Gulenko's Book

[mu4]

Gulenko has released a new book, if you wish to learn socionics and have some interest in Model G, it has all 64 DCNH profiles

https://www.amazon.com/Psychological...3611940&sr=8-1

Please support Dr Gulenko and all the contributors

[Chillaxe]

Yup, got it myself. Soon as I saw that he was doing DCHN subtype desciptions I was in. Really liked them, and DCHN function accentuations finally makes more sense. I hope people see the subtype desciptions as I belive not having that was a big part of why people didn't embrace it so much.

[The Reality Denialist]

It clears up lots of things about DCNH. Overall seems good but it has some confusing editing errors. If it gets second edition then it should include more in depth Model G.

I think this is the best printed source in socionics outside of Russian sphere.

[mu4]

It clears up lots of things about DCNH. Overall seems good but it has some confusing editing errors. If it gets second edition then it should include more in depth Model G.

I think this is the best printed source in socionics outside of Russian sphere.

I agree, many of the observations in the early parts of the book are interesting and gives us a new framework for analysis of individual behavior vs sociotype. I do think his work require some mechanical explanation of all hypothetical constructions, a narrative to tie the story of the socionic mind together, I wish for a Freudian psychoanalytic reading of the material as well.

I see this as largely a Jungian interpretation of socionics, which is complementary to Freudian but is not focus on the same topics.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Just purchased. Only the second Socionics book I have/will own after the Filatova book, although possibly two many.

[Sol]

nice to see a professional translation of related to Jung types
probably those texts existed already in English but with the help of allmighty google's translator Gulenko's views has shifted to other lands at 90s end, so his subtypes texts should be close to the known

also. model G and Gulenko's subtypes are baseless fantasies and not Socionics
the heretics who use them have higher risk to go to the Hell of typing and other mistakes
what Gulenko does is hypotheses based on other hypotheses + a lot of dreams taken from nowhere

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I thought the 64 DCNH subtypes were sufficiently (and probably consistently) described for me to now say that the DNCH subtype system is meaningful (probably more meaningful than the enneagram, although determining a DCNH subtype for myself is perhaps not as interesting as attempting to find which enneagram type I am, because the DCNH subtypes are variants of the Socionics types).

I still would not recommend the DCNH subtype system to someone new to Socionics, but I think the 16 type descriptions combined with the 4 DCNH "flavours" for each type will give anyone a good sense of the range of a type's natural behaviour.

If I'm EII, then I'm most probably the N-subtype, with the C-subtype being a somewhat distant possibility. It seems that if I'm ILI or LII, I'd probably be the N-subtype of those also. When looking at the ILI description as a whole with its other other DCNH subtypes, I thought that the ILI personality is contrary to how I am overall. With LII, it was not satisfactory at describing me on the whole.

Unless you fundamentally disagree with the concept of the DCNH system, 80-90% of the book is probably uncontroversial (to those who might be worried that it is too heretical or abstract). I think the DCNH subtype as described has some use, although I'm doubtful that it could be used much beyond self-typing (but perhaps only because determining a self-typing and a typing for others with the 16 types is typically problematic enough: the four DCNH subtypes may inform you for future usage however and I will try to bear them in mind in future). I disagree with the questionnaire limiting itself to only two options per question, but that is only a small part of the book which has a few wondrous things.

I thought the book was well-written and better than Filatova's in terms of content, and I'm happy to recommend it.

[Sol]

I thought the book was well-written and better than Filatova's in terms of content

Gulenko's subtypes and "model G" is baseless fantasy and to claim it's better than classical theory of Filatova's book is a nonsense

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Gulenko's subtypes and "model G" is baseless fantasy and to claim it's better than classical theory of Filatova's book is a nonsense

I don't have an opinion on Model G.

I thought the descriptions for the 16 main types in Gulenko's books were comparable with Filatova's, possibly better due to being longer and more detailed, while Filatova's book was a little MBTI-like in places (but not a fundamental problem).

Naturally, if you think the DNCH subtype system is like astrology, you will only think that the whole of Gulenko's book is confusing and problematic due to the danger of it giving noobs a misleading view of Socionics.

I can only say what I said before: that I thought the DCNH subtypes in the book gave an added flavour and range to each type.

[Sol]

@mu4

There was assigned long block for this account for chat section. This happened when you was in the chat. Long blocks are assigned either by you or with your permission.
This was done for my opinions said in the chat about types, typology, and about what happens in its practice on this site and in general. This was done against the forum's rules you've declared. Against the forum's task. This was typology censorship.

