Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Discussions on Gulenko's English Descriptions of Elements

  1. #1
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Discussions on Gulenko's English Descriptions of Elements and Dichotomies

    It's found that an English website of SHS is now opened so I viewed it fastly. I'd like to start a temporary post to discuss a bit about his English descriptions of the functions (corresponding to Model A's information elements).

    ----- discussions deleted.
    Last edited by CR400AF; 09-14-2021 at 04:01 PM.

  2. #2
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,219
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think some of these descriptions are related to DCNH and not to just the function itself. I am not really sure what he means with "functional state".
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)

  3. #3
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I think some of these descriptions are related to DCNH and not to just the function itself. I am not really sure what he means with "functional state".
    I regard "functional state" as functions. It seems that he tries to use the energy perspective such that when one is using a cognitive function (s)he is in the state. That how I understand this, so I just regard these descriptions as IME descriptions.

  4. #4
    Seed my wickedness PseudoRandomBSGenerator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Executing Satanic rituals
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF/omnibeta
    Posts
    6,942
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Should be used together with model G? As it is said (by Gulenko?) Ignoring might ring more true than the base (model G) while in reality it is left to wander its own course.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

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

  5. #5
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoRandomBSGenerator View Post
    Should be used together with model G? As it is said (by Gulenko?) Ignoring might ring more true than the base (model G) while in reality it is left to wander its own course.
    Probably. I also noticed that in model G the demonstrative function is regarded as the creative. So that might lead to a shif of functional definitions. But I think no matter what the definitions should be in line with Jung.

  6. #6
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,219
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post

    Fe: Functional state E - ethics of emotions (socioniks.net)

    While being emotionally excited, a person loses objective rigors of judgment and plunges into the turbulent currents of their subjective preferences and feelings. Their consciousness makes very biased assessments, which are just an expression of perceived value for an object or a person.

    Seems to be different from what Jung said in Tavistock Lectures. Also, I don't really agree to describe Fe as "expression of perceived value for an object or a person". As for the "value", there should be two kinds of values for objects:
    • The valued based on the cost of it. For instance, the materials used to produce it, the price of the materials, the price of labours and transportations currently. This is Te.
    • How someone values it. It's Fi. It's what Aushra said "the level of attraction (or repulsion)". The expression of such Fi judgements are external but I think it should not be considered as Fe because Jung discussed how Fi judgements communicate among people in the Fi section: "In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one’s fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relativelygreat internal(as well as external)similarityof the human being, this effect can actually be achieved"


    Do you agree how he explains Fe?
    But Fe is also how the person values something.

    That paragraph could be both Fe or Fi. Fe is related to the values of the surroundings or society. That's why Fe types can be socially gifted, they are oriented towards these values, they seem socially adapted. Gulenko is maybe describing an exaggerated use of Fe, Jung also writes about this in Psychological types.

    I ignore Gulenko's terminiology. "Subjective" doesn't mean the same thing here as in Jung's writings. Gulenko seems to use the word in the same sense as Jung uses Feeling.

    I haven't read the Tavistock lectures.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)

  7. #7
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I ignore Gulenko's terminiology. "Subjective" doesn't mean the same thing here as in Jung's writings. Gulenko seems to use the word in the same sense as Jung uses Feeling.

    I haven't read the Tavistock lectures.
    In Tavistock Lectures, Jung said that sensing, thinking, feeling and intution are ectopsychic functions (external). While there are four endopsychic functions (internal): memory, subjective components of conscious functions, emotion and invation. After Lecture I, several doctors asked Jung how to distinguish "feeling" and "emotion", Jung said that feeling is simply a rational judgemental function. He said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    I hold that feeling is a rational function if it is differentiated. When it is not differentiated it just happens, and then it has all the archaic qualities which can be summed up by the word 'unreasonable.' ...... If you study emotions you will invariably find that you apply the word 'emotional' when it concerns a condition that is characterized by physiological innervations. Therefore you can measure emotions to a certain extent, not their psychic part but the physiological part.
    Jung also said that

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    For instance, if you find that thinking is highly differentiated, then feeling is undifferentiated. What does that mean? Does it mean these people have no feelings? No, on the contrary. They say, 'I have very strong feelings. I am full of emotion and temperament'.
    So he thinks that thinking types are more easily to be controlled by emotions. For feeling types who have differentiated feeling functions, they actually have control of their feelings. What Gulenko said is likely to mislead the readers to think that Fe users are more likely to be in "turbulent" states and that's the opposite of what Jung said. I know that Gulenko names the suggestive function as manipulative and this naming is also consistent with Jung but in this place it seems that he is suggesting something opposite.

    Aushra hold the same view as Jung.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aushra Augusta
    All ethical (the ethical element in the first or second place) are well versed in both their own and the feelings and emotions of other people. They are not shy of them, they speak easily about them (this applies to all types of feelings: love, fear, admiration), if not to the object of love, then to friends, since feelings and experiences are what ennobles a person, makes him more valuable. All logical feelings are supplanted and silent, since any feeling is considered a weakness opposite to reason. It is, because there is little conscious in their feelings, they are not subject to mind control.
    ------------------
    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo
    But Fe is also how the person values something.

    That paragraph could be both Fe or Fi. Fe is related to the values of the surroundings or society. That's why Fe types can be socially gifted, they are oriented towards these values, they seem socially adapted. Gulenko is maybe describing an exaggerated use of Fe, Jung also writes about this in Psychological types.
    Yes this paragraph could be both Fe or Fi. Also his description of Fi gives me a similar feeling.

    What I current understand is that F types are generally good at both Fe and Fi but they value differently. Fe values should be oriented to the environment and Fi values should be oriented to the "subjective factors".

