner.
That shit gives me nightmares.

One one hand, I understand the confusion, but on the other, I understand that moving forward can make seemingly contradictory conclusions. Seems to me like G's building the reports from the ground up more so than bring past definitions and make them fit, but idk, it's just an impression I got.

Gulenko definitely uses a template for types and makes little tweaks here and there to fit his system. I guarantee it.

[adage]

Gulenko definitely uses a template for types and makes little tweaks here and there to fit his system. I guarantee it.

That's not what I mean.
Of course he has some templates, building from the ground up doesn't mean there's a lack of that. It's a way of thinking, of doing things.

[WVBRY]

It's such an annoying thing sometimes to find the exact word for one thing and remember enough of what we say to never ever use words in a contradictory manner.
That shit gives me nightmares.

One one hand, I understand the confusion, but on the other, I understand that moving forward can make seemingly contradictory conclusions. Seems to me like G's building the reports from the ground up more so than bring past definitions and make them fit, but idk, it's just an impression I got.

Lol, I just mean that the terminology used in the context of the typing system should be consistent. Of course a word can have multiple meanings in common language, and that's fine to do, because the context in which the words are used varies.

But in the case of Gulenko it feels to me he uses terms loosely which makes me think he may actually be confused to some extent himself. Also, some terms used in the context of socionics are not actually intelligible there. Gulenko is as guilty of this as the first socionists are. Terms like "demonstrative" to describe a function aeren't intelligible imo, because it was never clearly defined what it meant for a function to be "demonstrative" in the first place. It doesn't point to any concept. People throw these terms around on socionics forums and groups like "Ne is my demo function because..." but it feels to me like a game where you're moving blocks into some pattern, except the blocks are words and the pattern is the sentence. A word salad in other words. That said, it may be a translation issue in the case of socionics authors. I don't know.

But I do agree that Gulenko is trying to do what you call "building from the ground up" rather than fit people into past definitions/and or concepts, which is what I like about his reports (as opposed to general descriptions, his or anyone else's)

[adage]

Lol, I just mean that the terminology used in the context of the typing system should be consistent. Of course a word can have multiple meanings in common language, and that's fine to do, because the context in which the words are used varies.

But in the case of Gulenko it feels to me he uses terms loosely which makes me think he may actually be confused to some extent himself. Also, some terms used in the context of socionics are not actually intelligible there. Gulenko is as guilty of this as the first socionists are. Terms like "demonstrative" to describe a function aeren't intelligible imo, because it was never clearly defined what it meant for a function to be "demonstrative" in the first place. It doesn't point to any concept. People throw these terms around on socionics forums and groups like "Ne is my demo function because..." but it feels to me like a game where you're moving blocks into some pattern, except the blocks are words and the pattern is the sentence. A word salad in other words. That said, it may be a translation issue in the case of socionics authors. I don't know.

But I do agree that Gulenko is trying to do what you call "building from the ground up" rather than fit people into past definitions/and or concepts, which is what I like about his reports (as opposed to general descriptions, his or anyone else's)

Thing is, can terminology ever be consistent? Everyone has word preferences, understands words differently, what is viewed as equivalent changes from person to person. The people around us have an impact on which words we use.
New words are invented, old words get new meaning(s), some fade into inexistance.
Language itself is inconsistant, maybe some people manage to use the same words the same way in a consistant manner, but it doesn't garantee the idea behind them stays the same.
I try to use specific words and phrasing destined to the person I'm talking to, to optimize chances of understanding, so consistancy in terms, not really my thing even tho I've tried to achieve it in the past.
We seem to not have the same priorities about this and it's fine. It's cool to talk about it.

It's not "trying" to build from the ground up, it's a way of thinking that comes naturaly to some but not others. Glad you agree tho.

[RBRS]

I think there is a difference between spending 120 dollars (not a whole lot of money for most westerners) on a service that is esoteric and obscure and being active in working on the cutting edge of innovation and scientific research for example - I could totally see sensors doing the former, the latter, not so much.

I think you're actually scratching at a problem which is how Gulenko's terminology is just bad. He says (in his book) "sensors have poor imagination" and then in many reports says that LSI-H actually has good imagination. I also told Gulenko I have good imagination, and mentioned how as a kid I had illustrated my own dreams, and he said my imagination is based on my direct experience, which by the way is mostly true, if you count dreams as direct experience, which he seems to. In his book he mostly describes the imagination of intuitives as being more innovative and causing change, as opposed to the imagination he spots is some sensors, which is more about past experience. But he uses the term 'imagination' interchangably in this case, which is a problem as the same word cannot denote two different concepts in a typology system.

We were looking over the feedback conclusions the other day with my girlfriend (she knows about socionics), and she pointed out how in @hellohellohello's conclusion, Gulenko said the fact his dreams were based on his day to day experience rather than deep symbolism pointed to sensing, which confused her as others (such as myself) have more symbolic dreams and still got LSI/sensing. I said that I believed that Gulenko started by looking at the person first, and then gave them a type but that type didn't have to have every exact trait of others of that type - it fits the person rather than the general descriptions.

