Gulenko's typings of forum members AKA Big G SquaD

[Dangerouslandsvape]

My point was that it can be dangerous to get typed by G or any other professional, if one isn't ready to submit (for lack of a better word) to their expertise, in a way. You must be "coachable". In other words, leave your ego at the door. I honestly think this is why so many struggle with G and other professional typings, it's because while we are all hobbyists, we have deluded each other into thinking we know everything and are on the same level as people with a structured approach because we read a few wikisocion articles.

I got typed by Gulenko, and at first I was pretty happy with the result, but learning more about his school, reading his site, and thinking about it all, it really does strike me as useless. I wouldn't go so far as to call Gulenko a grifter or scam artist because he seems quite genuine, but the reality is that whether he is a grifter or a socionics genius, the information he provides is not insightful, and any insight rests upon socionics as a theory (YMMV in regards to how many eggs you put in that basket...). The customer provides information in the form of an interview, Gulenko translates it into the language of his system, and spits what you provide back out. As long as he provides a generally accurate picture (probably not far outside the Barnum effect), the customer is satisfied.

Realistically it can tell you how much your understanding of socionics aligns with Gulenko's, or if your internal self-image is different from the image you present in a brief video, and nothing more. Personally I don't see any intrinsic danger to getting a Gulenko diagnostic, unless of course someone takes it too seriously. Put it into context: it's one man's opinion, based on 20 minutes of video footage, in a language he doesn't use for primary communication. Is that really more important that someone's understanding of himself, based on experience, friends, family, and self-reflection?

[Ibreen]

I see that this thread has brought this forum to a halt. As much as I think that it’s important to take “authority” figures opinion into account I am a firm believer that someone can discover something bigger than themselves, meaning that people never “create” systems but rather discover it. This could mean that they are better in interpreting it to others, or not. I’m a strong believer in the latter, but then again there are definitely people who are much worse than the “founder” of the system that do need to take a second opinion.

trying not to end the paragraph like that so no one thinks I mean them. I genuinely think some of you guys typed correctly. Maybe look into visual typing if you have doubts

[Varlawend]

Since type frequency is an interesting issue in Humanitarian Socionics, some people might find this interesting.

Here is a list I compiled of sociotype statistics I have observed. This list includes:

-People diagnosed as part of my SHS classes (which began in April 2019, so almost 3 years now)
-Current or former students of my SHS classes
-People I met in Ukraine who had confirmed diagnostic assessments from Victor
-People from Ben Vaserlan’s channel who have confirmed diagnostic assessments from Victor
-People I’ve met on various public or private forums with diagnostic assessments from Victor

Also my statistics were compiled about a nine months ago. At that point I hadn't seen any examples of ESI and LSE, but by now I have, in addition to some more examples of other rarer types, so this list can be further updated which I will work on soon (but I don't think it will change the trends by much).

ILE: 7 male (5.6%)
SEI: 4 male, 2 female (4.8%)
ESE: 6 female (4.8%)
LII: 5 male, 1 female (4.8%)

EIE: 9 male, 13 female (17.7%)
LSI: 19 male, 10 female (23.4 %)
SLE: 3 male, 5 female (6.5%)
IEI: 2 male, 7 female (7.3%)

SEE: 3 male, 7 female (8.1%)
ILI: 9 male, 2 female (8.9%)
LIE: 1 male (0.8%)
ESI: (0%)

LSE: (0%)
EII: 1 male (0.8%)
IEE: 1 male, 3 female (3.2%)
SLI: 1 male, 3 female (3.2%)

You might also want to understand the Zipf distribution, which has a lot in common with SHS type statistics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE

Some people seem to expect the types to be relatively equal, but that expectation doesn't necessarily seem realistic from a more scientific point of view. It's just something I run into a lot which seems to shut down reasonable communication about an otherwise potentially interesting topic.

My ILI-HN friend with a lot of math experience also had the following to say about it:

I've done some coarse number crunching: According to Zipf's Law and Varlawend's diagnostic statistic, the following distribution is expected in SHS:

LSI 23-30%
EIE 15-18%
ILI 8-10%
SEE 7.4-8.1%
IEI 6-7.3%
SLE 5-6.5%
ILE 4-5.6%
SEI 3.7-4.8%
ESE 3.3-4.8%
LII 3-4.8%
IEE, SLI, LIE, EII, ESI, LSE 0-3%

Top four types are centrals (Gammas and Betas), combining evolutionary and revolutionary action with stabilizing types in a slight majority over destabilizing elements. All activity orientations are represented. Top 4 types comprise 55-65% of types.

The top 8 types represent Beta quadrant fully, 2 from Gamma, and 2 from Alpha (ILE and SEI). Together, that's 75-90% of all types.From these top 8 types, the most represented orientations towards activity are Technical-Managerial (LSI>SLE) 43%, then Humanitarian-Artistic (EIE > IEI) 26%, then Research-Scientific (ILI > ILE) 17%, Social-Communicative (SEE > SEI) 12%

I would note that types with Ti/Fe in their social mission or quadra values seem to be more common, whereas Te and Fi lead types seem to be the rarest. That could be partly based on their interest in something like Socionics though, which would be believable (but due to just how unequal it is, it's doubtful that something like that is the only reason, since people weren't only included based on their interests in Socionics, though this population is more interested in Socionics on average).

A word of caution: since these statistics are collected from a sample that isn't necessarily unbiased, it wouldn't be wise to draw sure conclusions from them about the general population distribution. However, it could suggest something about it.

