Steve Jobs is my dual.

[Bertrand]

what's this banter styles that you speak of, and how is it different than communication styles? I want some fresh gulenko and this sounds like it may be it

[niffer]

Quadra Values

Yeah that’s not even original either lol

[domr]

what's this banter styles that you speak of, and how is it different than communication styles? I want some fresh gulenko and this sounds like it may be it

banter = bully/tease, troublemaker/babysitter
communication style = passionate/sincere, pragmatic/analytical

nothing new here

[Bertrand]

do you have a link to this I've never heard of it before

[domr]

do you have a link to this I've never heard of it before

http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/lifesc.html

[Bertrand]

oh Ive seen communication styles before, I was more wondering about the banter

[nefnaf]

If you look at the overall system the good that Gulenko has done is Banter Styles, Quadra Values and maybe communication styles. That's about it. Technically he is on roughly the same level as Reinin. Below Augusta, and definitely below Jung or Aristotle.

Jung and Ausra are dead. Reinin has made great contributions but in recent years he has not done nearly as much as VG.

I actually think Gulenko's best and most important work is his work on the rings of supervision, i.e. cognitive styles. All of the most common mistypes can be rooted out immediately by applying his concepts, it's quite remarkable.

I'll be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails of DCNH so I ignored it for about 5 years. Recently I have started to appreciate it a lot more.

[domr]

Jung and Ausra are dead. Reinin has made great contributions but in recent years he has not done nearly as much as VG.

I actually think Gulenko's best and most important work is his work on the rings of supervision, i.e. cognitive styles. All of the most common mistypes can be rooted out immediately by applying his concepts, it's quite remarkable.

I'll be honest, I couldn't make heads or tails of DCNH so I ignored it for about 5 years. Recently I have started to appreciate it a lot more.

Link to research?

I don't find the supervisionary or beneficiary ITR important.

[nefnaf]

Link to research?

I don't find the supervisionary or beneficiary ITR important.

wikisocion article not a very good read unfortunately (machine-translated)

Basically, Gulenko discovered that supervision rings tend to have similar patterns of thought, which can then be observed in speech. These groups are formed by Evolution / Involution (Process / Result), Positivist / Negativist and Static / Dynamic traits.

[domr]

wikisocion article not a very good read unfortunately (machine-translated)

Basically, Gulenko discovered that supervision rings tend to have similar patterns of thought, which can then be observed in speech. These groups are formed by Evolution / Involution (Process / Result), Positivist / Negativist and Static / Dynamic traits.

Junk. Those dichotomies are not real.

[Bertrand]

Junk. Those dichotomies are not real.

are banter styles real?? im still curious where they come from

[nefnaf]

Junk. Those dichotomies are not real.

Static / Dynamic is not a real trait now? I think I've heard everything lol.

Yes, these are real traits. ILIs focus on the past - while IEIs focus on the future +.This is the sort research that actual socionists do - and Gulenko is the best at it.

[nefnaf]

what's this banter styles that you speak of, and how is it different than communication styles? I want some fresh gulenko and this sounds like it may be it

I believe "banter style" is referring to the romance styles, or erotic attitudes. Basically going by which irrational function is in the Model A ego block.

- infantile
- caregiver
aggressor
victim

basically, it describes which types are good in bed together.

[Bertrand]

oh I see, he just renamed them. thats funny I don't think of LII as being a troublemaker... let me just get my thesaurus out and devise a new better system than gulenko which is actually just a complete rip off. its like, how can you discredit a man and plagiarize his work in the same breath, doesn't doing one kind of make the other pointless

I also feel like this Steve Jobs worship is likely benefit at work

[domr]

Static / Dynamic is not a real trait now? I think I've heard everything lol.

Yes, these are real traits. ILIs focus on the past - while IEIs focus on the future +.This is the sort research that actual socionists do - and Gulenko is the best at it.

Nope. It isn't derived from the Model A axioms. Gulenko's +/- system is his inability to combine the mental abilities into intellects.

