I don't think he has fixed methodology. He begins construct based on primary signs. Sometimes those dichotomies are the easiest sometimes not. I was typed as an Ej primarily even when conclusions used those dichotomies in the end.Originally Posted by Subteigh
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 have never taken classes with Gulenko but I've spoken with a few of his students and seen how they conduct type diagnostics. Does Gulenko do the same thing? My guess is probably not exactly but this should provide some idea of the techniques being used.
Gulenko's diagnostics are basic breakdowns of temperament and club, as well as subtype. They are very straightforward and rely on basic info provided in the interview as evidence for his conclusions. Some people have noted that his evidence is sometimes contradictory to what was actually said or doesn't take certain things (or the whole picture) into account. Sometimes what he says in diagnostics contradicts what he has written elsewhere. This is because (according to people who use his methodologies) he is not relying on the above, at least not in itself. He relies on visual signals as well as other aspects. I honestly don't think "vibe" is incorrect in describing what Gulenko actually does - he gets an impression from the first interview video (which is super general and brief, not enough to really get much verbal info from the participant) and narrows in from there in the second interview with specific questions. After the first interview he probably already has things narrowed down to a handful of types if not 2-3 (the astute can probably note what other types were being considered just by the questions he chooses).
The details of how he does this have been described by some of his students. Again, I think Gulenko primarily relies on intuition and experience at this point (for better or worse) and the details are provided as a way of teaching his method. You can read a lot of the cues on his website in how he describes dichotomies. He also apparently teaches NLP eye movements as a way of discerning type, among other things (you can see some of that here: https://socioniks.net/article/?id=205). This strikes me as full of bullshit, both in the NLP roots, but also it doesn't even agree with what NLP teaches which is more nuanced (contextual, signs depend on the baselines of a person, etc). The diagnostic practices of the students I spoke with relied heavily on this particular method to check their conclusions (eye movements had to coincide with temperament/subtype and if they didn't a result wasn't considered). I am not sure how much this consciously factors into Gulenko's personal methods.
Also it's probably worth noting that his students have said that Gulenko's type descriptions are inaccurate. The charitable interpretation is that they are old and outdated (they are really not much different from the old descriptions on wikisocion). So if you think his descriptions are good but some of his other stuff is whacky (or vice versa), you are not alone. Many people that seem to be described by his writings would probably be typed by him, his school, or his students as the usual culprits (beta and select gammas). Even real examples used in his type descriptions are apparently not examples of the rarer types. Margaret Thatcher is apparently LSI not LSE. His students were convinced that Jane Fonda isn't ESI but LSI (despite her playing a prominent role in the ESI description). And even Angela Merkel who was mentioned as an example of LII in this thread was hypothesized to be an LSI by his students.
The TLDR is that I tend to think that Gulenko relies on many things in conjunction and is looking at overall impression, then coming up with communicable evidence after the fact. He has systemized his various post hoc reasonings, but because they are post hoc they can be contradictory or skip over information, and the sytemized writings tend to overlap in describing the same phenomenon. At the end of the day you have to realize that his business model is convincing other people (students or in type diagnostics), not creating an accurate system. Sometimes these two things overlap.
What you are saying suggets that if people were to get typed by his students, there would be more LSI typings.
thetwotypes.info let’s go
I think it is probable.
Then I suggest to look at typed EIEs by them and they seem to be the least powerful people there are despite of various things that usually contradicts it (even issues of being accepted as ordinary citizens just on a basis what I gather). Which probably tells something about quadras per se because complementing pairs are really the opposite.
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
Having taken Gulenko’s classes for years (though I haven’t taken one in over a year), I can attest to this. The students frequently complain to him that this typing methodology is very distinct from the theory of how type descriptions are taught, such as in the book. That said, his more “esoteric” approaches in real practice could be more correct than his mere type descriptions, though I am aware that you don’t think so. Having seen his “surprising” typings of people and then seeing how many behave in reality ad nauseaum, it does seem to me to be surprisingly accurate in giving insight to or predicting the behavior of people. I only view SHS type as one aspect of a person though, so it’s far from everything about them. And that’s partly why I think people can genuinely relate to Victor's type descriptions in ways he doesn't type people in practice; he means his SHS typings in a somewhat esoteric way which isn’t always straightforward to people’s self-perception or the perception of others who already have some version of Socionics that they are used to, yet the way he means it also has significant insight, at least in the opinion of those who like to use his methods. Granted, he is also human and imperfect and it’s doubtful he typed literally everyone correctly, even by his own assessment.
