OK. Se causes Gammas to make impulsive decisions.Originally Posted by OnlyLurking
OK. Se causes Gammas to make impulsive decisions.
@FreelancePoliceman It's worth noting that the C subtype is overrepresented in the sample. C has a categorical relationship with extraverted perception.
Last edited by ILoveChinchillas; 02-15-2022 at 02:06 AM.
Get typed first and I will add you to the list.
The whole purpose of what I wrote was to point out that you are probably not what you expect to get. You totally misunderstood and twisted what I said in order to suit your agenda.
Sorry Rusal, but I'm not going to make G say things he hasn't said because you want him to type you a certain way and wish to force the opinion on us.
Edit: perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote. You perhaps meant that you are getting typed. In that case, I'll add your name to the list once you get your result.
You misunderstood. I meant to say: there are ways to get to your type before you get typed just as North did before he sent his video. So the prominence of a quadra might very well be real.Sorry Rusal, but I'm not going to make G say things he hasn't said because you want him to type you a certain way and wish to force the opinion on us.
Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.
It shouldn't be seen as entertainment imo.
I wish people would pay more attention to my words. I've seen so many people (around 25 or so) go into the process and the ones who approached it as pure entertainment seemed to have been impacted negatively. So it's always good to approach getting typed by a professional for the right reasons. I wrote extensively about this a page back.
The only way to get your type is from Gulenko. He is the expert, he knows, he has more experience than all of us. Nothing he says is wrong.
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".
I forgot Squark from the list. She also got her self-typing, LSI. DC subtype.
So 4/29-6/29 got their self-typing. I'll update the numbers a bit later.
What did North "do" before he sent his video? I'm not sure I understand.
The fact is that the people who got typed correctly were fairly typical examples of their type. In those cases it may be a bit less tricky to self type. But I wouldn't bank on it since statistically, it's unlikely, though not impossible, to fall into that category.
Btw, I'm sorry if had I misunderstood what you had wrote.
Liked your post by accident, but bruh now you are just embarassing yourself.
So he can be wrong?
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".
Yes
What makes you say he doesn't type deltas at all? We mainly have information about a limited sample (this forum) which does not represent the general population.
G has typed quite a few deltas in his school, appearantly. Check this out:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1496471
Forum member disagrees with G's typing of themselves - forum: "the fact he has mistyped someone causes people to lose faith in him"
Forum member agrees with G's typing of themselves - forum: "G is not infalliable, stop having so much faith in one man"
Making mistakes is reasonable. What I don't think is reasonable is charging $120 with his track record. That is a lot of money. If I charged $5 to give my shitty opinions no one would hold it against me so much when I made mistakes. But charging that much creates an impression that you're some sort of authority. And when it comes to typology I doubt there's anyone who can legitimately claim to be an 'expert.' It's understandable that people feel cheated after spending so much.
Yes, I was referring to your message lol.
And ok, I understand your message better now, thanks for clarifying.
list is hopefully compleat now
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 also noticed I had Cyberpunk listed twice, my bad.
Last edited by Ave; 02-15-2022 at 05:33 PM. Reason: Updated subtype for The Exception
Oh I don’t think that he literally believes that delta types aren’t real.
But he is an authority on the subject, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. He is one of the leading researchers in Socionics and is the most cited on par with Augusta. This drivel you people are writing is nonsensical. If you believe there is anything to Socionics then he is definitely an expert. It would be like saying Einstein is not expert in the field of physics just because another person proved that some parts of his theory were lacking or incorrect. It doesn't make him a fraud.
That is of course if you think there is anything to the theory. If you don't then that is another subject entirely and your objections would be warranted. In that case I would really question your mental capabilities if you are paying for something you don't see the value in.
I didn't pay for a type but I did order his book recently out of curiosity to see what it is all about.
I am kinda surprised by the lack of delta NF types. spending a lot of money on something like a typing interview might not be for childlike types, though.
