Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[mfckrz]

As for rudeness and 'full of himself' part, I'm going to quote more from Gulenko on LIE, ILI, SLI and LSE (Fi-seeking parties);

These excerpts are surprisingly accurate. Don't understand how Gulenko went from this… to whatever the hell he's doing now.

Anyway, you seem to express well-placed distaste for Beta the most. So I'd be looking at Delta.

[lynx]

overseer of business mergers

What does such a person do? I can't seem to find a translation for this term.

[Ave]

What does such a person do? I can't seem to find a translation for this term.

I believe it means someone who checks whether a business merger is done following government regulations.

[lynx]

I believe it means someone who checks whether a business merger is done following government regulations.

Thanks, Uncle Ave.

[Still Alive]

while watching the video interview, I was surprised that gulenko typed Duschia as EIE, but looking at the messages here I can kind of see why he would come to such a conclusion, especially considering that they exchanged a bunch of mails. I still think LIE is possible. Duschia has a rather rational way of analysing the situation (imo), and the messages here might be more of a result of hurt Fi values. I also think normalising sub is more likely, since I haven't seen any harmonization here.

that's all I really want to write about the discussion.

[Sol]

@Adam Strange
You may try Gulenko's roulette. It's bizzare and not expensive (for you) adventure which you did not tried still.
Extincting early Socionics madness for a history. Alike to visit an alchemist in middle ages, which breathed by toxic substances for long.
All today typers are weird. This one is widely known, at least.

[ouronis]

I believe it means someone who checks whether a business merger is done following government regulations.

Having done this, someone who oversees a business merger would be seeing to what extent people, processes, material, equipment should be shared and distributed.

[SlytherinPower]

Where are all these betas in the real world, because I always encounter alphas & deltas the most. I do know an EIE & IEI though.

[SlytherinPower]

This is an entirely new perspective to me. Based on what I've been hearing since I first learned about jungian typology, INFJ (IEI) was supposed to be the rarest. I've never heard of the Delta quadra being the least common of all, and especially not EII being the least common type.

I have tried finding the gallery section on gulenko's website since someone posted it before but I haven't had any luck. If you can find that again I'd like to take a look at it. It's all in Russian and even when I use Google auto translate on chrome I still can't find it lol. There are definitely some examples there.

Yeah mbti statics say SJs are the most common. xSTJ for men & xSFJ for women. INFJ the most rare for men. INTJ the most rare for women. Although I know 2 INFJ guys irl & 2 INTJ women so..

[Still Alive]

Where are all these betas in the real world, because I always encounter alphas & deltas the most. I do know an EIE & IEI though.

David Keirsey, another LII who studied personality types for 40 years, claimed in his book "please understand me II" that sensing types probably make up 85% of the population, and I think I agree with that assumption. you might get the impression that intuitive types are common because you notice them more on the internet or in creative fields, or that EIE are common because they are in the spotlight all the time, but how often do we think of the common SLI or SEI (or any other S type) worker that we rarely interact with as intuitives? the ones that go to the factories to build cars or other pragmatic things, that fix your apartment or work as a cashier at the grocery store. I think they outnumber intuitives by a lot.

[Socionics Is Not A Cult]

Society has little respect for eminently qualified professionals.

[SlytherinPower]

David Keirsey, another LII who studied personality types for 40 years, claimed in his book "please understand me II" that sensing types probably make up 85% of the population, and I think I agree with that assumption. you might get the impression that intuitive types are common because you notice them more on the internet or in creative fields, or that EIE are common because they are in the spotlight all the time, but how often do we think of the common SLI or SEI (or any other S type) worker that we rarely interact with as intuitives? the ones that go to the factories to build cars or other pragmatic things, that fix your apartment or work as a cashier at the grocery store. I think they outnumber intuitives by a lot.

Agreed. As someone who's worked restaurant, retail, a factory job building containers for car parts, & a warehouse job - I definitely agree that there's way more sensors.

[SlytherinPower]

I'd even venture to say I meet more LSE women than EIEs. Then again, I don't actively go out of my way to engage most women & stear clear of the "girls girls" type of women that are very clique oriented no matter their age.

[Rusal]

David Keirsey, another LII who studied personality types for 40 years, claimed in his book "please understand me II" that sensing types probably make up 85% of the population, and I think I agree with that assumption. you might get the impression that intuitive types are common because you notice them more on the internet or in creative fields, or that EIE are common because they are in the spotlight all the time, but how often do we think of the common SLI or SEI (or any other S type) worker that we rarely interact with as intuitives? the ones that go to the factories to build cars or other pragmatic things, that fix your apartment or work as a cashier at the grocery store. I think they outnumber intuitives by a lot.

I have met ESI-N. I see how they behave. If they made up a tad larger portion of the population, they'd tinge social life with a very distinct ethos. Filatova found them to be the among the rarest and I wouldn't be surprised. I do notice SLI or ILI for example, but because they make such a stark contrast against the Fe white noise. Gulenko's team seemed to think similarly to Filatova's study.

[SlytherinPower]

I personally also thought society was very Si driven. It always seemed to me if you don't love stableness & tradition, most people wonder what's wrong with you. It could just be my area.

Then again I'm from the suburbs in Ohio in the US....