I think alot of people misunderstand G' approach but that said, but given that his use of terms is confusing and imprecise, I don't blame them entirely.

I had the suspicion Gulenko delegates some typings on his students for practice since that fight over Duschia happened. Might that be the reason for the incoherent typings?

Also sometimes I read some Gulenko diagnostics and they look like written by different ppl.

[myresearch]

I had the suspicion Gulenko delegates some typings on his students for practice since that fight over Duschia happened. Might that be the reason for the incoherent typings?

Also sometimes I read some Gulenko diagnostics and they look like written by different ppl.

I think they can be translated by different people. However, I dont think he would delegate the typing to someone else.

I dont know why Duschia is brought up, but I dont think G makes decisions based on this forum

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I don't think students do the typings at all. They just have their own opinion obviously. Most of the people in his school just follow his model and accepted his concept of subtypes and functional accentuations, but they apply it in their own way.

I didn't get the impression that they were even aware of the videos that people send him.

[RBRS]

I think they can be translated by different people. However, I dont think he would delegate the typing to someone else.

I dont know why Duschia is brought up, but I dont think G makes decisions based on this forum

Duschia was pre-typed as EIE by a G student with whom she had beef with and then got typed the same by G, but the curious thing is her typing was different in criteria to that of the rest of Gulenko typings that had been shared previously. I thought there might be a possibility that he delegated or discussed Duschia's type with his students and this particular one pushed for EIE. Not saying that typing was incorrect though.

[myresearch]

Duschia was pre-typed as EIE by a G student with whom she had beef with and then got typed the same by G, but the curious thing is her typing was different in criteria to that of the rest of Gulenko typings that had been shared previously. I thought there might be a possibility that he delegated or discussed Duschia's type with his students and this particular one pushed for EIE. Not saying that typing was incorrect though.

I also heard people getting typed by students priorly but then again getting typed by G as something completely different afterwards. So I dont think that is the case.

If you are talking about the content of the report. It contained contrary conclusions as I remember. Like it is pointed out that Dushia was EIE and lacked empathy due to Fi ignoring Fe dom where in some other EIE's reports we can see that they are typed Fe base due to empathy.

I have seen some contradictions in LSI reports as well. I think it is partly due to translation, partly imprecision, and partly because he G types people based on nonverbals, other kind of methods rather than what person says what they are, but on reports G tend to use what has been said regardless of it.

[WVBRY]

I also heard people getting typed by students priorly but then again getting typed by G as something completely different afterwards. So I dont think that is the case.

If you are talking about the content of the report. It contained contrary conclusions as I remember. Like it is pointed out that Dushia was EIE and lacked empathy due to Fi ignoring Fe dom where in some other EIE's reports we can see that they are typed Fe base due to empathy.

I have seen some contradictions in LSI reports as well. I think it is partly due to translation, partly imprecision, and partly because he G types people based on nonverbals, other kind of methods rather than what person says what they are, but on reports G tend to use what has been said regardless of it.

I also think the empathy thing is strange, @Suspiria posted that the term used in the original Russian language part of his Gulenko report translates well to empathy.

I don't have the Russian portion of Duschia's report (she sent me only the English translation when I asked her if I could read the conclusion), so I can't go further and tbh I don't have the energy to investigate this further.

Also, what contradictions were there in the LSI conclusions you mention?

[The Reality Denialist]

I also heard people getting typed by students priorly but then again getting typed by G as something completely different afterwards. So I dont think that is the case.

If you are talking about the content of the report. It contained contrary conclusions as I remember. Like it is pointed out that Dushia was EIE and lacked empathy due to Fi ignoring Fe dom where in some other EIE's reports we can see that they are typed Fe base due to empathy.

How well it matches to this?

Perhaps it seems to Sanguine Miasma himself that he has some kind of "emotional deficit," that makes him somehow indifferent. And this is an argument against ethics. Yes, but against introverted ethics, which is responsible for inner feelings and stable relationships. Sanguine Miasma's leading function is extroverted ethics, which is poor inward and works more outward.

Personally I'm kind of iffy about this because people have (sometimes very) contradicting opinions of this quality I have. It is very hard to put in words. OK, in terms of really aiming to create bonds actively which I tend not to do (I'm kind of unsure or zoning out to future too much by making guesses etc) although I hold myself kind of well if I need to be in good terms with people [and I do not really seek any sort of conflict without a strong reason].

[myresearch]

I also think the empathy thing is strange, @Suspiria posted that the term used in the original Russian language part of his Gulenko report translates well to empathy.

G uses the words empathy and sympathy. In his resources it is written that xLI may or cannot do emotional empathy and SLE may not show sympathy. But in other places sometimes they both get mixed up, like it is written that Fi is empathy etc.

Hence both can mixed up easily. So I also see it as a thing that is written due to mistranslation and lack of precision to distinguish both.

I don't have the Russian portion of Duschia's report (she sent me only the English translation when I asked her if I could read the conclusion), so I can't go further and tbh I don't have the energy to investigate this further.

Dushia sent videos and report under this thread in the past, a few years ago. I dont know if the report is there or not. I remember Dushia disagreeing with the type because of this empathy thing so I remember it.