[Northstar]

Deltas aren’t rare, they just usually don’t have interest in pseudoscientific personality theories. For Beta the inverse applies. ”Central quadras are more common” smells strongly like a baseless attempt to explain a sampling or measurement error bias.

[Varlawend]

Deltas aren’t rare, they just usually don’t have interest in pseudoscientific personality theories. For Beta the inverse applies. ”Central quadras are more common” smells strongly like a baseless attempt to explain a sampling or measurement error bias.

I don’t think Socionics is necessarily pseudoscientific. It could be if it treats itself as settled science, so that may depend on the individual case. But otherwise, I think it’s just something like proto-science, something that may aspire to be more scientific but isn’t quite “science” yet.


Your conception of Delta, and that of the SHS school, aren’t necessarily the same. My personal experience suggests SHS Deltas are relatively rare, but it’s not something I have absolute scientific proof for or anything.


I actually think the idea that the types should have equal or close to equal frequencies is itself pseudoscientific. It has nothing to do with how science is conducted, contradicts many common scientific probability distributions in reality, but comes only from the neat desire for symmetry of people on personality type forums. Yet it often pretends to be related to a scientific expectation, despite having nothing to do with science.

[Poptart]

Delta types aren’t rare on the forum, and several notable socionists self-type as Delta.

Also, I don’t see anyone here arguing that the types form a uniform distribution and presenting it as a scientific fact. It’s possible to disagree with the Gulenko world view and understand that types may not present in equal frequencies.

[RBRS]

I don’t think Socionics is necessarily pseudoscientific. It could be if it treats itself as settled science, so that may depend on the individual case. But otherwise, I think it’s just something like proto-science, something that may aspire to be more scientific but isn’t quite “science” yet.


Your conception of Delta, and that of the SHS school, aren’t necessarily the same. My personal experience suggests SHS Deltas are relatively rare, but it’s not something I have absolute scientific proof for or anything.


I actually think the idea that the types should have equal or close to equal frequencies is itself pseudoscientific. It has nothing to do with how science is conducted, contradicts many common scientific probability distributions in reality, but comes only from the neat desire for symmetry of people on personality type forums. Yet it often pretends to be related to a scientific expectation, despite having nothing to do with science.

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.

A topic, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be termed pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.

Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power.

Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e., publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can measure or test them independently)

Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e., failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (See: Occam's razor).
Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.

Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment

Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.
Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g., ignoratio elenchi).

Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (See: Argument from ignorance).

Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g., statistical hypothesis testing).

Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims. This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.

Repeating excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere, and promoting those claims as if they were facts; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect.

Reversed burden of proof: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g., an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant.

Absence of progress

Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.

Lack of self-correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to reduce these errors over time. By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

Personalization of issues

Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies. (Sounds like some schools of socionics...)

Attacking the motives, character, morality, or competence of critics (See Ad hominem fallacy)

Use of misleading language

Creating scientific-sounding terms to persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: for example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.

Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

pdNOA3qcYMPORW_9C6IlV8h0q-0V97xMKEhDfAEm-Q4.jpg

So, yes, Socionics is a pseudoscience and furthermore, every problem listed is five times worse on Humanitarian Socionics.

[Northstar]

I don’t think Socionics is necessarily pseudoscientific. It could be if it treats itself as settled science, so that may depend on the individual case. But otherwise, I think it’s just something like proto-science, something that may aspire to be more scientific but isn’t quite “science” yet.


Your conception of Delta, and that of the SHS school, aren’t necessarily the same. My personal experience suggests SHS Deltas are relatively rare, but it’s not something I have absolute scientific proof for or anything.


I actually think the idea that the types should have equal or close to equal frequencies is itself pseudoscientific. It has nothing to do with how science is conducted, contradicts many common scientific probability distributions in reality, but comes only from the neat desire for symmetry of people on personality type forums. Yet it often pretends to be related to a scientific expectation, despite having nothing to do with science.

I think socionics is clearly an art and does not begin to approach science, my point was that especially delta ST would have little patience for things like socionics, I can easily see the same for ESI. This isn't to say that this is necessarily the reason why SHS (as you now claim it's the whole school and not just Gulenko) typings are so skewed.

Nobody said type distribution is equal, but if you're basically claiming half of humanity is two types and a couple of types are around 0% prevalence, I think that's a claim that requires more substance, and significantly larger sample sizes from unrelated practitioners of the 'art'.

I have read Gulenko's new book and all the type descriptions in it, and I think they align well with the essence of socionics types in general, including delta. There's nothing revolutionary in the type descriptions themselves, they're mostly rehashed from the same descriptions that are years (decades) old. I recognize many deltas in real life from the descriptions, certainly much more than your statistics seem to suggest. These people, of course, know nothing of socionics. I do think Gulenko did a good job lifting the importance of demonstrative (in model A, IMO it's unnecessarily misleading that he swapped around the names), and his 'blocks' make sense. So the theory part is just fine, but something seems to be off in SHS methodology, it might just be too rigid. I think it's weird that the has these very nuanced descriptions in his book but then his typing reports read like humorous caricatures. "He is very smart so he is logical type" "He has doubts which means he is Ti leading" etc.

[Poptart]

Repeating excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere, and promoting those claims as if they were facts; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect.

“Woozle effect” lol. What a fun name.

[WVBRY]

I think socionics is clearly an art and does not begin to approach science, my point was that especially delta ST would have little patience for things like socionics, I can easily see the same for ESI. This isn't to say that this is necessarily the reason why SHS (as you now claim it's the whole school and not just Gulenko) typings are so skewed.