[Rusal]

if you don't love stableness & tradition

Is Si related to tradition though? As per description, Se-valuing LSIs are more likley to respect some form of tradition.

[Ave]

Tradition might be related to the Normalizing subtype.

[Northstar]

Looking at these statistics, the difference of central to peripheral quadras seems pretty small, with 23% and 22% for Alpha and Delta respectively, compared to 29% and 26% for Beta and Gamma. Filatova's own non-random selection (people who came to her for marriage advice, mostly academics) has 31% betas and 28% gammas, with only 17% deltas and 23% alphas. Assuming insignificant systematic mistyping it's already immediately obvious selection bias because deltas are unlikely go to 1) marriage counseling 2) marriage counseling held by a pseudoscientific Ti theorist. The EIE bias is in Filatova's results, but is unsurprising considering EIE being likely to seek psychological counseling and being interested in this kind of unproven theories and being common in academic circles, especially compared to irrational ST types. There was some speculation as to N and Ni types being common in Russia, considering that most socionists think type is inborn, the bias would have to be in "russian blood" (genetics) and would not reflect the global distribution of types.

All that being said, I think type is inborn and genetics has an effect, and that a completely flat distribution of types is unlikely, especially regionally, but that a huge bias in types is most likely selection bias, Betas are probably the quadra most interested in an aristocratic Ti / Ni theory and deltas/alphas the least. It seems extremely naive to expect the distribution of types that have any interest in the theory (thus getting in contact with researchers) to reflect the global general population.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

This thread is hilarious. People are arguing about type distribution when there is no standardized instrument to measure Socionics type and no agreement on whether scales should be normalized or not.

[rose]

David Keirsey, another LII who studied personality types for 40 years, claimed in his book "please understand me II" that sensing types probably make up 85% of the population, and I think I agree with that assumption. you might get the impression that intuitive types are common because you notice them more on the internet or in creative fields, or that EIE are common because they are in the spotlight all the time, but how often do we think of the common SLI or SEI (or any other S type) worker that we rarely interact with as intuitives? the ones that go to the factories to build cars or other pragmatic things, that fix your apartment or work as a cashier at the grocery store. I think they outnumber intuitives by a lot.

I think we all notice more of certain type(s) than others, and that a lot of people may be doing this thing where they judge something and then look for evidences of it while disregarding all that disproves it.
I personaly see ESE and LSE the most, it's like they are everywhere! but it's not true, I just notice them more because I think "oh shit".
In the celeb world, I disregard most people but I notice certain Se leads for some reason.

I was also told by some psychiatrist that 90% of the population feels misunderstood. So, if you use feeling misunderstood to type intuition, you get 90% of people who then think they are special and everyone else is the same, lol. Where is the truth then?
But I mean, I have not seen the source of her stat, so take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm also playing the devil's advocate because I don't feel like intuitives understand me any better than sensors.
Everyone's a weirdo trying to pretend to normalcy, either by being it or creating it, while feeling misunderstood. Me included.

[Rusal]

Filatova's numbers on type population from 2000 were a sample too restricted to make too valid projections. But it would be a stranger case that Gulenko's team, who like their figurehead are probably miitant about club divisions, make erroneous estimates because they somehow stupidly bypass the fact that they are in a club bubble.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

On MBTI and Big Five traits, humans together make up a normal distribution. Socionics isn't going to be any different. The only issue is where you draw the median line between each dichotomy.

[SlytherinPower]

Is Si related to tradition though? As per description, Se-valuing LSIs are more likley to respect some form of tradition.

I think it's that I associate it with relaying on things they've done before, so not necessarily but I think it can be prevalent for many people of those types. Yeah also I could see LSIs being more uptight about any & everything fitting into their understanding, so I suppose different functions can do those things for different reasons.

[The Reality Denialist]

I was also told by some psychiatrist that 90% of the population feels misunderstood. So, if you use feeling misunderstood to type intuition, you get 90% of people who then think they are special and everyone else is the same, lol. Where is the truth then?
But I mean, I have not seen the source of her stat, so take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm also playing the devil's advocate because I don't feel like intuitives understand me any better than sensors.
Everyone's a weirdo trying to pretend to normalcy, either by being it or creating it, while feeling misunderstood. Me included.

Oh, hah. I don't feel misunderstood. I take it as my own fault that I do not follow the crowd.

Definition of misunderstood



1 : wrongly or imperfectly understood a misunderstood


2 : not sympathetically appreciated

Oh well the first is probably true because... I do not really aim to be like others with my goals etc so I have to correct them and the latter is not true at all because I blame myself. I guess "feeling misunderstood" refers to the latter.

[rose]

Oh, hah. I don't feel misunderstood. I take it as my own fault that I do not follow the crowd.

Definition of misunderstood



1 : wrongly or imperfectly understood a misunderstood


2 : not sympathetically appreciated

Oh well the first is probably true because... I do not really aim to be like others with my goals etc so I have to correct them and the latter is not true at all because I blame myself. I guess "feeling misunderstood" refers to the latter.

I meant the first of the definitions you posted, the wrongly or imperfectly understood. I had never even thought it could be something else... oh shit, maybe I missed the whole point back then, lol.

