Criticism cluster against Model G

[Reaktor]

I've seen that in this forum, almost nobody agrees with Model G and Gulenko's theory. If they partially agree with it, they still vastly doubt it. I can understand that. I'm not a fanatic of Model G but I admit that it is the version of socionics which I use because from my pov it's the most accurate in order to describe everything.


Goal of this post:

The reader should comment, if the reader wants, every doubt/critique/inconsistency that he has regarding Model G.

Reason:

My plan is to make a video during the next weeks trying to clarify everything from my point of view. If there is any irrefutable critique I will also include it. The video will be as short, simple and to-the-point as possible. Not hours and hours of useless and tireful livestreams that must be watched in x2 speed in order to not lose mental sanity.

Why do I make this:

I want to practice my english pronunciation, to clarify myself any doubt that is risen against Model G and to increase my knowledge and potentially the knowledge of others. Remember that knowledge is built with collaboration, constructive criticism and trial-error.

Important Note:

I'm not a representant of the SHS or Gulenko. I have no relation neither with the SHS or Gulenko, I have never taken any classes from Gulenko. My knowledge is from his book, Vaserlan's videos with him, Varlawend's blog, Reddit posts that inteligent people made about Model G and the SHS website, both in english and ukranian translated to english. This note will be said again in the video. Potential mistakes due to misunderstanding the theory might happen, although I will try to be as objective and accurate as possible. These mistakes shall not be associated neither with Gulenko or the SHS, they will be 100% under my responsability.

How you should answer this post (optional):

1.- A brief background as to-the-point as possible with your relation with socionics and how you discovered Model G (max. 110 words)

2.- Your criticism against Model G (Please, try to be as short as possible. Don't write huge pedantic paragraphs).

How is a good critique and how is a bad critique (optional):

A good critique should be consistent and argumentative. Here is an example of a good critique and an example of a bad critique:

Good -> "I understand the concept of self-aware AI, however, I don't think it will ever be possible due to brains and life being carbon-based and CPUs being formed with sylicon. Maybe, in the future, if the technology evolves, it will be an option. Nowadays, surely not."

Bad -> "Self-aware AI will never be possible. AI will never be alive; humans are alive so they can be self-aware, the AI is artificial ergo it can't be ever alive".


Thank you in anticipation for everyone who is willing to participate.

Best regards, Reaktor.

[Metaphor]

First of all, there is no such thing as good or bad criticism when it comes to the evaluation. For instance, when someone said that AI will never be alive, this can be considered as the fact on itself, which further implies that the opinion on itself is, in fact, constructive and can be considered as a way to improve someone, no matter how harsh it is, let alone good or bad. Second of all, you did admit that you have no relation towards SHS, Gulenko and his students etc. but how does this prove that you are clear from bias and regarded as a neutral authority? I don't understand.

As for your inquiry, for me, it's always been more or less 3 years of studying, researching, and learning about Socionics, including its theory and application. And as for Model G, it has been well-known back then but I wasn't really well-versed, before there was a disappointment about the way Model A has been misconstrued using 3-dimensional subtypes purposefully to mistype others as a type they are liking so a friend on online community platform introduced me to it. However, after a thorough, detailed, and rigorous research about such Socionics Model, I didn't agree to most of Gulenko's theories, including the fact that there is a sort of problems, especially when it comes to Quadra distribution stats, energy mechanism, and implementation of theories that mostly are falsified by a certain charlatan named as you-know-who.

[myresearch]

I like model G thats how I was hooked in socionics. However, there are things that doesnt click to me if anyone has a sound explanation, it is welcomed.

There are bunch, but first one:

This is taken from alpha quadra description: On the one hand, it manifests itself like a child's egocentrism-the inability to look at the situation from the point of view of another, a stranger.

How can alpha be democratic and welcoming quadra if they are inable to do this.

[Wavebury]

I like model G. I prefer it to model A, but it's still a model, and is still flat and 2D at the end of the day. That doesn't make it useless, however. I also think SHS theory goes beyond model G, the model is just one aspect of the theory.

[Wavebury]

I like model G thats how I was hooked in socionics. However, there are things that doesnt click to me if anyone has a sound explanation, it is welcomed.

There are bunch, but first one:

This is taken from alpha quadra description: On the one hand, it manifests itself like a child's egocentrism-the inability to look at the situation from the point of view of another, a stranger.

How can alpha be democratic and welcoming quadra if they are inable to do this.

I always found that statement about alphas difficult to understand, too. However, this is not a critique of model G, but rather, of a written statement made by Gulenko in a description of the alpha quadra.