Nobody said type distribution is equal, but if you're basically claiming half of humanity is two types and a couple of types are around 0% prevalence, I think that's a claim that requires more substance, and significantly larger sample sizes from unrelated practitioners of the 'art'.

I have read Gulenko's new book and all the type descriptions in it, and I think they align well with the essence of socionics types in general, including delta. There's nothing revolutionary in the type descriptions themselves, they're mostly rehashed from the same descriptions that are years (decades) old. I recognize many deltas in real life from the descriptions, certainly much more than your statistics seem to suggest. These people, of course, know nothing of socionics. I do think Gulenko did a good job lifting the importance of demonstrative (in model A, IMO it's unnecessarily misleading that he swapped around the names), and his 'blocks' make sense. So the theory part is just fine, but something seems to be off in SHS methodology, it might just be too rigid. I think it's weird that the has these very nuanced descriptions in his book but then his typing reports read like humorous caricatures. "He is very smart so he is logical type" "He has doubts which means he is Ti leading" etc.

I think these statements you mention, while poorly formulated, actually make sense in the broader context of the typing. If you're referring to your own conclusion, which I have read when you posted it, the "he is very smart" statement under "logic is more than ethics" is a pretty poor formulation but makes sense within the larger context of what he wrote and of your typing as the marshall. IIRC after saying "he is very smart" he says you are good at assimilating information, when you want to, and I connect the two statements together. This is consistent with logic in the marshall (though not necessarily of logic in a vaccum since G doesn't claim "smartness" is caused by type anywhere afaik), someone with a fast mind who easily grasps and assimilates new information, including in fast paced situations and the like.

Expressions of doubt, are, according to G's research, very common for L leading types. He even associates an emotion with each function and doubt with L. So if he finds it common, I find it normal he mentions it when he sees it, and that it's one argument (among others) in favor of lead L. I agree it's problematic that he doesn't mention this in his book. His book seems to have outdated descriptions and some (the subtype descriptions) that were rehashed from other authors, you're better off reading the SHS website for free to learn about G's system than buying his book in a way because the information on his website seems to reflect current develoments more.

[DEAD]

Well, in my case, I do value G's opinion above that of others (except maybe Timur, who has almost equal value in my eyes) but this has nothing to do with money. You once commented on sedecology that I agreed with G's analysis "because he paid for it", which is untrue. I don't think 120 dollars is a lot of money, personally, though I get some people struggle more, but I can only speak for myself when it comes to why I agree with's G's analysis.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you wrote, though. I don't think pressuring people to get typed by G is healthy, and if 120 dollars is alot of money for someone, it's probably not the time to get typed anyways.

That's fair enough if you value his opinion and you don't force other people into getting a G typing. I was probably joking about the paid thing or something. Yeah, if you think 120 is a lot, then no point in getting typed. At the end of the day, an opinion is as important as you make it out to be. If G holds weight and works for you, fair enough (Timur too). If you agree with them, great, if not, then that's also great.

120 dollars is not a lot of money to me, but it may be a lot of money to someone else. YMMV.

As for G presenting the whole truth, I think that’s a ridiculous notion. He’s just some dude in Ukraine. But however, he’s very good at what he does, so of course I’m going to hold more weight to his opinion, a man who has studied with the originator of Socionics and studied model A in depth, even creating a model to go in tandem with it, and give less weight to people/hobbyists who are working with largely outdated materials. Because that’s what they are and that’s what they’re working with, which is OK but not as accurate imo.

I do agree that with a DarkAngelFireWolf69 typing, that’s your typing in model G. But also in model a. They work in tandem and most schools don’t even look at model A afaik, so G is the closest thing. Of course there are different schools, and all of these are also fine, but not as accessible. I’ve made a list of people who do typings and only like 3 schools cater to the west, unless you count Talanov and his inventory which is gameable (I don’t).

As for the Hazing. The majority of people who have been typed by G have not shoved the idea that others have to be typed in order to be legit. I agree that the typing should only be done if a person is interested in it themselves. As for the fanatics, I haven’t seen them around, nor have I seen people shoving his ideas around here on the forum. But I don’t know where you’re hanging out.

Yeah, I know that it's a ridiculous notion, but it seems as if some people seem to act like he is the ultimate truth (not all, I agree) and final say in socionics. If you think he's good at what he does, and you agree we what he does, then that's fine too.

I get the fact that Gulenko caters to the West as being a good point for people to get typed by him, and for people to think about his typing as an accurate possibility, but yeah, he's definitely not the only one. I also understand that if you know Russian [and live there or another nearby country], then you have a much better chance of expanding your chances of finding a typist, and of also finding out new schools/information and having that being accurate.

I don't know but I think that some people (not all) get a bit too enthusiastic about G, in general. And the ideas like "cognitive styles" as definite concrete evidence for typing (like, putting LSE and IEI as a possible type for someone in the same thread, lol). Look, I don't deny that there might be some truth in it, but I think that you need to lay down the other stuff first before trying to type people based on Cognitive Style alone; you need to sort out things like IME value, Quadras etc.

Maybe calling them 'fanatics' is a bit of a strong word, but I think that I have gotten the wrong impression of some people. Some people really want me to be typed by G, but currently, I have zero interest in that. Some of his ideas are good and could potentially develop into something more concrete, but at the moment, I still think that some of them ideas need to be more grounded. Yes, I know that it's impossible to ground them 100%, and I also question his methods based on the results of people he types and the disproportionate number of Gamma/Beta compared to everyone else, but I am thinking and assessing things.

I also think that some people can and will stick to his ideas too much as the ultimate truth in socionics, when there are other schools out there who can bring different methods and information to the table that may be closer to reality, and may work better in practice.

