Why don’t people like Gulenko?

[wesleh00]

He’s just a reductionist.. If some people like his school, fine. But a human mind is far too abstract to be able to fit into the proposed stationary mindsets he tries pin a psyche into..

He tries seem broad with all his DCNH tacked on.. But again, to make a naturally mobile element stationary, is pretty much a reduction.

Maybe this isn't implied in your comment, but I've also been thinking like this for a while. However, I had come to learn that perhaps in this view, I was also implying that there could be a system or structure that could account for all the infinite complexities of human nature, when I said this out loud, I sort of laughed to myself.

The only "system" I've found that can account for everything would be to establish a completely new system for every individual in ones life.

However, it sort of takes the fun out of what Socionics is, or any "typology" for that matter. In some sense, you sacrifice structure in order to be able to account for everyone; or, you sacrafice the infinite complexities for a system that allows you to make generalizations.

I think Socionics is fun and it's nice that there is a large enough community behind it too, it feels fun to discuss all the topics under the umbrella of it.

[Bethanyclaire]

I quite like his book. I’m quite lazy with socionics and for me, it’s quite a handy reference guide. His observations are well-considered. It’s good the book exists- it’s fairly accessible for the average person, if they come across it. If a young, budding psychologist were to discover it, maybe they’d be able to take socionics to an academic institution and get some proper research done. Socionics needs exposure and money. So many kids doing pointless PHDs and we could be revolutionising the world..

[xerx]

What if they used unpleasant methods to make you change your mind?

You should read less Agatha Christie and more “Annals of the Shah’s Torturers”.

Unpleasant? Could depend on what you're into.

[youfloweryourfeast]

But maybe he’s really right? How are people saying he’s wrong if they haven’t looked to find out themselves. I mean we have little evidence to base off types in real life but if he’s really going through, and typing people then there has to be some accuracy to it.

[Metamorph]

Unpleasant? Could depend on what you're into.

Annals of the Shah's Con-Noncon Torture Parties by Agatha Christie.

[The Reality Denialist]

Gulenko as far as I am concerned made the classification scheme that should follow observation. This means he has removed lots of ideological, philosophical stuff and replaced it with triggers. I have arrived to a conclusion that things such as quadra values are not values it is something much cruder.

In fact it seems rather swift and therefore closer to natural sciences although it is not a science. While we follow that path it might reveal something unspeakable. If you quack like a duck you are a duck.. it does not matter if your wings are taken away.

Interestingly if you look at it like that it seem similar to Jung's method of classification. Aushra was approaching that as well although she had something very bizarre going on too.

In other words people are chaotic.What you do is not an indication of something definite.

[Metamorph]

In fact it seems rather swift and therefore closer to natural sciences although it is not a science. While we follow that path it might reveal something unspeakable. If you quack like a duck you are a duck.. it does not matter if your wings are taken away.

False. I just tried quacking like a duck and I didn't turn into a duck.

[The Reality Denialist]

False. I just tried quacking like a duck and I didn't turn into a duck.

I didn't formulate it conclusively. Anyway... Were you born as a duck? See the wings.

[Exodus]

By the way, his popularity got a boost in the West because of me. I was the one who translated his infamous Cognitive Styles article. I was also the one who popularized DCNH. I did all that, yet he gets all the credit for cooking his own meth.

Now we know who to blame

To the OP, Gulenko had some decent descriptions back in the 90s, but his hypotheses mostly are inaccurate and do not represent actual progress. This includes cognitive styles, Model G, DCNH, etc. Cognitive styles are maybe a good indication of where he started to go off the rails.

Changing theory is fine but it needs justification. I see no reason to make the changes that Model G does. Research is an incremental process and there is no path from Model A to Model G that seems at all reasonable to me.

Also, Gulenko's typings are quite bad. He uses around 25 minutes of video which is way too short, and from what I understand does not actually understand spoken English anyways. And then he uses very basic Eastern theory in his typings, stuff like Jungian dichotomies, clubs, and temperaments, sometimes quadras. He doesn't even use the functions of Model G which makes it look like the whole thing is some kind of marketing move to sell books. Somehow he ends up typing 50% of people as either EIE or LSI so obviously there was some systematic change but it doesn't seem to have much to do with Model G.

