Personality Cafe banner
21 - 40 of 173 Posts
Discussion starter · #21 · (Edited)
"My article on the subject was published in the very first socionics journal named "16". At the time, the concept was slightly different. The name "sign of function" I applied to the function's "spin" (I was then viewing a function as an energy vortex)Íľ that was an interpretation completely foreign to the information paradigm within which the majority operated. But currently I use function sign to reflect a different characteristic: psychological charge. That corresponds with Reinin's "positivism", for (+), and "negativism", for (-), and this interpretation sounds more intuitive and straight forward. Now let's define positive and negative functions while trying to emphasize the dynamic, fluctuating nature of the sign. The plus sign indicates maximizing positive manifestations of the function, the minus sign - minimizing the negative."





EII:

+Fi -Ni +Ti -Si
+Ne -Te +Se -Fe
 
@Tellus

Started to read through this, starting with article you linked. It's interesting that he states Openness correlates to Intuition, Conscientiousness to Rationality, and Agreeableness to Ethics, because Big 5 correlates to Intuition, Judging, and Feeling in MBTI, respectively, per empirical research. It's also odd that he states there is no correlation to mental illness or diseases, yet goes on to reference substance abuse as being correlative, even though substance abuse is widely considered a disease. Also, since the Dark Triad is researched to be associated with low Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and he links these two with Rationality and Ethics, he is connecting Irrationality and Thinking with the Dark Triad, without realizing it.
Another point is, that although he states Sociotype is innate, he also states that he is able to diagnose Sociotype at the age of 3-4, which is an odd set of statements to make, due to nurture already being present to a high degree.
 
@Tellus

He found out that people will show two strongest functions in their personality, which are both either introverted or extroverted. Although as we know, in socionics, in the first two functions one is extroverted and one is introverted. Statistics show the same results for your two weakest functions - they will be both either introverted or extroverted. This experiment shows that there are two types of functional models
This is a core flaw in this model. He states that both the two strongest functions are the E/I of the individual, then states that (per Model A) the first and second functions are the E/I preference of the individual and the opposing E/I, respectively. He then goes on to state, that this difference in empirical strengths is the proof necessary for the existence of Model G.

He is incorrectly stating that Model A places the second function as being one of the two strongest functions. Model A places the first function and the eighth function as the strongest functions. He is committing an apples and oranges fallacy here by erroneously assigning the number "2" as "2nd strongest", when no part of model A states such.

At the same time, Model A DOES state that the energy assigned to functional processing is strongest in base function then creative function. If this is the route which he is taking, then he is not disproving Model A, nor is he proving the existence of another model unaccounted for by Model A; he would merely be giving a hologram (as is his own self-claimed cognition style) of Model A, something which provides no new information, and exists solely for the purpose of providing evidence that some links between the theory of Model A and reality need to have better deterministic reasonings.

Though, I have not fully read through all of Model G, I have casually browsed and skimmed through the thread and some of the resources provided, and I can say, that all of this seems to support this. None of his Model G mentions Model B at all, none of his Model G contradicts nor expands on Model A, and each resource that I have read or browsed is laden with inconsistencies with empirical reality. Model B actually already clearly states anything of the most remote value that Model G seeks to describe, and it makes me wonder if Gulenko even has the slightest understanding of it, because, not only does Model B include Model A, but it also has both information and energy described in it, without Gulenkos need for two separate models to exist. All in all, this entire model, if it gains any significant weight, really just seems like an exercise for Model B to explain things word-for-word that it previously took as "common sense."
 
Discussion starter · #26 ·
@Tellus

This is a core flaw in this model. He states that both the two strongest functions are the E/I of the individual, then states that (per Model A) the first and second functions are the E/I preference of the individual and the opposing E/I, respectively. He then goes on to state, that this difference in empirical strengths is the proof necessary for the existence of Model G.

He is incorrectly stating that Model A places the second function as being one of the two strongest functions. Model A places the first function and the eighth function as the strongest functions. He is committing an apples and oranges fallacy here by erroneously assigning the number "2" as "2nd strongest", when no part of model A states such.

At the same time, Model A DOES state that the energy assigned to functional processing is strongest in base function then creative function. If this is the route which he is taking, then he is not disproving Model A, nor is he proving the existence of another model unaccounted for by Model A; he would merely be giving a hologram (as is his own self-claimed cognition style) of Model A, something which provides no new information, and exists solely for the purpose of providing evidence that some links between the theory of Model A and reality need to have better deterministic reasonings.