I didnt watch the videos during that time. Hence I dont know have an idea but I think a person can do empathy and think that they are not since they are not sympathetic. Everyone's definitions can get mixed up. If a person claims that they dont do it then it is likely to be reported as such.

Also, what contradictions were there in the LSI conclusions you mention?

On top of my head, like you burning the food and another LSI-C having difficult time with performing cooking, cleanning but someone else getting typed as sensor (LSI) because they cook and like to cook(H sub).

Having organized and unrorganized memories (N vs H sub).

[myresearch]

How well it matches to this?


Personally I'm kind of iffy about this because people have (sometimes very) contradicting opinions of this quality I have. It is very hard to put in words. OK, in terms of really aiming to create bonds actively which I tend not to do (I'm kind of unsure or zoning out to future too much by making guesses etc) although I hold myself kind of well if I need to be in good terms with people [and I do not really seek any sort of conflict without a strong reason].

I think person's representation of type can be different. Generally, I have seen lots of them having trouble to form and maintain bonds. So I think it is the result of Fi ignoring, I dont see that in a way that is conflicting with the type.

I think EIEs can be even on bad terms of people.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

The cooking thing is really weird to me, since every single person on this planet needs to eat to survive. Some people develop an interest in it, others don't care about how things taste.

[Rusal]

Latest video. Tiago talks about getting typed. (He clarifies in the comments he was typed LSI-H).

[Varlawend]

Hey, sorry it’s been a while, but I’ve meaning to get back to this as it’s an interesting discussion.

I get what you're saying - and it's a very ILI view - but this sounds to me like too much philosophy. The types and functions are in my view essential, basically complexes or structures in the psyche, developed over millions of years. I think the data, the ITR etc show that the types are essential. It's also possible to give surprisingly accurate descriptions of a single function as a psychic phenomenon, as Jung does in Psychological types. However, In individuated people, the type can be blurred because weaker function have been developed. Then it's a matter of also knowing the development in order to type the person.

When does something become too much philosophy? I think that remaining critically minded about our knowledge and epistemology will always remain important, and not just for a specific type. To be clear, I’m not implying you aren’t doing this to a significant extent as well, but my rhetorical question is more meant as a suggestion that the idea of “too much philosophy/epistemology” is not so straightforward, and that there isn’t a point at which our views aren’t subject to critical scrutiny anymore since our knowledge inevitably remains incomplete.


That said, I think we agree more here than it may appear. I agree that typology PHENOMENA can be essential in themselves: by that I mean, one could plausibly take a realist stance towards them and they could be real enough to be subject to scientific causation and casually impactful themselves.


However, that is different than the association of the essential typology phenomenon with a specific WORD, like "Ne" or "Ni". Thus, there can be different understandings of the words "Ne" and "Ni" which can both refer to essential systematic phenomena (at least approximately), yet these phenomena may not be the same. This is just the observation that there are many genuine patterns in nature and in humans to which we can assign systems. So however essential a typology phenomena might be, this doesn’t grant it an essential relationship to a word like “Ne” and “Ni”, and that’s important to keep in mind when disagreeing on what “Ne” or “Ni” essentially “is” (i.e. are you sure you talking about the same phenomena when you disagree on these words)? This isn’t to imply that people’s understanding of a phenomena can’t be mistaken, but that is also something to be established via evidence and not just assumed.


And totally agreed that people can have types which are more difficult to notice, for a variety of reasons.

The stuff you mention here could very well be attributed to an LII also. It's not surprising at all that a Swiss psychiatrist in early 20:th century would be aristocratic. But you could also make the argument for Jung being democratic if you pick some different data from his life. And focus on mundane reality is hardly limited to Si. Si is just a very specific focus. He remained focus on mundane reality, just as any sane person, but he was of course mostly focused on the intellectual work.

Some of it is attributable to LII in SHS (e.g. Balanced-Stable Temperament), and more of it may be attributable to LII in a different systematic way of perceiving type but not in the SHS school at least. In other words, it seems vanishingly unlikely that an SHS LII would exhibit the cluster of right-spinning, managerial and Beta Quadra traits that Jung displays in his life. SHS LII’s behavioral clusters are qualitatively distinct. And it is probably true that most psychiatrists would be aristocratic types (this may even be true in the modern age), which is NOT to suggest that we should diagnose the type of anyone for that reason as it is not reliable.


A focus on mundane reality relates to the Se and Si functions in SHS, but Jung’s focus is more introverted (not just due to being an LSI, but also his distant NH or HN subtype). But I agree that he could be said to be more focused on intellectual work overall (i.e. he is an L-lead with a T-accentuation), and there is no contradiction with LSI in this case since the model is multi-layered (i.e. type is not our focus, but an aspect of our underlying psychological structure and overall behavior). And Jung shows skills in interacting with mundane reality which seem unlikely for an intuitive type in SHS.

Jung said things like "life is aristocratic". Interesting, so does this mean that he is an "aristocratic" type. The way I see it life is really aristocratic and him saying this shouldn't be understood as some manifestation of Beta values, but of a deep understanding of human life.