And then you have his descriptions which have ridiculously specific and sometimes borderline racist details about VI.

There is no reason to use Eastern sources and hasn't been for years, there is plenty of good information in English written by native speakers who are familiar with the theory.

[xerx]

And then you have his descriptions which have ridiculously specific and sometimes borderline racist details about VI.

lol. Socionics as borderline phrenology.

[Metamorph]

People don't like Gulenko because they don't understand Gulenko.

I personally think Gulenko's theory is probably wrong, but that's not a good reason to hate Gulenko. You don't go around hating everyone just because you disagree with them.

[Metamorph]

People may don't like baseless heresies which are not Socionics and which Gulenko uses much.

No one expects the Sol Inquisition!

[Metamorph]

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.

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.)

[Metamorph]

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

[Metamorph]

I think the opinion I hear echoed on this website in particular is that he types too many people as betas through his own typing service. There are explanations as to why this is, and while I understand the skepticism and think it's valid, it doesn't mean that his typing service is bunk or a scam (or at least that it intends to be, which is something I hear on this forum sometimes).

Pssh, Gulenko is clearly trying to get lots of gladiators for his post-apocalyptic gladiator arena.

[Bethanyclaire]

He’s just too hippyish, but SOME of his ideas (his book) have enough clarity that they might convince someone of the validity of socionics. All of the socionists are hippyish but that’s because psychology was still relatively new back in the 70s and wasn’t taken as seriously as it is now. People were becoming more socially aware- aware of equal rights and opportunities, but I think psychology was still seen as something new and not something that could help the average person. Things like enneagram/horoscopes became popular because they could easily fit bits of new psychological knowledge within their structures. And they were accessible.


Obviously socionics can improve. But it can’t just be like a horoscope description, it needs to be factual. You need concrete data in order to produce more concrete data…so for example let’s say a fact about SLI is that they can get really stressed out about health concerns. (I know an SLI guy who had an operation and has had lots of complications after which sound like they could be anxiety related). A therapist who knew about socionics/ SLIs might be able to help calm him down..and you end up with therapists who become specialists in understanding different manifestations of type relating to environmental and personal circumstances. Facts would help people understand themselves..and manage their weaknesses better. How do you get facts? I don’t know. But we do as a world have a good understanding of how people generally work- Shakespeare understood the complexities of how a human being’s mind works. We have the facts already- we just need to split them between 16 types!

@Rebelondeck talked about using ‘modern control system theory’ to advance socionics. I don’t know what that is but I’m guessing that’s what he meant. You use information you already have, and then apply filters (information you do know about the types) and you keep doing this until you narrow down to tight descriptions/ different ways of grouping the types. He also thought about types in terms of temperament or something..again, thinking about what goes in and what goes out. Thinking about the core structures of what makes a type a type. Being an anxious and vulnerable person when I came to socionics- the basics were what I needed. When socionics goes mainstream it will help people like me, because it strips people down to their basics- shows people in their equalness. It has the power to do that anyway. I was sitting talking to a young LII colleague at work trying to explain why I’m less affected by conflict that i used to be (without telling her about socionics). People develop confidences at different rates…it’s an illusion. Socionics can tell you your strengths and you can convince someone you’re more confident than you actually are.

[Tallmo]

Gulenko has done lots of good things. DCNH is imo a huge contribution to typology. The main challenge now is that people need to go back in time 100 years and read Jung and meditate on his descriptions and understand them. It's not easy in our extraverted culture, but Socionics will never improve if the function aren't better understood than now. For this to happen people need to develop their own introversion, and that's not an easy task. The situation now is that Jung is undervalued or misunderstood.

[Ave]

Pssh, Gulenko is clearly trying to get lots of gladiators for his post-apocalyptic gladiator arena.

Lol, cool pictures, especially the 2nd and 3rd ones from the top.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Because people don't usually like those who disagree with them.