[RBRS]

I was going to stay out of this but after examining the posts, I want to address some points.

Dusch, I’m perfectly fine that you feel sore about what transpired on Discord in December. However, after you bolted out the servers in such an Fe theatrical and loud manner when your bias has been challenged by Agent, that showed me what I suspected even before I got typed by Dr. G; you’re not my dual and you are indeed an Fe ego. You actually do emote a lot, and react upon what you emote to further change the atmosphere and control the conversation. You act negatively and rebellious towards information that don’t fit in line with what you envisioned your image to be. Even with the topic of duality, you only responded positively towards me after I came out as SEE because now there is a verified SEE and you thought that we’re duals because you believed you’re ILI. You didn’t think we were duals before. The fact of matter is, you play a lot of image politics (all EIEs do, that is their calling card) and I saw through all that and despite the fact that I’ve always hated Fe for it’s manipulative and theatrical factors, I still liked you as a person even though I don’t agree with you.

Even after all that transpired, I still privately messaged you to apologize because I owned up to my mistakes. Although I didn’t think you’re ILI and you did went overboard with the theatrical explosive emotional reactions, I had hopes we could informally resolve the whole thing and move beyond it as friends, or if not, still be cordial. But you showed me you don’t value the relation we had and you didn’t see me as an individual. Agent doesn’t like trans, but I liked you. You weren’t happy that I wasn’t completely on your side and even now, you still continually place the blame on others and play victim when your image political games don’t pan out. That is you demonstrating Fe>Fi.

Now you’ve come back to the forum dragging me and Vex along with Agent through the mud DESPITE the fact that I wrote to you apologizing months before. This shows me EXACTLY what I saw in you- that you don’t value Fi at all. Instead of working on the individual relations that we’ve established, you opt to publicly explode and have this histrionic meltdown and inciting a lynch mob because some people didn’t buy into your image projections. That’s hardcore Fe>Fi.

Now, this really begs the question, what is the true motivation behind you getting typed after all this time if you were so sure you’re ILI? To test out Dr.G if he’d validate your image projections. Betas always love the public opinion sphere and allow the collective to determine what’s what instead of actually examining the material and thinking for themselves.

The world is overcrowded with EIE as the most common type and what’s even weirder is they’re the most versatile because they have multiple facades but no true identity. There’s simply no justice on earth for them. To their minds, no justice can exists if they can’t fulfill their pre-ordained destiny and what better way to achieve it than to emote it and project it. It occurred to me recently what the source of EIE's apparent erudition is polemics & rhetoric, but what stands out is the very visible role Te which maintains an appearance of relying on factual information. So if you try to address the EIE’s viewpoints, not only do they seem unable to follow your deconstruction but also simply shift the goalposts to call on another theory thereby contradicting themselves. Other than having to shuffle the deck, they must gaslight you before you noticed those cards are no longer in your favor. They are in constant gaslight/reshuffle mode and they do this to obfuscate anything that doesn't exactly match what they envisioned.

While I don’t agree with Agent on his methods, he’s still my dual. But just because he and I are duals, doesn’t mean that we have to feel any type of way for each other or that we have to be in agreement for duality to work. I’ve said this many times, Duality doesn’t mean agreement. It just simply means that two types which are the most opposite of each other have a natural understanding of one another. There is nothing in Duality theory that even remotely mentions that duals are perfect for one another and great relationships result form it. They can still hate and want to kill each other. It’s really the Beta Fe sadomasochism romance style of idolizing and worshipping the idea of a perfect someone since Betas are both god-worshippers and have God complex. It’s always the Betas who have to passionately OC put their spin on a pre-existing idea that originated from someone else and then say that’s how the original idea really is when it’s not. That’s gaslighting 101. At least with Agent, he don’t gaslight and shiftgoal posts. He may be paranoid but he still doesn’t distort facts to support his or other people’s theories, and neither do I. He and I are of the same mind in the respect that we stick by our guns no matter how much bullshit Fe public opinion gets thrown at us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Leaving the question of @Duschia, in which you may be right (he has shown he really want to influence or he cares about the impact he has on a few anonymous members, or the impact that his opponent has) and what you have said about the distribution of sociotypes (Something you say for the sake of it, without backing, because that is how you want to think it) Gulenko is another person with experience working for the people who hire him, you're paying then defending him like a fangirl when he is the one getting paid.

Gulenko does not feed you, Gulenko doesn't
pay your rent, Gulenko is not your father, and I doubt that he will ever ask you to marry him. Gulenko is a man who has spent years and years working and developing his theories in a "discipline" of psychoanalysis that lacks empirical foundation, which starts from a psychoanalytic theory that is almost completely lacking empirical basis as well, as it is Jungian typology.

Gulenko is also a controversial figure in the sphere of socionics because on one hand, he is adding, changing and subtracting concepts arbitrarily from time to time, and in the other hand because he has a methodology and a sociological vision of socionics that many (including myself) can see as excessive, or getting into issues that are already better explained by other theories in other disciplines.

If you like the way Gulenko works, it doesn't mean that his methods will work in every case all the time, it doesn't really mean anything more than that humanitarian socionics is more likeable under your subjective opinion.

