Reaktor Introduction

[Reaktor]

Studying Socionics. Model G.

[Beautiful sky]

Cool
How’s that going for you

[Reaktor]

Very nice, thanks for asking. The only thing left for me is to look out in the real world and see how accurately the reality applies to the definitions (not vice versa, very important). Which, at the moment, I only achieved this trough Model G. Obviously I'm not a fanatic. Model G is just a name, my interests rely on the practicality of things.

[Metamorph]

Very nice, thanks for asking. The only thing left for me is to look out in the real world and see how accurately the reality applies to the definitions (not vice versa, very important). Which, at the moment, I only achieved this trough Model G. Obviously I'm not a fanatic. Model G is just a name, my interests rely on the practicality of things.

Model G accomplishes this by giving everyone the couple of types (or one type if you're our forum's living meme) over and over and making up for the lack of variety by incorporating DISC, a system which basically breaks socionics. Model G does describe human behavior better, but it doesn't even do it very interestingly because Gulenko's only non-conservative idea (cognitive styles and benefit rings) has been left behind by him years ago. Describing human behavior is not that interesting... I can get descriptions of behavior from court cases and novels and definitely get more non-behaviorist psychological insight from it too.

[Reaktor]

Model G accomplishes this by giving everyone the couple of types (or one type if you're our forum's living meme) over and over and making up for the lack of variety by incorporating DISC, a system which basically breaks socionics. Model G does describe human behavior better, but it doesn't even do it very interestingly because Gulenko's only non-conservative idea (cognitive styles and benefit rings) has been left behind by him years ago. Describing human behavior is not that interesting... I can get descriptions of behavior from court cases and novels and definitely get more non-behaviorist psychological insight from it too.

Hello, thank you for sharing your thoughts. This will be my last response, if you want to reply this, feel free, but I won't answer your message since I'm not willing to lose my time in pointless debates in which no one will change his mind.

First of all, about DISC: Gulenko, through observations and induction, came up with DCNH system. After that, he realized there are several more similar systems such as DISC, CPI, PAEI, Hormonal Typology by Helen Fisher... even The Big Five in some way. All those systems correlate incredibly well with DCNH, which in a way, confirms its veracity, if you're not aware enough to observe such truisms in reality. DCNH doesn't break socionics since it's built using socionics. Each subtype is not just a random letter, but a variable that defines a group of accentuated functions working together. My hypothesis, and what I think it's obvious (I'm sure a lot of people thought of this since it's so obvious!!) is that, just like the human being must adapt to reality (by doing tasks, facing challenges, having duties...) in order to survive, evolve and not failing (..), [continues next paragraph]

Here is what I think it's really obvious:

(...) Each personality type (since 1 personality type = 1 human being. And being a human = must adapt to reality) must go through its own path of life, a path which may demand X or Y functions to be activated more and more, here comes the subtype. If a perfect environment is created for a certain type, let's say for example an ILE, and he goes through no struggles, etc, then most probably his subtype will be Creative, since this subtype always resembles to the ILE basic description. But, let's continue with the ILE, if an ILE is "forced" to be the center of activity in a group: to make most of the plans, to organize trips, to think about what everyone will do next week, to be the one which takes the lead on a project among friends or partners and to motivate them when they feel sad: then most likely this ILE will be a Dominant ILE (enhanced P (Te) and E (Fe), and some F (Se) ) most likely not by choice but by the results of adapting. From the outside, this Dominant ILE might not look like an actual ILE, so what will you call him? SLE? LIE? EIE? ...? And then, when you get to know him better, maybe you become his friend and start seeing his private side, will you keep saying he's an SLE? or an LIE? Maybe you modify reality in your mind so it fits your model, or maybe you finally realize he's an ILE but call him an "atypical ILE". You get me? that makes no sense. What does "atypical" mean, or maybe you call him healthy / unhealthy, and much more pointless and meaningless adjectives.

Since you like novels really much, maybe you're and expert on modifying reality subjectively so it fits your mental concept of what socionics is, what's your friends' type or even what's your own type (I'm just guessing, don't take this seriously, it's a little joke). But yes, keep reading novels in order to get more "psychological insight from it" . Since novels are built using a very prominent scientific method .

Anyways, thank you again for your comment!

[Metamorph]

Hello, thank you for sharing your thoughts. This will be my last response, if you want to reply this, feel free, but I won't answer your message since I'm not willing to lose my time in pointless debates in which no one will change his mind.

Wow, you are so polite and observant, too!

First of all, about DISC: Gulenko, through observations and induction, came up with DCNH system. After that, he realized there are several more similar systems such as DISC, CPI, PAEI, Hormonal Typology by Helen Fisher... even The Big Five in some way. All those systems correlate incredibly well with DCNH, which in a way, confirms its veracity, if you're not aware enough to observe such truisms in reality. DCNH doesn't break socionics since it's built using socionics.