[godslave]

I like model G thats how I was hooked in socionics. However, there are things that doesnt click to me if anyone has a sound explanation, it is welcomed.

There are bunch, but first one:

This is taken from alpha quadra description: On the one hand, it manifests itself like a child's egocentrism-the inability to look at the situation from the point of view of another, a stranger.

How can alpha be democratic and welcoming quadra if they are inable to do this.

I always found that statement about alphas difficult to understand, too. However, this is not a critique of model G, but rather, of a written statement made by Gulenko in a description of the alpha quadra.

Values of the types of the First quadra: Family-cognitive.


The types of the Alpha quadra have an orientation towards their neighbors and their own small group. In other words, they are characterized by moderate individualism. On the one hand, it manifests itself like a child's egocentrism-the inability to look at the situation from the point of view of another, a stranger. On the other hand, the strong dependence of this quadra on its immediate environment does not allow Alpha types to turn into anti-collectivists.

In a society where hostility and hatred have become typical, the family remains almost the only source of kindness and love and mutual respect. The most family-friendly types in the socion are Mediator (SEI) and the Enthusiast (ESE). The most in need of individual care within the family are the Analyst (LII) and the Seeker (ILE).

Source.

I think that the democratic > aristocratic aspect in Alpha has to be understood as a form of "entre-soi" a "betweenus-ism (?)".

It's not that different from the Gamma Democratic >Aristocratic. A Quadra known for its Individualism (in the more literal sense of that term) but it is also the most democratic in many aspects. One can also see in that paradox a "contradiction" similar to that of the Alfa Quadra. It's a matter of perspective imho.

[lavos]

I read about it years ago and watched some videos by Vaserlan.

I probably need to refresh my memory, and in all due respect to Mr.Gulenko and his work, but the ideas presented about energy levels/usage didn't correlate with what I've observed. Also, new denominations for functional positions, I thought that they didn't capture the essence of the functionality as well as the original model A ones. IMO, model A, with Model B extensions that have been done by users on here, are a more comprehensive unified model than model G.

I wanted to mention that I'm a fan of other Gulenko's works, such as the "Thinking styles" article, the original two-subtype descriptions (that IMO, should have never been abandoned) and his work on DCNH.

[Warm Soapy Water]

I used to use pedantic as an all purpose insult too but it's a kind of Darren-move. Pedantic people often know specifically what they are talking about so they deserve to zero-in on the issue at length, that is a big part of what intelligence actually is. It's hard for some things to be explained bluntly, because reality is complicated.... if you are not seeing how it relates to real reality then you want an idealized fantasy version of something rather than the true, scientific explanation. yes, pedantic people can stereotypically come across like arrogant and insufferable know-it-alls- but real experts are also often very good at understanding what they don't know yet vs what they already do know.

I don't know about model G, I just think socionic has intertype relationship theory are kind of all wrong/half-baked and is a kind of bastard theory of the original functions. I think on surface it sounds deeper and more prettier than mbti- but that's an illusion, and the real thing is like a mental 50% ghost. It amounts to nothing. Socionics attempt at explaining interpersonal relationships comes across like a bad soap opera where everybody is acting and larping but deep down none of these characters really feel anything for anybody- they are just following a script. Typology is just another way of larping. It's not who you are- the same way Robert Reed wasn't really a heterosexual family man. I used to credit socionics for having a much better intertype relationship theory than mbti but attundial psyche's intertype relationship theory is light-years ahead of socionics.

"the biggest socionic forum in the west" - but realistically, westerners like me can't do much with socionics and getting into mbti is what helps you with the career stuff no matter how much you whine about how 'shallow' it is. Socionics is too communist like, but it can't even do communism right. If you don't get why people are pissed off at the entire thing, it's like you don't have much of a heart- and I've always had a big heart.

My interest in socionics was mostly cultural, I think. I probably had ancestors who were russian despite the fact that I am big on self-expression [[I mean at least in idealized theory]] and russians are stereotypically cold and straight and Fi-like. (even the Fe valuers!) When I was a wee lad, people said that I looked like a little russian baby. So my interest in socionics was probably to be expected. Plot Twist: My great-great-great-great-great (lots of greats) grandfather was the Idea of Gulenko!

