Why Gulenko Ruined Socionics

[Metamorph]

There's not supposed to be a socionics establishment. The point of socionicizing is to say that the world would be a better place if you were in charge and thumb your nose at the so-called "experts." Having official socionics celebrities like Gulenko kind of defeats the point of that, especially if the official socionics celebrities type people the same types over and over instead of letting people use their purported types to try to explain why they're right about things and other people are wrong and why they don't get along with different people. Despite socionics being grouped with MBTI and enneagram, the purposes of all three systems are rather different. The purpose of socionics is basically an opposition to "science experts" who tell people what to do expressed through claiming you know how people should really organize societies better than they do. Enneagram is basically pseudo-religion focused on a specific idea of original sin and how to repent. MBTI is a way for corporations to get people to talk about themselves and see how good at lying they are in order to qualify for positions and promotions.

So no, no one wants a purported socionics expert sorting everyone into a couple of common types. That completely defeats the purpose of socionics.

[Metaphor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionics

Socionics is a science about the socion, the socionic nature of man and the socionic structure of society, about different types of people’s information metabolism (IM) and different forms of their interrelations. It was born based on typologies created by C.G. Jung, E. Kretschmer and A.E. Lichko, as well as A. Kepinski’s theory of information metabolism. It is an exact science demonstrating that laws of physics* are at the basis of human perception and thinking, as well as functioning and development of society.

To fulfill their own needs, an individual requires an understanding of the entirety of their environment. In their service to society, people cooperate: the information transmitted from an individual to society only contains the individual’s understanding of some aspects of reality, but not others. According to our current understanding, the explanation of this phenomenon is fairly simple: individual aspects of reality are reflected in the human brain with different degrees of differentiation and conscious awareness. The aspects that are only used by the individual themselves are reflected in a rather generalized way – they are remembered as images, experience, skills. On the other hand, the aspects information about which get transmitted to society are remembered in a more differentiated way, with enough accuracy to allow for verbal transmission of the information.

Human as a biological being is an independent unit, cooperating with its own kind only for the purpose of procreation.
Human as a social being does not possess such independence.

This is because human psyche uses different ways of processing information. There are sixteen such ways, and each individual person masters only one of them. Together they form a unified system thanks to which man was able to become man and build everything we call “culture” today. A single way of processing information, or information metabolism, is unproductive. Even if we take a very large number of people with the same type of IM, this kind of social group will function sluggishly and will not be able to tackle even the simplest life problems. Humanity’s strength is in the diversity of its intelligence – the existence of the sixteen types of IM.

Socion, or The Foundations of Socionics

[Ave]

Lol. RIP socionics. Here's a tissue for your tears.

[Bethanyclaire]

Everyone sounds a bit like Gulenko on this site..is it a gen z thing?

[EIE H]

Everyone sounds a bit like Gulenko on this site..is it a gen z thing?

A niche platform for self-importance. LOL. It’s oddly a mix of gen x AND gen z.

[Popcorn]

There's not supposed to be a socionics establishment. The point of socionicizing is to say that the world would be a better place if you were in charge and thumb your nose at the so-called "experts." Having official socionics celebrities like Gulenko kind of defeats the point of that, especially if the official socionics celebrities type people the same types over and over instead of letting people use their purported types to try to explain why they're right about things and other people are wrong and why they don't get along with different people. Despite socionics being grouped with MBTI and enneagram, the purposes of all three systems are rather different. The purpose of socionics is basically an opposition to "science experts" who tell people what to do expressed through claiming you know how people should really organize societies better than they do. Enneagram is basically pseudo-religion focused on a specific idea of original sin and how to repent. MBTI is a way for corporations to get people to talk about themselves and see how good at lying they are in order to qualify for positions and promotions.

So no, no one wants a purported socionics expert sorting everyone into a couple of common types. That completely defeats the purpose of socionics.

With so many haters and naysayers of the socionics, it's really refreshing to come across someone, such as yourself, that actually appreciates and promotes socionics for the good it can do. Thanks for that.

[Bethanyclaire]

A niche platform for self-importance. LOL. It’s oddly a mix of gen x AND gen z.

it’s a sort of grandiose style of talking..and bit melodramatic seeming to a millennial anyway haha.

[Bethanyclaire]

What do you mean? Way of talking? Lol

Btw I remember watching videos of him and thinking he was an absolute character. And yeah a kinda whimsical way of speaking..? Gulenko’s style is a bit more casual than the other writing(?).

