It looks like a serious typing to me. He comments on his subtype and uses him as an example of a creative sub, so I'm guessing he does type him as LII or we would have heard about it.Originally Posted by myresearch
It's also interesting that Ben types Jack as ILE while Gulenko types him as EIE. Check the comments to see the full discussion.
The way I see it on outside, this is G's business and Ben is promoting him, so it is good for business there is an interest for him to type him as he self types so I cannot be sure what he truly thinks or how objective he can be tbh.
I don't know Ben's type, I just dont take these kind of typings too seriously.
It would be good to see another example of LII archetype of G instead of G himself, but @Sachmet is gone and didnt even post much, come back Sachmet
I'm sure there is an LII lost somewhere in the various LSIs he has typed.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Lol, makes sense. I'm trusting in general and I wouldn't think Gulenko had such ulterior motives. Besides, I see nothing about Ben that contradicts his LII typing. I have known plenty of people like him in my college days. I don't want to say he is a typical LII but I don't know, that is one type I think I know too well, at the very least a feeling type for him would be silly. To me Ben is more believable as LII than Gulenko, even though both are supposedly creative subtypes? This is in part why I don't trust VI. Half of the time it's seems NTR. If you analyze their thought patterns they seem similar in many ways (don't want to explain this in detail), but beyond that, I don't know.. this is where having 16 types stops being a reality for me and I realize that it's just a model that is trying to explain the differences and similarities between people. It's not meant to be a true and accurate representation of a phenomenon, just an approximation.The way I see it on outside, this is G's business and Ben is promoting him, so it is good for business there is an interest for him to type him as he self types so I cannot be sure what he truly thinks or how objective he can be tbh.
I don't know Ben's type, I just dont take these kind of typings too seriously.
It would be good to see another example of LII archetype of G instead of G himself, but @Sachmet is gone and didnt even post much, come back Sachmet
The thing I said isnt so bad lol, conflict of interest is a huge deal in every kind of business, it changes how a person approaches to things, they can be even naive, thats why there are lots of rules and regulations about it on big companies.
I think enhanced IEs can play a role on VI. I don't know enough about LIIs to make any comment about this. But I think G seems more Ti base than Ben. I dont know if he still types himself that way but he typed as e7, what are the odds of LII to be that, e7 is more EP temp and he gives more EP-ish vibes.
For some other types, I can see spesific characteristics in every representative. I trust VI, but I dont solely rely on it yet since I havent seen enough people for each type.
Angela Merkel is officially typed LII by G, it looks like LII-D for her.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
It was mostly about free speech and moderation policy.Now that’s some kind of talent. What did you do, exactly, to piss them off? I’ve never received a death threat
The schizophrenic guy wanted his own subforum, one that was dedicated entirely to his personal Socionics theories. When I didn't give him that, he thought that I was standing in the way of "civilisational progress". He felt that his freedom of speech was being stifled, and he threatened retaliation.
One time, I created a dedicated "anything goes" subforum with absolute freedom of speech—without rules or moderation. But people used it to post gory pictures of dead bodies, penises split in half, goatse, dick pics, and other stuff (like soliciting prostitution) that didn't contribute positively to the website's reputation. I got death threats when I shut that down and banned those people.
Some death threats were due to heated political disagreements.
I don't think it's so bad either, sorry if it came out that way. It just wouldn't have occurred to me without you mentioning it. Admittedly, I have less experience in running a business.
I had similar thoughts and I remember someone talking about it recently. I would be interested in a detailed explanation from a Socionics point of view. There isn't much dedicated research to VI in the theory. Just a few bits here and there. I remember an MBTI website, cognitivetype, I think, that had an interesting view on VI. I liked their content but I couldn't stomach the MBTI references. Still props to them, one of the most interesting VI databases I have seen. It wasn't just pictures. Their thoughts and discussions were intriguing.
Who typed as e7? Gulenko or Ben? I would guess Ben? I didn't know Gulenko dabbled in enneagram lol. I know nothing about enneagram to be honest, but I will take your word for it. Yeah, Gulenko seems more stiff to me than Ben. I don't know why.
