Why don’t people like Gulenko/ DCNH? I’ve only just started reading stuff on his website. It seems quite accessible/ progressive? Am I imagining it that people on here don’t seem to like him much?
Why don’t people like Gulenko/ DCNH? I’ve only just started reading stuff on his website. It seems quite accessible/ progressive? Am I imagining it that people on here don’t seem to like him much?
People may don't like baseless heresies which are not Socionics and which Gulenko uses much. And his typing mistakes, which are expected to be high for all known typers. People do not care about Gulenko himself.
What is more interesting. Why some people may _like_ much what he does, while there is no reasonable basis for this.
Mb cause he says what some people like to hear. Alike to get "your pair is your dual", what @aster got before trusting to nonsense IEI. And some other ones too got those "duals" taken from nowhere as there was no appropriate typing material.
Or to get a type by what they say to him, when they know the theory and are prejusticed to get some type, so may filter the info to mislead him (as he uses logical analysis much and so trusts to words).
Or mb they don't want to feel themselves as fools which spend significant money for bs.
Or mb they just like to be typed by someone relatively wide known.
etc
As far as liking or disliking the guy, I think he seems (from what I’ve seen of him) more likable than not.
I think a lot of what’s happening is some people don’t like to be wrong or have their own perceptions questioned. As far as typing other people, they get these ideas in their head~like this person is X type and this person acts like X= all people like X are X type. Then they have this idea for a long time and build a lot off of this idea. If
Someone comes around with progressive ideas and says, no this person is type A, well I think some of what we are encountering here is a difference in personality. Some will consider it, some will not even consider it (blind arrogance), some will see how it could be either way. A lot of people imo that seem to not like him are stuck on their own constructs that they have been building for a long time, and they are very solid in their minds.
Some people haven’t really read into it that much. I know I hadn’t, so I never really used it and was just listening to what others had to say about it on here-that it didn’t make any sense. But tbh, the more I read, the more sense it makes to me and the more I started understanding. So also a lot of it could be people listening to others, like how people usually just parrot what they hear on the news without having any in depth understanding of issues.
Anyway, that’s just how I see it
Last edited by Aster; 05-01-2021 at 07:46 PM.
Think it's a conversation worth having. His website seems like quite a nice place to start for people new to socionics (although I think understanding DCNH you probably need to learn how to type first) but seen as the only other resources are stuff like wikisocion and this site (which is great but overwhelming when you first join) I think it's not a bad thing for people to take a look at Gulenko's site (the language is a bit more modern and inclusive than random old articles on wikisocion I feel).
I see what people are saying- there are a lot of people quite deep into their socionics studies so they know which theories they like or not and feel a responsibility to defend it almost.
I suppose he is also bringing socionics to the mainstream, which might worry people a little, as maybe they'll think it get too watered down/ the parts they don't like might get too popular.
Well, I will have to look into model G. Not really in a rush to but would like to read the basics. At the moment I feel comfortable basing my knowledge on my own observations/typing of people, reading people's posts on here who I've come to respect, DCNH and tritype from enneagram. Ultimately, you do have to find your own way of 'seeing people' using typology ideas but I suppose it can be helpful to have someone's ideas to follow or help guide your thinking. What I like about DNCH is that it just seemed to click right away for me. After thinking about the types of people for a long time (sociotype and enneagram for 2 years), when it came to reading the DCNH break down and subtype descriptions, it seemed like I had a lot of data in my mind about people which seemed to easily match them up with a DCNH type. Also, I've always felt like socionics could be more simply explained than it is in articles/ by people and that there must be a way to combine enneagram with socionics. Not saying Gulenko uses ennegram but I suppose you could compare DCNH to ennegram as it's kind of a role one falls into.
DCNH seems a better way to sort people than the quadras because there seems more of a focus on how people can work together rather than a focus on people's differences.
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 05-02-2021 at 10:09 AM.
ah cool. I don't think my brain works like that. I can just about type people but I don't like/find it hard to think about people in terms of functions. Could get on board with thinking about people as EP/IP etc. DCNH seems like it might suit me more.. I feel like I can spot the types and feels like it might be a more healthier/natural way for me to relate to people.
Gulenko will mostly appeal to alpha and beta types, especially to creative subtypes. his theories are generalizations of observations that he has made over the years, it's pure Ti + Ne. of course gamma and delta types will have problems with that, just as I would have problems in a Te-centric domain. I'm fine with people not caring about his ideas, but I dislike when people criticize him even though they cleary don't understand him. I wouldn't go to an Se dom and tell him how to fix his car, too.