Ego, partially/sometimes. It all turns into a competition about who is right.

[Popcorn]

Because it's not a science and you can't prove anything. And so people will always disagree.

[Bethanyclaire]

You can prove stuff..you can’t prove God but you can prove facts- we are not animals, we have brains that are capable of observing and studying, learning. I think we all need to go back to school again.

there are lots of things we know today which we didn’t know hundreds of years ago, people get paid to research and create new knowledge

[Popcorn]

You can prove stuff..you can’t prove God but you can prove facts- we are not animals, we have brains that are capable of observing and studying, learning. I think we all need to go back to school again.

there are lots of things we know today which we didn’t know hundreds of years ago, people get paid to research and create new knowledge

Sure, but facts aren't socionics and socionics isn't scientific research. It's not set up to be falsifiable. It's based on perception and perspective, which is not scientific. It is subjective.

^ Or what Too Deep said.

[Bethanyclaire]

Sure, but facts aren't socionics and socionics isn't scientific research. It's not set up to be falsifiable. It's based on perception and perspective, which is not scientific. It is subjective.

^ Or what Too Deep said.

not if you read every single comment @Rebelondeck wrote about the types…the things he said were objective. He was just a wise person. I thought of him as the Shakespeare of socionics. And if studied long enough everyone could come up with lots of general truths- I ain’t gonna do that lol.

We have enough knowledge about people (via study of humanities and sciences) to use as a baseline to split the types into categories with decent, descriptions which feel true to life.

Rebel did a thing were he said things about the types which showed how they each saw things from their own perspective, different perspectives are ok..I might not be explaining that well what I want to say escapes me. (Edit: he said general truths as well as explaining things from different perspectives)

It could be factual one day, or far more factual.

Humans are complicated, but not that complicated.

also, type is a core part of a person, it’s like an imprint of how the first humans evolved..and it comes into existence when it meets the world..(other types/ basic structures of society) It’s always been there, we just weren’t looking for it. I suppose types will change a little over time, but I think there are things about humans which are pretty timeless..

but yeah socionics as it is, isn’t factual I agree.

edit:

It’s random people’s observations, (subjective like you say) using some useful data produced by Jung..? But it never really took off..it should be more theoretical…not so open-ended. Different models, studies, apply existing knowledge of other fields/existing psychological knowledge. I like Gulenko’s book but he relies too much on DCNH. DCNH will never be provable, and therefore it’s not useful in the long run..

[Popcorn]

So I think I get what you are saying and I think that's why Socionics is still around. People do find it useful and I'm sure that if someone considers a lot of perspectives, they will get better insights and use out of applying it and in a way have a more "objective" understanding of socionics, even if I don't like using that word that way.

But that's also its problem. How do I know how someone else is understanding things? I can only infer their thoughts, often incorrectly (especially if I don't know someone very well), unless they explicitly state them. And even then, people often lie, even to themselves, for one reason or another. It becomes almost impossible for people to confer their perspectives and thoughts to others because humans are not built to do that. We hide our thoughts and say what we want or over-simplify/conclude information for one reason or another. And this puts almost nothing out in the open and twists the full truth into a narrative or conclusion, no matter how many perspectives we may have considered. This inability of truly knowing another person's subjectivity and the full information they are working with, along with the subjective nature of forming our own conclusions about messy and often disconnected information means we can't be truly objective when dealing with others or even ourselves. And if that's the case, then how do we know when we are wrong about anything? We can't and don't, hence the conflict. It's just human nature. There is no difference in politics, religion, or philosophy. But if you then want to make Socionics more scientific and less subjective, I would think you need to find a way to control for all of these things so that when people do disagree on things, it can be more clearly investigated what is right and/or wrong.