That is interesting. I would love to hear your thoughts whenever. I used to think VI relied mostly on Fe. You know, facials expressions, etc. but that is too simplistic. I now think Se plays a role as well. Because VI to me seems the opposite of my approach to personality theories. When I think of a type, I don't think of their physical characteristics. I think of the essence of the person. But that is too simplistic and idealistic as well. I'm not discounting VI, but I came to realize even there was something to it, I'm the last person you would want to type using VI since I'm blind to people's physical characteristics to a fault. I could tell that some people are look-alikes but I can't visualize a model or a type in my mind around that.
I also liked cognitivetype/typology. You probably checked their youtube but here it is just in case: https://www.youtube.com/c/CognitiveTypology. I dont think they are right about everything though. Especially S/N, for example I have seen people exhibiting the traits of both Ni, Ne, Se who werent xIE. which is ridiculous. For example touching your face is a sign of Se but you can see a very N type in terms of body language doing that on a video repeatedly.
There are some overlaps, for example, if a person lifts the beginning of their eyebrow to upwards while the rest is down then it is Si according to vultology. But I have seen Fi people do that, even some Fi HAs typed by G do that if they check their video.
Yeah it was Ben.
I opened some threads years ago, but they are dead now. I will mention you when certain things click in my mind. Everyone has their own method, I am not suggesting that everyone should rely on VI, just that sometimes person's body or speech or face gives different kind of input than their words, thats why l like it because I think we can all be wrong about our self perception due to different reasons.
Last edited by myresearch; 05-07-2022 at 02:08 AM.
I'm still a little confused about why a theory that is meant to explain the similarities and differences of people would not be an accurate description of phenomena but an approximation. Kinda sounds like it's a long roundabout way of saying inaccurate, but my logic isn't as strong as others lol so that's why I'm confused.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
No, I stopped following them. Thanks for the link. I needed some fresh content.
Yeah, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Sometimes I think they make up things as they go, which ironically what makes it both interesting and suspect.
I can see that. I guess I will check them out then.
I remember @Akira also had an interesting thread on types and their fashion choice. I still have it in bookmarks. That is still one of my favorite threads on this forum.
Cheers.
Whoa.
Well, I have to say..
How dare you?
https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index....gnitive_Styles
Dynamics are heterostatically inclined to change their material conditions of life such as wardrobe, home interior, or furniture arrangement, for sake of variety or out of boredom. For Statics this tendency is uncharacteristic. Only with difficulty do they proceed with changes to their home environment to which they have become accustomed. They will do so only when it's easier to yield to circumstantial pressures, than to resist.
As types with variable metabolism, Dynamics can rapidly grow stout, though just as quickly lose weight if they fall into a state of emotional distress. Statics have the opposite problem, of a stabler weight and build: if already seriously fat (or thin), they remain so for longer times. Their bodily metabolism is more invariant.
The same laws apply in relation to other physiological parameters such as temperature, blood pressure, perspiration, etc. For example, the body temperature of Dynamics may fluctuate during the day even with no overt symptoms of illness. With sufficient training, Dynamic types can consciously change these parameters in the desired direction.Clinical psychologists studying nonverbal cues classify gestures indicative of critical attitudes. Such gestures are typically 'closed'—for instance, a hand at the mouth. From a Socionics standpoint then, closed demeanor is better explained by Negativism, not Introversion.
Negativism induces tangible bodily tension. Negativists are inclined to accumulate 'charge', making highly-charged Negativists easily overexcitable (especially if also Dynamic). In order to compensate against this, Negativists are recommended to engage in physical exercise that relaxes and smooths internal tension. While Positivists are recommended to perform physical exercise that excites and intensifies their physiological processes.
Sharpness of movement is observed in Involutionary types, along with sporadic shifting from one activity to another. These sudden shifts overtly contrast to the smoothness of Evolutionary types. In traditional Socionics, sharp movements are attributed to Rationality. In my opinion, however, this quality is more determined by Involution. For counterexample, consider the Evolutionary Rational types LSI and EII, whose motions are characteristically soft and smooth. Yet the nature of movement in Involutionary Irrationals SLE and IEE is so sharp that training them smooth movement is practically impossible.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
While Gulenko's students stalk people for free, I stalk people for money.
I wonder if Gulenko offers refunds, I would never hire one of his students to type anybody.
Oh yeah, there was also an SEE prostitute that mistyped herself and conned some people into thinking she was ILE.