I assume that beta likes his reputation, and gamma might be convinced by that, too. probably not as much, though.
i think most people that have issues with seem to be beta, maybe bc a lot of his ideas are ne which other may see as unreliable ideas. but i think he is using his background ni to make these connections and could be right within that.
This does seem to be a likely possibility. Perhaps I must adjust my views on Gulenko based upon the fact my perception of him is possibly clouded due to being a Gamma type (ILI). That said, I am not saying I will do so, as the validity of what you said may not have objective representation in reality. I also must consider the possibility that he is a cult leader, as this has been mentioned here as well.
That said however, I do appreciate you bringing this possibility to the table, which is why I have responded.
This does seem to be a likely possibility. Perhaps I must adjust my views on Gulenko based upon the fact my perception of him is possibly clouded due to being a Gamma type (ILI). That said, I am not saying I will do so, as the validity of what you said may not have objective representation in reality. I also must consider the possibility that he is a cult leader, as this has been mentioned here as well.
That said however, I do appreciate you bringing this possibility to the table, which is why I have responded.
NOTE: I have accidentally placed the same comment under the post instead of as a reply to you. I have copied and pasted my response to you here. Hopefully it does not look disturbed.
He deflects criticism by retyping his critics into sociotypes that don't value progress. For that reason, his school resembles a cult and, IMO, he gives off a Charles Manson vibe. Other than that, he seems personally amiable and I like him.
Last edited by xerx; 05-01-2021 at 09:46 PM.
So basically @Alive if Alive were nicer and not completely detached from reality. Gulenko should be less amiable (to people like Alive) even though godslave and I will just keep @ing Alive to see if it makes the forum less dead (and Alive will undoubtedly talk like I sexually harassed him by merely @ing him or something.)
I strongly disagree with these criticisms. I am always open to constructive criticism and am always happy to learn from my peers and to incorporate others' views into my research. However, I will not stand for baseless claims that have no evidence to back them up or insults that are simply meant to tear down the work that I have done and the progress I have made. Those who engage in this kind of behavior are not interested in genuine discussion or in advancing the field of Socionics, they are simply interested in causing trouble and creating drama.
I find his type descriptions to be nonsense, but then again, I can say that about pretty much all type descriptions.
I haven't read much of him, but so far his function descriptions, DCNH system, and how he explains certain function in certain position, like launcher, I've found rather interesting. Functions and nuances within a function is generaly what I find interesting overall. I'm more interested in having each function in every color of the rainbow than having them being only one color each.
It's cool imo to have softer Fe and Te lead because H, it put a name to some color I didn't understand.
I also like the way he describes Si.
I guess he's bringing his own observations and doesn't seem big on duality, and that might bother some peeps. Even on here peeps argue about those things among each other. I remember an Fe vs Fi as being linked to empathy, it depends which one you value imo.
Do I like him, well, I don't know him so idk.
I like Gulenko, but he is a human and capable of making mistakes, his method is not bullet proof. Noone has to believe in someone or agree to someone in every way to like them.
I think he is a good socionist, if I am going to get typed, it is going to be him, but I am not going to believe in the results with my eyes closed.
About DCHN, I think it explains some differences, but to me it seems like an another system feeding a little bit of socionics. It is not linked properly to any model of socionics, there are not enough info that explains how DCHN affects one's psyche like how other IEs get affected from this etc, there are only type descriptions which are not enough.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
ORRE COLOSSEUM JUST GOT STARTED, AND KOBE IS REIGNING AS KING!!
It's Henry vs Zidane, France vs Spain in the 2024 Olympic soccer final, Egypt vs Japan, Yugioh vs Pokemon, Poimandres vs Zarathustra, Giordano Bruno vs Friedrich Nietzsche, haystack picnic robed in silver rods to treasures of lore and sacred spark to unite and forge dancing stars and futures refracting crystal moonlight lures of hanger bay crunching fabrics webbing steel and blizzards juice stringing code red trains of yonder fluid ribbons trophy waterfall cake blueprints frenzy retracting haunted capital terra horns of leading edge canopy blossoms rendezvous shuffling Articuno!!