In addition, you are taking a sociotype (ENFj) that you may not know correctly, adding traits that you find despicable, and closing in with absolute judgments to people for the mere fact that in a questionnaire or test they obtain the result of the type that you don't like (who knows why). Sociotype is always neutral in value, and indicates the way in which we metabolize information. Behavior, although in certain cases it could be influenced by the sociotype, these cases and these behaviors cannot be predicted with the precision with which you put people in the "ebil" box.
I would recommend you to think about it a little more before posting attacks on people who disagree with Mr' Lenko. Btw if your answer is gonna be " ur mistyped haha get rekt" take into account that if you see a different assestment and have something backing it please share and I'd take that input into account. People are not made to fit types, it's the other way around

[Sayonara]

It’s fine. You don’t have to explain anything. We’ll always be duals even if we’re not friends.

We still are. And hey, since you're a student now: no free typings. You saw where that got me.

[Lolita]

Are you using a theme? I know certain themes you can pick for the site change the g dude's name to the angelfire thing.

Very astute! I am using a theme. DarkAngelFireWolf69. I'm currently on my MacBook.

[Lolita]

We still are. And hey, since you're a student now: no free typings. You saw where that got me.

Weird that you just changed your profile picture to Squall. I bought the remake of FFVIII few days ago.

LOL I normally don't even type people and when I do, they don't like what I type them anyway, despite actually being right most of the time.

[Lolita]

Leaving the question of @Duschia, in which you may be right (he has shown he really want to influence or he cares about the impact he has on a few anonymous members, or the impact that his opponent has) and what you have said about the distribution of sociotypes (Something you say for the sake of it, without endorsement, because that is how you want to think it) DarkAngelFireWolf69 is another person with experience working for the people who hire him, you're paying then defending him like a fangirl when he is the one getting paid.

You are basing this on your assumption that because G is paid to do a service that he's totally beholden to his customers and their satisfaction. That is wrong. He is only beholden to providing the service that he has expressly said he would provide. Whether customers are happy, agree, disagree, unhappy, etc. with the results of the service (his expert opinion) is not of his concern nor of mine. You are paying for a service, not for emotional validation. If you believed that paying someone to manipulate their emotions and influence the results is part of the business transaction, then this your error, not mine.

DarkAngelFireWolf69 does not feed you, DarkAngelFireWolf69 doesn't
pay your rent, DarkAngelFireWolf69 is not your father, and I doubt that he will ever ask you to marry him.

LOL your Fe projections are pathetic. Just because I understand his methods and application and I also advocate for him doesn't mean I worship him. He is truly brilliant and you fail to grasp that there are people like me who don't give a shit about appearances.

DarkAngelFireWolf69 is a man who has spent years and years working and developing his theories in a "discipline" of psychoanalysis that lacks empirical foundation, which starts from a psychoanalytic theory that is almost completely lacking empirical basis as well, as it is Jungian typology.

So what's your point? This sounds like more EIE Beta rambling and discrediting someone else's work just because that structure doesn't support their preconceived notions.

DarkAngelFireWolf69 is also a controversial figure in the sphere of socionics because on one hand, he is adding, changing and subtracting concepts arbitrarily from time to time, and in the other hand because he has a methodology and a sociological vision of socionics that many (including myself) can see as excessive, or getting into issues that are already better explained by other theories in other disciplines.

LOL he's controversial? And why the hell would that shit matter when evaluating his ideas? If you don't agree with how he's expanded Soconics, then that's your right. But projecting your bias and demand that G or anyone else for that matter, to adhere to what you've determined to be the right way about handling a subject matter that you are not an expert on, something that he's spent decades building and working on; is not only unreasonable but illogical. You fail to grasp the very obvious point he not only expanded Socionics but added greater depth to it is because that's what he wanted to do, not because he was looking to satisfy your rigid expectations.

If you like the way DarkAngelFireWolf69 works, it doesn't mean that his methods will work in every case all the time, it doesn't really mean anything more than that humanitarian socionics is more likeable under your subjective opinion.

Wrong. When something works, it works regardless. It's the wrong application that gives the wrong results, so it's the person who misapplies the theories is what makes the conclusion wrong.

In addition, you are taking a sociotype (ENFj) that you may not know correctly, adding traits that you find despicable, and closing in with absolute judgments to people for the mere fact that in a questionnaire or test they obtain the result of the type that you don't like (who knows why). Sociotype is always neutral in value, and indicates the way in which we metabolize information. Behavior, although in certain cases it could be influenced by the sociotype, these cases and these behaviors cannot be predicted with the precision with which you put people in the "ebil" box.

Nope. Again, more Beta bullshit projections. I dislike them because of how they are, not because they're EIE. Even with ITR it checks out that EIE and SEE hate each other because their cognition is totally different. You assumed that I'm evaluating based upon behavior, which is wrong. I evaluate based upon cognition and cognition reveals motivation and reason for behavior. I actually do know how the sociotypes really are and have evaluated EIE fairly based on their cognitive stack and their psyche is extremely fragile. I've known this even before I studied with G. I'm not Beta. I don't need a consensus or popular opinion to tell me I'm right. I'm a Gamma and I have Ti PoLR which means I inherently REJECT rigid protocols and thinking. It's no secret that I've always hated Fe and NFs, but you're wrong in assuming that because I hate them that I'll categorically box them in. No, they just box themselves in and expect everyone else to play along with them.