ALSO, model G and model A are not separate theories. You can't be one type in model G and another in model A that is also..you guessed it...

I see them as separate things. I always have, like Model B, Model T etc., are all Socionics based systems, but they're all separate theories and systems within the umbrella of socionics. I think that if you change/add on enough things, and change/tweak the definitions enough, it can be considered a "new system" of sorts, but still a subsystem. It's G's take on the main system (socionics) but it's still pretty different from Model A (Aushra's take). Just how I think of it.

[Varlawend]

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.

A topic, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be termed pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

...

So, yes, Socionics is a pseudoscience and furthermore, every problem listed is five times worse on Humanitarian Socionics.

I don't see any basis to the idea that Socionics is "pseudoscience" in general because I don't think Socionics is (in general) claiming to be a science or consistent with the norms of scientific research. I personally don't consider Socionics a science, and think more research should be done to refine and test many of its conclusions.

Making some claims more falsifiable would be a good start, I agree that hasn't been done anywhere near enough in Socionics yet. I also think it's a pretty interesting project, but definitely not something which has been done much at all and often a frustration of mine.

I do think there are attempts at refutations in Socionics because there are many schools and they often compete with and thus try to refute one another. It's not really one consistent body of knowledge, but several competing bodies of knowledge.

Good Socionics should be consistent with modern science rather than contradictory to it, so if it's at least striving towards that, then in principle it's open to evaluation by other experts (but of course other "experts" can also be wrong, not agreeing with someone also doesn't make something "pseudoscience", so it's not so simple on that point either).

Socionics is pretty systematic so it's hard to see it as having lack of systemic practices in developing hypotheses.

And I don't think many of its hypotheses have been discredited, however, many also haven't been tested (which is why I agree it is not fair to consider Socionics as rigorous science).

On the whole, pseudoscience is a very overused and emotionally loaded term and I think it is more appropriate for something posturing as rigorous science which really does not meet adequate scientific standards. This only applies to Socionics in some cases, if it's claiming to be such rigorous science, but as a blanket term for all of Socionics it is sort of hysterical and irresponsible.

[WVBRY]

Gulenko types most people EIE or LSI

@Exodus I saw this post in Mermaid's thread but want don't to derail it, so I will reply to you here as we will be more on topic.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "most people", from a numbers standpoint? When I hear the term most people, it sounds rather vague, but I would connect it to the expression "a majority of people". Majority means over 50%.
@Varlawend has posted some statistics in this thread regarding percentages of people typed by the SHS, based on information he has available. I also posted statistics regarding typings of forum members by the SHS, two pages back.

LSI is indeed the most common typing, and EIE is second. But even then, it doesn't constitute a majority of people typed as LSI and EIE as from Varlawend's numbers the total is around 41% and from mine, based on forum members, the number is about 35%.

People can think what they want about these numbers but I like when people are clear about what is being said. When you said "most people" it is very imprecise. You are free to clarify what you meant by this though, if you want. I don't wish to misconstrue your point of view.

[Varlawend]

Delta types aren’t rare on the forum, and several notable socionists self-type as Delta.

Also, I don’t see anyone here arguing that the types form a uniform distribution and presenting it as a scientific fact. It’s possible to disagree with the Gulenko world view and understand that types may not present in equal frequencies.

Agreed with that, but I do see a lot of expectation that it should be more equal (not to a special extent on this forum, but in some other typology I previously encountered as well, since in their worldview it is more equal), even if not exactly equal, and I think this expectation to begin with has little reason and is itself a problematic bias. Ultimately, I don't have any expectation of what the type distribution "should" be, and I think the relevant point would be dissecting the typing methodology itself and how accurate it is (whereas the distribution seems less relevant). Timur and Archetype Center also have quite an unequal distribution but in a different direction than Gulenko, as do many other typology models like basic MBTI, so I agree that agreeing with Gulenko is not necessary to have such a viewpoint that type frequencies are far from equal.

[Varlawend]

I think socionics is clearly an art and does not begin to approach science, my point was that especially delta ST would have little patience for things like socionics, I can easily see the same for ESI. This isn't to say that this is necessarily the reason why SHS (as you now claim it's the whole school and not just Gulenko) typings are so skewed.

Nobody said type distribution is equal, but if you're basically claiming half of humanity is two types and a couple of types are around 0% prevalence, I think that's a claim that requires more substance, and significantly larger sample sizes from unrelated practitioners of the 'art'.

I have read Gulenko's new book and all the type descriptions in it, and I think they align well with the essence of socionics types in general, including delta. There's nothing revolutionary in the type descriptions themselves, they're mostly rehashed from the same descriptions that are years (decades) old. I recognize many deltas in real life from the descriptions, certainly much more than your statistics seem to suggest. These people, of course, know nothing of socionics. I do think Gulenko did a good job lifting the importance of demonstrative (in model A, IMO it's unnecessarily misleading that he swapped around the names), and his 'blocks' make sense. So the theory part is just fine, but something seems to be off in SHS methodology, it might just be too rigid. I think it's weird that the has these very nuanced descriptions in his book but then his typing reports read like humorous caricatures. "He is very smart so he is logical type" "He has doubts which means he is Ti leading" etc.

I don't wish to claim anything about humanity overall. I do think some types are probably rarer and even significantly rarer in overall humanity in the SHS worldview, but by how much I don't know AND I agree the statistics I cited are not even close to being able to credibly establish a claim like that.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the type distribution is literally exactly equal, but some people (not necessarily you, I don't know) claim that it "should be" more equal and I don't think there is any basis to that either, especially from a scientific standpoint. The point is, I think ANY type distribution claim about the populace requires more substantiation, and I don't see a basis for assumptions of any kind in this regard.