People got the Fi of socionics all wrong- and somebody who has 4D Fi whether I'm EII or IEI- it's irritating. In a vacuum I think Gulenko understands socionics pretty well, but as soon as he starts to put together the Fi puzzle though he (and many others like him) fall short. Look at how often he projects his wife into other people. He seems like a smart enough guy to know what projection is, and to try and avoid it in his professional work - but he does that. Then he says 'IEIs are intrinsically vulnerable' and people & incels like Alive foam at the mouth that they aren't the only weak ones. But that's the thing- I don't disagree with him that IEIs have an innate vulnerability that others don't have... the intuitive functions bring about sensor and logical/physical weakness, weak against the 'harsh real world' etc; and the sensing functions bring about relational and spiritual/magical faggy weaknesses. "I'm a jerk and deep down I care that I'm a jerk!" This part I think, socionics understands & can explain well- but how it pieces together other information + how people interact or how people think they can gauge behaviors is where I don't agree with it and think that it lacks usefulness.

[RBRS]

I used to use pedantic as an all purpose insult too but it's a kind of Darren-move. Pedantic people often know specifically what they are talking about so they deserve to zero-in on the issue at length, that is a big part of what intelligence actually is. It's hard for some things to be explained bluntly, because reality is complicated.... if you are not seeing how it relates to real reality then you want an idealized fantasy version of something rather than the true, scientific explanation. yes, pedantic people can stereotypically come across like arrogant and insufferable know-it-alls- but real experts are also often very good at understanding what they don't know yet vs what they already do know.

I don't know about model G, I just think socionic has intertype relationship theory are kind of all wrong/half-baked and is a kind of bastard theory of the original functions. I think on surface it sounds deeper and more prettier than mbti- but that's an illusion, and the real thing is like a mental 50% ghost. It amounts to nothing. Socionics attempt at explaining interpersonal relationships comes across like a bad soap opera where everybody is acting and larping but deep down none of these characters really feel anything for anybody- they are just following a script. Typology is just another way of larping. It's not who you are- the same way Robert Reed wasn't really a heterosexual family man. I used to credit socionics for having a much better intertype relationship theory than mbti but attundial psyche's intertype relationship theory is light-years ahead of socionics.

"the biggest socionic forum in the west" - but realistically, westerners like me can't do much with socionics and getting into mbti is what helps you with the career stuff no matter how much you whine about how 'shallow' it is. Socionics is too communist like, but it can't even do communism right. If you don't get why people are pissed off at the entire thing, it's like you don't have much of a heart- and I've always had a big heart.

My interest in socionics was mostly cultural, I think. I probably had ancestors who were russian despite the fact that I am big on self-expression [[I mean at least in idealized theory]] and russians are stereotypically cold and straight and Fi-like. (even the Fe valuers!) When I was a wee lad, people said that I looked like a little russian baby. So my interest in socionics was probably to be expected. Plot Twist: My great-great-great-great-great (lots of greats) grandfather was the Idea of Gulenko!

People got the Fi of socionics all wrong- and somebody who has 4D Fi whether I'm EII or IEI- it's irritating. In a vacuum I think Gulenko understands socionics pretty well, but as soon as he starts to put together the Fi puzzle though he (and many others like him) fall short. Look at how often he projects his wife into other people. He seems like a smart enough guy to know what projection is, and to try and avoid it in his professional work - but he does that. Then he says 'IEIs are intrinsically vulnerable' and people & incels like Alive foam at the mouth that they aren't the only weak ones. But that's the thing- I don't disagree with him that IEIs have an innate vulnerability that others don't have... the intuitive functions bring about sensor and logical/physical weakness, weak against the 'harsh real world' etc; and the sensing functions bring about relational and spiritual/magical faggy weaknesses. "I'm a jerk and deep down I care that I'm a jerk!" This part I think, socionics understands & can explain well- but how it pieces together other information + how people interact or how people think they can gauge behaviors is where I don't agree with it and think that it lacks usefulness.

If your rant was better structured it would be even more "based"

[Reaktor]

I used to use pedantic as an all purpose insult too but it's a kind of Darren-move. Pedantic people often know specifically what they are talking about so they deserve to zero-in on the issue at length, that is a big part of what intelligence actually is. It's hard for some things to be explained bluntly, because reality is complicated.... if you are not seeing how it relates to real reality then you want an idealized fantasy version of something rather than the true, scientific explanation. yes, pedantic people can stereotypically come across like arrogant and insufferable know-it-alls- but real experts are also often very good at understanding what they don't know yet vs what they already do know.