I did not know he said that, and that is very interesting. I agree that typing someone as aristocratic just because they said something like that would be a shallow and weak argument. However, it surprises me that Jung would say that as it seems a bit one-sided, and Jung often cautions against one-sidedness. To be fair, it is also pretty vague. If he just means something like that life inevitably contains aristocracy and that it’s very relevant, well then that just seems like the pointing out of a straightforward fact which even a Gamma could point out. In any case, this quote is not the reason for his LSI diagnosis as I wasn’t even aware of it, but very interesting nonetheless.

I've heard critical voices on how Jung talks about black people and "primitive" peoples. This can be seen as aristocratic /Beta. But western civilization has had a strong development since ancient times, maybe unique in the world. People are different. It's not a coincidence that Beethoven is from Europe and not Ghana. This is not a politically correct topic nowadays, though. And Jung is very understanding of non-western lifestyles, at least intellectually, and he knew personally and appreciated people from primitive societies, as you might know.

It is true that aristocrats more easily understand the organizational principles of collectives and societies than democrats since this is closer to their Quadra values, at least in SHS and not in all prospectively valid typology understandings, so Jung may display some aristocracy in that regard. And this understanding need not be prejudiced at all, in fact it can be very respectful, to understand more about the essence or spirit of a people or a culture, for example. However, I also find such abstract assessments pretty circumstantial without a lot of further context and analysis, and I wouldn’t type Jung as aristocratic on the basis of that alone.

I wasn't sure what you meant here. Although "visionary or mystical experience" is often related to Ni, I don't see it as necessary, and you can have people of almost any type who just happen to have an unusually strong connection to the unconscious.

I think I was talking about Jung’s approach of “not making mistakes” and “staying connected to mundane reality” when it came to “whether he or you would perceive this as a necessity to have a mystical experience”. It sounds like you wouldn’t perceive that approach as necessary to simply have the experience, from what you’ve written here. But I don’t dispute that the unconscious is a far broader phenomenon than merely the T (Ni) function in SHS; T just gives one the ability to synthesize a large amount of information and see many patterns and trends.

I don't see how this should be related to any functions at all. Do you need Ni in order to dream at night? Or to hallucinate during fever or when taking drugs? When the ego is hurt or when there is a strong build up in the unconscious it can break through. At that point you don't need intuition anymore, because Mickey Mouse is really sitting there talking to you.

How what should be relevant to any functions: experiencing visions? I think it could relate to a few functions in SHS, and this is because VISIONS are something VISUAL. Dynamic functions are more visual in SHS, whereas Static functions are more kinesthetic. Business Logic and Emotion Ethics are related to forming a visual picture in our minds, and Comfort Sensing and Temporal Intuition are related to visualizing and recalling experiences. All of these functions probably relate to visioning or active imagination in various ways, but since the visions that Jung is famous for are highly abstract, predictive, prophetic, and far from concrete reality, they seem to indicate an unusual degree of immersion in the T function in particular. This isn’t to try to completely explain his visions or his unique connection to the collective unconscious, though, which I agree is not a matter of an abstract theory like Socionics and perhaps only loosely connected.


It may be that we need Ni to dream at night, but that would be a trivial matter since everyone has Ni! We have all 8 functions, in SHS at least and many other Socionics theories. If functional brain circuits involved in the T process were damaged, it could conceivably have a large effect on even mundane experiences like that. I don’t know the precise nature or extent of it though.


I’m not sure what you mean by Mickey Mouse being there talking to you: an imaginal experience? If so, then it may be dependent on even mundane physical phenomena in our brains, which may in turn connect to some more abstract typology phenomena. That’s not to say that they are completely determined by typology phenomena, though, in fact I do not think so at all.

The problem I see is that the semantics of the functions are being expanded so that they can explain everything in life. "You need Si to be comfortable and Ni to have visions".

It seems to me that we simply need to look at phenomena to see what they do or do not explain, not judge in advance of the investigation as to what they should or shouldn’t explain, since the latter is more a matter of control than of understanding or discovery. The statement you make doesn’t seem so outlandish to me because (basically) everyone has Si and Ni; from the SHS perspective these are just basic functional states, not exceptionally grand things. However, I don’t think an abstract theory like Socionics could come even close to explaining everything; it just looks at systematic patterns.

I am skeptic of Ni accentuation in Jung, because a person who individuates has to deal with everything. The ego has to be in good shape and deal with shit on all sides. It's the life of the hero. You need all functions, and an individuated person gives an impression of wholeness and can (ideally) speak the language of all types. I also wonder about Ni accentuation in a therapeutic relation. Might sound surprising, but if you want to genuinely connect with another person you have to be able to really relate by being more like them, it's not just an intellectual thing. But I am no expert on accentuations, just throwing in some doubt.

I admire Jung a lot, and I totally agree with you that Jung likely dealt with many difficult things on all of his functions. This makes him a much more widely developed person than most, with a wider range of functional proficiencies and perhaps a special destiny. And Jung unquestionably did not approach his therapy from such a totally abstract standpoint; he also displays a great deal of S and R functions, helping to rehabilitate people in more conformal ordinary life and relating to them in deep and empathic (even alchemical) way. Though he was also able to deal with a lot of strange and abstract issues which would be baffling to most psychiatrists, even today I’m sure, and his T accentuation likely helped in this regard even as it alienated him from those who have less comfort delving into psychological, esoteric or abstract issues.

