Why Model G just isn’t worthwhile..

[Braingel]

I want to go over why Model G makes minuscule sense in the face of Jung and correct socionics…


Gulenko goes more strictly by ego blocks than the actual energy direction of the system.. His work ignores the concept of bold vs cautious… This is a basic Jungian principle concerning the direction of energy a person puts out (introvert or extrovert).. Because Gulenko makes the +/- more aligned with the ego blocks (why both the two primary functions share plus/minus property), you have a lopsided psyche that is portraying a person who is generating an output the same way with BOTH an introverted and extroverted function…


It makes absolutely no sense for his concept of the brake (PolR) being more cognizant than the launch (hidden agenda), because the PolR is a function that is painful to use and cautiously is so, away from the arena of the individual’a psychological direction..


Then he ascribes properties to types that don’t make sense. The Eie and LSE are supposed be good at noticing contradictions, when one has 1D Ti, the other ignores it…


I am not saying that Gulenko gets everything wrong in theory, but to make a type share the same energy direction with their base and creative doesn’t make sense.. One may say that it is their valued ego block as a positivist/negativist… But an introvert isn’t going to use extroverted functions the same way as an extrovert.. There is a reason to begin with, Fe is more noticeable in extroverts…


So when I look at Gulenko’s school, yes, I am seeing an inaccurate interpretation of socionics.. That concerns way more of what someone’s enneagram type would be, than their actual functional manifestations.. I see behaviors and abilities ascribed to types that make no sense..

I see DCNH taken way too far to justify mistypes..


I see people fixating on ITR with it, when they aren’t even accurate representations with all the dcnh justifications and inaccurate +/- that doesn’t go with bold/cautious (arguably the most important dichotomy there is).

Bold/cautious is what determines dimensionality and how functions are used..

[Braingel]

If you wanted an accurate +/-, it would be matching the functions that go in the direction of the base match that charge… (So IEI being Ni+ would have all + introverted functions.. The extroverted would be all negative).. Because at least then, the person isn’t approaching extroversion the same direction as the introverted base.. Because the direction that is contrary to the base isn’t used in as confidently, a preferred direction..

[Braingel]

If you wanted an accurate +/-, it would be naming the functions that go in the direction of the base match that charge… (So IEI being Ni+ would have all + introverted functions.. The extroverted would be all negative).. Because at least then, the person isn’t approaching extroversion the same direction as the introverted base.. Because the direction that is contrary to the base isn’t used in as confidently, a preferred direction..

It wouldn’t be accurate to make a less confidently used function go in the same direction as the base… At the very least, subtypes can have some leeway… So an IEI-Ni would have more negative extroverted functions, maybe IEI-Fe more positive ones in important blocks.. But I still don’t really feel this would be synergetic to a psychological governing..

The ego blocks can match values in some ways, I suppose… Which is maybe where the idea is gotten. But, you can’t overlook a basic principle within introversion and extroversion.. The output of these preferences shouldn’t ever match and express in a similar manner. I also feel that having a + and - in each ego block makes for a more balanced psyche, and would be necessary for a mind… So I feel it is this case.

[Sol]

It's rare when a hypothesis is correct. Speculative humanitarian region as psychology is full of doubtful and mistakes.
Among ideas of Augustinavichiute and of Jung as interesting are only a few.
It's better to limit types theory to more trusted basics as definitions and close interpretations.

Also, Socionics is only ideas of 2 said above authors. Gulenko's or someone else ideas need objective proof to be included in the term.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It makes absolutely no sense for his concept of the brake (PolR) being more cognizant than the launch (hidden agenda), because the PolR is a function that is painful to use and cautiously is so, away from the arena of the individual’a psychological direction..

You would think so but ppl aren't robots. It makes sense to me because ppl often use their weaknesses to manipulate others and ppl do painful things for themselves all the time in the hopes/in the sense will they get something rewarding for it later down the road. It's why most of us go to work lolololol. No offense but u might be blind to that kind of thing because you are an IEI... I think it is a type that is more likely to avoid painful things because they are painful, but other types do more masochistic things cuz they sense it will be better for them later on if they put up with some discomfort first, and maybe how IEI supervises ESE in the first place. "You're doing that pointless chore that will go nowhere and just get u hurt and isn't beneficial to anything" etc. And so will IEIs if their Ni is overriding the Te somehow. In the general sense, socionics might overly assume ppl are always aware of their psychological weaknesses or something? But it's a system meant to analyze and study the way ppl think/human psychology and relationships, so it inherently will have that bias.