To be honest, I actually don't like Gulenko's general type descriptions very much and I think they mislead a lot of people, though the subtype one's are closer to being adequate. Having taken Victor's classes, I can tell you that he doesn't rely on his type descriptions much at all for his real diagnostic methodologies.

But I also agree with you that his diagnostic reports often don't do justice to the amount of insight he is capable of, though some are better than others as you probably agree. From what I understand, his workload is also pretty overwhelming, to the point that he doesn't even have time to write more books. Uncle Ave already addressed the doubt thing so I don't need to add something there, it is based on something more nuanced in principle (nonverbal signals, which is something that could take Socionics in a more rigorous direction is studied more rigorously than it currently is, but which I agree hasn't gone through much rigorous tests yet).

[Exodus]

@Exodus I saw this post in Mermaid's thread but want don't to derail it, so I will reply to you here as we will be more on topic.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "most people", from a numbers standpoint? When I hear the term most people, it sounds rather vague, but I would connect it to the expression "a majority of people". Majority means over 50%.
@Varlawend has posted some statistics in this thread regarding percentages of people typed by the SHS, based on information he has available. I also posted statistics regarding typings of forum members by the SHS, two pages back.

LSI is indeed the most common typing, and EIE is second. But even then, it doesn't constitute a majority of people typed as LSI and EIE as from Varlawend's numbers the total is around 41% and from mine, based on forum members, the number is about 35%.

People can think what they want about these numbers but I like when people are clear about what is being said. When you said "most people" it is very imprecise. You are free to clarify what you meant by this though, if you want. I don't wish to misconstrue your point of view.

Thank you for not derailing.

I actually checked the numbers before I said that - counting the people I know personally, plus people on this forum, 12 out of 22 were typed as either LSI or EIE, a literal majority.

[Exodus]

If someone has a more complete list of forum typings, I would be interested to see it.

[Exodus]

ok, I found the other list and will try to incorporate it into my own.

[WVBRY]

ok, I found the other list and will try to incorporate it into my own.

I posted two lists recently, this one is the corrected one, just in case you had found the wrong one.

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1502516

(If anyone sees any errors to my list, just tell me and I'll look it into and fix it)

[Exodus]

I posted two lists recently, this one is the corrected one, just in case you had found the wrong one.

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1502516

(If anyone sees any errors to my list, just tell me and I'll look it into and fix it)

Everything looks right as far as I know. You seem to be missing these ones:

Jack Aaron (echidna) EIE N (typed informally, not through interview)
Paranoia Agent ILI C
confuz LSI
Nanooka EIE C or N
minorenji LSI H
Ryan Ropo SEI N
fishveloute LSI

If anyone is actually a duplicate due to changing their username, let me know.



Also two Youtubers that have publicly discussed their typings:

Kurtis SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCSqxg8hg7Y
Aimee Y SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG7TYDFfAOE


When I updated the list it's now at 19/37 Beta rational, 51%.

[WVBRY]

Everything looks right as far as I know. You seem to be missing these ones:

Jack Aaron (echidna) EIE N (typed informally, not through interview)
Paranoia Agent ILI C
confuz LSI
Nanooka EIE C or N
minorenji LSI H
Ryan Ropo SEI
fishveloute LSI

If anyone is actually a duplicate due to changing their username, let me know.



Also two Youtubers that have publicly discussed their typings:

Kurtis SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCSqxg8hg7Y
Aimee Y SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG7TYDFfAOE


When I updated the list it's now at 19/37 Beta rational, 51%.

I attempted my list to consist solely of forum members - I know those youtubers got typed but I don't think they have accounts on here.

Paranoia Agent is Sayonara.

I saw confuz post early in this thread, but I was cautious because they haven't revealed or posted much and I am not sure they are not actually a duplicate account of someone else got typed (I have no reason to suspect they are, just being prudent). I think it should be safe to add them to the list, though, probably.

Nanooka has an account on here. I'll add them. Also do you say they got typed C or N because you don't remember the exact subtype, or did they get two subtypes?

I also checked for Minorenji, Ryan Ropo, and Fishveloute in the members list, but could not find them. Have they changed their usernames? If so, I will update this list with the information, thanks for the corrections.

Not sure I should add Jack since he didn't get typed through an official video or process - but maybe I should? I'm hesitating.

[Exodus]

I attempted my list to consist solely of forum members - I know those youtubers got typed but I don't think they have accounts on here.

Paranoia Agent is Sayonara.

I saw confuz post early in this thread, but I was cautious because they haven't revealed or posted much and I am not sure they are not actually a duplicate account of someone else got typed (I have no reason to suspect they are, just being prudent). I think it should be safe to add them to the list, though, probably.

Nanooka has an account on here. I'll add them. Also do you say they got typed C or N because you don't remember the exact subtype, or did they get two subtypes?

I also checked for Minorenji, Ryan Ropo, and Fishveloute in the members list, but could not find them. Have they changed their usernames? If so, I will update this list with the information, thanks for the corrections.

Not sure I should add Jack since he didn't get typed through an official video or process - but maybe I should? I'm hesitating.

For Nanooka, Gulenko was unsure of her subtype.