I'm reminded of some quotes that establish the delicate balance Jung held between sensing and intuition, realizability and continuity with the past versus novelty and exceptionality, presence and connectedness versus solitude and self-possession, external versus internal, extroversion vs introversion, and even some relatively collectivist and aristocratic ideas: Carl Jung on “Adaptation, Individuation, Collectivity.” – Carl Jung Depth Psychology (carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog)

Of course I agree with that. The individuation process affects the whole being, so naturally also the type, and much more. In the type especially the problem of the suggestive/inferior function. But generally I think the focus is on the life of the individual as a whole, and I don't see Socionics as that important.

I just see Socionics as a few very interesting systematic patterns in humans which could potentially be made even clearer and more rigorous with time and effort, which includes some typological aspects of people’s behavior and how they relate to others, and I am in agreement that Socionics best serves the individual. As Jordan Peterson, another famous Jungian psychologist says: “Everybody acts out a myth, but very few people know what their myth is and you should know what your myth is, because it might be a tragedy. And maybe you don't want it to be.” I see Socionics as important because it’s part of understanding ourselves and our myth, but IMO it is only a few abstract parts of that.

Just to be clear: When I say that I see Ne in Jung, I don't mean visions and psychic experiences. I mean his cognition in general, approach to problem solving, therapeutic methods, general way of reasoning, the psychology as a whole.

You are far from alone in that (e.g. Archetype Center types Jung as ILE), and you may have very good reasons for seeing Jung this way. What I am not sure of is whether what you are referring to by the word “Ne” is similar to what SHS refers to by this word, or Alive/SoundOfConfusion, or even the Archetype Center for that matter. Perhaps you use a traditional Jungian definition, though going by that, didn't Jung see himself as an Introverted Thinker and Introverted Intuitive at different times?

[Varlawend]

This indicates they have opposing views about at least in some aspects of what Ne and Ni is, hence there is a contradiction. I doubt that Archetype typed Jung based on semantics only, Jung's creation of IEs itself contradicts with what a Ne polr is from the view of some socionics theorists.

Sure, there is a contradiction in a narrow sense in that “they are having a disagreement”. But what I meant by the fact that there isn’t a contradiction is that they have different typological understandings, which are at least plausibly correct and not obviously incorrect or inconsistent, where they are using the words “Ne” and “Ni” to refer to significantly different things. Thus, while there is an obvious contradiction in their usage of a word, there isn’t necessarily a contradiction in the fundamental observations of reality informing on their more abstract views (which are more how they are organizing their observations and perhaps perceive them in some different gestalt senses), which could potentially lead them to the possibility of greater agreement and synthesis.


The Archetype Center uses the semantics of speech to type people; that is simply their method to understand and diagnose information metabolism, or at least the primary one. Also, they type Jung as ILE, and the “POLR” isn’t part of how SHS views the Brake function in their LSI typing of Jung, so there is not yet grounds for assuming a contradiction in the fundamental observations of reality of these methods in relation to Jung (but it may turn out that there is a contradiction, or several thereof, which could resolve the disagreement, upon a much deeper and more thorough examination).

Of course different typists or people are gonna type people differently and they will have different views about what a certain IE is since typology not just socionics is about a complex subject, human psyche. But at the end, this is socionics, they dont go out and make a full different typology system. Their way of illustrating a type is also not that different although there can be opposing views in details. This is all fine and it can be even enlightening until when this opposing views points to something at the very core of their understanding, this leads a person to only appreciate one of them at least in certain aspects of their understanding.

I think that there are some pretty different typology systems out there, even within Socionics, but that they also often have plenty of overlap in theory and in practice. I think that even a small change in definitions, a reorganization of various associations to different aspects to the model, or the inclusion of observations and concepts in one model which are not included in another can lead to quite different diagnostics in practice, and for good reasons and that breaking down exactly who is correct is far from straightforward, especially in glib or arrogant discussions.

So I dont think it is valid to accept each typing of different school according to their own system in every case. Each system, understanding cant be equally right, if they clash. Different schools having their own measuring system isnt valid also since measuring system can be wrong or misplaced or not calibrated right.

I think we already agree quite a bit here, taking from some of my previous posts:

Agreed with you on the popular misconception; I am not saying that truth itself is entirely relative or just in the eye of the beholder. What I am trying to say (not sure how precisely I articulated myself the first time) is that truth contains a lot of relativity and complexity to crunch, even if ultimately there is such an absolute nature of truth or absolute nature of reality (in which I would be inclined to agree with you), and moreover, that truth is living and the way which we interact with it changes the results (even in an absolute way). Basically, I'm talking about relativity, not relativism. Total relativism/nihilism IMO is a coward's view of reality which refuses to open oneself to the challenges and feedback of "objective" reality regarding the effectiveness or lack thereof of our actions in their ability to achieve our goals. Likewise, believing we know the absolute truth (which I am not imputing to you, in fact you said the opposite when you spoke about complexity) is simply a refusal to acknowledge the many things we can't possibly know with certainty, since we have to seek out our own flaws and falsifications, otherwise we can always rationalize them away yet continue to be punished by our arrogance and blindness in practice.