[Bethanyclaire]

I’m not sure he’ll be remembered..his book is good but it’s still not enough to use as a Bible for learning socionics. Less whimsy more hard solid facts.

[EIE H]

it’s a sort of grandiose style of talking..and bit melodramatic seeming to a millennial anyway haha.

I just mean a good chunk of those people are in their 30s too. Lol

[Bethanyclaire]

I just mean a good chunk of those people are in their 30s too. Lol

milennials? At first I thought you did mean millennials..and then I thought you meant Gulenko is a gen x-er but turns out he’s actually a boomer! Lols

[rizz]

Aušra Augustunavičiuviviūtė is DEAD, SO IS SOCIONIXXX!!!!!!!!!!1!!!169

[Manatroid92]

With so many haters and naysayers of the socionics, it's really refreshing to come across someone, such as yourself, that actually appreciates and promotes socionics for the good it can do. Thanks for that.

Respectfully, Blue has also (on this forum) been at odds with Socionics in general as well. I'm not saying they (she? I've forgotten, sorry) think Socionics is a complete waste of time (because why take the time to make this thread, in that cast?). But there have been more people here that have promoted and encouraged Socionics fairly frequently, it may just be that you haven't seen them very often. Which is entirely understandable, not every thread or post is of interest to everyone, so not everyone will be willing to spend time looking at all of them.


Regarding the original post; I don't really consider Gulenko a celebrity per se. It seems more like enthusiasts treat him that way, whether it's for memes-sake or out of genuine appreciation depends on the person. What he is, though, is "an authority". Not "the authority", "an authority". It's not really fair to blame him for trying to push Socionics further, even if it's in a direction not everyone agrees with, and in fact I'm always extremely dubious towards the notion that he's somehow trying to "control" the direction of Socionics. None of what we talk about regarding Socionics is really provable at this point in time, so no-one can actually point to something and say "See, this is why Gulenko is the only person you should believe, he has all the answers", and in the event that they do, they are ridiculed or ignored.

Even on this forum, people still openly reference older texts/articles that were written in regards to Model A rather than Model G, Gulenko or SHS, even by those who do support and promote Model G. Gulenko has definitely occupied a much larger space than previously, and very much has the most obviously ardent supporters, that's for sure. But he has just as many detractors as well. It's not like all other schools of Socionics have been considered redundant or invalid.

Whether or not Gulenko himself holds any real "truth" in his own field is not really the point (speaking for myself, at least), because it could really be any model that gets embraced by enthusiasts at large. If Gulenko just outright stopped his research tomorrow, the affects would be felt for sure, but other prominent individuals could easily become the new "centralizing" figurehead, theoretically. If Model G replaced Model A entirely, then people would still branch off again from Model G to create their own theories as well.

What I can see Gulenko does for people, though, is provide an explanation that examines at a deep enough level to not be superficial, but also not so arcane in its detail that a layman couldn't understand it. This is partly his appeal, and why he has become so much an intrinsic part of the discourse in Socionics.

[seeking it]

A niche platform for self-importance. LOL. It’s oddly a mix of gen x AND gen z.

I am generation Y, so I'm an outlier then lol.

Respectfully, Blue has also (on this forum) been at odds with Socionics in general as well. I'm not saying they (she? I've forgotten, sorry) think Socionics is a complete waste of time (because why take the time to make this thread, in that cast?). But there have been more people here that have promoted and encouraged Socionics fairly frequently, it may just be that you haven't seen them very often. Which is entirely understandable, not every thread or post is of interest to everyone, so not everyone will be willing to spend time looking at all of them.

Regarding the original post; I don't really consider Gulenko a celebrity per se. It seems more like enthusiasts treat him that way, whether it's for memes-sake or out of genuine appreciation depends on the person. What he is, though, is "an authority". Not "the authority", "an authority". It's not really fair to blame him for trying to push Socionics further, even if it's in a direction not everyone agrees with, and in fact I'm always extremely dubious towards the notion that he's somehow trying to "control" the direction of Socionics. None of what we talk about regarding Socionics is really provable at this point in time, so no-one can actually point to something and say "See, this is why Gulenko is the only person you should believe, he has all the answers", and in the event that they do, they are ridiculed or ignored.