I would recommend you to think about it a little more before posting attacks on people who disagree with Mr' Lenko. Btw if your answer is gonna be " ur mistyped haha get rekt" take into account that if you see a different assestment and have something backing it please share and I'd take that input into account. People are not made to fit types, it's the other way around

LOL More Beta policing others on what to do and what not to do. Please drop your stupid facade. It's so pathetic that there's adults who can't handle actual discourse without feeling offended when someone like me don't validate their IMPOL nonsense. I've offered many, countless explanations for how I derive at my conclusions. Just because you don't like what I say and how I say it doesn't make me wrong. It probably never occurred to you that you're wrong and that your knowledge is limited. I don't give a fuck about your's or anyone else' feelings. I never have and I'm not going to start. So nice try. Gaslighting doesn't work on me.

[Lolita]

We still are. And hey, since you're a student now: no free typings. You saw where that got me.

BTW, I just smoked out another EIE. I'm not trying to give people free typings. They out themselves.

[Lolita]

Society has little respect for eminently qualified professionals.

That's because Society itself operates on Fe. It's collective decision making based upon what looks good, not what makes sense, not even what works (and what works well).

[Sayonara]

BTW, I just smoked out another EIE. I'm not trying to give people free typings. They out themselves.

Me too. It was another trans one. Some real bold moves for a guy that has his nuts in a jar somewhere.

[RBRS]

You are basing this on your assumption that because G is paid to do a service that he's totally beholden to his customers and their satisfaction. That is wrong. He is only beholden to providing the service that he has expressly said he would provide. Whether customers are happy, agree, disagree, unhappy, etc. with the results of the service (his expert opinion) is not of his concern nor of mine. You are paying for a service, not for emotional validation. If you believed that paying someone to manipulate their emotions and influence the results is part of the business transaction, then this your error, not mine.



LOL your Fe projections are pathetic. Just because I understand his methods and application and I also advocate for him doesn't mean I worship him. You fail to grasp that there are people like me who don't give a shit about how others see.


So what's your point? This sounds like more EIE Beta rambling and discrediting someone else's work just because that structure doesn't support their preconceived notions.


LOL he's controversial? And why the hell would that shit matter when evaluating his ideas? If you don't agree with how he's expanded Soconics, then that's your right. But projecting your bias and demand that G or anyone else for that matter, to adhere to what you've determined to be the right way about handling a subject matter that you are not an expert on, something that he's spent decades building and working on; is not only unreasonable but illogical. You fail to grasp the very obvious point he not only expanded Socionics but added greater depth to it is because that's what he wanted to do, not because he was looking to satisfy your rigid expectations.


Wrong. When something works, it works regardless. It's the wrong application that gives the wrong results, so it's the person who misapplies the theories is what makes the conclusion wrong.


Nope. Again, more Beta bullshit projections. I dislike them because of how they are, not because they're EIE. Even with ITR it checks out that EIE and SEE hate each other because their cognition is totally different. You assumed that I'm evaluating based upon behavior, which is wrong. I evaluate based upon cognition and cognition reveals motivation and reason for behavior. I actually do know how the sociotypes really are and have evaluated EIE fairly based on their cognitive stack and their psyche is extremely fragile. I've known this even before I studied with G. I'm not Beta. I don't need a consensus or popular opinion to tell me I'm right. I'm a Gamma and I have Ti PoLR which means I inherently REJECT rigid protocols and thinking. It's no secret that I've always hated Fe and NFs, but you're wrong in assuming that because I hate them that I'll categorically box them in. No, they just box themselves in and expect everyone else to play along with them.


LOL More Beta policing others on what to do and what not to do. Please drop your stupid facade. It's so pathetic that there's adults who can't handle actual discourse without feeling offended when someone like me don't validate their IMPOL nonsense. I've offered many, countless explanations for how I derive at my conclusions. I don't give a fuck about your's or anyone else' feelings. I never have and I'm not going to start. So nice try. Gaslighting doesn't work on me.

-You are basing this on your assumption that because G is paid to do a service that he's totally beholden to his customers and their satisfaction. That is wrong. He is only beholden to providing the service that he has expressly said he would provide. Whether customers are happy, agree, disagree, unhappy, etc. with the results of the service (his expert opinion) is not of his concern nor of mine.

When you set up a framework that distorts or muddles the understanding of the basic theory, and then when applied it backfires, or it suppresses basic knowledge with it's own bullshit (Empathy is Fi, when it's not even related to socionics, and I don't give a fuck what anyone inside socionics might think about it) then I will throw into the thrash can.

Regardless of the correctness of typing, which is impossible to verify as there's not an objective typing methodology (in fact, the whole of socionics in itself is pseudoscientific) within the framework of G his typings need to be right, which doesn't mean anything outside of the framework. His expert opinion about his own framework within a field that is so abstract and which has a dozen different interpretations from a main source, which came from Jung who had zero empirical foundation to claim what he claimed, it's not decisive nor worthy of defending like he was a sort of messiah.

His "expansions" are expansion for the sake of it, inventing for inventing, with no backing and without any sort of special credibility, and furthermore those "expansions" step over subjects (namely sociology or neuropsychiatry) which already have superior explanations for the phenomena he tries to link to socionics, which in itself takes credibility out.