Totally agreed, and very good point.
There is a lot of opinion to it, that much is indubitable. Though statistics alone aren’t necessarily “totally objective”, since the statistics are only as good as the methods we use to collect them. Personally, the reason I don’t care much about this is that it seems like a “logical” bias to begin with that things should be more equal/symmetrical. It “sounds” better since it doesn’t seem as “strange”, but it may just not track with reality. There are many aspects of the model which are somewhat isomorphic to things you might assess as Ne/Si values. For example, it could be that someone has a very distant subtype (NH or HN); this could easily make them seem more “peripheral” by some traditional definitions (or perhaps having an S or I accentuation, since these are peripheral functions). I get that this may not be satisfying, since you might then accuse Victor of using subtype to rationalize an incorrect system. But that also doesn’t change the theoretical issue with assuming subtypes don’t exist (realistically, it’s a level of complexity that probably has to be at least entertained), and the fact that Gulenko does have examples of all types even in spite of all the subtypical variation and some types being rarer. At the end of the day, typing in a multilevel complex system like Victor’s is a complex task.
Like even this is something I have a different approach to. It’s a truism that we have more knowledge about what we think and feel than other people, so I can’t disagree there. But at the same time, typing ourselves in Socionics isn’t just about how we are in some intrinsic way, but how we COMPARE to other people in some relatively objective way. And someone who has used a system for decades to compare people has advantages in assessing us over other people, since they have more experience doing with comparisons and with much less investment in the result than we have. That doesn’t mean some experienced authority should be treated as RIGHT, especially not in a singular way, since of course their system may be limited in its insight even compared to ours, but it may be worth at least entertaining experienced people, even if they seem esoteric, just to see where they are coming from (ultimately buying into it is not something I’d recommend for any system, but just using it to learn about people in ways you didn’t necessarily expect going into is undoubtedly wise, otherwise it's harder to expand our perspective and be more in line with realities we aren't already more or less in line with).
I would think more initial people, especially Harmonizing, have more natural comfort with relativistic (or at least multipolar) thinking. Not that ascending types can’t do this, but terminal rational Betas can be some of the most absolute and uncompromising in their thinking (especially from an SHS point of view, and even the view of approaches like WSS that I don't see much value to, but there are some more informational approaches where such Ti/Fe might be more relativistic though I haven't seen them systemically practiced yet).
Yeah, that bold text is a pretty garbage description. I see peripheral as more like a certain comfortable energy that is relatively free from tension (you can really relax in their presence), ruthless and competitive impulses (whether exercised or kept in check), doesn’t have the impulse to push itself even in situations that would warrant it from the perspective of central types, and is much more relaxed about determining what is singularly true or correct (though of course peripheral may think they are more correct than others, Victor obviously thinks that about himself to some extent). There is more to it than that, but I’m just painting a broad picture. The good news is that we have other ways of checking type: temperament, activity orientation/club, cognitive style, etc. Relying on any one thing rigidly in Socionics is foolish and Victor agrees with that very much as well. He would also agree that there are druggies of both central and peripheral types, it’s just that centrals and peripherals might be more inclined to use it for different reasons, peripheral less a doping agent and more for pleasure and reckless exploration (S and I functions). However, once addiction sets in (as it surely can for any type or group, even if to different extents), you probably have to be careful with something like this and like I said it’s a bad idea to type someone based on one thing anyways. That said, there really aren’t many Alphas and Deltas at the top of managerial and political hierarchies from the SHS point of view, so I’m sure that you are typing people differently there (which is fine btw, of course there are many different systems and we can each decide what we find useful and live with the consequences of that).