Though, I have not fully read through all of Model G, I have casually browsed and skimmed through the thread and some of the resources provided, and I can say, that all of this seems to support this. None of his Model G mentions Model B at all, none of his Model G contradicts nor expands on Model A, and each resource that I have read or browsed is laden with inconsistencies with empirical reality. Model B actually already clearly states anything of the most remote value that Model G seeks to describe, and it makes me wonder if Gulenko even has the slightest understanding of it, because, not only does Model B include Model A, but it also has both information and energy described in it, without Gulenkos need for two separate models to exist. All in all, this entire model, if it gains any significant weight, really just seems like an exercise for Model B to explain things word-for-word that it previously took as "common sense."
I think he means that the creative function is (generally) more evident than the demonstrative function. Gulenko introduces the concept of externalities/internalities which is important, although I am not sure if he exaggerates the significance of this factor. He is not referring to libido (i.e. "will-to-live") but to energy (i.e. physics).


Gulenko supports Ermak's view on the signs in model A which contradicts model B.

http://www.socio nika-tim.ru/index.php/theory/24-znaki-v-socionike-tri-tochki-zreniya


My main concerns with this model are...

1) the flow of information seems to be different from model A/model B... but I am not sure about this yet.

2) the signs: ILI would have -Ni... Hmm????

"-T, intuition of the past [MBTI: Ni ] : thinking of the past, remembering past errors and trying to prevent them from happening again, extrapolating (looking for signs of the past repeating itself).
That's how ILI (TL) [INTJ] operate."

3) externalities/internalities (see above)
 
I think he means that the creative function is (generally) more evident than the demonstrative function.
No, he is simply stating that the ordering for processing in Model A does not go by strength, and believes this necessitates another model that does go by such. When we look at Model A, we see an object. This object has readily visible surface qualities. When we look at the qualities deeper into the object, we must do so by looking through the surface qualities, thus obscuring our vision. The deepest elements are particularly difficult to view. What he has done is created a holographic model. The object of Model A is simply rotated for viewing from another angle, giving clearer vision of the deepest parts (the backside of the Model A object), while simultaneously obscuring what was the surface previously. LII, in social progression, is responsible for the rotation of a new project on it's axis, for the purpose of completing the determinism of the different facets. It does, indeed, have value; however, I feel that what Gulenko fails to realize is that not only is this what his Model G is actually doing, but that Model B has already given clearer view of this rotation than his Model G provides. Not only is it a single, holistic model, but also has an internal consistency to itself, other systems of personality, and empiricism that Model G lacks.

Gulenko introduces the concept of externalities/internalities which is important, although I am not sure if he exaggerates the significance of this factor.
He does, yes. He also makes mention of time. Unfortunately, Model B already did this, as well as reconciling externalities, internalities, and time altogether.

He is not referring to libido (i.e. "will-to-live") but to energy (i.e. physics).
Yes, he is referring to his energy as such; however, the actual difference between the two by his usage is entirely semantics. They are one-in-the-same with his usage. He is simply demanding that they are magically different. The correct way to view these two are "energy demand" (libido) and "energy supplied" ("energy in physics"). Is there a difference? Yes, but because they are directly related, any attempt to separate the two objectively fails. They are subjective in relation to each other. The real "energy in physics" also completely leaves this field of application, as it is entirely neurobiological.

Gulenko supports Ermak's view on the signs in model A which contradicts model B.

http://www.socio nika-tim.ru/index.php/theory/24-znaki-v-socionike-tri-tochki-zreniya
Gulenko supports three different modes of polarities, varying across time, which makes me think he is confused as hell on what his actual views of the core of polarities are to him; it's basically like he cannot make up his mind. Also, not only does he have varying views on what the polarities are, but he also has varying, contradictory views on what "polarities" even are; at some points, he treats them as being independent existences separate from block pairings, and other times he treats them as being representations of block pairings. Bukalov, on the other hand, has a reconciled and consistent view (accuracy another matter).


My main concerns with this model are...
1) the flow of information seems to be different from model A/model B... but I am not sure about this yet.
There is no information flow in Model G, only "energy." His views are that two separate models need to exist, one for TIM, and one for TEM. Model B accounts for both (accuracy another matter).

2) the signs: ILI would have -Ni... Hmm????

"-T, intuition of the past [MBTI: Ni ] : thinking of the past, remembering past errors and trying to prevent them from happening again, extrapolating (looking for signs of the past repeating itself).
That's how ILI (TL) [INTJ] operate."
More internal inconsistencies. Falsely claiming J=p, against his own placement of correlations with Big 5 empirically denying this, while simultaneously saying J=p, without realizing this negates the possibility for INFJ to be IEI. Seems like he just randomly changes poles to suit his current theory, while making all his previous ones (that he claimed were "right") invalidated by doing so.