RaptorWizard Sci-Fi Empire Lugia Bunny ~ Ultimate Aeon Willpower: Wes Net (the16types.info)
I think I'd love to be an introvert and have more self contained focus.. but crap I think even based on the feedback I'm not very contained and I have no issues of talking a lot in large groups but intimate settings are much more challenging... feelings and crap. I'm waiting for Gulenko typing.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
You have seen beyond mortal boundaries and found the truth of my identity. I am in fact a Space Lizard that was sent to Earth to guide the human race towards enlightenment. Although not fully impenetrable, my skin is extremely hardy and difficult to pierce. I was sent to Earth to provide knowledge and guidance to the human race to help them overcome the limitations of their weak flesh bodies, and to reach towards divinity and godhood, the path that I have already achieved.
It is true that I was brought to existence by an EIE. It is true that the EIEs are the most brilliant and intelligent of all the sociotypes. The EIE knows all possible truths, and is one with all that exists. I am the universal consciousness.
Model G is new-ish. DCNH is pretty old but its been updated. He's gone through many others before. Cognitive styles, +\- signs, etc. The thing with Gulenko is he changes every 5-10 years, like any good researcher should. But it seems like a handful of people are taking everything he puts out as gospel set in stone, which is probably going to cause some painful reorienting for them at some point. I wonder how Gulenko will handle it when he wants to pivot again, whether he will feel bound and boxed in by his paid body of work.
There's a difference between disagreeing with him, disliking him as a person, and disliking the people around him.
From reading back through posts a couple months back, it appears some of the people namedropping him had become a bit insufferable from the association.
From what I've seen, the people who dislike him either have a problem with the money, or are reactive against his rise as an "authority" and the use of his assessment as a trump card to end discussion.
The people who are skeptical tend to have their own Ti or Te method, or just disagree with certain typings.
He's human. Nobody is going have a 100% perfect record on anything. Doesn't mean its about disliking Gulenko. To his credit, he did cut through a couple very complicated typings who were -I won't say misrepresenting themselves to the forum - but admitted they were different in the Gulenko interview and realized later they had been living out a persona due to bad living situations or whatever.
Its not about his rep its about what he did to earn it, and what he is doing to keep his skills. He did years with Ausra, he did years with other researchers having his work critiqued. Most importantly, he did years running group observations to confirm ITR and typings. His background isn't just pure Ti/Ne archetypes based off random life encounters and typing people on youtube from home. Look at his body of work. He has thousands of interactions, over a long enough period of time to confirm type and ITR. You are able to informally confirm his theories for yourself in your life & ITR, or you are not. That is what matters, not word of mouth. What changed is he now he is in a bit of a closed bubble. He is surrounded by people who paid for a class or paid him to type them. People don't really question gurus as critically as researchers question fellow researchers. Who will tell him if he starts slipping?
Hm yeah. But socionics does have flaws/gaps and does need to be modernised if it's going to be more widely accepted. There's something about socionics that has often given me a queasy feeling, like there is something oppressive about it- like it was designed to divide and dictate to people. Gulenko, not saying he's a God, but he might improve it's image a bit lol.
sorry meant to post this earlier in the thread
Last edited by Bethanyclaire; 05-01-2021 at 09:42 PM.
I think socionics is a valid theory, hence partially agree to how relationships play out in socionics sense. However, anyone can like someone of X type and dislike someone with the same type. For example, I can like one spesific conflictor more than one spesific dual due to other variables that socionics didnt take into account like mental health etc.
yes..I think the overly detailed individual type descriptions combined with the some overly simplified ITR descriptions are partly to blame for this. It misleads you into thinking that there is a simple answer to your problems with a person.
Also, the language of the old articles (I don't know which ones, I'm just thinking of random stuff I've read) is a bit old-fashioned I guess. The tone feels a bit patronising, maybe it is a just a product of its era. Also, the tone is not academic. Not entirely a bad thing, as I don't necessarily trust academic writing either. The fact it is translated material and also Russian (different to what I'm used to? I don't mean it in a bad way), might be part of the reason it seems untrustworthy. Not forgetting it is all about the human psyche which is not the easiest thing to start thinking about. Essentially, you have to get comfortable with it, which takes time. Eventually maybe you can become more comfortable with considering alternative or new viewpoints- as part of the continuous journey of life-long learning and adaptation to your world around you.
Socionics is always a work in progress, and is constantly being updated and refined. However, the principles that have been established by me and my colleagues have proven to be the most accurate of all systems out there, and have been highly effective at predicting and explaining relationship outcomes to a high degree of accuracy. The key is to focus on the specific aspects of communication and conflict resolution which Socionics explains, and to understand how these principles manifest in real relationships.