Even on this forum, people still openly reference older texts/articles that were written in regards to Model A rather than Model G, Gulenko or SHS, even by those who do support and promote Model G. Gulenko has definitely occupied a much larger space than previously, and very much has the most obviously ardent supporters, that's for sure. But he has just as many detractors as well. It's not like all other schools of Socionics have been considered redundant or invalid.

Whether or not Gulenko himself holds any real "truth" in his own field is not really the point (speaking for myself, at least), because it could really be any model that gets embraced by enthusiasts at large. If Gulenko just outright stopped his research tomorrow, the affects would be felt for sure, but other prominent individuals could easily become the new "centralizing" figurehead, theoretically. If Model G replaced Model A entirely, then people would still branch off again from Model G to create their own theories as well.

What I can see Gulenko does for people, though, is provide an explanation that examines at a deep enough level to not be superficial, but also not so arcane in its detail that a layman couldn't understand it. This is partly his appeal, and why he has become so much an intrinsic part of the discourse in Socionics.

I'd rather Gulenko stopped his research. Not tomorrow. Today! .....

I don't touch Model G with a ten-foot pole.

And, to me, his explanations do still seem superficial as far as the original purpose of typology; they do not provide any practically useful information, and like they would belong to a philosophical approach or perhaps a basis for some computational approach, rather than directly explaining personalities or cognition of people.

And I use the phrasing "superficial" intentionally to describe the issue. It really truly is a superficial, shallow approach to try and understand personality. It's instead mathematical speculation that has little to do with real and sophisticated understanding of people.

[Exodus]

The point of socionicizing is to say that the world would be a better place if you were in charge and thumb your nose at the so-called "experts."

What does that even mean?

Anyways I agree that Gulenko's typings are ridiculous. My solution is to simply ignore them. (I do keep track of them however to show people just how ridiculous they are.)

[Ave]

Anyways I agree that Gulenko's typings are ridiculous. My solution is to simply ignore them. (I do keep track of them however to show people just how ridiculous they are.)

Why are they ridiculous? Also you say you ignore them but "show them to people to show how ridiculous they are" as if that were self-explanatory, but it's not.

Anyways I think the Gulenko hate on this site is proportional to the dogmatism many on here have when it comes to "classical model A socionics".

[Metamorph]

Anyways I think the Gulenko hate on this site is proportional to the dogmatism many on here have when it comes to "classical model A socionics".

As if people had to follow one dogma or another and the entire point of socionics weren't to just say whatever you wanted without the MBTI Institute being able to shove their official opinions down your throat.

[Ave]

As if people had to follow one dogma or another and the entire point of socionics weren't to just say whatever you wanted without the MBTI Institute being able to shove their official opinions down your throat.

I don't know what to make of this. Is Bait and Switch your middle name? People on this site are often just as dogmatic about model A as the what you claim the "MBTI Institute" (there isn't such an organization to my knowledge) or "the G cult"(again, no such organization, just an ad hominem) are. Socionics is a system. Most people on this site seem to adhere to socionics, just a different version of it than Gulenko and the SHS teach. So they adhere to model A socionics, to a system.

Why do you care so much what MBTI schools or SHS are doing, if you don't like them? These organizations aeren't shoving their opinions down your throat. They are letting you be. If you don't like institutions, that's fine, but I wish people who want to discuss SHS ideas would also be given some space and peace to discuss on this forum.

[Metamorph]

I don't know what to make of this. Is Bait and Switch your middle name? People on this site are often just as dogmatic about model A as the what you claim the "MBTI Institute" (there isn't such an organization to my knowledge) or "the G cult"(again, no such organization, just an ad hominem) are. Socionics is a system. Most people on this site seem to adhere to socionics, just a different version of it than Gulenko and the SHS teach. So they adhere to model A socionics, to a system.

Why do you care so much what MBTI schools or SHS are doing, if you don't like them? These organizations aeren't shoving their opinions down your throat. They are letting you be. If you don't like institutions, that's fine, but I wish people who want to discuss SHS ideas would also be given some space and peace to discuss on this forum.