But who is there to judge his 'mistakes'? We call them mistakes because people don't identify with the type they get yet it's not strange for the same people to have one type when they register here, doubt their typing for a while and entertain another and go to a typing session with a new, third typing in mind for themselves. When G. indirectly refutes their 3rd self-typing then 'G made a mistake' yet if go by that logic G would've also been wrong if the refuted their first self-typing. And if what classifies as G. making a mistake is not agreeing with whatever type the person kind of resonates of at the moment then why have a typing session at all? I've read someone here write about the frustration of not getting the type they were waiting for and that seems exactly the sort of typing you want. I used to think I was Alpha so if I had gotten typed something different by G. some months ago that would've created a lot of dissonance in my understanding of myself and maybe I would've written about that here. Months passed and I changed my mind about my type. You would've called G. refuting Alpha for me "a mistake".
Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.
Gulenko's theories, or Socionics? I think there's something to Socionics, sure. But I think there's a limit to how far it can be taken. People/the psyche are/is complicated, and at some point attempts at classification veer off into incoherence because any model has ceased to be applicable.
The "research" you refer to strikes me as dubious. People also conduct "research" in astrology.
None of this refutes what I said.
The entirety of Socionics material is dubious then. Fine by me. But even dubious subjects have experts. It's up to you whether you believe it or not.
Amount of people who got their self-typing: probably 4/28 or 14% but could be as high as 6/28 or 21.5%
Alpha: 7% or 2/28
Beta: 79% or 22/28
Gamma: 14% or 4/28
Delta: 0%
ILE: 1 or 3.5%
LII: 1 or 3.5%
EIE: 5 or 17.9%
LSI: 10 or 35.7%
SLE: 3 or 10.7%
IEI: 4 or 14.2%
SEE: 1 or 3.5%
ILI: 3 or 10.7%
The percentages are rounded off so it does not add up to exactly 100 percent, but close enough to give an idea.
You're right; I can't claim to certainly know someone's type. And perhaps Gulenko can guess correctly when everyone else is convinced of a mistype. But by the same token, how can you know he guessed correctly in Eud's case? Or @ashlesha's? I don't think that deferring to someone else's judgement against your own simply because they bill themselves as an 'expert' is a great way of approaching reality, especially when that person is telling you something about yourself that seems dissonant. Eud (ashlesha too) strikes me as generally self-aware, and if he's so certain he's not LSI, I'm inclined to say he has a better estimation of that than some Ukrainian who's never interacted with the guy in person.
Another way of putting it is that if you can't independently verify his typings, I don't see how they're going to be very useful to you. If no one on this forum is qualified to judge Gulenko mistaken, why should we pay attention to what he has to say at all?
If the field itself is dubious, isn't what any "expert" in the field has to say regarding it necessarily dubious in reference to reality? Besides, the main problem with Socionics is the lack of empirical standards; even if he claims to be a Socionics expert it doesn't follow that everyone interested in Socionics should believe him to be, since even within the field we don't have great ways to prove or disprove his claims.
You don't seem to understand type is a largely automatic process and has little relation to what we usually call the self (actually the persona but I digress, that isn't the point). We see ourselves a certain way, and this is usually because of our profession, our job, our position in society/family, or because of personal traits such as honesty or kindness. And yet none of this has anything to do with type. Type is the skeleton of your psyche, it's very basic, so even a self-aware person is likely to not be able to discern it due to it being the backdrop to all our cognitive processes.
You can judge Gulenko's typings by seeing if his analysis applies to you. General descriptions, which Eud seems to base himself on to reject his LSI typing, are largely innaccurate to describe most individuals of a given type. Ultimately Eud has to decide if he agrees with G's analysis of him or not, since that is the "link" between the type and him as an individual. Leave general descriptions to the plebs.
If you and the others see Gulenko as some seer able to see what everyone else can't, I don't really see any point in continuing this conversation. This is religion -- Jesus died for your sins; maybe you'll come around to accepting him as your lord and savior, or maybe you'll continue in ignorance until you die. There's nothing more to be said here with that viewpoint.
uhm, he has 40 years of experience, discovered and defined a lot of stuff and definitely has a higher pattern recognition than most people here. I disagree with quite a lot of his typings but it is odd to me that you can't see why some people see him as an authority here. what discoveries have you made in your life?
I would advise you to critic your way of thinking. I don't feel like hand holding at the moment. I only feel contempt and disrespect towards you so I would be offering nothing useful. Sorry.