    What Gulenko said here, "an expression of perceived value for an object or a person", sounds like how one values an object (I love this object, this object is awful etc.) and seems to be a bit Fi-ish.

    I'm not a F type and I couldn't claim that I'm sure about how Fe/Fi differs. I am not sure whether his descriptions are correct or not.
    Last edited by CR400AF; 08-26-2021 at 04:58 PM.

  8. #8
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    But Fe is also how the person values something.

    That paragraph could be both Fe or Fi. Fe is related to the values of the surroundings or society. That's why Fe types can be socially gifted, they are oriented towards these values, they seem socially adapted. Gulenko is maybe describing an exaggerated use of Fe, Jung also writes about this in Psychological types.

    I ignore Gulenko's terminiology. "Subjective" doesn't mean the same thing here as in Jung's writings. Gulenko seems to use the word in the same sense as Jung uses Feeling.

    I haven't read the Tavistock lectures.
    Although I think generally it's not hard to differentiate Fe/Fi but I do find that their divisions are somewhat blur if solely rely on Jung's descriptions so I buy into the standard of dynamic/static. The difficulty is because that F elements are about values so it has be to related to "I" and hence it's much harder to differentiate the subjective factor from the objective ones.

    As for the "values of something" I think actually Te is also possible:

    1) The real value of some object. This is actually Te. It's actually a market value. It contains the current price of the materials, the price of labour works required to build the object, the price of transportation, marketing costs such as advertising etc. This "value" is actually a factual knowledge oriented to the objective environment.

    2) How one felt attracted or repulsed by the object/person. I consider this to be Fi.

    3) How one values the surronding atmosphere. I consider this to be Fe.

    But to be sure that I find it harder to distinguish the "subjective factor" in F elements. So it seems that Fe and Fi are always together, there's no fully extraverted F since "value" itself could be considered as an archetype.

    When dealing with the model, functions and elements, we have to try to distinguish them and I think Aushra's definitions are actually pretty good.

  9. #9
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,219
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post

    What Gulenko said here, "an expression of perceived value for an object or a person", sounds like how one values an object (I love this object, this object is awful etc.) and seems to be a bit Fi-ish.

    I'm not a F type and I couldn't claim that I'm sure about how Fe/Fi differs. I am not sure whether his descriptions are correct or not.
    This is the interesting thing about Fe, that Jung mentions. Objects are evaluated according how they fit into the "right" formula, how they fit with general standards, or something like that. So for example, following fashion is related to Fe. Or when a girl marries a man, because he has the right background, looks, income (by commonly held standards) etc. (Jung's example).

    So even though Fe tells the person how he feels about something, it is according to standards outside himself.

    I hope I understood you correctly.

    EDIT:
    Fe in a nutshell:

    Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function. (PT)
    Last edited by Tallmo; 08-26-2021 at 06:44 PM.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)

  10. #10
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko's article on I/E dichotomy: Extroverts and introverts. Extroversion / introversion dichotomy in socionics (socioniks.net)

    Psychologically, extroverts are more open people in informal communication. They understand themselves through other people. Direct self-reflection is a problem for them. Without receiving information from the outside, an extrovert feels inner emptiness. This information vacuum is more difficult to experience for them than the energy vacuum.

    Introverts, when they communicate informally, automatically close off. Their inner world is protected from the intruders. They know themselves very well. They have difficulties with knowing other people. Having no external information causes an introvert to generate it themselves. It is much worse for them without external energy supply.

  11. #11
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    This is the interesting thing about Fe, that Jung mentions. Objects are evaluated according how they fit into the "right" formula, how they fit with general standards, or something like that. So for example, following fashion is related to Fe. Or when a girl marries a man, because he has the right background, looks, income (by commonly held standards) etc. (Jung's example).

    So even though Fe tells the person how he feels about something, it is according to standards outside himself.

    I hope I understood you correctly.

    EDIT:
    Fe in a nutshell:

    Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function. (PT)
    Yes this seems to be Fe related. But such values could also be Fi related. For instance if I'm discussing about something I prefer brand A to brand B. My friend captures my preferences because I'm more excited when talking about brand A. I think this is Fi.

    If it's society oriented (fashion, common standards) then it is Fe though. So sometimes it's not easy to distinguish them solely with an expression.

  12. #12
    When? GeoRevival's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    On my keyboard
    TIM
    ILE/LII
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I view these description more like the description of accentuation, since they are presented as plain, bare functions - not inside a model.
    If Augusta is focusing on information aspects, Gulenko is showing energic states.

    The "value" one sounds more like semantic issues, and when I think about F's value I think about ethical values.
    And I don't buy his idea that the "if - then - else" thinking style is related to EIE & ILI and these two can be good at programming.

  13. #13
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,074
    Mentioned
    170 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I think some of these descriptions are related to DCNH and not to just the function itself. I am not really sure what he means with "functional state".
    https://socioniks.net/article/?id=8

    It's either the third layer of the type profile discussed in the article (the functional profile), or a fourth that he talks about in his book which is a temporary state one is in due circumstances (for example being in a state of Fe when in an excited crowd).

    The fourth he says is not particularly relevant as it usually comes and goes through circumstance, you cannot establish a profile based on it. But I think in the OP's articles he actually means a temporary state one is in when focusing on a function.
    What good is a book that does not even transport us beyond all books?

    ~Nietzsche

  14. #14
    The Evening and the Morning Star Eudaimonia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    TIM
    EIE-Fe 3w4 Sx/So
    Posts
    1,698
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I actually love these descriptions, I didn't know they existed.
    "I'ma rock the boat
    Work the middle 'til it hurt a little" - Kanye West
    ENFJ | EIE-Fe | WELP | 3w4 sx/so


Posting Permissions

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