The Imaginative Logical Specialist (The Engineer) focuses on specialized imagination and generalized logic i.e. imaginative logical induction. The Imaginative Ethical Specialist (The Oracle) also focuses on specialized imagination but on generalized ethic, i.e. imaginative ethical induction. Both are sifting through visions or ideas but the IL- wants those ideas to generally work, e.g. make new widgets; Elon Musk. The IE- wants those visions to move people, e.g. communicate a message; ******.

P.S. the geometric shapes are the dumbest notation.

oh I see, he just renamed them. thats funny I don't think of LII as being a troublemaker... let me just get my thesaurus out and devise a new better system than gulenko which is actually just a complete rip off. its like, how can you discredit a man and plagiarize his work in the same breath, doesn't doing one kind of make the other pointless

I also feel like this Steve Jobs worship is likely benefit at work

I didn't ripe anything off. I cited him. And I renamed them because it better illustrates the interaction. Gulenko's naming is very poor. And yes Steve Jobs also did this too which is how he become so successful. Turns out communication is an important skill.

[Bertrand]

domr have you considered that you could be a SEE

you seem to have the Ti polr, low intuition, and mendaciousness down

[domr]

domr have you considered that you could be a SEE

you seem to have the Ti polr, low intuition, and mendaciousness down

I'm not an OE+ (Entertainer).

Do you even know the difference between -E3+O4 and -E3+I4?

[Bertrand]

no because thats gibberish?

[niffer]

Look at who’s talking lol

[domr]

Okay Fi 3D Se 4D vs Fi 3D Ne 4D

in your Creole language.

[Bertrand]

uh forget it, I realize where this conversation leads and its nowhere good.. I hope your scam ends up benefiting people

[Soupman]

source? I have a hard time believing Gulenko, the world's best socionist, would mistype Steve Jobs in such a way

Go ask him yourself on Facebook, if you pay him, he'll be forth with you given how budgeted his time is. Steve was the mentor idealist - complete opposite to the rational managerial inspector that specialises in order. If you read Walter Isaacson's book you can see the EIE drama and gradually out of touch nature he had. Plus he was a dominant subtype - focused and geared towards results.

Once you know socionics it's not surprising as is Trump being the SEE archetype politician capable of ruling through chaos.

[niffer]

Go ask him yourself on Facebook, if you pay him, he'll be forth with you given how budgeted his time is. He's the mentor idealist - complete opposite to the rational managerial inspector that specialises in order.

Once you know socionics it's not surprising as is Trump being the SEE archetype politician capable of ruling through chaos.

....

Are you for serious?

[niffer]

I say No to people a lot. It is ideas I have a problem saying no to.

Yeah, he could just be me actualized. Like the EIE final boss. He also grew up in a better environment. With risk taking and happening things in California during beginning of personal computers. Surrounded by world class and educated people. I am from a small town and there was nothing. No dreams are built here.

That is a good point about duality being more unconscious. This is something I understand. I am not good at it yet but I understand it.

That’s pretty unlikely. It would be like calling Oprah the final boss of LSI and a highly self-actualized LSI IMO. It’s more likely that Steve Jobs is just your dual.

I see the people on here typing him EIE as the same as Sol typing me IEI.

Btw: He was also adopted.

[Soupman]

I'm not an OE+ (Entertainer).

Do you even know the difference between -E3+O4 and -E3+I4?

Have you tried not translating MBTI and seeing socionics for what it is first? Before you pick what you like and don't like.

SEE being the politician (Trump, Madona,...) really gets you a very different perspective when you see that socialites/interpersonal business club (SF) really see the world very differently.

ST are the Technocrat, Managers, Heirachy administration - the get things done.

NF are idealists, humanitarian, concerned with direction and philosophy

NTs are finally the Researchers, Experimenters picking apart how the world works and is

[Soupman]

....

Are you for serious?

Yes absolutely, reading Walter Isaacson's book really paints the classic EIE, with Viktor's wife being EIE I'm not surprised he knows a lot about the type.