When it comes to relativity theory, it is exactly my point that there isn’t a central measuring point when it comes to typology theories either. Yet, people new to this field wouldn’t necessarily guess that if they listened to so many people talk about this; they talk about it as if they already have this central measuring point in ways which aren't realistically justifiable (if we are honest about the limits to our knowledge). There are all these meaningfully different frames, and while we will get deterministic results in each one if we apply each physics frame or typology theory in a disciplined and accurate way, it is possible we may be seeing some similar things differently by people not using the same frame. And if we want to understand someone’s point of view and ultimately come to a harmonious perspective which comprehends the different relative frames and can derive insight more arbitrarily, then we have to understand the frame from which things are being measured, or at least the general principles that we would expect from any useful and accurate frame. And I think this is rarely done as much as it could be. Yes, people can be wrong and have a lack of common sense or even understand their own frames in an inconsistent or maladroit way, so criticism is also important.

Of course the various typology frameworks/frames have arbitrary, conventional and axiomatic aspects, just as measurement does in science, and necessarily so. But using such a static reference point, one can still make objective observations about people, and if these observations are able to be consistently agreed upon, then they are objectively true aspects of people (not their whole personality, but just an ASPECT of it).

What’s important about such objective aspects of people is that even if we don’t want to include them in a given typology frame, our understanding can’t contradict them while remaining logically sound. We can’t determine an “objectively true personality” since the inherently limited aspect of personality that we focus on will be limited by the frame we choose, but we can determine objective and consistent individual patterns in people and their behavior, cognition, etc. Hence my point of view still includes a notion of absolute truth, while acknowledging a large part of relativity mediating us from directly and easily accessing it. Likewise, while there are observer independent phenomena in relativity in physics, it’s not as though our own frame is ever observer independent, even if it can see the observer independent phenomenon that all else can (at least with the proper instrumentation, since many phenomena in physics and typology are too subtle for untrained perception to notice). This is true in physics and in typology, so in this regard it’s a valid analogy.

What’s crucial here is the shared notion of relativity: observer frames with a different perception of the same reality, combined with the fact that two people with different observer frames might both view similar people/events in different typological ways yet have potentially similar parity in truth. This is something which needs to be reckoned with in disagreements between typology perspectives, as opposed to dogmatically assuming only our observer frame is absolutely correct or more correct than that of another.

To attribute to human personality a complete subjective relativism or social constructionism is where I especially disagree... Of course there are social constructions and arbitrary conventions in typology, but it doesn’t follow that we all have equally valid, insightful or penetrating ideas about ourselves and other peoples or that whether we do is a matter of purely subjective opinion. The best “social constructions” have a foundation in things which are objectively observable. What we lack in understanding ourselves or another is not just a matter of subjective opinion; I may not notice that I am much less sociable than most people, for example, and if I think myself a relatively gregarious person in spite of this, then I am objectively failing to notice how I compare to most others, and I am vitally in error. I may not notice that I tap my foot or talk to myself out loud, but this doesn't change whether or not it is happening or what it might mean about me that I may (objectively) not be aware of.

[Varlawend]

These are important points imo. Gulenko's school often doesn't seem separate non-socionics factors (or what some people would classify as non-socionics factors) from type diagnostics. Environmental factors, society, mental illness, physical ailments, etc are all used to justify specific types rather than seen as extraneous. Personally I do not agree with that approach. Ironically in his book there is something along the lines of, "don't take socionics too seriously" or give it more say than it really has. Granted it is up to the beholder to decide, but it seems to me that a lot of things are being explained via socionics that shouldn't be. Compare to someone like Rick DeLong who listed many factors that influence behaviour and personality that are specifically not connected to socionics (hormones, gender, attitude, social conventions, genetics, even something like charisma). These are very different approaches, and one seems more rational and ethical (as much as socionics can be either) to me, at least - seems a bit more nuanced.

I think you are absolutely right that one should be cautious in assigning various prospective topics to Socionics types, especially in any rigid way.


Environmental factors can’t be used to type someone accurately in SHS. The subtype, accentuation, and even much more short-lived functional states are adaptations of a sociotype to its environment, at the very least, and there are a lot of efforts made to separate type from environment in SHS to the point that this is a frequent topic of discussion. Granted, several human mistakes could well have been made in this regard, but in principle you are in agreement with SHS on that point.


In terms of something like mental illness or physical illness, certainly I wouldn’t expect that to relate to Sociotype most of the time, but it is also possible that there are correlations between some such things and sociotypes or subtypes or w/e, and this is a substantive question. By that I mean: you are undoubtedly correct that caution is warranted in making such an association, but precluding it entirely is also not warranted, because that just amounts to an inhibitive preconception that sociotype and certain mental or physical phenomena are unrelated.