[Bethanyclaire]

But if you then want to make Socionics more scientific and less subjective, I would think you need to find a way to control for all of these things so that when people do disagree on things, it can be more clearly investigated what is right and/or wrong.

very true. My only advice to any new person who thinks socionics is a bit…silly..is to read Rebel’s posts and his articles over on socionics.com. (Articles by I/O). I read it all, forgot it…but it comes back to me when I need it. But I had needed it…I was a bit sheltered in some ways. Socionics as it is will not seem useful to everyone. I told a friend about socionics and he simply said he has too many other things he wants to read about…i found Rebel’s posts early and I knew that was the only way it would be useful to me. Now I can appreciate Gulenko’s book but I have Rebel’s posts to compare it with, and contextualise it..

[xerx]

Pssh, Gulenko is clearly trying to get lots of gladiators for his post-apocalyptic gladiator arena.

That dude low-key looks like Gulenko if he shaved and worked out.

[myresearch]

People dont like G because G type them as something else. And this creates two groups of people, one group thinks other group is blind G followers and other group thinks other group is blind herd follower.

The thing that causes this division that everyone generally has some perception about other people's type mainly that are based on self typing of that person. If that person majorly typed as some other type then most think thats their type.

Which is quite normal, because when you see something and you start to make your mind about how it is true. And since that person also believes that they are that type, they are giving info about why and how they are type and disregard most things that doesnt fit to that. Everyone of us do this to some extent.

Certain things that I see:


Person type themselves as X: I do A.
Everyone: Oh yeah X types do A.
Person type themselves as Y: I do A.
*Criket noises*

Person type themselves as X: I HATE B function so much, I HATE IT, fuck B people

Person type themselves as X doing B valuing even can be B-dom.

But person believes they are not since everyone is also confirming that on typology communities.



Problem starts when G types that person. It seems like out of nowhere. Although if a person looks carefully there could be some signs.

But again if someone were to bring those, then person may think they only think that way due to confirmation bias and other party can argue that they mistyped themselves due to confirmations bias. Again it is very super valid that both parties thinking that about each other. So some people think others are G followers and some think that others are herd followers.

Main thing that causes this misconceptions running around, self typing effect and unable to distinguish persona/outer layer of a person from their core type. And remembering that you dont even see most people so you only read what they think about themselves.

Shattering misconceptions can be good for everyone who likes and dislikes G. But I dont think there is too much to do with self typing effect and persona effect.

Since people are typed as EIE and LSI the most, there is not much info flowing regarding his system.

PS: I dont understand how there is this much EIE and LSI typed by G but they still have problems understanding persona effect.

[Metamorph]

That dude low-key looks like Gulenko if he shaved and worked out.

Gulenko really should work out (shaving your entire head is optional.)

[Clarke]

I'm pretty sure people don't like being called victims and infantiles, I guess. That's kind of fetishistic.

[The Reality Denialist]

People dont like G because G type them as something else. And this creates two groups of people, one group thinks other group is blind G followers and other group thinks other group is blind herd follower.

The thing that causes this division that everyone generally has some perception about other people's type mainly that are based on self typing of that person. If that person majorly typed as some other type then most think thats their type.

Which is quite normal, because when you see something and you start to make your mind about how it is true. And since that person also believes that they are that type, they are giving info about why and how they are type and disregard most things that doesnt fit to that. Everyone of us do this to some extent.

Certain things that I see:


Person type themselves as X: I do A.
Everyone: Oh yeah X types do A.
Person type themselves as Y: I do A.
*Criket noises*

Person type themselves as X: I HATE B function so much, I HATE IT, fuck B people

Person type themselves as X doing B valuing even can be B-dom.

But person believes they are not since everyone is also confirming that on typology communities.



Problem starts when G types that person. It seems like out of nowhere. Although if a person looks carefully there could be some signs.

But again if someone were to bring those, then person may think they only think that way due to confirmation bias and other party can argue that they mistyped themselves due to confirmations bias. Again it is very super valid that both parties thinking that about each other. So some people think others are G followers and some think that others are herd followers.

Main thing that causes this misconceptions running around, self typing effect and unable to distinguish persona/outer layer of a person from their core type. And remembering that you dont even see most people so you only read what they think about themselves.

Shattering misconceptions can be good for everyone who likes and dislikes G. But I dont think there is too much to do with self typing effect and persona effect.