It is true that most people who study Victor’s work think Angela Merkel is not LII in his system, but no one has done a detailed profiling of her and maybe she is just an unusual example of LII (even if peripherals aren’t common in powerful circles doesn’t mean it’s literally impossible for them to be there). Justin Trudeau is also very central from an SHS point of view. The guy praises communist dictatorships, enforces strict “woke” rules and compliance with them in his government, very image conscious, broadly ambitious, etc. Not sure why a peripheral would be, at least intrinsically, motivated to be so forceful, competitive, ideological and dogmatic in their approaches and tastes. Maybe you think he’s just a puppet, but it’s hard for me to see what peripheral type he would be. “Charming” voters is a hugely competitive enterprise involving promoting oneself to powerful and relatively ruthless people and interests, being very image conscious, knowing how to maneuver with the “powers that be”, trashing one’s opponent and saying how you can do things better, etc. It certainly doesn’t seem like something based on S “bodily comfort/health/sensations” or I “light-hearted/explorative/risky/unworried behavior”.
Last edited by Varlawend; 05-26-2022 at 01:22 PM.
Have you studied general relativity and/or quantum mechanics? By such (scientific) theories, there are meaningful (i.e. ontological) notions of relativity that go beyond just one single, straightforward, unipolar “truth”, and this may be relevant to understand "truth" in typology since the observer is arguably more intertwined with the observed than in subjects like physics. Objectively verifiable as a purely binary distinction is probably not realistic, since even in science the observer and its relationship with what is being observed is important. I think the notion of more or less evidence (and relative clarity of evidence) are quite important though, so we can probably be said to be able to take a more or less objective approach to matters such that most people would reasonably dismissive someone regarding certain things as "mere opinion" due to a preponderance of straightforward evidence in favor of the conclusions.
Largely agreed, though vibe typing might sound like reading someone’s “aura” or something like that. I think it’s more that he has a sense of how his version of the types behave, act and approach things, especially in real life settings, so he can narrow it down pretty quickly.
Gulenko uses eye movements a lot when determining type (which is where his students get this method from), and one could argue it is based on his own empirical research into the types rather than NLP proper (though he does seem to draw some conclusions from NLP and argues that it's valid on the basis that it works quite well in commercial practice else people would not use it). The problem is that some of Gulenko students rely on eye movements relatively uncritically and without sufficient context, whereas Victor warns that this eye movement method is highly contextual and has lots of factors you need to consider when using it properly. Plus, subtype and accentuation, not just type, affect eye movements, so making a conclusion from eye movements alone is not really possible since it could always have a variety of meanings taken out of context, even if there weren’t so many caveats about using it at all.
And yes it’s true that Jane Fonda, Angela Merkel, and Thatcher are typed very differently than Victor did when he wrote his type descriptions decades ago. Merkel could probably stand to be thoroughly checked since just assuming she is LSI is a bit biased, but Fonda and Thatcher are pretty much surely the usual culprits (Thatcher is even listed as much on the SHS website, if I am not mistaken).
Yeh he’s not the best in classical step by step reasoning and doesn’t use such methods much. He seems to use something like implicit knowledge, which as his former student argues in this essay, is a valid part of how proto-science works in practice (but not at the rigor true academic "science" ultimately wants to end up with as argued in this essay when comparing right vs left methods).
You can argue he's just using these methods because he is so -L like an LII (more inductive analytical discovery logic than deductive justificatory logic), or that this is just a rationalization to defend him. Though I think it's true that an overly "strict parent" approach to epistemology can lead us down dead ends just because something is difficult to formalize or make "academic" at present, since academic is also its own institution which has its own biases to argue for and support in how it approaches the world and a number of sciences.
For the moment, convincing people mainly is what we have, in terms of creating an accurate system, and I think if he mainly wanted to convince people then it would be easy for him to tell people what they want to hear which he obviously doesn’t. While he isn’t an unbiased source on Socionics (no one is realistically), I do think he is trying his best to give people conclusions as objective as he can based on his methods, and it shows in how willing he is to collate such unusual typing statistics and give people conclusions which cause them to rage at him. He has plans to do brain/EEG research on his theories as well so he is also interested in more than just convincing people, but also further exploration and scientific study of the phenomena.