-Muh manipulating emotions

Having a working theory is manipulating emotions now. I doubt you could come up with this since I've been open to other typing when correctly justified, and when my experienced typer typed me different than my supposedly preferred "image projection" which opinion I only took seriously because of contrasting with close ppl and ITR with what he wrote (and I still flooded his email with questioning).

-LOL your Fe projections are pathetic. Just because I understand his methods and application and I also advocate for him doesn't mean I worship him. You fail to grasp that there are people like me who don't give a shit about how others see.

You fail to grasp that there's alternative theories as tentative as Gulenko's, and that all of this is a fucking sandcastle. You like his methodology, right, then that is the only thing you can claim. To put his method (reminding how stupid it can be to claim things already in contradiction with other, more plausible explanations outside of the socion) on a pedestal and go around attacking every other is as stupid as you can get over a bogus discipline.

-So what's your point? This sounds like more EIE Beta rambling and discrediting someone else's work just because that structure doesn't support their preconceived notions.

Speaking about how something is baseless is mere EIE rambling, I assume. The point is already been said, socionics is pseudoscientific, lacks empirical foundation. To reject such a simple fact in favor of a main tenet, doctrine or leader within another doctrine that lacks foundation is associated with the quadra to which EIE's belong, and then attacking everything outside of it also fit's the said quadra if I remember correctly.

-LOL he's controversial? And why the hell would that shit matter when evaluating his ideas? If you don't agree with how he's expanded Soconics, then that's your right. But projecting your bias and demand that G or anyone else for that matter, to adhere to what you've determined to be the right way about handling a subject matter that you are not an expert on, something that he's spent decades building and working on; is not only unreasonable but illogical. You fail to grasp the very obvious point he not only expanded Socionics but added greater depth to it is because that's what he wanted to do, not because he was looking to satisfy your rigid expectations.

He's controversial, the because of why is he is what matters, not the fact that he is. He changes, puts and quits things from time to time on his theory. He also challenges the definitions on phenomena of other, more backed up explanations (which other socionist have also done). If you are incapable of reading, or have a reading disability that difficults you understanding what the point is, that's not my problem. Approaching a subject by learning it's basic mechanisms, taking out the farfetched and directly not taking into account bullshit that contradicts already proven hypotheses or theories with stronger backing is the line for approaching every discipline, not only socionics. "Muh he has spent so much time building his farfetched theories" is an ad-baculum fallacy, specially when there's no objective certification for skills and even more when you practice and work on a pseudoscientific field with your own personal framework.

-Wrong. When something works, it works regardless. It's the wrong application that gives the wrong results, so it's the person who misapplies the theories is what makes the conclusion wrong.

I have already answered to that.

-Nope. Again, more Beta bullshit projections. I dislike them because of how they are, not because they're EIE. Even with ITR it checks out that EIE and SEE hate each other because their cognition is totally different. You assumed that I'm evaluating based upon behavior, which is wrong. I evaluate based upon cognition and cognition reveals motivation and reason for behavior. I actually do know how the sociotypes really are and have evaluated EIE fairly based on their cognitive stack and their psyche is extremely fragile. I've known this even before I studied with G. I'm not Beta. I don't need a consensus or popular opinion to tell me I'm right. I'm a Gamma and I have Ti PoLR which means I inherently REJECT rigid protocols and thinking. It's no secret that I've always hated Fe and NFs, but you're wrong in assuming that because I hate them that I'll categorically box them in. No, they just box themselves in and expect everyone else to play along with them.

This is ridiulous. First, you hate EIE for how they are, conclusion you take out of cognition, I would like to see what reasoning is behind assuming contradictory behaviors for types, as Fe is about creating and controlling emotional impact or atmosphere to serve your own goals in practically every school but you claim them to be uncontrollable histerics for whom there's no justice in this world. On a personal note, I've only seen histeric fits from evident ESFps when things didn't went their way. You are not beta yet you act as they stereotypically do (Gather around a basic tenet or doctrine, consider everything outside of said doctrine to be inferior and everyone outside that structure to be under their level, and crusade around for the said tenets) and this is not consensus, this is quadra complexes by stratiyevskaya. In fact you are attacking the ones who built their own understanding of socionics based around basic theory and reasoning out what should be taken in contrast with empirical evidence or the most reasonable path for being agains't the tenets of Gulenko, which is more Beta agains't Gamma than Gamma agains't Beta.
You reject Ti which means you will take on another person's Ti viewpoints and advocating for them, putting them above others by merely a subjective impression of yours, right. By basic theory you are not supposed to hate ENFjs but to be simping for them (I know benefit is not simply simping but whatever).

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...efit-relations

Fe weak and unvalued types (which you are not supposed to be if ESFp) are the ones supposed to dislike EIEs. But anyways you are mistaking Fe lead with first emotion, and you are third emotion, which is a far more plausible explanation.

-LOL More Beta policing others on what to do and what not to do. Please drop your stupid facade. It's so pathetic that there's adults who can't handle actual discourse without feeling offended when someone like me don't validate their IMPOL nonsense. I've offered many, countless explanations for how I derive at my conclusions. I don't give a fuck about your's or anyone else' feelings. I never have and I'm not going to start. So nice try. Gaslighting doesn't work on me.