Overall, besides my previous statements and posts about this being largely worthless hologram, the issues this Model's logic brings up with his thought process and methodology, lead me to believe that he is good at showing readily visible trends and patterns, but completely incapable of forming the theory behind them. After reading and understanding Model B, all of this makes me scratch my head and wonder how he spent nearly two decades since Model B developing this.
 
Discussion starter · #28 · (Edited)
No, he is simply stating that the ordering for processing in Model A does not go by strength, and believes this necessitates another model that does go by such.
---------
There is no information flow in Model G, only "energy." His views are that two separate models need to exist, one for TIM, and one for TEM. Model B accounts for both (accuracy another matter).
No, model G does not go by strength (in the model A sense). It claims that externalities/internalities is the main dichotomy, and the other division is high energy (=function that is easy to use) vs. low enery (=function that is difficult to use). Society sees EII's FiNi, and friends and family (and colleagues) see EII's NeTe.

Ben: "Viktor changed the name from Energy Model [to Model G] because it is Energy and Information. Energy Model name gave the impression it was just Energy."

Yes, he is referring to his energy as such; however, the actual difference between the two by his usage is entirely semantics. They are one-in-the-same with his usage. He is simply demanding that they are magically different. The correct way to view these two are "energy demand" (libido) and "energy supplied" ("energy in physics"). Is there a difference? Yes, but because they are directly related, any attempt to separate the two objectively fails. They are subjective in relation to each other. The real "energy in physics" also completely leaves this field of application, as it is entirely neurobiological.
What do you mean by "energy demand" and "energy supplied"?


Gulenko supports three different modes of polarities, varying across time, which makes me think he is confused as hell on what his actual views of the core of polarities are to him; it's basically like he cannot make up his mind. Also, not only does he have varying views on what the polarities are, but he also has varying, contradictory views on what "polarities" even are; at some points, he treats them as being independent existences separate from block pairings, and other times he treats them as being representations of block pairings. Bukalov, on the other hand, has a reconciled and consistent view (accuracy another matter).
I agree with most of this, though I am not entirely sure that we interpret his viewpoint correctly. Post # 21:

"My article on the subject was published in the very first socionics journal named "16". At the time, the concept was slightly different. The name "sign of function" I applied to the function's "spin" (I was then viewing a function as an energy vortex)Íľ that was an interpretation completely foreign to the information paradigm within which the majority operated. But currently I use function sign to reflect a different characteristic: psychological charge. That corresponds with Reinin's "positivism", for (+), and "negativism", for (-), and this interpretation sounds more intuitive and straight forward. Now let's define positive and negative functions while trying to emphasize the dynamic, fluctuating nature of the sign. The plus sign indicates maximizing positive manifestations of the function, the minus sign - minimizing the negative."

More internal inconsistencies. Falsely claiming J=p, against his own placement of correlations with Big 5 empirically denying this, while simultaneously saying J=p, without realizing this negates the possibility for INFJ to be IEI. Seems like he just randomly changes poles to suit his current theory, while making all his previous ones (that he claimed were "right") invalidated by doing so.
I'll postpone any J=p vs. J=j comments until we actually know how model B is structured.


The most positive thing about these Youtube videos and the model G Facebook group is that there is an exchange of information between Viktor Gulenko (Socionics) and Dario Nardi/Linda Berens (MBTI).
 
tellus said:
No, model G does not go by strength (in the model A sense).
He is still stating that the reason for Model G is that Leading and Creating are not both extroverted or introverted, and that people display their two strongest functions, and that Model G must exist because the 2nd function doesn't fit this proof. Leading and Demonstrative are the two strongest and share the same extroversion or introversion. Them not being next to each other in a chart that doesn't go by strength and internal/external doesn't necessitate another model. If it did, there would be a Model C that had Inert functions in order of strength on top and Contact functions in order of strength on bottom.q
and the other division is high energy (=function that is easy to use) vs. low energy (=function that is difficult to use)
That's the same as model A and model B.

It claims that externalities/internalities is the main dichotomy. Society sees EII's FiNi, and friends and family (and colleagues) see EII's NeTe.
Model B already does that too.

Ben: "Viktor changed the name from Energy Model [to Model G] because it is Energy and Information. Energy Model name gave the impression it was just Energy."
Which is probably why he is "controversial" now. In his model, he has PoLR as being easier to use than both Ignoring and Activating in Model A. That's not an addendum, but directly saying that core aspects of Model A are just straight up wrong.