I think mino has an inactive account but the other two may not

[WVBRY]

Echidna1000 EIE-N
Confuz LSI
Nanooka EIE C or N
Varlawend ILI-H
The Exception EIE-N
Shotgunfingers LSI-H
Aliengelic IEI-CN
Suspiria EIE-C
Chakram LSI-N
Sayonara ILI-C
Thegreenfaerie LSI-HD
Uncle Ave LSI-C
Aster IEI-N
Justalitnerd IEI-H
Lolita SEE-N
Mystery user who's identity I know but won't doxx EIE-N
Viktor SLE-H
Desert Financial ILI-C
Megedy IEI-C
Northstar SLE-C
Sachmet LII-N
Ouronis ILE-NH
Peteronfiree LSI-NC
Duschia EIE-H
Ashlesha LSI-C
Dangerouslandsvape LSI
Cyberpunk SLE-H
Squark LSI-DC
Fay EIE-H
Wesleh00 LSI-C
Eudaimonia LSI-H

I may not update or post another list for a while.

May crunch some numbers later.

[WVBRY]

For Nanooka, Gulenko was unsure of her subtype.

I think mino has an inactive account but the other two may not

Alright thanks.

I haven't been able to find Minorenji, they may have changed username.

Btw I made a mistake above wrt to the numbers. I said the number of beta rationals was 35%, when in fact that was the number of LSIs (at the time of my latest list) and didn't include the EIEs. Brain fart. I actually had not done stats on the number of combined EIE and LSI typings among forum members.

As per my newest list, the number of beta rationals among forum members is 17/30 or 56.6%.

[WVBRY]

Since I have a nice round number (of members) that ends in a zero, I'll do some numbers.

LSI 11/30 or 37%
EIE 6/30 or 20%
IEI 4/30 or 13%
SLE 3/30 or 10%
ILI 3/30 or 10%
SEE 1/30 or 3%
ILE 1/30 or 3%
LII 1/30 or 3%

I rounded off all of the percentages. As a result they don't add up to exactly 100%, but 99.

[WVBRY]

Agreed with that, but I do see a lot of expectation that it should be more equal (not to a special extent on this forum, but in some other typology I previously encountered as well, since in their worldview it is more equal), even if not exactly equal, and I think this expectation to begin with has little reason and is itself a problematic bias. Ultimately, I don't have any expectation of what the type distribution "should" be, and I think the relevant point would be dissecting the typing methodology itself and how accurate it is (whereas the distribution seems less relevant). Timur and Archetype Center also have quite an unequal distribution but in a different direction than Gulenko, as do many other typology models like basic MBTI, so I agree that agreeing with Gulenko is not necessary to have such a viewpoint that type frequencies are far from equal.

I agree.

I'd also like to add that starting off with a question such as "why does Gulenko type so many people as betas" itself reveals a bias and a lack of neutrality (though not necessarily dishonesty or malice) since it often implies that there is something skewed about the methodology used in typing because the sum total of people typed doesn't fit some prexisting assumption about type distribution. If the methods used in typing on an individual level are legit, then the results should be too, and therefore it follows that the criteria for evaluating whether a typology school is legit should be the methodology in individual typings.

If the method is not legit, then the debate ends there, and if it is legit, then the question could be "why are there so many of X types in the population" not why does G/Timur/MBTI type so many people as X. It is, in other words, a form of circular logic to ask why "Gulenko types so many people as beta" because in the question lies the assumption that types should be more evenly distributed and that the weak link in the typings is not the method, but the unexpectedness of the result. It shows the person asking the question assumes on some level that the typing methodology is flawed because of the sum total of the typing results do not meet prexisting (and unverified) expectations about type distribution and not because something is potentially wrong with the methodology when typing on an individual level.

When people ask why Gulenko types so many betas, they are expressing some kind of cognitive dissonance between the assumption that types should be more evenly distributed and SHS's results. It's a bit like asking why there are so many planets in our solar system, either there are that many planets or there aeren't, and you can criticise an astronomer's definition of what constitutes a planet as well as the data they have on objects that are reported as being planets to see if it consistent with said criteria, but to ask why there are so many planets is to assume there are "too many" or "too few". The analogy is bad but the point is that ultimately, it is not really a relevant question.

I'm not saying that people who ask this question are dishonest btw, just that they are approaching the issue from the wrong angle and asking the wrong questions for the reasons I stated.

This post is a bit of a mess, I had a hard time expressing my thoughts on this one, hopefully it is comprehensive.

[Dangerouslandsvape]

I agree.

I'd also like to add that starting off with a question such as "why does Gulenko type so many people as betas" itself reveals a bias and a lack of neutrality (though not necessarily dishonesty or malice) since it often implies that there is something skewed about the methodology used in typing because the sum total of people typed doesn't fit some prexisting assumption about type distribution. If the methods used in typing on an individual level are legit, then the results should be too, and therefore it follows that the criteria for evaluating whether a typology school is legit should be the methodology in individual typings.

No one is coming at the problem from a neutral angle, because if they were, they wouldn't be coming at it from the angle of socionics.

Based on the comments I've seen people don't have an abstract issue with type distribution. They have an issue with so many people getting typed specifically as LSI or EIE. This includes arguments about specific individuals and how people relate to type descriptions, but also observations people make about socionics type distributions in general. I can say from personal experience in typology that everyone who has typed me has been fairly consistent, usually selecting a Delta extravert, and always selecting an Si valuing type. Gulenko is the only person who typed me as Beta. And while I agree with aspects of his diagnostic more than some others I have received, he is definitely an outlier in the community in my own personal experience, for good or bad. I would guess that many people take issue with his diagnostic results for this sort of reason.

If we want to work backwards, maybe we can ask something like "why do so many people get typed as LSI or EIE by Gulenko?" What traits does he use to classify people into these categories? Is it based on self-reporting answers in interviews or is it based on observations? And are these sorts of traits the same traits that other people associate with socionics type? What sorts of things is he not using?