Much of what he's written applies to my EIE sister which proves that he truly understands the inner workings of the type.

I don't know why people would go with celebrity types - those guys are MBTI

[nefnaf]

Once you know socionics it's not surprising as is Trump being the SEE archetype politician capable of ruling through chaos.

Of course Trump is SEE, that much should be obvious. Equally obvious is Steve Jobs being LIE

[nefnaf]

LIE can often be very emotionally affecting people. Many ministers, preachers, comedians are LIE

[niffer]

Have you tried not translating MBTI and seeing socionics for what it is first? Before you pick what you like and don't like.

SEE being the politician (Trump, Madona,...) really gets you a very different perspective when you see that socialites/interpersonal business club (SF) really see the world very differently.

ST are the Technocrat, Managers, Heirachy administration - the get things done.

NF are idealists, humanitarian, concerned with direction and philosophy

NTs are finally the Researchers, Experimenters picking apart how the world works and is

Okay so at least you think Trump and Madonna (which you spelt wrong) are the same type. You have a minuscule amount of rationality in you and not all is lost, just most of it.

[Soupman]

Okay so at least you think Trump and Madonna (which you spelt wrong) are the same type. You have a minuscule amount of rationality in you and not all is lost, just most of it.

Viktor Gulenko comes to the same conclusion - if you think the father of socionics is crazy, well that's on you. Even then socionics isn't compatible between different schools.

Stacy "Fergie" Ferguson is another kindred spirit but slightly different.

[niffer]

Viktor Gulenko comes to the same conclusion - if you think the father of socionics is crazy, well that's on you. Even then socionics isn't compatible between different schools.

Stacy "Fergie" Ferguson is another kindred spirit but slightly different.

I don’t think he’s crazy. But I do think you’re a bit weird.

[Soupman]

Of course Trump is SEE, that much should be obvious. Equally obvious is Steve Jobs being LIE

LIE can often be very emotionally affecting people. Many ministers, preachers, comedians are LIE

I'm not sure what socionics schools you follow since I'd have to accept that as the perculiarities of your school archetypes.

Nevertheless whilst LIE can be complicated with the superego ESFx behaviour, that is rather the type of nerds, with poor social skills.

Viktor Gulenko adds to his LIE archetypes: Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, see his Humanitarian Socionics Facebook page. He types Zucc's wife as LSI.

Jobs was a hippie that's very charismatic that archetypes is more characteristic of EIE. They are incredibly smart and contrary to MBTI complicated, dictatorial, and philosophers - though authoritarian given how they like to construct ideas without the debate and argumentation NTs have.

[The Reality Denialist]

Zuckerberg as LIE makes sense. He has such a typical LIE mannerisms going on. The role that looks bit like constipated ESE.

[niffer]

I think Steve Jobs looked like if @Myst got an elaborate and well-done sex change.

[niffer]

Zuckerberg as LIE makes sense. He has such a typical LIE mannerisms going on. The role that looks bit like constipated ESE.

Meh I think IEI is more likely for Zuck. He looks like he can’t chew anything properly with that jaw structure of his. Prob 1D Se Te. Also his wife looks like a man.

[Soupman]

MBTI and Socionics are both interpretation of Jung's psychological work. I'm beyond both now and doing research into Aristotle's psychology.

Your labels are close but not correct; because you don't understand how the mental abilities or dom/aux pairs work.

Aristocrats
Imaginative Ethic = Theocrats, what you call idealists or philosophers
Observative Logic = Bureaucrats, what you call managers and administration. Hierarchy is an aristocratic trait.

Democrats
Imaginative Logic = Technocrats, what you call researchers and experimenters
Observative Ethic = Eudaicrats, what you call humanitarians and socialites

OE+ being a politician is a total joke. They are democratic, not aristocratic, and their job is maximize happiness, not build or manage intuitions.

Kersey was correct in wanting to put human labels on the types but the problem is he couldn't do it correctly because he lacked understanding of the intellects. Gulenko fails for the exact same reason. He can see the mental abilities, intellectual clubs even the intellectual cliques (quadras) but without an understanding of the 8 intellects it's not possible to correctly label the intellectual types. Hence he mislabels an entertainer as a politician. Fail.