If you guys are interested in a more properly "scientific/academic" approach to typology, Auburn's voltology/cognitive type is something I find very interesting. Due to its conservatism, it's naturally more limited in its conclusions than something like SHS, but it also has a lot of interesting aspects about people's cognition and inclinations as they relate to physiological signals which people can train in pretty quickly.
had a brief discussion with Anastasiia yesterday and she convinced me to do an online course of their school. I was discussing some typings with her and she told me that maybe I could get a better picture of types so I want to try it at least. I think the main disagreement I have with the school right now are the LSI typings that have been made here (I think Ipbanned posted a list with 26 people that have been typed as LSI, which seems debateable to say the least considering that this type has Ne as PolR, so by definition low openess to new experiences, and socionics is still a very obscure theory unknown to most people in the west. I think people know by now that I would type 80% of the people on this website as IEI, and that the rest has at least 3-dimensional Ni. I also think now that almost all serious artists are IEI, doesn't matter if they are musicians, actors, painters etc. I think Ni+ is related to artistic creativity, and Ti- to skills in mathematics.
I'm very curious about the online course. It's 6 lessons, and I only have to be online for the first 20-30 minutes of the first lesson to introduce myself. it costs 250 Euro. apparently Gulenko will send me some form of homework that I'm going to do. I'm not exactly sure how this will play out and I might share some thoughts here if I feel like it. I won't share information about the course itself since Anastasiia asked me not to.
I thought about taking gulenkos classes…
but did you ever notice how when celebs joined Twitter and shit and became more accessible, they lost their appeal.
i don’t want gulenko to stop seeming like this mystery socionics god who proclaims types. a person needs a little magic in their lives.
hailll zee gahleenkooo
don’t ever meet your heroes.
the end.
ILI’s always have the most interesting things to say.
Cognitive types typed me FiNe, forget what subtype…think it was the second one. If I can find it,
I’ll edit this.
edit: this one (https://cognitivetypology.com/index.php?title=FiNe_II--)
but this was also like 3? years ago and before they started charging people for a typing, like right before. I might have been one of the last ones on the site to get a free one on their type me forum)
I think, I’m pretty sure, but don’t hold me to this, that cognitive types also typed Persephone FiNe… another user here who typed IEI and was typed IEI by gulenko. But I’m not sure what subtype he gave her.
Last edited by Aster; 05-26-2022 at 03:21 PM.
Yes in this case you have VERY different images of the types than a Socionics school like SHS, but you might find it interesting to see how they view the types. A Lyricist can certainly be artistic, but there are many types that can be skilled artistically in a variety of ways. Ethical extroverts or people with accentuated E can be very emotional and expressive (E is overall the most associated with an artistic environment in the sense of performances), people with a lot of L and S can make beautiful well crafted products and make very precise motions, T people can draw especially complex pictures out of their imagination, etc. Artistic skill is also partly a matter of opinion and is an extremely broad concept, so it’s not what I’d recommend using to type in Socionics. And -L is also not so uniquely related to mathematical skill: indeed, the axiomatic method is more akin to +L deductive logic of right spinning types which looks more for clear and certain truth. Though in practice many skills can be useful in mathematics, not just -L, and a lot of what people do in general relates to subtype and functional accentuation, not type. Types have enormous diversity in practice and can manifest in so many careers and skills. But you will probably learn a lot more in the courses then from what I can say here, so I'll stow it for now.
I think I just have a different background on this that is hard to explain. since my early twenties, I have been interested in art, mainly avant-garde, experimental films and music etc. you can find my profile on this site
https://de.rateyourmusic.com/~soundofconfusion
the main reason I got interested in socionics was because I wanted to understand the types of these artists and my friends there, and over the years I just noticed that they all seem very similar to each other. I do think it's a fair conclusion that Ni, the function that is responsible for mental wanderings and your imagination, is associated with artistic creativity. can I prove it? sadly, no. even though a lot of users here seem very different on the surface, the common ground that they have, so the identical dynamic, is that they are all interested in psychology.
In G's website library, there are EIEs who are known and in good places. I didn't see them as least powerful compared to some other types in library. Generally speaking though, I can see LSI having more power than EIE if we were to remove other life, human variables.
