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.