Also there was assigned the block to read "Unofficial Members Picture Thread". I talked there about types, like others did too. I got no explanations or notifications about this, but with previouse case of such block the formal reason could be "offtopic in the form of discussion of types". Besides, other people discuss types in that theme without blocks - the common mods actions in such cases is to move "offtopic" messages to other themes, but not to block the access to themes.
This forum is made for types discussions. So in any its theme it's appropriate to talk about types if this relates to info said there. To say the types analysis based on the info is appropriate where it exists. So many others follow the common sense and say opinions about types in that theme based on the photos.

In both cases there was done by you and mods the personal discrimination against me and outside of the forum's rules, with the motivation of typology censorship. My account got blocks for opinions about types which you and some other ones disliked to see.
Such inappropriate typology censorship against the forum's rules actions were done against me by mods multiple times. They blocked the access to typing themes for me saying the opinions about types and typology there. Blocked to mentioned photos theme 2 times. There was a block to access the site for day. All those blocks were assigned for nothing, for me saying opinions about types and while I did broke the forum's rules. Blocks were done only because those my opinions disliked some members and so mods did the typology censorship against just to give the pleasure to those people (and to help them be misleaded and mislead others). This is the cases of the corruption, the personal discrimination and harmful for people typology censorship which supports the spreading of misleadings and of lie about types.

One of significant reasons you did or aproved the chat block against the forum's rules and its task is that you disliked my criticism about your redundant respect and liking of Gulenko's baseless fantasies.
Socionics is ideas of Jung and Augustinaviciute. Anything other is not Socionics. Ideas of other authors about Jung types, including by Gulenko, - is not Socionics. Until there will appear objective prove to add them. Where base Jung's ideas are more trusty. The more basic, clear and reasonable the idea is - the more trust it should to get. In the example of doubtful Reinin's traits (which are baseless and far from Jung), Augustinavichiute used static/dynamic trait seriously in her articles and I doubt about other traits - so even forumally those should be rejected as she noticed that Reinin's traits is just a raw hypothesis. The said is common formally correct relation to terms as "Socionics" and the reasonable approach which reduces the chances to use wrong theory. To use random baseless theories about types, to list them as parts of Socionics, to list them as equal to basic Socionics ideas - is what you do and what is irresponsibility and misleading which rises mistakes, misleadings what Socionics is, discredits Socionics by mistakes and doubtful baseless hypotheses.
The other my opinion that you and some other ones here could dislike is the objectivity that those who did not studed types thorougly by normal books or special courses (instead of a mess of heretic articles and autotranslations common for English sites), who did not practice much in typing and watching of people with known types - are incompetent noobs with bad types understanding and typing skills. When those noobs also assign to Jung types baseless hypotheses, alike from that Gulenko, - this worsens the situation. The said fits the very majority on Socionics sites, especially English ones. On today, the only good study Socionics source in English is the single book by Filatova; plus Jung's book and mb Augustinavichiute's texts translated by fans/auto ; also can be useful MBTI books in their dichotomies discriptions. Only after normal basis to study types, it's appropriate to look on other texts. As in other case there are good chances to get partially wrong understandings, including because it will not be clear what theory is more core, what followed from it and how.

You and others are insterested in the truth. The typology censorship which you and mods do on this forum support mistakes and misleadings by which people harm their lives.

[CosmicCat]

Was this professionally translated and edited? I saw "independently published" which is a big red flag because it means anybody could have edited it, or nobody at all.

[The Reality Denialist]

Was this professionally translated and edited? I saw "independently published" which is a big red flag because it means anybody could have edited it, or nobody at all.

It is pretty good. It has few mistakes in formatting regarding mixed up paragraphs but nothing very serious.

[ApeironStella]

Just seen it, and checking the preview pages on the Amazon, probably will buy it later as exchange rate at the moment between usd and tl is like 1:7. A lot of what I can see seems to be rehashes of his old type profiles, though that might be because those are the pages available rather than newer stuff?

[Adam Strange]

I bought Gulenko's book a couple weeks ago and I didn't really see anything in it that seemed new or different.

I tend to agree with some other posters on this forum who say that DCNH is not really useful because a person's DCNH type it isn't that strongly fixed, or can change under different circumstances.

For comparison, I think that oceanmoonshine's descriptions of the instinctual variations of enneatype are easier to see than DCNH, but your mileage may vary.