Overall these kind of things are also affected by other other factors besides sociotype. You can find X type on street homeless and you can find same X type on top and you can find people who live in their basement to claim otherwise.
thank you, you made my dayLOL, you're one of the few people on the site who I trust would get some cool takes on the system with a healthy skepticism, because you don't take yourself so seriously.
Hmmm, I think for sure there is something to what you are saying one way or another. For example, there are likely many people on this forum with a T accentuation; a retreat into the world of the imagination to come to complex and thoughtful conclusions, and indeed many people interested in typology have such an accentuation. As to whether they are the same Sociotype in SHS, this is more doubtful as you seem to acknowledge anyways, but there can definitely be similar interests and archetypical motifs which can be meaningfully "typological". It's cool that you have a background in art yourself, though I notice you type yourself as LII-C.
They typed me as NeFi, which is quite different than any Socionics type I've ever gotten, but makes a lot of sense in their system. Specifically NeFi II--, which means I have both Ne (a Pe explorer function) and Fi (a Ji compass function) conscious. I haven't tracked the correlations between the systems in detail yet though and I am very interested in doing so.
It was 12 LSIs on this site.
But yeah the courses sound interesting. And it can be good to have a different pov and this can even be enriching for both parties imo even if there is isn't 100% agreement.
I wanted to take the class too but it came at an untimely moment in my life unfortunately. Hope you have fun!
I do think you are on to something with Ni being interested certain forms of artistic expression (especially ethereal, dreamy, fantasy, horror or sci fi, and/or avant garde stuff).
It's true that alot of people on typology forums are into this stuff, and I can easily see why you would type them as IEI/Ni lead because of this. If I understand correctly, in SHS this could also be because of an Ni accentuation as @Varlawend said.
I find interesting how you typed me as IEI seemingly for this reason (at least to a good extent, I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and I recognize this active imagination as a big aspect of my personality, so I do see where you're coming from with this typing.
I personally think it eliminates more contradictions in a type diagnostic to integrate functional accentuation into said diagnostic, especially when the accentuated function doesn't fit with types who have that function as lead. To narcisstically take my case as an example again, I've self-typed as all the model A Ni egos and yet all of them felt "wrong", the one thing they had in common was Ni but the types felt wrong holistically. LSI with accentuated Ni makes more sense and eliminates those contradictions since Gulenko's typing of me as LSI fits better overall, except for that Ni fixation...which with theory of accentuation added to the mix, suddenly comes together.
Note Gulenko didn't say I had accentuated Ni (he doesn't give everyone an accentuated function, I don't think everyone even has an one), but Varlawend suggested I might, and I think it's right.
def something to all of it, i think. When I first came acrossed cognitive types, I thought they were def on to something.
eye movements are interesting and telling, but it’s all still in its infancy I think, personally.
But it could be a big indicator of a lot of things.
I mean body language in itself is something and pretty telling.
I’m sure the longer you are into this thing, the more you pick up patterns. I kinda get the whole vibe typing thing myself. I’ve noticed this thing with personal aesthetics, what I think it Se/Ni and def what I think is Beta nf se/ni, but i hesitate on what I’m seeing, and think some people im letting sink through the cracks with that or not seeing, or maybe what im seeing is something else, but it is something. Basically I’m just hanging around here reading and looking and joking until something dawns on me so I can study the hell out of its legitimacy.
so basically, if you find any correlations any time, now or down the road. I’d love to hear it
I say it eliminates more contradictions, I mean, at least it did for me. A typing model is a map and not the territory, and I like Var's analogy of a type diagnostic being just a snapshot of a person, which gives them insight into themselves. But it isn't the person. In my experience, Gulenko's "snapshot" gave me a clearer understanding of myself, so I really like his model, that said it may not work for everyone as well as for me, and it's only one tool amongst others in my self-understanding.
I'm talking about myself so damn much, I hate this, I'm turning into a straight version @Shazaam lol. (not hatin' on you Shazaam, lol)
Lol none offense taken. My brain is just very introverted so it's hard not to talk about myself or put myself in the situation. Also related to Te polr lol but you're cool, I've always liked some of your posts.