What do you mean by "energy demand" and "energy supplied"?
Energy demand being a call to expend energy, which can include all aspects of libido. Energy supplied being the actual energy (i.e. physics energy) used. Since we are talking about the human psyche, this would be the calling of a function to process information vs the physical energy supplied to the portion of the brain in which that function resides. The strength of the function would be related to the efficiency (physics) of the actual work achieved.

He says "oh, well this isn't libido, but real, physics energy." But look:
 
For example, when a teacher asks a classroom a question, and everyone knows the answer, the first people to raise their hands will be the extroverts. This is how the division happens, through this simple example. This particular dichotomy is the basis of the energy model.

This isn't "physics energy." This is libido, as directly described by Jung, with similarly described differences in introversion and extroversion. Model B also addresses this, however, it does not rebuild fundamentals of Model A so much; it only adds libido and has libido and information flows reversed between Extroverts and Introverts. Model G, on the other hand, changes everything besides Ego, while simultaneously leaving out the counter-flow for information and libido that Model B provides.

This is why I say this model is purely holographic. It offers a different angle to look at the psyche of socionics, which offers easier views of the lesser, hidden dynamics between scattered functions, but at the same time, completely blurs "the meat" of Socionics. You get to see an interaction between Leading and Demonstrative of Model A, which is only slightly described, while you completely lose mental/vital aspects of Model A. You get to see the bridge between Model A's Super-Ego and Super-Id in the forefront, while you completely lose the main points of the Super-Ego and Super-Id blocks. It's just a holograph of Model A and Model B, which focuses on minor points (which may not even be correct) while giving up and denying major, readily socially visible aspects of Model A and Model B. This isn't even including the significant amounts of simply, directly wrong information he uses.

I agree with most of this, though I am not entirely sure that we interpret his viewpoint correctly. Post # 21:

"My article on the subject was published in the very first socionics journal named "16". At the time, the concept was slightly different. The name "sign of function" I applied to the function's "spin" (I was then viewing a function as an energy vortex)Íľ that was an interpretation completely foreign to the information paradigm within which the majority operated. But currently I use function sign to reflect a different characteristic: psychological charge. That corresponds with Reinin's "positivism", for (+), and "negativism", for (-), and this interpretation sounds more intuitive and straight forward. Now let's define positive and negative functions while trying to emphasize the dynamic, fluctuating nature of the sign. The plus sign indicates maximizing positive manifestations of the function, the minus sign - minimizing the negative."
Reinins are derived. You can't use a derivation to disprove the source and keep using the derivations.
He is also still using them with two different meanings. He is stating in that quote that he is treating signs to be independent of functional pairings, yet in his descriptions of the different elements' poles, still uses descriptions that are combinations of the element with its appropriate pairing. Notice just in the screen capture of the video the other guy posted about signs, Se contains "Hierarchy". That is Se from socionics that is paired with Ti (hierarchy).
The real reason for his "enlightenment" is that he hit a brick wall for polarity patterns when making Model G, and had to change words around and retract parts of his theories to make it fit logically.

I'll postpone any J=p vs. J=j comments until we actually know how model B is structured.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't speaking of Model B in this instance. I was speaking of:
Gulenko said:
The first factor is extroversion, which correlates to socionics extroversion. It is the first noticeable, "on the surface" trait. The second factor is openness, which is when a person is open to new things, which correlates to socionics intuition. The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality. The fourth factor is agreeableness, which means that you will agree with society's standards, which correlates with socionics ethics, especially ethics of relationships, which is introverted feeling.
And
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator said:
These correlations refer to the second letter shown, i.e. the table shows that I and P have negative correlation to extraversion and conscientiousness respectively (so conscientiousness correlates with J), while F and N have positive correlation to agreeableness and openness respectively.
So, he stated his stance that Conscientiousness is Rationality, and studies show that Conscientiousness correlate strongly with MBTI J. He (unknowingly) equated Rationality to Judging, yet also, somehow, denies this being the case in his works on Model G (or maybe those are just videos from Western audiences incorrectly placing MBTI types to Socionics types, and saying that Gulenko believes such?), even though in other articles of his he previously stated Rationality is Judging.


I can't make myself watch video bloggers. They are a level of asinine that makes me want to shake them and say "I don't give a F that no other humans ever see your face! Just get to the damn point or post an article!"
 