It still breaks socionics because in socionics, a stronger ego function means a weaker opposing function, so all the functions are treated in a zero-sum way, while in DCNH, you can just tack extra IE strength onto a type without there being any tradeoffs. In the two-subtype system, if you have a stronger dominant function, you have a weaker creative function and vice versa, but in DCNH, you can just keep pumping and pumping your functions like you're increasing your stats in a video game and you don't even need a dual, and that's fundamentally not socionics. Of course, socionics is nonsense to begin with, but just as Sauron isn't a character in Harry Potter, DCNH isn't an internally-coherent subtype system in socionics.

[Sol]

Studying Socionics. Model G.

Socionics are ideas by Jung and Augustinavichiute. Where many of those ideas is doubtful, muddy for practice, wrong and may partly contradict.
New ideas about types until they'll get objective experimental proof, - is not Socionics. Any ideas which have no objective proof and hence mb wrong and so not be Socionics, even having formal relation to it.

"Model G" and other Gulenko's additions are baseless fantasies and not Socionics.

I recommend you to use only the part of the theory which deserves good trust:
4 dichotomies, 8 functions (in core Jung definitions and close expansions), strong functions, supplementary functions (IR, values).
Good possibly wrong theory will be misleading you, will arise mistakes in types.

Read Jung's book. Popular Socionics books as by Filatova. There should be all theory you need.
You are rather naive if take Gulenko's ideas seriously.
Having bad criticism it's doubtful to use logics good enough for correct typing.

[Reaktor]

Socionics are ideas by Jung and Augustinavichiute. Where many of those ideas is doubtful, muddy for practice, wrong and may partly contradict.
New ideas about types until they'll get objective experimental proof, - is not Socionics. Any ideas which have no objective proof and hence mb wrong and so not be Socionics, even having formal relation to it.

"Model G" and other Gulenko's additions are baseless fantasies and not Socionics.

I recommend you to use only the part of the theory which deserves good trust:
4 dichotomies, 8 functions (in core Jung definitions and close expansions), strong functions, supplementary functions (IR, values).
Good possibly wrong theory will be misleading you, will arise mistakes in types.

Read Jung's book. Popular Socionics books as by Filatova. There should be all theory you need.
You are rather naive if take Gulenko's ideas seriously.
Having bad criticism it's doubtful to use logics good enough for correct typing.

Baseless fantasies. Hahaha, you have baseless fantasies in order to type the people in your "video bloggers" link. You must have a lot of fantasy in your mind in order to accomplish that. Look, if you don't understand a theory, don't blame it. If you understand it but think it's wrong, prove it. Make a post. Prove it's wrong irrefutably. So many people are trying to prove wrong Model G.... But if Model G was wrong, only 1 would be needed to false it. But still, everybody is still talking about it

[Squirrel]

Socionics are ideas by Jung and Augustinavichiute. Where many of those ideas is doubtful, muddy for practice, wrong and may partly contradict.
New ideas about types until they'll get objective experimental proof, - is not Socionics. Any ideas which have no objective proof and hence mb wrong and so not be Socionics, even having formal relation to it.

"Model G" and other Gulenko's additions are baseless fantasies and not Socionics.

I recommend you to use only the part of the theory which deserves good trust:
4 dichotomies, 8 functions (in core Jung definitions and close expansions), strong functions, supplementary functions (IR, values).
Good possibly wrong theory will be misleading you, will arise mistakes in types.

Read Jung's book. Popular Socionics books as by Filatova. There should be all theory you need.
You are rather naive if take Gulenko's ideas seriously.
Having bad criticism it's doubtful to use logics good enough for correct typing.

Aushura took functions from Jung and made her own system, just as John Bibi ( his model in MBTI ) , Dave and Shannon ( objective personality ) and others did

Harry developed his own system [ Cognetive personality ] based on MBTI with excellent corrections (although he fell into the trap of Si's definition) ,* Bokalov, Talanov, Gulenko , and others developed their own models of Socionics.

If it's forbidden to develop different points of view, then we should cancel all attempts to interpret Jung including Socionics and go back to Jung because he is the origin , such a good idea right?

There is nothing wrong with Gulenko creating his own model in isolation from Model A , quite the contrary, this is good because - exactly as any typology system - it provides more perspectives and thus gives a broader view of human nature

Of course you have the absolute right 100,000% to reject a model or a method and consider it mere absurdities, but you have no right to impose your own method on others as the only correct one , we are discussing a theory, not a religion.

Objectively, the method of you, me, or others in typing are not the absolute truth , not absolutely right or absolutely wrong, so don't live in your bubble