I could be borderline autistic as well but I don't know about that.
Well, the way I got interested into art has several reasons which are unrelated to my own type and motivation. I have a brother who is an IEI for example, and I have met several IEI online and in real life which have passively directed me towards this interest. I think that interesting art has a certain otherwordly, timeless quality that I appreciate. it gives your life a grander meaning, that you are not just the product of the timespan in which you were born in.
lmao @Alive benefiting from his benefactor in a glorious, over-the-top way as always. <3
I'd say that central types tend to occupy extremes. It is probably the theme that peripherals disregard. Periphery in itself is the center of life.
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 think they have psychic energy (though not necessarily motivation) to take more extreme positions and opinions than peripheral types. Centrals may disagree with extreme positions but even then they tend to energize others in a way that is more polarizing than peripherals would. Similarly there are peripherals who's positions may be considered extreme but their psychic energy is not likely to spur on a revolution.
Yeah, I think his typing approach has some major issues and while his book was entertaining, I don't think his typing methodology is interesting enough to pay course money for. I might consider buying another book if he'd detailed his "esoteric" approach in some readable way like Auburn does with CT.
To be honest, I don't think socionics is worth taking seriously enough to affect any life decisions you're going to make. It's for fun, nothing else.
Yes, we disagree here. I think claiming Ne/Si valuers are DCNH NH is simply a crutch for explaining away a typing method with major problems. Your definition of Ne/Si means that these people almost do not exist. How did they even survive evolution by having zero competitive impulses? I don't think I've actually met such a person, even the most relaxed and mellow types have self-preservation and competitiveness under the surface.
Yes, I did actually study them, both out of curiosity and as part of my technical university education. I don't agree, I think it's a popular misconception that relativity and quantum mechanics somehow means that truth is relative, even Einstein himself didn't agree with this interpretation. Relativity simply means that there isn't a "central measuring point" for space and time, it's dependent on your frame of reference. That doesn't mean things aren't deterministic. The same goes for quantum mechanics, the observer effect is a practical constraint due to invasive instrumentation. Causality is still intact even if there are "weird effects" and things at a quantum level are difficult to measure precisely.
That measurements of time and space are relative to the observer doesn't mean that aren't always the same, there are no multiple results with the same frame of reference. In typology, everyone can have their own definitions of types, but to be able to meaningfully discuss these things with others, a commonly agreed measurable yardstick is useful. This is something CT/Vultology is good at (high inter-rater reliability, much better than socionics). Black-box typing services where there is no other explanation than "vibes" is not very interesting to discuss. And yes, Gulenko does provide a short report about how he arrived at his conclusions but I think most people here agree that it's just made-up after the fact by cherry picking things here and there to justify the conclusion he arrived at using his own esoteric methods.
Thanks for the response!
I too wish he’d write a book about more of his course material. It would make things a lot easier and more accessible for sure. And then maybe have some tests to check for competence, since if it’s just reading material then people probably wouldn’t take it as seriously. Perhaps it will happen at some point! If not by Victor, at least by someone else, since I doubt Victor will do this as he is just too busy (with courses, typing people, and being in a country in the midst of war). For me, Socionics is just another theory that is interesting to understand humans with, and while I think it could affect a decision I or someone else makes, I wouldn’t recommended making any kind of absolute decision on the basis of it (e.g. don’t date this person because they are X type, don’t go to this career because your type doesn’t do that, e.g. assuming you actually want to, this is a pretty robotic, ugly and indefensible use of Socionics). I think Socionics can just be used to enhance people’s decisions and how they relate to and understand others, certainly not something to make decisions for them though.