I don't care about "people on this site." I'm not "people on this site," I'm me, and the people I interact with on this site aren't "people on this site," they're individuals. Sure, lots of people are dogmatic about model A. Who cares? That's still not the point of socionics to me. Even among model A dogmatists, there's this whole thing where Aushra is dead so people can project anything they want onto model A as if they were interpreting the words of a long-dead prophet with all the zeal of someone who's been personally inspired, which isn't true for MBTI, which is published by the Myers-Briggs Company, which has the ultimate say on what's true of MBTI and what's not. Enneagram is sort of in-between, since it has official companies which publish on it, but it isn't just one group as if it were, say, only Naranjo, and even then you can always claim the original tradition has been corrupted. As of now, the only official person giving their word on socionics types is Gulenko, and Gulenko claims to be doing something different than what essentially anyone else has done, so if people want to be individualistic, they just ignore Gulenko. Which is good, the whole point of socionics is to be individualistic, since Gulenko is not a big corporate force trying to get CEOs to pay them big bucks to type their employees and giving out official typings and theory interpretations in the present day like the Myers-Briggs Company or the various enneagram publishers are.

[Exodus]

Why are they ridiculous? Also you say you ignore them but "show them to people to show how ridiculous they are" as if that were self-explanatory, but it's not.

Anyways I think the Gulenko hate on this site is proportional to the dogmatism many on here have when it comes to "classical model A socionics".

As of the latest statistics on English-speaking forum users (and a few Youtubers that have publicly spoken about their Gulenko typing), Gulenko types over 70% of them as Beta, and 52% as Beta rationals.

If those statistics are not sufficiently ridiculous you can refer to the following Gulenko typings.

Here are some I would consider wrong and varying levels of bad:

Jack Aaron: EIE (clear ILE IMO)
justalitnerdxx: IEI (clear EII)
Fay: EIE (clear IEI)
Nanooka: EIE
Varlawend: ILI
MasterDebater: LSI (some people typed her this but it is really quite a bad typing if you get to know her more deeply, she is LIE)
TheEndlessKurtis: SEE

And these are some I would consider ridiculous:

minorenji: LSI
The Exception: EIE (clear LII)

[Ave]

As of the latest statistics on English-speaking forum users (and a few Youtubers that have publicly spoken about their Gulenko typing), Gulenko types over 70% of them as Beta, and 52% as Beta rationals.

If those statistics are not sufficiently ridiculous you can refer to the following Gulenko typings.

Here are some I would consider wrong and varying levels of bad:

Jack Aaron: EIE (clear ILE IMO)
justalitnerdxx: IEI (clear EII)
Fay: EIE (clear IEI)
Nanooka: EIE
Varlawend: ILI
MasterDebater: LSI (some people typed her this but it is really quite a bad typing if you get to know her more deeply, she is LIE)
TheEndlessKurtis: SEE

And these are some I would consider ridiculous:

minorenji: LSI
The Exception: EIE (clear LII)

This doesn't give any argument as to why the typings are wrong, nor why the statistics are "ridiculous". You seem to presuppose that people will agree with you and "see" what you see, but it isn't necessarily self-evident.

As an aside, I don't know the EndlessKurtis but I think SEE is a perfect fit for him. And Jack as EIE fits pretty well too. I know Varla a bit and I think ILI is a good typing. Fay EIE doesn't seem out there at all to me. I am not familiar with the other people, I've spoken with justalitnerd before but I didn't get a clear picture of my own, though I don't think IEI is wrong per se or too out there based on how she communicated.

[Metamorph]

As of the latest statistics on English-speaking forum users (and a few Youtubers that have publicly spoken about their Gulenko typing), Gulenko types over 70% of them as Beta, and 52% as Beta rationals.

If those statistics are not sufficiently ridiculous you can refer to the following Gulenko typings.

Here are some I would consider wrong and varying levels of bad:

Jack Aaron: EIE (clear ILE IMO)
justalitnerdxx: IEI (clear EII)
Fay: EIE (clear IEI)
Nanooka: EIE
Varlawend: ILI
MasterDebater: LSI (some people typed her this but it is really quite a bad typing if you get to know her more deeply, she is LIE)
TheEndlessKurtis: SEE

And these are some I would consider ridiculous:

minorenji: LSI
The Exception: EIE (clear LII)