Take something like charisma, for example. Even if not determined by Socionics alone, it hardly seems likely to be able to be completely unrelated or discretely separable from Socionics, since some functions like Emotion Ethics have a clear relationship to it. The same could be said for hormones, since they relate to various states also covered by Socionics, but it's just as fair to say that those hormones aren't even close to completely determined by Socionics either; it may be better conceived of interactively.


I do see your point in differentiating mere correlation and association (e.g. Talanov) with a systematic causal explanation, but I also think it is more nuanced to say that we don’t know how something relates to Socionics (assuming we don’t or that an investigation into the issue hasn't been done), rather than that it definitely is or is not related to it, since there are fair few things in the realm of mental or personal attributes that could plausibly relate to Socionics types or functions.

[WVBRY]

Echidna1000 EIE-N
Confuz LSI
Nanooka EIE C or N
Varlawend ILI-H
The Exception EIE-N
SGF LSI-H
Pirouette IEI-CN

Chthonic Daydream EIE-C
Chakram LSI-N
Sayonara ILI-C
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Wavebury LSI-C
Astor IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H
Lolita SEE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Desert Financial ILI-C
Megedy IEI-C
Northstar SLE-C
Sachmet LII-N
Ouronis ILE-NH
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Duschia EIE-H
Ashlesha LSI-C
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Leo SLE-H
Squark LSI-DC
Fay EIE-H
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Eudaimonium LSI-H
SaveYourself EIE-H
Mantra ILI-H
Sanguine Miasma EIE-C-T
Cataclysm EIE-C
Malandro SLE-N
The Iconoclast ILI-HN-E
P o m IEE-N
Shining LSI-H
Nephiloth ILI-C

Hellohellohello LSI-H

Beembo EIE-H

Some updates:
-removed "mystery user", as that isn't of much interest unless I can get the person's approval of posting their name or not (they haven't publically declared their typing afaik)
-updated user names to the best of my knowledge
-added Beembo

[welcometomania]

no Alphas yet.. seems a bit too gate-keeping tbh

ok just saw a few oops sozz

[Manatroid92]

no Alphas yet.. seems a bit too gate-keeping tbh

ok just saw a few oops sozz

No-one is doing any gate-keeping here. This is just the confirmed professional typings we have so far.

[welcometomania]

sorry i wasn't too clear, i'm referring to Gulenko specifically lol but maybe he's trying his best to be fair so it's good lol

[The Reality Denialist]

no Alphas yet.. seems a bit too gate-keeping tbh

ok just saw a few oops sozz

Look, closer. There are 2.

[welcometomania]

we have no choice but to stan those special @two <3

[Poptart]

I kind of want to get typed by Gulenko just to see what everyone says when he types me beta when I'm so obviously not. There is no way I'm spending $200 on that though lol

[The Reality Denialist]

I kind of want to get typed by Gulenko just to see what everyone says when he types me beta when I'm so obviously not. There is no way I'm spending $200 on that though lol

You missed the war time sale. LIE side is not strong in you.

[adage]

List by quadra:


Alphas:
Sachmet LII-N

Ouronis ILE-NH


Betas:
Chthonic Daydream EIE-C
Cataclysm EIE-C
Sanguine Miasma EIE-C-T
Nanooka EIE C or N
Echidna1000 EIE-N
The Exception EIE-N
Duschia EIE-H
Fay EIE-H
SaveYourself EIE-H
Beembo EIE-H

Confuz LSI
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Squark LSI-DC
Wavebury LSI-C
Ashlesha LSI-C
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Chakram LSI-N
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Eudaimonium LSI-H
Shining LSI-H
Hellohellohello LSI-H
SGF LSI-H

Northstar SLE-C
Malandro SLE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Leo SLE-H

Megedy IEI-C
Pirouette IEI-CN
Astor IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H


Gammas:
Lolita SEE-N

Sayonara ILI-C
Desert Financial ILI-C
Nephiloth ILI-C
Mantra ILI-H
Varlawend ILI-HC
The Iconoclast ILI-HN-E


Deltas:
P o m IEE-N

---

Feel free to tell me if I messed up typings, touch screens aren't best for that.

[Poptart]

You missed the war time sale. LIE side is not strong in you.

Tbh his thoughts on Ukraine would be more interesting to me than anything he has to say about socionics

[The Reality Denialist]

Tbh his thoughts on Ukraine would be more interesting to me than anything he has to say about socionics

You think he wouldn't try to juggle with million different analogical theories and then arrive to another socionics derivative?

[Varlawend]

List by quadra:


Alphas:
Sachmet LII-N

Ouronis ILE-NH


Betas:
Echidna1000 EIE
Chthonic Daydream EIE-C
Cataclysm EIE-C
Sanguine Miasma EIE-C-T
Nanooka EIE C or N
The Exception EIE-N
Duschia EIE-H
Fay EIE-H
SaveYourself EIE-H
Beembo EIE-H

Confuz LSI
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Squark LSI-DC
Wavebury LSI-C
Ashlesha LSI-C
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Chakram LSI-N
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Eudaimonium LSI-H
Shining LSI-H
Hellohellohello LSI-H
SGF LSI-H

Northstar SLE-C
Malandro SLE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Leo SLE-H

Megedy IEI-C
Pirouette IEI-CN
Astor IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H


Gammas:
Lolita SEE-N

Sayonara ILI-C
Desert Financial ILI-C
Nephiloth ILI-C
Varlawend ILI-H
Mantra ILI-H
The Iconoclast ILI-HN-E


Deltas:
P o m IEE-N

---

Feel free to tell me if I messed up typings, touch screens aren't best for that.