I’m not claiming that Ne/Si valuers are distant subtypes; I’m saying that some methods might assess some people as Ne/Si valuing in one method (which may not be absolutely correct or inclusive of typological information), and those same people might be assessed as just having such a subtype in an SHS-like method (or perhaps some other distinctive feature than just a subtype). I’m not convinced there is an inherent problem with the typing method of SHS if by that you mean something like typing too many people as central, since I don’t think a bias is acceptable in either direction and that we simply have to go where the data takes us (including away from SHS or any other theory if the data suggests as much). In fact, I’m currently dating someone typed as a peripheral type in SHS theory (not my dual, lol), there are multiple other SHS peripherals in my family and among friends of mine (both in and out of the typology community), and I think there is at least arguably a significant difference in these people compared to “SHS centrals” (of course you can debate how deep or fundamental this difference is). I can grant that SHS doesn’t necessarily have the best way of dividing of central/peripheral that exists; you certainly think it doesn’t, I just think that remains to be seen via more exploration and more data collection and more rigorous methods. I also think your interpretation of what I am saying is too absolute or exclusive (I used the word “relatively” before describing peripherals, and I speak of hugely competitive and dictatorial enterprises of people like Justin Trudeau, not absolutely but at least relatively to what most people deal with); of course peripherals still have all 8 functions like Se and Ni and some competitive impulses and ability to succeed in competition. It’s how they are compared to other people, how their functions compare relationally within themselves and their own functional blocks, that would make them typed differently.
Agreed with you on the popular misconception; I am not saying that truth itself is entirely relative or just in the eye of the beholder. What I am trying to say (not sure how precisely I articulated myself the first time) is that truth contains a lot of relativity and complexity to crunch, even if ultimately there is such an absolute nature of truth or absolute nature of reality (in which I would be inclined to agree with you), and moreover, that truth is living and the way which we interact with it changes the results (even in an absolute way). Basically, I'm talking about relativity, not relativism. Total relativism/nihilism IMO is a coward's view of reality which refuses to open oneself to the challenges and feedback of "objective" reality regarding the effectiveness or lack thereof of our actions in their ability to achieve our goals. Likewise, believing we know the absolute truth (which I am not imputing to you, in fact you said the opposite when you spoke about complexity) is simply a refusal to acknowledge the many things we can't possibly know with certainty, since we have to seek out our own flaws and falsifications, otherwise we can always rationalize them away yet continue to be punished by our arrogance and blindness in practice.
When it comes to relativity theory, it is exactly my point that there isn’t a central measuring point when it comes to typology theories either. Yet, people new to this field wouldn’t necessarily guess that if they listened to so many people talk about this; they talk about it as if they already have this central measuring point in ways which aren't realistically justifiable (if we are honest about the limits to our knowledge). There are all these meaningfully different frames, and while we will get deterministic results in each one if we apply each physics frame or typology theory in a disciplined and accurate way, it is possible we may be seeing some similar things differently by people not using the same frame. And if we want to understand someone’s point of view and ultimately come to a harmonious perspective which comprehends the different relative frames and can derive insight more arbitrarily, then we have to understand the frame from which things are being measured, or at least the general principles that we would expect from any useful and accurate frame. And I think this is rarely done as much as it could be. Yes, people can be wrong and have a lack of common sense or even understand their own frames in an inconsistent or maladroit way, so criticism is also important.
And when it comes to quantum physics, we see the problem of how we participate in living truth and how our perspective and the approach we take to reality alters reality in turn. There are practical measurement limits in quantum physics, yes, but the limits are more fundamental than that, since it's not as though we will overcome them and one day measure particles in some all inclusive way. Consider, for example, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. There is simply no getting around the fact that we will never have a literally perfect objective/inclusive measurement, because whatever we make the measurement with (physics tools or typology methods), it has an effect on how our relationship with the thing plays out in reality. Basically, truth is not something static, but also dynamic and participatory, even if it is ultimately absolute. We are active agents within that truth, and in this sense typology theories aren’t just attempts to describe some static objective truth, but different ways of interacting with truth which are more or less effective or possibly effective in different ways (like different ways of making measurements regarding quantum mechanics or Heisenberg’s principle or something along those lines). And this is quite layered and not necessarily straightforward, so that is why it is important to me to avoid arrogance and make few assumptions about what is true in typology without testing it in practice (not saying I am or have been perfect in this, I surely haven't, but it is important to me in principle).