Lmao.
OK, I exist in jahiliyya, and won't argue otherwise. Regard me however you like, ye followers of the Prophet. In any case, since this is your outlook, I see nothing more to say to you about this.
I would advise the same, quite honestly. See you around.
Can we at least admit that Gulenko is smart? Either he's an ingenious psychologist or an ingenious grifter.
Entry fee $40.
@FreelancePoliceman: anything and everything is not of the same value. I can't vouch for G.'s typing but I can decide to give his opinion more prominence over someone who just 3 weeks thought they were something else and self-typed recently. So which is it? He made a mistake or ‘we can't be sure´? They're two different statements.
Well, it's undeniable that you think the only typing G has right is the one that he gives a person on a certain day, at a certain time when the person feels that type. Your alchemy is more phantasmagorical than anything you accuse G of yet you seem fine with it. Was Eud self-aware when he self-typed EIE? Or wasn't he? I have nothing against Eud, but I'm trying to find your parameters. Uncle Ave also questioned the typing he got but now he has a different opinion and seems to feel closer to it. Which Uncle Ave knew himself better than some Ukrainian, the one from last month or the new one? That alone shows you that people's understanding of Socionics evolve, so it's not a reason to trust ‘Prophet G’ but more like a cautionary sign of why you shouldn’t label anything you don't like ‘a mistake’.
I'd say you can, if you're down to it. Let me tell you in all honesty what I think can help: Reinin. If you're smart enough, I think you can even bypass Gulenko and go straight to "Classic Socionics" with it (emphasis on the inverted commans, G. and "the classics" are the same thing). Now what doesn't help: stating you've found G is mistaken when his typing does not match the person's self-typing of the month. You're fencing G. into a situation in which he can never win. And it looks cringy and full of spite.
Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.
Some random thoughts about this-
- The fact that Gulenko is getting paid for this service puts pressure on him to name a type regardless of how certain he is of a client’s actual type. How confident is he about every type diagnosis he provides? What does he do when he is unable to confidently type someone? Does he return their money, or does he default to another type (like LSI)?
- Gulenko is working with limited information. Sorry but an 8-15 minute video is not always enough to accurately type someone.
- Since Gulenko doesn’t speak English, it’s hard to say how much context gets lost in translation for his English speaking clients.
Adding more Western celebrities or just more people in general to his 'famous people' gallery would spike casual lurker's interest in getting typed by him. What if I am my fav celeb's type? Some months ago I wrote to his team about the possibility of getting typed and hinted that the galleries for certain types were rather empty and the reply I got was that "he takes his time in the process of typing someone he's never met" or something. So he prefers his website to be half-empty rather than typing in a rush to get more traffic. I don't think he feels preassured and he would just ask the person he's typing for extra clarifications and that's that. He leaves his SLI gategory looking sad and empty because his interest doesn't seem to drive more traffic thus potential clientele to his site so it doesn't seem money is an issue with him; bothering the client with an extra video from them I wouldn't put pass him.
In his page it's hinted that he gets your type already in the first video and the second is confirmation or not. If I recall correctly. I think he gets your type in minutes. The questions are maybe some percentage of the pulp material he needs but the other part seem more like a crutch to keep the person talking. I'm not going to say anything else on that but it's likely that when the person is really going on about how their attitudes and feelings are important to them (random example), he's only half-listening and checking for other stuff instead. So the argument of "8 minutes are not enough to know a person's reasons and intentions" (you're not the one who stated this but I'm referring to something else said in the thread) might not apply with G. because in the end it's not how typing is done.
Sicuramente cercherai il significato di questo.
I feel like this is straw manning the hell out of my argument, but if you think that my position towards G is a matter of faith rather than reason, then you are right that continuing this conversation is pointless.
Socionics has no empirical backing, and it is built over two psychoanalytic theories that are doubtful on themselves. There's no proper expertise in socionics, as Schools are built over experience and partisanism of X socionist over the years.