Since people are typed as EIE and LSI the most, there is not much info flowing regarding his system.

PS: I dont understand how there is this much EIE and LSI typed by G but they still have problems understanding persona effect.

I was sort of overly cautious. Let's say EIE was always on the table but the amount external dissonance was vast. Who is right? Do I let people define me? Do I influence people so much that I believe them because they get influenced by me? As per persona. I still have a scientific mind in certain ways and I have had most of my life and it has high standards. That is sort of core. Hence good luck using handing waving opinions as irrefutable facts on me (and I can take this typology as subjective but I seek some sort of solid validity).

[myresearch]

I was sort of overly cautious. Let's say EIE was always on the table but the amount external dissonance was vast.

Noted. I havent written that thinking individuals but as a general thing btw.

Who is right? Do I let people define me?

That's certainly problematic, in the vast of misconceptions, I dont expect anyone to do that nor they should. But from what I get, it is good to question yourself once in a while.

Do I influence people so much that I believe them because they get influenced by me? As per persona. I still have a scientific mind in certain ways and I have had most of my life and it has high standards. That is sort of core.

If we are going to do this about you, since you know this and type yourself as EIE and since you can see that not every EIE is like you or some other person in this regard, you can understand that those things doesnt make the type that type and look for things that make the type that type.

Hence good luck using handing waving opinions as irrefutable facts on me (and I can take this typology as subjective but I seek some sort of solid validity).

You better watch out

[Bethanyclaire]

The language in Gulenko’s book seems ok too, I mean the translation. Professional, at least.

but things will always be lost in translation unless you have a more succinct format for defining types. His ITR are ok, (need to check what he says about super-ego, how can no one have observed that super-ego can be ok?). In general they expand a little on the basic descriptions on socionics.com.

[Manatroid92]

The language in Gulenko’s book seems ok too, I mean the translation. Professional, at least.

but things will always be lost in translation unless you have a more succinct format for defining types. His ITR are ok, (need to check what he says about super-ego, how can no one have observed that super-ego can be ok?). In general they expand a little on the basic descriptions on socionics.com.

A good number of marriages are based on super-ego relations. They can work out, but can be a bit harder/more work than just getting with someone in the same or adjacent quadra, and rely a lot on similar interests and values, goals, etc. to maintain more easily. People are naturally attracted to it because, being the opposite quadra, they appear kind of intriguing.
I think I remember that Gulenko also says that super-ego is fine, too.


EDIT: From Super-ego relations - Wikisocion

V.V. Gulenko, A.V. Molodtsev, “Introduction to socionics”
There are relations of mutual respect. Superego means “super-I”. One superego partner is perceived as a distant and somewhat mysterious ideal. His mannerisms and way of thinking inspire interest. At large distances, these relations are often outwardly cool while internally partners often develop mutual sympathies and affection for one another. If there is no common topic for conversation, which would be interesting for both partners, communication carries rather formal character. There is desire to express one’s point of view rather than to listen to your partner. This happens because the topic of conversation often falls in the area of strong functions of one partner that are weak in another, listening to which is uninteresting. This creates an impression that your partner understands and is interested in you, even though you suspect that this interest is shallow.

When the distance grows closer, the nature of these relations takes on a new, less pleasant undertone. In words, understanding usually remains good, especially with matching subtypes. But in deeds it is as if the partner does everything to frustrate you. Partners either fail to inform each other about their intentions, or do not listen to each other closely. Thus they end up doing the opposite of what their partner had expected of them. This can cause many arguments and conflict, but even in this case internal affection towards one’s partner does not disappear or even diminish. Hope that the ideal is still achievable persists.

Extraversion-introversion of partners has significant effect on these relations. In a pair of two extraverts, one is usually dissatisfied that the other pays too little attention to him and is too preoccupied with outside matters. In a pair of introverts, it is the opposite case, one partner feels that the other is too intrusive and clingy, and doesn’t leave him alone. In both cases this results in misunderstandings and quarrels.