This is excellent, and you did very well. The only thing very small things I would add is that my full subtype is HC rather than just H, an Echidna1000’s subtype is N (both according to Victor, not me, by the way). I also think a lot of people probably have more complex subtypes than Victor gave them, since they are more the rule than the exception these days, but since this is about Victor’s expressed opinions, there is nothing to be done about it at this point.

[adage]

This is excellent, and you did very well. The only thing very small things I would add is that my full subtype is HC rather than just H, an Echidna1000’s subtype is N (both according to Victor, not me, by the way). I also think a lot of people probably have more complex subtypes than Victor gave them, since they are more the rule than the exception these days, but since this is about Victor’s expressed opinions, there is nothing to be done about it at this point.

Thank you.
Some of these typings are from forum members' memory, so may be incomplete from what I read. I also think some typings are older so maybe not to today's standards, but yeah, it's what we got.

If you want to pick up the list and add your typings, I think it could be interesting to see, but maybe it would call for another thread.
Tho, no pressure, it's time consuming to do.

Updated list:

Alphas:
Sachmet LII-N

Ouronis ILE-NH


Betas:
Chthonic Daydream EIE-C
Cataclysm EIE-C
Sanguine Miasma EIE-C-T
Nanooka EIE C or N
Echidna1000 EIE-N
The Exception EIE-N
Duschia EIE-H
Fay EIE-H
SaveYourself EIE-H
Beembo EIE-H

Confuz LSI
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Squark LSI-DC
Wavebury LSI-C
Ashlesha LSI-C
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Chakram LSI-N
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Eudaimonium LSI-H
Shining LSI-H
Hellohellohello LSI-H
SGF LSI-H

Northstar SLE-C
Malandro SLE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Leo SLE-H

Megedy IEI-C
Pirouette IEI-CN
Astor IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H


Gammas:
Lolita SEE-N

Sayonara ILI-C
Desert Financial ILI-C
Nephiloth ILI-C
Mantra ILI-H
Varlawend ILI-HC
The Iconoclast ILI-HN-E


Deltas:
P o m IEE-N

[Manatroid92]

sorry i wasn't too clear, i'm referring to Gulenko specifically lol but maybe he's trying his best to be fair so it's good lol

I understand, but I’m doubtful that Gulenko is really meaning to do anything as petty as gate-keeping. He’s got odd ideas from time to time but he’s only ever been interested in developing Socionics.

Actually, scratch that: I’m doubtful that anyone who tries to develop their own vein of typology is really trying to ever gate-keep. They may suffer from biases, but gate-keeping requires an intent to do so.

[adage]

I understand, but I’m doubtful that Gulenko is really meaning to do anything as petty as gate-keeping. He’s got odd ideas from time to time but he’s only ever been interested in developing Socionics.

Actually, scratch that: I’m doubtful that anyone who tries to develop their own vein of typology is really trying to ever gate-keep. They may suffer from biases, but gate-keeping requires an intent to do so.

I agree.
I think it's more likely someone who tries to develop a typology would be more discouraged if certain types aren't showing up enough. Less comparative data.
It can lead people to complain everyone gets the same type(s) and that can hit hard on credibility, so less data again.

While this is personal, I tend to doubt myself when I type too many people similarly in a group. Idk, it seems I believe all types are supposed to be about equally represented everywhere all the time, so bias can go both ways.

[Aster]

It’s interesting that all the alphas and the one delta in this list are all typed with an N subtype.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Certain Types are just not interested in typing interviews. Delta is the least interested in socionics, and they value Te, so are oriented at already established facts which they can productively use in their life. socionics on the other hand is not objective. it is a theoretical Ti model that tries to explain human behviour. it simply makes the most sense that certain types are completely uninterested in certain fields, that's what the concept of types is for in the first place. Beta thinks in hierachies. it simply puts the most trust into a person they perceive as an authority figure, and Gulenko is pretty much at the top in this field, especially since he is one of the few known socionists in the west with little competition. I personally disagree with the LSI typings and I think IEI is just the type to study this sort of stuff, but he is dead on the money when he types the majority of people here Beta. and nothing against you guys, but godamn is this place a drama Fe zone sometimes. just a lot of really unorthodox people.

[The Reality Denialist]

It’s interesting that all the alphas and the one delta in this list are all typed with an N subtype.

There is one LII who is a member of this site but has had minimal dialogue: Ben Vasserlan, LII-C. I think he could be added.

[Manatroid92]

There is one LII who is a member of this site but has had minimal dialogue: Ben Vasserlan, LII-C. I think he could be added.

Didn't realise he was one, he always seemed like an ENTx to me. But considering what he does, I'm not really surprised.