Since we have some type distribution statistics from Gulenko, it would be interesting to see how other prominent authors distribute types, both the statistical distribution and which types are the most prominent in comparison to Gulenko. If there is a big difference in distributions, it doesn't say whether Gulenko's method is better or worse, but I do think it would illustrate the issue people take with him based on popular understandings.

There are a few possibilities:

Gulenko's school is good at describing type and his diagnostics are accurate at discerning type.

Gulenko's school is good at describing type but his diagnostics are not accurate at discerning type.

Gulenko's school is poor at describing type but his diagnostics are accurate at describing some other part of a person.

Gulenko's school is poor at describing type and his diagnostics are not accurate at describing some other part of a person.


Of course, all of these could be true in various situations or in various ways.

[Poptart]

When people ask why Gulenko types so many betas, they are expressing some kind of cognitive dissonance between the assumption that types should be more evenly distributed and SHS's results. It's a bit like asking why there are so many planets in our solar system, either there are that many planets or there aeren't, and you can criticise an astronomer's definition of what constitutes a planet as well as the data they have on objects that are reported as being planets to see if it consistent with said criteria, but to ask why there are so many planets is to assume there are "too many" or "too few”.

Ok but why do we have 8 planets in our solar system? All of my life I was told that we had 9 planets. Did the definition of a planet change? Did astronomers learn new information about Pluto that made them go “oops nvm lol”? Or did Pluto become untethered from the sun and fly away? But most importantly, what does this mean for astrology????

[FreelancePoliceman]

Ok but why do we have 8 planets in our solar system? All of my life I was told that we had 9 planets. Did the definition of a planet change. Did astronomers learn new information about Pluto that made them go “oops nvm lol”? Or did Pluto become untethered from the sun and fly away? But most importantly, what does this mean for astrology????

What I've never understood about how astrology is how planets and asteroids discovered in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries (Chiron was discovered in 1977), only named after Roman gods because the others already were, supposedly just so happen to express the same attributes as the those gods do in the popular imagination. The resemblance is too perfect. And while I can believe that the ancient Greeks made a genuine study (or attempt at one) of the skies and their relation to events, I haven't gotten the impression from anyone I've known who's interested in astrology that they're likely to collect decades' worth of data and make a serious and objective effort at determining what some newly discovered planet/asteroid is doing in a given house or sign or whatever.

If astrologers were to say that, say, Pluto actually had something to do with enthusiasm and dancing that would have given me more benefit of the doubt. Or if Neptune were associated with fire signs or something. Etc.

[roger557]

What I've never understood about how astrology is how planets and asteroids discovered in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries (Chiron was discovered in 1977), only named after Roman gods because the others already were, supposedly just so happen to express the same attributes as the those gods do in the popular imagination. The resemblance is too perfect. And while I can believe that the ancient Greeks made a genuine study (or attempt at one) of the skies and their relation to events, I haven't gotten the impression from anyone I've known who's interested in astrology that they're likely to collect decades' worth of data and make a serious and objective effort at determining what some newly discovered planet/asteroid is doing in a given house or sign or whatever.

If astrologers were to say that, say, Pluto actually had something to do with enthusiasm and dancing that would have given me more benefit of the doubt. Or if Neptune were associated with fire signs or something. Etc.

The people who figured astrology out, either they drew it out of the akashic field, or through observation noticed that certain personality traits correlated with certain astrological positions. One has to delve somewhat deeply in it in order to decide if it's worth it or not. Pluto is the ruler of scorpio, and has to do with power, regeneration, depth, and intensity. It might have been downgraded to a dwarf planet ststus, but it still carries the same relevance in astrology. Neptune is the ruler of Pisces and it has to do with illusions, dreams, and romanticism. What's your Sun sign?

[FreelancePoliceman]

The people who figured astrology out, either they drew it out of the akashic field, or through observation noticed that certain personality traits correlated with certain astrological positions. One has to delve somewhat deeply in it in order to decide if it's worth it or not. Pluto is the ruler of scorpio, and has to do with power, regeneration, depth, and intensity. It might have been downgraded to a dwarf planet ststus, but it still carries the same relevance in astrology. Neptune is the ruler of Pisces and it has to do with illusions, dreams, and romanticism. What's your Sun sign?

Cancer. Why do you ask?

[Exodus]

When Victor - that is, Dr. Gulenko - cut his finger while carrying his unpublished 2000 page monograph on Socionics he was seen to bleed like a mortal.

Bold to assume that Gulenko leaves any of his ideas unpublished

[Adam Strange]

Ok but why do we have 8 planets in our solar system? All of my life I was told that we had 9 planets. Did the definition of a planet change? Did astronomers learn new information about Pluto that made them go “oops nvm lol”? Or did Pluto become untethered from the sun and fly away? But most importantly, what does this mean for astrology????

There are people out there who hate planets.

They got Pluto.

Uranus is next.

[Exodus]

Gulenko mentions various typing methods in his book, his preferred method is not by video, but an interview.









These are his words not mine

His video typing diagnostic wouldn't pass his own standards. So let's cut the bullshit and stop acting like this isn't just a cash grab.

ALSO, model G and model A are not separate theories. You can't be one type in model G and another in model A that is also..you guessed it...

This. If Model G really was a "complement" to Model A then Gulenko would use both, but he doesn't.

Also, 30 minutes is really the bare minimum for a typing interview. Certainly not enough for any difficult case.