I think the very foundations of socionics are probably worthless, at the same time, Gulenko makes it worse, not better. I honestly think most of his typings are based on cognitive styles and things like that he added. Most people get typed as beta rationals because his interpretation of Reinin dichotomies makes types like LIE and IEI sound completely insane and mindless. Only causal-determinist and dialectical-algorithmic cognition are considered to actually be anything resembling human cognition, but those descriptions themselves align with rational types over irrational types so the idea of the mindless LIE vortical-synergistic just results in few people getting typed that, while the idea of the mindless IEI is a coherent but even more unflattering than normal picture of the type since that's an introvert intuitive type, all they have going for them is mind and feeling and at the point you're saying they're vortical-synergistic and they can't even keep up a coherent stream of thought without reference to the environment or even at all, their mind has been taken so they're just a pile of feelings and hormones, which is probably why certain model G disciples both try to type everyone that and feel so offended when you say they're that and Gulenko is that. IEI is not so useless outside of Model G at least even if I find their mix of reactionary thinking and Ip temperament completely unrelatable on every level. On the other hand, types that have dichotomies that Gulenko interprets as being more in line with cognitions non-psychotic humans actually have, such as LSE and EII, are also ruled out in most cases due to Gulenko thinking they only ever live on the farm. So Model G is kind of nonsense that boxes most people into a few types, which are common in Model G but rare in Model A, because it makes the vast majority of types seem completely psychotic and accordingly only gives those types to psychotic people. On the other hand, people who like how psychotic it makes most types sound like to give everyone rare types in model G to make them all sound psychotic as a form of ego gratification.

Even if things like quadra values and duality, never mind cognitive styles, almost certainly don't even exist, we can say some typings are clearly ridiculous, for example The Exception as EIE is ridiculous and Mike Tyson as IEI is ridiculous, but The Exception as EIE is less ridiculous than Mike Tyson as IEI (from one of Gulenko's followers, not the man himself or even an official member of his school) because EIE is a non-psychotic type in model G and IEI is a psychotic type and neither of these people are psychotic even if they clearly don't do anything resembling heavily using those functions which should remain the foundation of the model rather than the foundation of the model being shifted entirely to Reinin dichotomies. The Reinin dichotomies should be viewed in terms of people using those functions, not in terms of just how obstinate, detail-oriented, flexible, or emotive someone seems. An emotional person should be an ethical type first, and not, say, an emotivist logical type. The idea that any rational logical type would even have an anti-cognitive style, as vortical-synergistic or holographic-panoramic, rather than causal-determinist or dialectical-algorithmic, is also a travesty. And dialectical-algorithmic is an attempt to shoehorn psionics and mystical ideas into socionics in the first place, but it also makes the only viable types EIE or ILI rather than all intuitive types like Jung made it, which, fair, it literally types God as an EIE and says EIE is the prototype of all humans so of course they'd be the God-Emperor of Mankind psykers. In addition, the torture manual aspect of Gulenko's writings combined with his clear beliefs in mystical stuff makes it seem like he wants to capture psychics and torture them into his personal army or something and that's his real goal (whether or not you personally believe that, what matters is he seems to believe that) which is just lol. I almost want to tag Stephen King to see if he'll give Gulenko his own book or something, because that's what it sounds like Gulenko wants to be, but then, socionics has mostly been associated with Soviets and despite Gulenko's welcoming face I'm sure he still is one underneath, complete with all their supposed shenanigans involving attempting to contact Posadist-style communist space aliens and hunt down red mercury from Egyptian mummies that's the subject of many sensationalist thrillers and pseudo/documentaries.

[Exodus]

This doesn't give any argument as to why the typings are wrong, nor why the statistics are "ridiculous". You seem to presuppose that people will agree with you and "see" what you see, but it isn't necessarily self-evident.

As an aside, I don't know the EndlessKurtis but I think SEE is a perfect fit for him. And Jack as EIE fits pretty well too. I know Varla a bit and I think ILI is a good typing. Fay EIE doesn't seem out there at all to me. I am not familiar with the other people, I've spoken with justalitnerd before but I didn't get a clear picture of my own, though I don't think IEI is wrong per se or too out there based on how she communicated.

I wrote an extensive analysis of MasterDebater's type on sedecology and of justalitnerd's and The Exception's types on my blog:

https://www.sedecology.com/diagnoses/56887
https://sedecology.blogspot.com/2020...video-jen.html
https://sedecology.blogspot.com/2019...deo-laura.html

I believe I also wrote something about Fay's type way back when somewhere on here.

We can discuss one or more of the Gulenko typings and why they are or aren't plausible but at the end of the day if you're using Model G definitions then we won't see eye to eye on them anyways. Suffice it to show that there is a vast disagreement between SHS and the socionics that is prevalent in the West (or the East for that matter).