Beta policing, meh... You are the one claiming that the rest is offended while offering heated non-arguments in every single one of your post, because in fact the one who is emotionally affected by others going out of the doctrine you support is you. I don't know where could you assume that I am offended when in fact I've told you I would accept and thinker with your assestment if it made rational sense, while I see a lot of reason to assume that someone posting how bad a certain type is actually is the one who cannot handle other ppl questioning the main doctrine without getting heated, but anyways I don't know you personally. I never gave a fuck about you assestments or opinions because after a close look they fall apart. And btw discarding rational arguments in favor of the tenets you are following is basic devaluing Te, and valuing Ti. But anyways you know yourself better.

In the end, you are claiming how evil Betas are while adhering to a doctrine, not giving a fuck about sources or reasonableness of that doctrine to follow it blindly, crusading for it and attacking other theories (specially people who take an outside look, differentiate the main from the secondary and discard farfetched bs). Additionally, you claim to know the theory so good as a theory (Ti) from which you derive your conclusions, and under such a claim I would think you are indeed not Ti PolR, but after looking at such conclusions sincerely I do not doubt you are. Going around responding "muh you beta" and your own subjective opinion in which certain logical fallacies are presented to justify things that you couldn't justify otherwise does not replace a rational argument if you thought so. Btw you typing someone EIE is inmensely inferior to, for example @Adam Strange typing of EIE because although his typing might be superficial, it's not out of lacking arguments so you must throw your "muh EIE so bad so ebil" when typing someone who disagrees with your own structure, or throwing the EIE policewording when you cannot justify nor substantiate your claimings.

Don't make me waste my time on you if you are going to throw non-arguments and emotionalisms instead of a rational justification for the bullshit you're claiming.

[Ave]

When you set up a framework that distorts or muddles the understanding of the basic theory, and then when applied it backfires, or it suppresses basic knowledge with it's own bullshit (Empathy is Fi, when it's not even related to socionics, and I don't give a fuck what anyone inside socionics might think about it) then I will throw into the thrash can.

Regardless of the correctness of typing, which is impossible to verify as there's not an objective typing methodology (in fact, the whole of socionics in itself is pseudoscientific) within the framework of G his typings need to be right, which doesn't mean anything outside of the framework. His expert opinion about his own framework within a field that is so abstract and which has a dozen different interpretations from a main source, which came from Jung who had zero empirical foundation to claim what he claimed, it's not decisive nor worthy of defending like he was a sort of messiah.

His "expansions" are expansion for the sake of it, inventing for inventing, with no backing and without any sort of special credibility, and furthermore those "expansions" step over subjects (namely sociology or neuropsychiatry) which already have superior explanations for the phenomena he tries to link to socionics, which in itself takes credibility out.

But you just revealed a contradiction in your argument. You're saying on one hand, that the entirety of socionics is pseudoscientific, in which case you are right, but then you claim that Gulenko's interpretation of the theory, is baseless because it deviates from "the basics" (by which I assume you mean a Westernized interpretation of model A, ie Jack Oliver Aaron, Ibrahim Tencer etc), which you admit at the same to be pseudoscientific.

If G's continuation and expansion of the theory is lacking connection to observable reality then you are right that it belongs in the trash can, but do you really understand G's theories enough to judge whether this is the case or not?

I agree that Gulenko is not more "scientific" than others in socionics, looking up to him like some guru is pretty dumb, then again I don't see why he would be less credible than those who stick to a conventional interpretation of model A.

[RBRS]

But you just revealed a contradiction in your argument. You're saying on one hand, that the entirety of socionics is pseudoscientific, in which case you are right, but then you claim that Gulenko's interpretation of the theory, is baseless because it deviates from "the basics" (by which I assume you mean a Westernized interpretation of model A, ie Jack Oliver Aaron, Ibrahim Tencer etc), which you admit at the same to be pseudoscientific.

If G's continuation and expansion of the theory is lacking connection to observable reality then you are right that it belongs in the trash can, but do you really understand G's theories enough to judge whether this is the case or not?

I agree that Gulenko is not more "scientific" than others in socionics, looking up to him like some guru is pretty dumb, then again I don't see why he would be less credible than those who stick to a conventional interpretation of model A.

You are not taking into account a couple things that to be honest need a little bit more clarification. First, Gulenko's built up lacks a reasonable foundation because it contradicts hypotheses and theories coming from other disciplines, which are far more credible to judge at these themes than socionics is (As I say, other socionists have done pretty similar things as the case with integral typings, or sociological progressions by quadra, in which Gulenko takes part of) which is the whole point of the argument.

Under a personal, subjective judgment of mine, the most empirical evidence we have regarding jungian typology is Dario Nardi's research, which is on itself quite lacking. Until further exploration, basic socionics models and IM's by formal interpretation (by formal interpretation I mean, for example, Fe taken as Internal Object Dynamics, or Ni taken as Internal Field Dynamics) are the way to go as they are the closest to original jungian typology while having a (again, in my subjective opinion) better explanation and categorization of IMs and functional stacks. But that's a personal interpretation only.