P.S. Jobs was LO- not EI+.

You haven't read Walter Isaacson's book? Anyway in time you'll learn that there are more than 16 types of people and more than 16 ways to attach labels to them, along with the fact that qualitative descriptions of the theory are incompatible with the Jungian foundation - which makes everything abstract.

BTW you do know that "ethical types" are quite rational and logical but something is different about their thinking. When I got into typology, in my first weeks (over 6 years ago - oh man time flies) I thought my sister was logical because she could think, she is very intelligent, and reasonable - you'd type her as an LO in your system but the perculiarities of EIE much of the same reflected in Jobs would show up.

[domr]

You haven't read Walter Isaacson's book? Anyway in time you'll learn that there are more than 16 types of people and more than 16 ways to attach labels to them, along with the fact that qualitative descriptions of the theory are incompatible with the Jungian foundation - which makes everything abstract.

BTW you do know that "ethical types" are quite rational and logical but something is different about their thinking. When I got into typology, in my first weeks (over 6 years ago - oh man time flies) I thought my sister was logical because she could think, she is very intelligent, and reasonable - you'd type her as an LO in your system but the perculiarities of EIE much of the same reflected in Jobs would show up.

I've watched every SJ video on YT and watched the keynote address live. Jobs was LO- You could see that -O4 in his attention to detail and the -L4 in his building system and intuitions like Apple and Pixar.

Of course ethical types are rational. Ethic and Logic are the 2 reasoning (rational) functions.

And you didn't respond to anything I wrote. Like think about it, how can technocrats be OL when technology is imaginative/intuitive. My labels are well thought out.

This is just one model of the mind. In this model there are 16 types, 32 subtypes. Other systems can have different amount of types.

[Soupman]

I've watched every SJ video on YT and watched the keynote address live. Jobs was LO- You could see that -O4 in his attention to detail and the -L4 in his building system and intuitions like Apple and Pixar.

Of course ethical types are rational. Ethic and Logic are the 2 reasoning (rational) functions.

And you didn't respond to anything I wrote. Like think about it, how can technocrats be OL when technology is imaginative/intuitive. My labels are well thought out.

You haven't read the biography and you don't seem to know how much of a genius marketer he was by simply crafting the right image. He's a right contrast to the nerds like Zuckerberg and Elon musk LIEs.

[Soupman]

I've watched every SJ video on YT and watched the keynote address live. Jobs was LO- You could see that -O4 in his attention to detail and the -L4 in his building system and intuitions like Apple and Pixar.

Of course ethical types are rational. Ethic and Logic are the 2 reasoning (rational) functions.

And you didn't respond to anything I wrote. Like think about it, how can technocrats be OL when technology is imaginative/intuitive. My labels are well thought out.

This is just one model of the mind. In this model there are 16 types, 32 subtypes. Other systems can have different amount of types.

BTW Jobs was a showman and an editor, Steve Wozniak exposed him and mentioned how he couldn't even write a line of code or design anything to any detail.

Steve Wozniak's father actually saw jobs as a fraud that he wanted him fired from the project. Jobs always talked about hiring fine talent and how he relied on it. He knew how to set direction mentoring people - inspiring them (all EIE expertise), he could be very emotional and abusive. Something quite a contrast to Tim Cook his dual whose more into rules and procedures.

[domr]

@Soupman

IE vs OE. Every mind has 4 blocks; 2 logical and 2 ethical.

Zuck is an LI- and Musk is an IL- while Jobs was LO-. So when it comes to ethics, Zuck and Musk goto OE while Jobs to IE. That's the difference in their corporate cultures and their brand images.

As an OL instead of IL, Jobs was a duck out of water in silicon valley, that's why he was soo relient on IL talent. He could oversee them because they were all L types. Generally you find OL types in bureaucracy like Law or Finance or Govt. That is where SJ would intellectually be competent.