[Adam Strange]

Ok but why do we have 8 planets in our solar system? All of my life I was told that we had 9 planets. Did the definition of a planet change? Did astronomers learn new information about Pluto that made them go “oops nvm lol”? Or did Pluto become untethered from the sun and fly away? But most importantly, what does this mean for astrology????

And now the serious answer: no one knows why there are 8 planets.

However, there are lots of theories.

About half the stars in the sky are double-stars. There wasn’t enough gas and dust in the solar system’s initial nebula to make Jupiter into a star, but it was close. Jupiter is big.

When you have a planet as big as Jupiter condensing out of the gas, it affects the rest of the gas.

Saturn’s rings have gaps in them which are due to those parts being in orbital resonance with a moon. The first moon to form cuts gaps in the ring system, leaving other areas with more dust to condense.

Our solar system has such resonances in the spacing of the planets, almost as if Jupiter carved out hills and valleys in the nebula and the hills went on to form planets.

Other solar systems have planets at regular spacings, too.

However, the exact relationships between these planetary orbits is still in debate. You can read more about this here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...84107617301410


To answer your question of why there are 8 planets, I would say that it is due to an accident of Jupiter’s mass and formation distance from the sun, followed by a condensation of the leftover gas at regular intervals. Given a different amount and distribution of gas, the number of planets might be very different.

Just for the record, astronomers believe there are at least two more very large planets out beyond Pluto. Technically, there could be planets almost halfway to the next star, at which point, they’d be the planets of Alpha Centauri.

[Dangerouslandsvape]

I would say there are 8 planets because of how we decided to define planet. If a planet was defined as any object floating in space, there would be a lot more. If planet was defined as an object in space that has life on it, there would be fewer.

Maybe an LSI is defined as one thing by Gulenko, but another thing by someone else. Or maybe the definition is the same since type descriptions seems relatively similar, and the information that Gulenko has about a person is different from what another socionist has (I.e. they use different diagnostic criteria) which provides different results. Most likely it's an intersection of these two things, since describing a personality involves a lot of complex ideas.

[WVBRY]

Ok but why do we have 8 planets in our solar system? All of my life I was told that we had 9 planets. Did the definition of a planet change? Did astronomers learn new information about Pluto that made them go “oops nvm lol”? Or did Pluto become untethered from the sun and fly away? But most importantly, what does this mean for astrology????

Adam gave an informed answer but...though my planet example was pretty bad, anything else I could think of was worse.

The point was to illustrate that sometimes the way in which we formulate questions matters as much as the answer we can get.

I get that the reason why there is some resistance to Gulenko's method is because the sum total of the results are unexpected (alot of betas, iow), but in my opinion this doesn't really refute or confirm his method either way (not saying you had said it did, but it seems some people ask this question as a way to discredit rather than honestly inquire, not saying that is your case).

Edit: Also, can we stay on topic? Some of us would like to discuss SHS's typings, if you want to debate astronomy/astrology, this isn't the place for that.

[Rusal]

​

Maybe an LSI is defined as one thing by Gulenko, but another thing by someone else. Or maybe the definition is the same since type descriptions seems relatively similar,

Well, now that SHS statistics have been brought up anyway. He defines LSI as Ti types. Yeah, I know. As long as there is indication of Ti that is going to be placed in the Suggestive for Fe and LII is out of the question vs another type e.g. ILE then:
“funny-alpha-ish” LSI won't get typed ILE
“creative” LSI won't get typed ILE
“creative and talkative” LSI won't get typed ILE
“friendly” LSI won't get typed ILE
An Ne-base with 'snapshots of reality' is going to be typed ILE. G. relies on Reinin so he tracks speech patterns along with other dichotomies and once Ti static as opposed to Ne static is established then quadra placement and general type description will solve themselves and humor from funny ILE will feel different than humor from ‘Alpha’ LSI, as will their seriousness.

[WVBRY]

​

Well, now that SHS statistics have been brought up anyway. He defines LSI as Ti types. Yeah, I know. As long as there is indication of Ti that is going to be placed in the Suggestive for Fe and LII is out of the question vs another type e.g. ILE then:
“funny-alpha-ish” LSI won't get typed ILE
“creative” LSI won't get typed ILE
“creative and talkative” LSI won't get typed ILE
“friendly” LSI won't get typed ILE
An Ne-base with 'snapshots of reality' is going to be typed ILE. G. relies on Reinin so he tracks speech patterns along with other dichotomies and once Ti static as opposed to Ne static is established then quadra placement and general type description will solve themselves and humor from funny ILE will feel different than humor from ‘Alpha’ LSI, as will their seriousness.

Where are you getting this information? It doesn't sound accurate to me (especially about using Reinins other than static/dynamic and even then it doesn't seem like his main criteria), but I am willing to be proved wrong.

Maybe Varlawend can further elaborate, if he wants/has time.

[WVBRY]

To @Rusal or anyone else who is interested : https://socioniks.net/consultation/?id=341

Therefore, the influence of the external environment in which we find ourselves often outweighs this sign. I rarely use this diagnostic method. It is very difficult to confuse this with forced behavior, and not with innate potential.

You will have to open this in Google Chrome browser to have it be translated. Gulenko answers a question about "serious vs merry" quadras and says he rarely uses it in diagnostics.

I've read him mention static and dynamic in some diagnostic conclusions, but not all or even most. He never even mentions the other Reinins either in any diagnostic, fwiw, except for aristocratic in one or two reports.

So I think it is wrong to say he uses Reinins in diagnostics, he seems to reject using most Reinins in diagnostics and the ones he does use are not the main criteria.