Socionics itself is problematic, as its IM definitions have developed into vague concepts and the system itself polarizes aspects of mental processing and personality that are not contradictory in any real sense. Therefore you will always arrive at certain "middlestep" individual who display weak or strong disposition for aspects seen as either having a somewhat inverse relationship or seen as direct polarities. There's countless examples even on this forum of this very thing happening, and modifying socionics will logically be more precise than inventing new subtyping models. Even on historical characters of highly agreed upon types demonstrated strength on realms related to IMs contradictory to their TIM.
For what it matters, spending money on typing can easily be a waste of money, and socionics can be a scheme for slavic scammers to take money out of people.
What is worse is that socionics naturally appeals to the "le literally me" instincts and toxic group behaviors like association of observed traits evidently unrelated to type due to personal experience, for example.
Under the circumstances I listed, types should be treated as a vague union of capacities, rather than as a determinant for every aspect of life, development and personality. Typing should be exploratory instead of definite, there should be no compliance with "Coaching", there should be discussion.
The problem with Gulenko's typing is double, first for what you say, second because Humanitarian Socionics throws out essays where they correlate TIM with ideologies, group behaviors or abilities, as well as lots of characteristics that for any sensible person seem evidently related to nurture, not nature.
If a TIM is an information processing unit with some inner mechanism associated, then different typings are justifiable, you can just say "well, under this school's model, I'm X TIM" but if TIM actually is a collection of likes, tendencies, abilities and capacities, personal history, job career, personality traits, and even political beliefs, there's gonna be a problem sooner or later; You cannot force such things into people, if they perceive themselves to be entirely different in any of those aspects... not to say it is absurd to tie such things to information metabolism. That's why the typed often backlash at G, while with other typers the most they do is "I disagree, I consider it bad typing" at worst, not only because of building their self perception from articles written by some Russian milfs , but because G associates very specific and defining traits of personality that could contradict his typings as relative to socionics.
Also you have to be severely mentally ill or quite dumb for your mental health to decline over some typing lol.
Last edited by RBRS; 02-15-2022 at 12:52 PM.
You make some good points here.
In my understanding of G' system however - and this may be wrong because I have not taken his classes nor am I an insider of SHS - type is not something related to specific personality traits such as ideology or job career. G does seem to use certain quirks in a person's personality to better determine certain aspects of type, usually to choose between two types he is already hesitating between.
For example, in my case, G leaned on the fact that I work in a technical field which combines mental and manual work to argue the logic in my psyche works in conjuncture with the sensing. It's a pretty weak argument when quoted out of context, because I know plenty of people who work in my field and are not STs, and also, it's totally possible to work in a field that is not right for you. But when you put the argument back in its proper context, he is basing himself on what I said in my video (ie that I enjoy this aspect of my work, mental and manual at the same time) so the argument that I don't enjoy my work doesn't apply in my view (since I do enjoy this aspect, it was not just something I was saying), plus it is only one argument and he gives among plenty of other arguments as to why I am a sensor and which tips the scales in favor of a sensing preference.
I do agree with you that for a person's mental health to decline over a typing there must already be a problem with that person's mental health because how many people got typed, and disagreed with it, and moved on? Alot it seems. So perhaps I am being too dramatic in this sense, I just kind of wanted to warn people about perhaps not going into a typing with the wrong attitude, though perhaps I should say don't get typed if you are in a weird phase of your life/well-being. Perhaps that is actually what needs to be said?
I didn't mean typing methodologies but usually associated traits. Gulenko often writes descriptions, articles, essays where he associates personality or specially politics with socionics (Quadra descriptions are usually quite heavy on political implications) sometimes likings or general behaviors. Sometimes the same problems with Model A happen with HSH, setting up traits that are not necessarily incompatible as exclusive to types or quadras, but going even further.
It gets to the point where he retypes famous people as different types because of their politics or work, it gets to the point where he claims "X ideology leaders" can only be Beta Rational types in his Beta quadra description.
Overall I see it as if Gulenko exacerbates the most fundamental flaw of socionics, which is polarizing aspects which are not in dichotomical opposition or inverted relationship to each other IRL. Instead of cutting off what doesn't fit and polishing the edges, he seems to try to hide the sun with his fingers, that is to say create layers upon layers of theory directed at patching up holes in the hypotheses and essays (as his subtyping system) that end up leaving more holes in the overall structure so to speak. Just an opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote