I hear mixed messages about Gulenko , Reinin and others. is there an author that is generally agreed upon by the socionics community?
which socionics typologist is actually credible?
I hear mixed messages about Gulenko , Reinin and others. is there an author that is generally agreed upon by the socionics community?
A grain of truth in all but you may enjoy Strati as she too was ESI
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I personally like Beskova
See this physical description matches mine when people see me so there are some visual interwoven in type descriptions all across
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...NFj-by-Beskova
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Here’s ESI Beskova
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ion-(Filatova)
And Strati
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...Stratiyevskaya
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Strati's was always like a bullet straight between the eyes, for me.Originally Posted by Beautiful sky
(To OP: I also see ESI as my best fit, btw.)
Dunno man, all of socionics is like AIDS for your brain to me but I guess Augusta and Talanov have the least amount of non-detectable viral load in their beliefs to me. Gulenko just projects his Beta-ness onto everybody like Alive does, and I can't take him seriously.
no
Typing matches are low between anyone. No objective proof of high accuracy for anyone.
You may hope on ~50% accuracy in conditions of IRL interview, or something close as video with an interview, video chat. The better when a typer knows you not only in typing process, but in common situations too. Studing groups, clubs, etc.
Average types test mb has the accuracy ~30%. But tests are similar, so just to do another test is not an independent result. A typer may be thought as another independent opinion (when he did not know external opinions). The more often independent opinions point on same trait - the more chance it's correct. So even with not high accuracy typers (and people with experience in typing, watching people with known types) - are useful.
I recommend to reduce a trust to typers who are using much of doubtful theory as Reinin traits or even non-Socionics theory about types. The example of those is Gulenko. It's unpredictable how much this may reduce the accuracy from average.
To exclude the ones who are much using non-behavior based methods - physiognomy, as example. Nonverbal behavior needs visual data too.
Today, the only good way to be assured in own type is to identify it yourself, with taking into account your IR effects with well-known people (>10). If what you see will fit good to the theory - good basis to be assured in your type.
You may read books (Jung, Filatova, other), to use tests and by yourself to identify types of well known people by: logical analysis, intuitive nonverbal method, tests. To know opinions about your type can be useful, but the end opinion should be goten as said above.
What Dr. G does is simplifying the method, here is a simplified exposition of that method :
N or S = a / E or I = b / Temperament = (b + Non verbal)= c / Installation = Interests Y/ Verbal incoherency with behavior = Accentuation Z :
(a+b+c) +XYZ = Type and subtype.
That's as simple as that. He is not influenced by any other factors outside his system and method. This is why he can without the shadow of a doubt type autistic persons with EIE sociotype and look you in the eyes like nothing is wrong with that !
Last edited by godslave; 03-30-2023 at 04:29 PM.
Just avoid Aliveonics and you'll be ok.
Talanov is doing a relatively good job, I think
Souls know their way back home
Gulenko is ESI, haven't you noticed?
And type descriptions from Stratievskaya look like if they were written by EIE - 5% of information and 95% of drama
She’s ESI
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
No I haven't, what makes you say that? So he's really a Gamma that thinks he's an Alpha LII? That's kind of funny. But what I don't really respect about socionics is how wishy washy the types are like that. I get it because I can drag queen as both an IEI and EII rather easily. Anything can mean anything because it lacks a solid framework and structure which means it's most likely just complete bullshit to begin with. I am Oprah but I'm also not Oprah.
Socionics mostly seems to be about narcissists exploiting naive housewives for money, but there are much better ways if you want housewives' money and housewives are easily exploitated anyway and would just waste their money on a whole bunch of other shit that they don't need even if socionics didn't exist, so I can't even hate them for how they make their money or anything- but yeah I do think it's stupid.
No.
My perspective: Jungian typology is very phenomenal. However, you need both talent and effort to truly understand the beautiful theory discovered by Jung. Hence, everyone has a different level of understanding. These typologists are of no exception. Also, the typing market is also divided according to the consumers' level of understanding.
IMO, Jung is simply the best socionics typologist. The second best one is Aushra, who provides a good framework to understand Jung and avoids the misleading interpretations of MBTI and Beebe.
He mistakenly thought own type as INTJ. Had INTP.
As in common, sometimes he changed opinions about types of other people, where said that types themselves were changed.
And did not know important theory addition as IR to be related to socionics.
> you need both talent and effort to truly understand the beautiful theory discovered by Jung
As you reject that functions of duals are closest to anima, so more of efforts are needed for you.
You have more than deserved respect to Augustinavichiute ideas, many of which were trash contradicting to Jung's basics. What is another place for efforts to notice this.
Well, there are people who are so influenced and "agreeable" with your emo depression ("life sucks, leave me alone, I don't deserve company, etc") and maybe some physical handicap that they will hand over autism labels like candy. It is interesting phenomena (mb modern) that plastic surgeon will operate your body no matter what (cash or blindness or afraid of being confronted with a fit or all the above) and this is very wide spread across various fields btw. Specialization has its definite cons.What Dr. G does is simplifying the method, here is a simplified exposition of that method :
N or S = a / E or I = b / Temperament = (b + Non verbal)= c / Installation = Interests Y/ Verbal incoherency with behavior = Accentuation Z :
(a+b+c) +XYZ = Type and subtype.
That's as simple as that. He is not influenced by any other factors outside his system and method. This is why he can without the shadow of a doubt type autistic persons with EIE sociotype and look you in the eyes like nothing is wrong with that !
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Good points !
I agree, the fact that a person who is "labeled" as autistic can be typed by Dr.G as EIE says a lot about the dynamics of opinions, that of the client, the typologist and even the mental health pro who allegedly diagnosed the client as autistic.
Now, I'm afraid that autism has become in the light of the zeitgeist an identity among others. Indeed to the question "what do you identify as ?" one can answer "I identify as [じゃんけんぽん]sexual with Asperger (here is my official authentication) " and people will accept it. Like you said, i agree that autism is overdiagnosed. Basically if you're a little too shy and have some issues with socialisation (note that it's very different than not being able to read facial expressions and all the communication handicaps inherent to autism) and no other significant pathological symptoms in terms of cognition then it's asperger or APD or SPD. Since we live in a world where you can have both BPD and Autism, an EIE typing from Dr.G for such person could make a lot of sense if you know what I mean...
Autism became like a psychological construct now and the idea is making its way in the collective unconscious. Autism is like a social tags, a social behavior or attitude, a style if you will just like Narcissism, we see both of those overdiagnosed. There was a time where the Asperger diagnosis was established only by specialists of that particular condition. One would go to special centers and paye a good amount of money for the tests etc.. In other words Asperger was trademarked (I think it still is in some countries (?)). I mean what has gone wrong here ? Is it only a trend that found its way in our modern society under the flag of hyper liberalism ? Same goes with plastic surgery, I think that we are assisting to a shift in terms of deontology.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