I don't know about model G, I just think socionic has intertype relationship theory are kind of all wrong/half-baked and is a kind of bastard theory of the original functions. I think on surface it sounds deeper and more prettier than mbti- but that's an illusion, and the real thing is like a mental 50% ghost. It amounts to nothing. Socionics attempt at explaining interpersonal relationships comes across like a bad soap opera where everybody is acting and larping but deep down none of these characters really feel anything for anybody- they are just following a script. Typology is just another way of larping. It's not who you are- the same way Robert Reed wasn't really a heterosexual family man. I used to credit socionics for having a much better intertype relationship theory than mbti but attundial psyche's intertype relationship theory is light-years ahead of socionics.

"the biggest socionic forum in the west" - but realistically, westerners like me can't do much with socionics and getting into mbti is what helps you with the career stuff no matter how much you whine about how 'shallow' it is. Socionics is too communist like, but it can't even do communism right. If you don't get why people are pissed off at the entire thing, it's like you don't have much of a heart- and I've always had a big heart.

My interest in socionics was mostly cultural, I think. I probably had ancestors who were russian despite the fact that I am big on self-expression [[I mean at least in idealized theory]] and russians are stereotypically cold and straight and Fi-like. (even the Fe valuers!) When I was a wee lad, people said that I looked like a little russian baby. So my interest in socionics was probably to be expected. Plot Twist: My great-great-great-great-great (lots of greats) grandfather was the Idea of Gulenko!

People got the Fi of socionics all wrong- and somebody who has 4D Fi whether I'm EII or IEI- it's irritating. In a vacuum I think Gulenko understands socionics pretty well, but as soon as he starts to put together the Fi puzzle though he (and many others like him) fall short. Look at how often he projects his wife into other people. He seems like a smart enough guy to know what projection is, and to try and avoid it in his professional work - but he does that. Then he says 'IEIs are intrinsically vulnerable' and people & incels like Alive foam at the mouth that they aren't the only weak ones. But that's the thing- I don't disagree with him that IEIs have an innate vulnerability that others don't have... the intuitive functions bring about sensor and logical/physical weakness, weak against the 'harsh real world' etc; and the sensing functions bring about relational and spiritual/magical faggy weaknesses. "I'm a jerk and deep down I care that I'm a jerk!" This part I think, socionics understands & can explain well- but how it pieces together other information + how people interact or how people think they can gauge behaviors is where I don't agree with it and think that it lacks usefulness.

How can socionics and intertype relations work for you, if you neither understand socionics, neither got your type right, neither typed the others correctly. I'm 10000% confident on this point. You're trying to fit in a profile and to fit others in your subjective profiles after subjectively understanding socionics in your way, and when that doesn't work you find the theory to be at fault instead of you. Don't you see the nonsense here?

It's like if you try to use a rule of three or cross-multiplication (mathematics) in order to calculate the hypotenuse of a triangle and when that doesn't work you tag the rule of three as faulty and never use it again xD.

With critiques like that, please you could avoid commenting. It's just a lose of time, scincerely I'm saying. I don't want to get along badly with you, although you directly attacked me in another post. So, for that reason from now on, until you fix your way of thinking, I'm going to just ignore any comments you make in my posts or tagging me.

Have a nice day.

[Beautiful sky]

I used to use pedantic as an all purpose insult too but it's a kind of Darren-move. Pedantic people often know specifically what they are talking about so they deserve to zero-in on the issue at length, that is a big part of what intelligence actually is. It's hard for some things to be explained bluntly, because reality is complicated.... if you are not seeing how it relates to real reality then you want an idealized fantasy version of something rather than the true, scientific explanation. yes, pedantic people can stereotypically come across like arrogant and insufferable know-it-alls- but real experts are also often very good at understanding what they don't know yet vs what they already do know.

I don't know about model G, I just think socionic has intertype relationship theory are kind of all wrong/half-baked and is a kind of bastard theory of the original functions. I think on surface it sounds deeper and more prettier than mbti- but that's an illusion, and the real thing is like a mental 50% ghost. It amounts to nothing. Socionics attempt at explaining interpersonal relationships comes across like a bad soap opera where everybody is acting and larping but deep down none of these characters really feel anything for anybody- they are just following a script. Typology is just another way of larping. It's not who you are- the same way Robert Reed wasn't really a heterosexual family man. I used to credit socionics for having a much better intertype relationship theory than mbti but attundial psyche's intertype relationship theory is light-years ahead of socionics.

"the biggest socionic forum in the west" - but realistically, westerners like me can't do much with socionics and getting into mbti is what helps you with the career stuff no matter how much you whine about how 'shallow' it is. Socionics is too communist like, but it can't even do communism right. If you don't get why people are pissed off at the entire thing, it's like you don't have much of a heart- and I've always had a big heart.