[Bethanyclaire]

A good number of marriages are based on super-ego relations. They can work out, but can be a bit harder/more work than just getting with someone in the same or adjacent quadra, and rely a lot on similar interests and values, goals, etc. to maintain more easily. People are naturally attracted to it because, being the opposite quadra, they appear kind of intriguing.
I think I remember that Gulenko also says that super-ego is fine, too.


EDIT: From Super-ego relations - Wikisocion

Yes, my thoughts are that super-ego relations can be very good..but the caveat is that it may not work unless both people have a lot of relationship experience. But in a purely cognitive sense they are strong. Like semi-dual.


people may meet people from the quadra more easily..maybe it’s easy to ‘spot’ a ‘good’ quadra member..but doesn’t mean they are the best long term.I think Gulenko/socionics spots trends..but doesn’t challenge why they exist. It’s better to know exactly the cognitive strengths of relations and their potential?


Mirror relations for example seem ok between sei/ese. I know a few couples. But they are successful individuals. I think they work because the individuals are very capable people..not because it’s a strong ITR.

the bit under ‘spoiler’ does not make it sound appealing..the book description feels a bit more positive but also like he hasn’t quite decided what he thinks about this ITR..

oh also- something that should be considered. I think living with someone can feel very different to the casual relationships we have we people in our day to day lives..E.g semi-dual would turn out better than activity.. (actually I’m not even sure Gulenko/socionocs rates activity highly so I don’t know why people don’t criticise it more)

socionics isn’t completely wrong about ITR- just a bit. But as a woman who has already had my fair share of struggles and does not have much financial stability…I want to know exactly what the risks are lol..of course personal traits and experiences will also affect the potential dynamics of the ITR

Edit: also I think shared goals/ values is only connected to quadra in a superficial way? Sure people can have a great spark if they have similar interests..but a bond can be based on other things- feeling like you can depend on the other person? Or something more unhealthy?

[SacredKnowing]

Some of his ideas are not logically consistent with A's original Socionics. For instance, according to the Gulenko cognitive styles, I am dialectical-algorithmic cognition, but I know for a fact that I am also an emotivist. There must be more harmonizing that has to be done between A and G.

[Squirrel]

DCNH is the best thing his system has , but even this ends up being misused to justify impossible typings

Types most people as either EIE or LSI

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

DCNH is the best thing his system has , but even this ends up being misused to justify impossible typings

Types most people as either EIE or LSI

It just does feel like he's projecting his wife/children into other people which is kinda creepy/weird in the bad way. I don't think this makes him the worst person ever or anything- he seems to understand the theory fairly well, but I don't really trust him actually typing people, just sounds like a scam/way to get money.

[godslave]

There are a few things Dr.G. claimed that I think are probably not aligned with the reality . One them is saying that PTSD affects mostly people with Si creative (I assume he was talking in SHS terms so in Model A that would be demonstrative Si ). I don't remember in which Ben Vaserlan video it was exactly but I might have referenced it in one of my notebooks (I'll check later).

[Ikite iru]

There are a few things Dr.G. claimed that I think are probably not aligned with the reality . One them is saying that PTSD affects mostly people with Si creative (I assume he was talking in SHS terms so in Model A that would be demonstrative Si ). I don't remember in which Ben Vaserlan video it was exactly but I might have referenced it in one of my notebooks (I'll check later).

Did he really claim that? Never read anything about it. The only thing he relates to functions is Ni=autism as far as I know, which I agree with.

[godslave]

Did he really claim that? Never read anything about it. The only thing he relates to functions is Ni=autism as far as I know, which I agree with.

Yes, absolutely. I'm paraphrasing but he said that Hypermnesia is typical of Si creative . Recalling sensory data like Tastes, colors and event (including the emotional charge) and this is the reason why PTSD is typical of the Si creative types.

He also said that photographic memory is typical of right spinning types esp LSI when they make it their goal ( I guess he meant when they chose to use that ability).

I think it's in the video about Si function (With Dr.G) in Ben YTC but I'm not sure. It's definitely in one of those videos.