FWIW, I hope Gulenko got some cash from my book purchase. In the States, for short run books, the author's share is about 33%, as are the Publisher's and the Printer's shares.

[Ave]

I asked for it as an xmas gift, I think it's really good. Much, much, more compleat than the socionics sources available in English already imo.

I really like the dcnh descriptions, though some of the material in Gulenko's dcnh descriptions is taken from Meged's descriptions of the two subtypes. This doesn't really bother me, because both authors should be describing the same phenomena, but trying to understand them using a different system.

I would say it's worth buying, if you like dcnh .

[BasicallyGod]

I caved and got the book. found it mostly contains rehashed info from profiles you can already find on the internet. they didn't take the time to update occurrences of "logical subtype" and "intuitive subtype" despite that they're now on the DCNH bandwagon.

speaking of DCNH, I've never been a big fan of this, because it just adds a layer of convolution to an already overcomplicated system. and it is often used as a justification for bad typings. I fail to see how it adds much of substance beyond just stating the qualifications of your typing as in "ok he looks LII but more irrational than usual".

and of course the book commits the central sin of socionical writing, implying that every little symbol and sub-symbol is worth writing long winded paragraphs about, when the truth is usually just that all you can say about Se and Ne is that they're opposites and just don't fucking get along.

but the most disappointing thing of all - to the point hard to forgive - is that it doesn't contain a section on quadra values, thus making the tome largely useless for sorting out my personal conundrums.

I suppose as a general primer it can serve its purpose, but the lack of quadra descriptions is a serious shortcoming even in that vein.

ps I found it cute that it alternates between referring the person as male and female in the profiles

[Zero11]

I got the book too. It may have the stupid model G but it is miles better than Filatovas book.

no wonder he uses Model G, it's a total break from the jungian functions or not, maybe it is even more jungian than the rest

[Chiquichiquaquiles]

who is DarkAngelFireWolf69? and why does he write books on socionics

[gone]

@DarkAngelFireWolf69 are you a real person (that is on this forum) and if you are, where can I buy your books? Please and thank you.

Yea i'm a real person

[gone]

you can buy my books on amazon.com

[The Reality Denialist]

DarkAngelFireWolf69 is probably a theme specific string replacement quirk used by kimu.

[Tallmo]

speaking of DCNH, I've never been a big fan of this, because it just adds a layer of convolution to an already overcomplicated system. and it is often used as a justification for bad typings. I fail to see how it adds much of substance beyond just stating the qualifications of your typing as in "ok he looks LII but more irrational than usual".

Yes, but reality is complicated. You have huge variation within types, and dcnh takes this into account and shows that you can extract a layer that has order.

Of course it can be used as a justification for bad typings. And it can also be used to get your typings right. In any case, everybody has to deal with intra-type variation when typing, whether you use dcnh or not. It's just easier when DCNH already has sorted out some of these things and hands it over to you.

It adds substance in the sense that these variations are regular, and they are distinct, it's not just a sliding scale. DCNH reveals secondary functional development and specialization that almost all people have.

[BasicallyGod]

Yes, but reality is complicated. You have huge variation within types, and dcnh takes this into account and shows that you can extract a layer that has order.

Of course it can be used as a justification for bad typings. And it can also be used to get your typings right. In any case, everybody has to deal with intra-type variation when typing, whether you use dcnh or not. It's just easier when DCNH already has sorted out some of these things and hands it over to you.

It adds substance in the sense that these variations are regular, and they are distinct, it's not just a sliding scale. DCNH reveals secondary functional development and specialization that almost all people have.

if you want to understand personality in its full complexity, I suggest just talking to people, getting to know them fully and not classifying them hastily based on one categorical qualifier or other. the only personality system more complex than basic socionics I have patience for is the one that incorporates all 7 billion of the types.

as for doing this thing where you slap another layer of abstractions on to your system every time it falls short of having practical predictive ability: this is called the Ptolemaic approach and is historically known for being a spectacularly bad idea.

[Tallmo]

if you want to understand personality in its full complexity, I suggest just talking to people, getting to know them fully and not classifying them hastily based on one categorical qualifier or other. the only personality system more complex than basic socionics I have patience for is the one that incorporates all 7 billion of the types.

as for doing this thing where you slap another layer of abstractions on to your system every time it falls short of having practical predictive ability: this is called the Ptolemaic approach and is historically known for being a spectacularly bad idea.