[Adam Strange]

But you just revealed a contradiction in your argument. You're saying on one hand, that the entirety of socionics is pseudoscientific, in which case you are right, but then you claim that Gulenko's interpretation of the theory, is baseless because it deviates from "the basics" (by which I assume you mean a Westernized interpretation of model A, ie Jack Oliver Aaron, Ibrahim Tencer etc), which you admit at the same to be pseudoscientific.

If G's continuation and expansion of the theory is lacking connection to observable reality then you are right that it belongs in the trash can, but do you really understand G's theories enough to judge whether this is the case or not?

I agree that Gulenko is not more "scientific" than others in socionics, looking up to him like some guru is pretty dumb, then again I don't see why he would be less credible than those who stick to a conventional interpretation of model A.

In my Te opinion, a theory is valid to the extent that it has verifiable (and, I would add, useful) predictions.

I'm having trouble seeing the value of a system of classifying people (DCNH) in which their type changes based on what they did that day.

Or of a theory which changes all the time and seems to contradict everyone else in the field.

I don't know, maybe Gulenko is brilliant beyond all mortal imagining, but dumb me thinks that if I give a system a shot and it still looks like a pile of academic navel-gazing, which also looks suspiciously to me as if it was produced solely to enhance the reputation of the guy proposing it, then I simply won't bother to spend any time following it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/articl...-vortex-atoms/

[Ave]

You are not taking into account a couple things that to be honest need a little bit more clarification. First, Gulenko's built up lacks a reasonable foundation because it contradicts hypotheses and theories coming from other disciplines, which are far more credible to judge at these themes than socionics is (As I say, other socionists have done pretty similar things as the case with integral typings, or sociological progressions by quadra, in which Gulenko takes part of) which is the whole point of the argument.

Under a personal, subjective judgment of mine, the most empirical evidence we have regarding jungian typology is Dario Nardi's research, which is on itself quite lacking. Until further exploration, basic socionics models and IM's by formal interpretation (by formal interpretation I mean, for example, Fe taken as Internal Object Dynamics, or Ni taken as Internal Field Dynamics) are the way to go as they are the closest to original jungian typology while having a (again, in my subjective opinion) better explanation and categorization of IMs and functional stacks. But that's a personal interpretation only.

What are referring to with "integral typings"? Just curious.

I haven't looked at Dario Nardi's work much, he seems to work on areas of the brain and cognitive functions, which is an absolute necessity if Jungian typology is to "level up" to a more serious discipline.

I personally am not a fan of Aushra's terms such as Internal Object Dynamics to refer to Fe because IMO the image it gives is not really connected to anything real. It doesn't feel "concrete". I do like how WSS refers to functions such as for example Fe being "emotions" which transfers the message much more clearly. But the thing I take away from model G is that it takes into account energy metabolism, which is how types actually act on the IEs and not just the information they have about these IEs. I think this has the potential to make the sociotypes translate into something more "real" for people. Problem is that Gulenko and his school has either 1) been doing a poor job of communicating his theories which make it seem as though they have no potential or 2) Gulenko himself doesn't apply his own theories well when typing people (and note that both options are a possibility as well).

[Ave]

In my Te opinion, a theory is valid to the extent that it has verifiable (and, I would add, useful) predictions.

I'm having trouble seeing the value of a system of classifying people (DCNH) in which their type changes based on what they did that day.

Or of a theory which changes all the time and seems to contradict everyone else in the field.

I don't know, maybe Gulenko is brilliant beyond all mortal imagining, but dumb me thinks that if I give a system a shot and it still looks like a pile of academic navel-gazing, which also looks suspiciously to me as if it was produced solely to enhance the reputation of the guy proposing it, then I simply won't bother to spend any time following it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/articl...-vortex-atoms/

DCNH is about how one acts in a group, the role one adopts, I personally find it useful in gauging at least that. Also it doesn't stipulate that people change based on "what they did that day". Not sure what this refers to lol.

As to the usefulness of Gulenko's theories, see my response to Frddy about model G.

[Aramas]

In my Te opinion, a theory is valid to the extent that it has verifiable (and, I would add, useful) predictions.

I'm having trouble seeing the value of a system of classifying people (DCNH) in which their type changes based on what they did that day.

Or of a theory which changes all the time and seems to contradict everyone else in the field.

I don't know, maybe Gulenko is brilliant beyond all mortal imagining, but dumb me thinks that if I give a system a shot and it still looks like a pile of academic navel-gazing, which also looks suspiciously to me as if it was produced solely to enhance the reputation of the guy proposing it, then I simply won't bother to spend any time following it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/articl...-vortex-atoms/

My opinion is that Socionics is more a form of Ti mysticism than anything else. It is not verifiable because there are no current means to verify it. I think it exists, but it's one of those things that dissipates if you don't see it at exactly the right angle. But when you do see it, it seems self-evident to an almost revelatory degree that there is some true reality to it. But because it's only amenable to direct observation and personal experience alone, it remains a form of mysticism.

It is not a science. It is not a scientific theory. It's not falsifiable. But I think some people want to call it a science because science is the only thing that gets any respect these days, and perhaps the fault lies with scientifically minded people who don't want to give any consideration to anything that isn't scientific.