I'm having a typing special, buy a typing and I'll give you a fat stack of Kartikeya Chauhan's (one of Gulenko's amateurs) stolen typology resources in a zip file (that I stole from him of course).
Model G is not a substitute for friends, family, therapy, medication, self-love, and so on. Anyone saying otherwise is brainwashed or trying to sell you something.
No wonder, some people want to con, some want to get conned and some just eat popcorn.
Popcorn is good. What else... Oh, every email you send Gulenko? Logged. Every chat you have with a student, they will log and share amongst each other. Gulenko's marketing schtick is that everybody lies, everyone in his group does. Is everybody listening? Do you believe me? I hope everybody's happy now. I'm also the user previously known as @Sayonara (it was a lot of trolling that amounted to marketing, they knew, they thought it was funny) and they tried to silence my voice and restrict my freedom so you wouldn't know any of this.
Last edited by Ocean Man; 05-08-2022 at 04:09 AM.
Do they use video samples of customers who went for typing when they are teaching what they are teaching?
Yep, they have a huge database as far as I know. Once you're in there, that's it.
Who can access the whole database except G?
It is expected. When you share a vid/photo it can be captured. I think people should just think it as the default.
It is paradoxical that people trust their phones so much but get creeped by something banally obvious.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I already expected and told in discord, but what I am wondering. What do they do in typing process?
I know people exchange email with a woman, maybe it is the blonde lady in Ben's videos. So there are interpretators and I am guessing there is a group watching and making assessments, surely if they are willing and free. But how many people are there in this group? and can they access the database?
This is exciting…
Beats me, email him and ask. Anyone he decides to give access to, I guess.
I kind of expect anything I post online, email, text…anything to be saved. esp something I sent off to Eastern Europe. But I am kinda embarrassed about my emails because I fudged up the whole payment thing/was confused. I’m sure they are like, what a dipshit. But oh well. Life goes on. lol
Last edited by Aster; 05-08-2022 at 03:46 AM.
The funny thing is that G inferred things about me and my behavior independently of my self assessment. Eg. He said I was having mood swings that baffled my coworkers. So I mean I don't think he invested things at face value regardless of their accuracy. I was impressed and I'm glad I had the experience because now I have an experienced position to argue from regarding Gs credibility.
I hope no one sent these people naked pics.
I am sure there have been shirtless videos, but I don't think they saw a naked body WITH a face.
So since they know the names of customers due to financial transaction, they probably check them online if they are unsure and willing.
Yawn.
First video sent. They provided me with another Paypal account outside of Ukraine when I suggested it.
Don't worry. Only vids.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I’d totally do it, too lol
not gonna lie
I enjoy pretending I’m a private detective sometimes.
it absolutely is not stalking.
At all.
nope.
I think part of the reason there are so many rational betas being typed here is because getting typed by Gulenko is the kind of conclusion rationals tend to aim toward. In other words, rationals tend to go headstrong in their pursuits, and Gulenko, being a Jungian, represents a finale of the pursuit for Jungian self-discovery. In contrast with irrationals, rationals will pursue a project until the very end. Irrationals are more likely to drop a project before they get to the end. In general, there's something to be said about the rational's ability to succeed in society, as well. Rationals tend to endure life's hardships with more stubbornness and a certain kind of resilience. The Western Europeans getting typed by Gulenko must have a kind of passion or obsession, and the rationals of the bunch bring it to full closure.
Last edited by ILoveChinchillas; 05-09-2022 at 09:02 AM.
I hadn't thought of that, interesting.
I do wonder why there aeren't more gamma rationals though, they don't seem rare among people I meet. Western society also seems very gamma to me, and the corporate world very rational. On his website, Gulenko has 5 LIEs in his celebrities, and yet, they are much rarer among people he has typed. So I imagine they are not so rare, especially among influencial people (not necessarily the visible ones either). Why LIEs are more common among celebrities than the clients he has typed, I'm not sure.
This is one thing I feel makes sense about Archetype Center's typings, gammas and deltas are more common than betas (though those aeren't rare either in AC) which reflects the way society's values are going (and even Gulenko admits that our society has alot of gamma and delta values, if you look at certain things he has said).
Typology is a waste of time, this forum is a waste of time. There's basically never a second to waste when you could invest each second towards something much more profitable at any given moment. That's why.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