It's not about "understanding personality in it's full complexity". It is really about the fact that Gulenko has discovered another layer that can be typologized. That's a very valuable thing, in all sciences.

I know perfectly well that even people of the same type + subtype can still be very different.

In biology we can classify living beings in plants and animals, but we can go further... If you have patience.

[schwiftyrickty]

I love the book but it has tons of errors, some are major and make parts nearly impossible to understand especially if you don't already know socionics well enough to use context clues. The DCNH descriptions are very detailed and interesting but I do fear that they might further complicate typing.

[Lolita]

I only read it after I got typed and it made more sense. It also gave me a deeper understanding into +/- system which helps me tell apart the lead types.

[Bethanyclaire]

I was wondering if any parts of the book have been posted on to the forum somewhere? I feel like I read some DCNH descriptions (from the book I thought) but can’t find it now. I remember there were descriptions of the subtypes and the description for harmonising was really short lol. Hoping to find it if anyone has a link.

[Aster]

I was wondering if any parts of the book have been posted on to the forum somewhere? I feel like I read some DCNH descriptions (from the book I thought) but can’t find it now. I remember there were descriptions of the subtypes and the description for harmonising was really short lol. Hoping to find it if anyone has a link.

You can find some on the website here:
https://d3fnsdcdfam5fep5d4hhrc72oq-a...article/?id=39
https://d3fnsdcdfam5fep5d4hhrc72oq-a...wledge/#podtyp
The ones in the book are better, but I misplaced my book . I’ve been trying to find it. I shared the normalizing one from the book on the Gulenko typing of forum members thread, I remember, but I don’t think I wrote out the other ones...

[Bethanyclaire]

@aster thanks! Will have a look- descriptions on the website seem helpful

[Aster]

@Bethany

you’re welcome

put wrong link on the second one. Fixed

[Bethanyclaire]

@aster nice! Ta

[Bethanyclaire]

Those descriptions are really helpful, especially the subtype profiles. I am definitely IEI harmonising I believe I can easily type people I know according to the descriptions as well.

[The Banana King]

Woah, nice descriptions! From reading that I now suspect I am ILE-N instead of ILE-H. I originally decided for Harmonizing from the terminating/initiating and all that stuff but reading the descriptions for ILE-N and ILE-H, Normalizing fits way better. And from the function-strengthening point of view it makes better sense (++ Ti and ++ Se-role). Looking back a few years I may have shifted from ILE-H to ILE-N because of life circumstances improving my Se or something...
The ILE-N description and the Normalizing descriptions in general remind me of 4V. Would make sense if Dominant subtypes are more often than not 1V.

[Syf]

Please send me the pdf

[Bethanyclaire]

They are good aren’t they. This time two years ago I probably couldn’t have made sense of them. But having spent time thinking about people’s types according to ennegram and socionics, I feel like I can easily type people as one of the four subtypes, of each type. Seems like a nice way to group people too (by subtype). 4 core subtypes seems less separatist that socionics can feel sometimes, with there being so many types to consider.

[Bethanyclaire]

https://d3fnsdcdfam5fep5d4hhrc72oq-a...wledge/#podtyp this one’s useful too

[MissDucki]

I read the book! I ordered it a couple months back cause I don't feel like a proper personality theory nerd unless I have a book lol. I liked it and I highlighted some aspects that I was drawn too. The end of the book I was more drawn to the information at it included erotic styles and how functions played out more. The only thing that got me was the DCNH aspects of the ISFp. I thought I was originally more harmonizing but the way they described a harmonized ISFp was not like me and I related more to normalizing. Oh well, still got to study that a little more. Ill stick with sub types for myself personally. Good for information and for helping me fast track my learning a little bit. I enjoyed it.

[The Joker The Fool]

Dichotomously I relate to Harmonizing subtype, and people most likely consider me to be Harmonizing subtype IEI.

IEI-H description sucks though so I will pretend to be C. I'd say it would have fit maybe earlier in my life, but now I'm slowly becoming more extroverted and might take on a Creative approach to living at some point in my life.

[Bethanyclaire]

I quite like the book. A lot of descriptions stand out to me or seem truthful. I pick it up randomly sometimes to refer to. The descriptions of the ITR are good. Less interested in the subtypes atm but they do shed light on the variety within types. He gives advice and he tries to be diplomatic on the way he discusses the types

[oneuser]

bu kitabı hemen almam lazım.