Sorry, Eglit.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...tions_by_Eglit
Sorry, Eglit.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...tions_by_Eglit
In german, you would say 'Gequältes Modell', not 'Modell gequält', that doesn't make much sense. Both don't sound that great.
Also, Gulenko tries sneakly to fuse together socionics and mbti, even though mbti is wrong and over-simplified on many levels. And what is that thing about people getting wrong concepts in his face and spreading misinformation and he does nothing about it, he just smiles and go like "yeah... well... I suppose...". Also, why does he charge the equivalent of a Bachellor's degree for just 10 lessons? So much for claiming Alphas to be democratic and against Gammas capitalists such as Trump.
Socionics is ruined regardless of Gulenko
Souls know their way back home
There is one "official socionics celebrity" - Augustinavichiute.
She'd could to make certifications to have other ones formally, but seems she did not. Types was her interest to research. Probably, with the understanding lack of experimental proof, weak places of the theory and practical problems she was not interested seriously to organise typology usage. While without practical usage a certification has a small sense. Mb in some moment she tryied to check how good her close followers identify types - this could show how big is the problem of accuracy and so to do not go further.
Her idea about complementing/opposing functions and IR theory was good input to Jung types. Who will identify types correctly of people near may notice IR as working. Normal experiment to prove IR, which would be evaluated as objective, needs significant efforts and so no one has done it, at least with the quality enough to be accepted as convincing proof and so to be wide known.
Socionics is not ruined. It just did not show the objective basis to be trusted highly in how it's used now. It has kept speculative and hypothetical status, which had from the start. High typing disagreements between people with an experience only has supported this opinion. Socionics as a theory (in its basics) is not disproved. Typers which have typing disagreements are not obligately both are bad in typing. That _average_ situation is not good have become more noticable as Internet, with more data exchange, has made easier to show this - of how often people mistake, and disagree with each other.
What happens is common for speculative approach to a knowledge to not be a big surprise. Doubtful theories, doubtful data for typing, doubtful interpretations of this data. All this was on the surface for the ones who thinks and has some education to be critical to hypotheses and speculative usage of those. What surprises, that despite the astrology-alike bedlam, typing matches are clearly above accidental and some hypotheses work in subjective watching. So the principles of Socionics can be correct, while problems to be in secondary theory and practical application.
As for Gulenko. He did the similar what did many ones, which also had the experience and some public prominence. It's for English talkers Gulenko may seem as more meaningful, as his fans were very active on English sites.
Jung types are popular in usage still. Even in existing bad state. Stay chances for experimental proof for IR and other, after what the typology train would move to mass usage.
If to take activity factor. It on concrete resources could decrease. This may be because of spreading people between more number of sites and talking groups, which appeared in more quantity. When many people seriously trust even to astrology, then psychology hypotheses will have the interest too.
gulenko is such an opp. although i do like a few of his contributions, he sorta took over the whole thing and i find parts of his conjectures pretty off. i think its gulenko that purports the stereotypes, and i find his subtyping system unclear. someone else in the thred said it (@Lycantrope) but yeah it really is true gulenko put MBTI into socionics. theyre not supposed to mix. and its the MBTI jargon that feeds into stereotypes. For my own type for example, it'd be nice not to get conflated iwth the ESTP jock archetype from MBTI. he has nearly monopolised socionics, its like a president but no term limit.