My interest in socionics was mostly cultural, I think. I probably had ancestors who were russian despite the fact that I am big on self-expression [[I mean at least in idealized theory]] and russians are stereotypically cold and straight and Fi-like. (even the Fe valuers!) When I was a wee lad, people said that I looked like a little russian baby. So my interest in socionics was probably to be expected. Plot Twist: My great-great-great-great-great (lots of greats) grandfather was the Idea of Gulenko!

People got the Fi of socionics all wrong- and somebody who has 4D Fi whether I'm EII or IEI- it's irritating. In a vacuum I think Gulenko understands socionics pretty well, but as soon as he starts to put together the Fi puzzle though he (and many others like him) fall short. Look at how often he projects his wife into other people. He seems like a smart enough guy to know what projection is, and to try and avoid it in his professional work - but he does that. Then he says 'IEIs are intrinsically vulnerable' and people & incels like Alive foam at the mouth that they aren't the only weak ones. But that's the thing- I don't disagree with him that IEIs have an innate vulnerability that others don't have... the intuitive functions bring about sensor and logical/physical weakness, weak against the 'harsh real world' etc; and the sensing functions bring about relational and spiritual/magical faggy weaknesses. "I'm a jerk and deep down I care that I'm a jerk!" This part I think, socionics understands & can explain well- but how it pieces together other information + how people interact or how people think they can gauge behaviors is where I don't agree with it and think that it lacks usefulness.

LOL BD

[Poptart]

It's like if you try to use a rule of three or cross-multiplication (mathematics) in order to calculate the hypotenuse of a triangle and when that doesn't work you tag the rule of three as faulty and never use it again xD.

With critiques like that, please you could avoid commenting. It's just a lose of time, scincerely I'm saying. I don't want to get along badly with you, although you directly attacked me in another post. So, for that reason from now on, until you fix your way of thinking, I'm going to just ignore any comments you make in my posts or tagging me.

Have a nice day.

lmao get over yourself. it’s not that serious

[Reaktor]

lmao get over yourself. it’s not that serious

What does an idiot when he is faced with such a big fact that he can't even argue it back? He laughs. He does meme, laughs, doesn't take it seriously, etc.

[Poptart]

What does an idiot when he is faced with such a big fact that he can't even argue it back? He laughs. He does meme, laughs, doesn't take it seriously, etc.

Keep telling yourself that

[Alive]

How can socionics and intertype relations work for you, if you neither understand socionics, neither got your type right, neither typed the others correctly. I'm 10000% confident on this point. You're trying to fit in a profile and to fit others in your subjective profiles after subjectively understanding socionics in your way, and when that doesn't work you find the theory to be at fault instead of you. Don't you see the nonsense here?

I don't think we agree all that much, but I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing it. He might be mad at me because he wants to feel special, so he changed his self-typing to EII, so he's not ordinary here.

If you get the typings right, ITR work surprisingly well. Subtypes influence it a little bit but people generally just get along best within their quadra and you can see how they naturally flock together. The main issue is the constant mistypings

[Alive]

What does an idiot when he is faced with such a big fact that he can't even argue it back? He laughs. He does meme, laughs, doesn't take it seriously, etc.

I don't necessarily think he's an idiot, but he's definitely unable to analyze things from an impersonal perspective. he is irrational and highly emotional, even his incel insults towards me are more the way women usually argue (they try to ridicule others socially instead of winning through arguments or force).

edit: this doesn't mean all women do that before someone like shazaam points that out.

[myresearch]

I always found that statement about alphas difficult to understand, too. However, this is not a critique of model G, but rather, of a written statement made by Gulenko in a description of the alpha quadra.

I dont think one can offer a real criticism about general principle of the system that is open to feedback. That would be divergence in the belief of system, hence would be just declaring an opinion instead of opening a discussion that could be constructive.

Hence I prefer to talk about things that are not so clear or doesnt ring true about statements under the model. Surely that is criticism that doesnt discredit the whole system.

[Wavebury]

What does an idiot when he is faced with such a big fact that he can't even argue it back? He laughs. He does meme, laughs, doesn't take it seriously, etc.

Best forum practices: ignore Poptart.

[Wavebury]

I dont think one can offer a real criticism about general principle of the system that is open to feedback. That would be divergence in the belief of system, hence would be just declaring an opinion instead of opening a discussion that could be constructive.

Hence I prefer to talk about things that are not so clear or doesnt ring true about statements under the model. Surely that is criticism that doesnt discredit the whole system.

I understand and I think it's fine lol.