[Ave]

We can discuss one or more of the Gulenko typings and why they are or aren't plausible but at the end of the day if you're using Model G definitions then we won't see eye to eye on them anyways. Suffice it to show that there is a vast disagreement between SHS and the socionics that is prevalent in the West (or the East for that matter).

I agree, and this is why I always say there is not just one thing you can call Socionics even if different schools have the same Jungian-Aushran roots. Ultimately, the definitions may be different, and more importanly the methodology differs pretty strongly from one school of thought to another. SHS, WSS, Associative Socionics, Talanov, Best Socionics, and AC all have very different methods which leads to some very different typings in many cases.

[youfloweryourfeast]

They Interpreting that LSE and EII could be the most sane doesn’t makes sense with their studies because if beta is more common than delta, ultimately that would leave fewer deltas who are surrounded by betas. That could result in psychosis and things because of opposite cognitive thinking that isn’t shared. Where I live I’ve typed most people beta but I live in the south in America where I think that beta is just common here. I don’t think beta is the most common type and I haven’t really visited other places. My father is LSE and he is far from being mentally well as he is neurotic and emotional when I visit him. I also am extremely emotional but it also has to due with us both being reactive types.
so if they view beta types as the only having psychotic type it doesn’t make sense with their studies

[Ave]

They Interpreting that LSE and EII could be the most sane doesn’t makes sense with their studies because if beta is more common than delta, ultimately that would leave fewer deltas who are surrounded by betas. That could result in psychosis and things because of opposite cognitive thinking that isn’t shared. Where I live I’ve typed most people beta but I live in the south in America where I think that beta is just common here. I don’t think beta is the most common type and I haven’t really visited other places. My father is LSE and he is far from being mentally well as he is neurotic and emotional when I visit him. I also am extremely emotional but it also has to due with us both being reactive types.
so if they view beta types as the only having psychotic type it doesn’t make sense with their studies

Where are you getting that SHS views beta as being the only types that can have psychosis, or that they view LSE and EII as the most sane?

[timber]

Respectfully, Blue has also (on this forum) been at odds with Socionics in general as well. I'm not saying they (she? I've forgotten, sorry) think Socionics is a complete waste of time (because why take the time to make this thread, in that cast?). But there have been more people here that have promoted and encouraged Socionics fairly frequently, it may just be that you haven't seen them very often. Which is entirely understandable, not every thread or post is of interest to everyone, so not everyone will be willing to spend time looking at all of them.


Regarding the original post; I don't really consider Gulenko a celebrity per se. It seems more like enthusiasts treat him that way, whether it's for memes-sake or out of genuine appreciation depends on the person. What he is, though, is "an authority". Not "the authority", "an authority". It's not really fair to blame him for trying to push Socionics further, even if it's in a direction not everyone agrees with, and in fact I'm always extremely dubious towards the notion that he's somehow trying to "control" the direction of Socionics. None of what we talk about regarding Socionics is really provable at this point in time, so no-one can actually point to something and say "See, this is why Gulenko is the only person you should believe, he has all the answers", and in the event that they do, they are ridiculed or ignored.

Even on this forum, people still openly reference older texts/articles that were written in regards to Model A rather than Model G, Gulenko or SHS, even by those who do support and promote Model G. Gulenko has definitely occupied a much larger space than previously, and very much has the most obviously ardent supporters, that's for sure. But he has just as many detractors as well. It's not like all other schools of Socionics have been considered redundant or invalid.

Whether or not Gulenko himself holds any real "truth" in his own field is not really the point (speaking for myself, at least), because it could really be any model that gets embraced by enthusiasts at large. If Gulenko just outright stopped his research tomorrow, the affects would be felt for sure, but other prominent individuals could easily become the new "centralizing" figurehead, theoretically. If Model G replaced Model A entirely, then people would still branch off again from Model G to create their own theories as well.

What I can see Gulenko does for people, though, is provide an explanation that examines at a deep enough level to not be superficial, but also not so arcane in its detail that a layman couldn't understand it. This is partly his appeal, and why he has become so much an intrinsic part of the discourse in Socionics.

I got into reading Egrit's dimensionality theory. You should check it out. Good stuff.

[Metaphor]

Everyone sounds a bit like Gulenko on this site..is it a gen z thing?