And there is a lot to test in practice, because typology is full of arrogance and less mature theories, so in order to really navigate this space, I think we require a tricky combination of good logical razors and criticisms while also being open to gestalt understandings which don’t proceed straightforwardly from what we already know. And I think this is the mistake some people might be making regarding Victor. Though there is so much of value to life besides typology, so I understand not wanting to invest in it, including in the case of something like SHS which is more unusual. I have many interests and pursuits other than typology as well and it’s hard to juggle them all sometimes, so we need to prioritize, but we can still keep an open/active mind about the topic. I just like typology since it is useful for organizing information about people and general abstract topics, and I think it's an interesting topic of study in a more abstract sense (i.e. humans are more interesting to me than inanimate matter).
I am very fond of CT/vultology’s inter-rater reliability; it’s one of the many impressive studies they have come up with recently. They are definitely superior to Socionics in that, and in their overall methodological approach IMO (as to their level of insight, I am less sure).
In order to understand Gulenko one has to understand what analytical thinking really is. He is a prime example of such thinking.
https://www.csu.edu/humanresources/empdev/documents/AnalyticalThinking.pdfAnalytical Thinking
Definition
Must be able to identify and define problems, extract key information from data and develop workable solutions
for the problems identified in order to test and verify the cause of the problem and develop solutions to resolve
the problems identified.
Key Words: Problem Analysis; Data Analysis; Judgment.
Behavioral Indicators:
1. Collects information and data.
2. Extracts relevant data in order to identify possible causes for the problem.
3. Critically examines issues by breaking them down into manageable parts.
4. Analyses information to determine and ascertain the most likely cause of the problem.
5. Identifies the logical, factual outcomes based on the data, information and analyses conducted.
6. Identifies action to prevent the problem from occurring partially or totally.
There are ways to learn this. Just analyze these sorts of datasets.
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 agree. What I meant to say, when you look at people you can see that others factors have more influence than sociotypes. For example, lots of famous people, have parents or relatives in the industry, lots of entrepreneurs come from wealthy families, lots of children of politicians get into ivy league and then get partial or sole ownership of some foundations and companies etc. Ofcourse there are also people who accumulate everything on their own, that can go from bottom to top, generally speaking though, it is not that common in comparison, most people have foundation already.
Besides all that, I think nurturing style and environment especially early ones can shape people's ego in certain way to make them desire or want to refrain certain things regardless of sociotype. That's the thing l like about DCHN.
The relativity of identity and personality and relativity in physics is a poor comparison.
I haven't analyzed ILI and Ni- as much, but Ni+ often looks at at something and thinks about how relevant it will still be in the future. it strives to find universal themes that can be appreciated by different societies and generations. gifted Ni+ types have painted The Birth of Venus, filmed 2001: Odyssey in Space, composed the 9th Symphony with Ode to Joy, designed the Sistine Chapel, sculptured David, written Crime and Punishment, published the theory of relativity, solved the poincaré conjecture etc. all these works have stood the test of time. it is very difficult to really describe Ni+ but you can observe it in the creative pursuits of IEI. I think lyrics are ultimatively the inventors because they perceive reality as a constant repetition of the same things happening and unfolding over and over again and strive to create something new because of it.
Ni is convergent - like my brain is looking for all these conceptual layers and ideas in time and bringing them together in a singular, unifying point. With 4D Ni & Fi - IEIs are very good at making connections between things. We're the heart of the socion, bringing everybody else together. IEI art tends to be inspiring, beautiful, creative, humane, absurdist, perverse, often an explosion of the Te systes.. Beta NF has to kinda avoid the trap of avoiding Te too much though- the best writing still has TE in it, it's just not the main point because it's boring. Positive side of Te polr is I'm not going to get stopped or trapped worrying about how efficient or productive something is or not. To me, the real makes the magic better and the magic makes the real better because of the convergency.
Though surely we of course realize not everybody is the same or anything overly lame and boring like that - that's where the drama and fun part comes in.
I wonder if Te PolR sometimes leads to ambiguous plots that don't have to make sense or be explained in a rational way, like a David Lynch film for example.
It really raises your self esteem when you realize that you got labelled as a male version of challenge trophy by the originator.
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
Interesting sociofiction to read. I am not sure if H stands for Homeless and D stands for Dictator, I know people would be amazed but there are Si/Ne and H people on top, yeah both at the same time and there are Se/Ni D people at the bottom. life is life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
lol