No, that's just called being a charlatan.

[Metaphor]

I don't know what to make of this. Is Bait and Switch your middle name? People on this site are often just as dogmatic about model A as the what you claim the "MBTI Institute" (there isn't such an organization to my knowledge) or "the G cult"(again, no such organization, just an ad hominem) are. Socionics is a system. Most people on this site seem to adhere to socionics, just a different version of it than Gulenko and the SHS teach. So they adhere to model A socionics, to a system.

Why do you care so much what MBTI schools or SHS are doing, if you don't like them? These organizations aeren't shoving their opinions down your throat. They are letting you be. If you don't like institutions, that's fine, but I wish people who want to discuss SHS ideas would also be given some space and peace to discuss on this forum.

Until now, the OP hasn't even tried to disprove Aushra's article I posted as a reply. So, I must say this thread is a sort of bla bla bla gibberish.
No purpose but to seek for attention, such a typical scamming behavior.

[Metaphor]

What I can see Gulenko does for people, though, is provide an explanation that examines at a deep enough level to not be superficial, but also not so arcane in its detail that a layman couldn't understand it. This is partly his appeal, and why he has become so much an intrinsic part of the discourse in Socionics.

It is not profound at all, but rather to be superficial nonetheless.
It is tricky to develop theories without any background of Socio-related education though.

[Manatroid92]

It is not profound at all, but rather to be superficial nonetheless.
It is tricky to develop theories without any background of Socio-related education though.

Profound, maybe not, I don't mean to say it is.
Regarding how 'deep' Model G/SHS/Gulenkoactually go, I'm more referring to how his systems tries to look at the psyche as a whole to help explain why otherwise similar people can be so different on the surface, and vice-versa.

It might be all hokum, who knows, and I don't really blame people for still being skeptical of it, especially since a lot of what he talks about is likely still too opaque for the average person. But I've generally come to think that, if lots of people are embracing some current phenomena, regardless of what it is, there's usually something resonant about it to them. And to me, whether or not it actually holds the truth, it's still important for that reason alone.

[Manatroid92]

I got into reading Egrit's dimensionality theory. You should check it out. Good stuff.

I wasn't able to find anything myself. Do you happen to have a direct source on you?

[lookin4waifu]

Everyone sounds a bit like Gulenko on this site..is it a gen z thing?

What do you mean? How is Gulenko gen z? He is a dinosaur. Plus he doesn’t even speak English.

[Manatroid92]

What do you mean? How is Gulenko gen z? He is a dinosaur.

I think Bethany means people parroting Gulenko seems like a Gen Z thing, not that Gulenko is actually a zoomer, haha.

[lookin4waifu]

I think Bethany means people parroting Gulenko seems like a Gen Z thing, not that Gulenko is actually a zoomer, haha.

We all sound like Russian boomers then? That makes equally no sense. Other than Sol who is not here.

[Bethanyclaire]

What do you mean? How is Gulenko gen z? He is a dinosaur. Plus he doesn’t even speak English.

it’s just an observation I don’t know maybe Gulenko has something teenager like about him, also he seems to try to be modern and progressive, his heart is the right place like a teenager, (also quite gen z)

[lookin4waifu]

it’s just an observation I don’t know maybe Gulenko has something teenager like about him, also he seems to try to be modern and progressive, his heart is the right place like a teenager, (also quite gen z)

Does he make you feel like a teenager again? How romantic

[Bethanyclaire]

Does he make you feel like a teenager again? How romantic

lol I personally find it hard to read most socionics stuff, to me it reads like bad poetry, and for some reason I don’t like descriptions of personalities, I find it cringey and unsettling.. I do have G’s book and dip into it sometimes, maybe the translation is better as it is published?

[lookin4waifu]

lol I personally find it hard to read most socionics stuff, to me it reads like bad poetry, and for some reason I don’t like descriptions of personalities, I find it cringey and unsettling.. I do have G’s book and dip into it sometimes, maybe the translation is better as it is published?

Are his personality descriptions less “cringey and unsettling”?

[Bethanyclaire]

Are his personality descriptions less “cringey and unsettling”?

Not sure, maybe. At least the style of writing is slightly updated since the 70s when other stuff was written? It’s all very descriptive isn’t it, and that type of language just has an off-putting bad poetry vibe. Ok I’m gonna stop talking now lol