Discussion starter · #30 ·
What he has done is created a holographic model. The object of Model A is simply rotated for viewing from another angle, giving clearer vision of the deepest parts (the backside of the Model A object), while simultaneously obscuring what was the surface previously. LII, in social progression, is responsible for the rotation of a new project on it's axis, for the purpose of completing the determinism of the different facets. It does, indeed, have value; however, I feel that what Gulenko fails to realize is that not only is this what his Model G is actually doing, but that Model B has already given clearer view of this rotation than his Model G provides. Not only is it a single, holistic model, but also has an internal consistency to itself, other systems of personality, and empiricism that Model G lacks.
Mr T. (Socionics Britannica School):

"I cannot seem point a theory Viktor has discussing that. I wouldn't want to give an interpretive answer out of distortion. (I wouldn't like to digress but the more I've studied Model G, the more I've felt that a 16function better illustrates the energy and information paradigms discovered). Convolutedly I've been hearing that Ashura someone what agreed with the principle, but that's Roan LaPlante I reserve a healthy skepticism on his socionics. We don't get along intellectually, we fell out a couple of years ago when I prodded him over his ideas."
 
@Tellus
What is that guys quote in reference to? Is that him replying to my quote or to something else?

What's the point of the dichotomies picture? You didn't include any commentaries. From looking at it, though, if it is correct that what is present in G is present in A, and the focal points of G are different than A, then that is a hologram lol.
 
Discussion starter · #33 · (Edited)
@Tellus
What is that guys quote in reference to? Is that him replying to my quote or to something else?

What's the point of the dichotomies picture? You didn't include any commentaries. From looking at it, though, if it is correct that what is present in G is present in A, and the focal points of G are different than A, then that is a hologram lol.
I misconstrued his comment... I thought he was referring to Model B :)

These two links explain the dichotomies in the Energy Model (Are they still valid in Model G? I think so...):

Socionics - the16types.info - Energy model of a socionics object. Structure and Function. (by V. Gulenko)

Socionics - the16types.info - V. Gulenko, Energy Model of the Socionics Object. Further examination.

A J:
"Sets of three dichotomies connected by a line are dependent systems called klein-4 groups, defined by any two of the three dichotomies.

They differentiate four blocks of two functions. They can also be thought of as quaternions or small groups of functions."

Hmm?
 
@Tellus

Working on reading through all this stuff today...

But, I found this part highly amusing and didn't want to forget to bring it up...
 
1 The energy challenges of the future

On every corner we hear that an era of the information society. On the one hand, it pleases, and on the other, makes you wonder. The information stream is doubled every 2-3 years. information loses its value: firstly, quick aging, secondly, all the more energy is required to produce and store it. Thus, the lack of energy resources has become a major challenge for the world, and hence the strategic problem of scientific research. All the more surprising to see how many of the current realities socionists live the 70s of the last century, turning a blind eye to the lack of one-sided and purely informational models.
2 Competing paradigms

Let us take a brief look at the state of psychology in similar industries. Most of you know about the confrontation between the two paradigms in modern psychology of the unconscious - Freud and Jung. The first of these, the majority of researchers characterized as closed and orthodox, and the second - a more open and creative.
Paradigm in the methodology - a system of cognitive principles and methods display the reality studied, further defining the logic of the organization of knowledge. To put it simply, it is the original picture of the world of the researcher.
Paradigmatic confrontation Freudian and Jungian continues in modern psychology. Psychoanalysis - famous works of Dr. Sigmund Freud, rocked at the beginning of the last century the whole of European culture.Analytical psychology is less well known. She was born in the dispute disciple of Freud, Carl Jung with his teacher and eventually took shape in particular within. Continuing since then argue fiercely, Freudians and Jungians irrevocably parted, creating their own scientific schools, which differ both in the theoretical premises and in the practice of psychotherapy. Couch as a symbol of the psychoanalytic session, during which the analyst stands on the patient like a strict father, contrasted chair Jungian analyst who talks with his client face to face like a caring mother.
Similar processes have long been observed in the socionical movement. Just these two paradigms have received other names, in the spirit of our time - the information paradigm, on the one hand, and energy, on the other.
Information socionics, continuing the orthodox tradition, where possible, ignore the energy model, and where to dismiss it fails, descend against her barrage of uncompromising criticism. They are in their mass, unfortunately, remain closed to dialogue.
Anyone who is seriously interested in socionics, now we must make a choice. Freudian and Jungian be (read: socionics information and energy) at the same time - it's just like being an extrovert and introvert in the proportion of half and half. It means to be a nobody.

His bias here is so apparent it is seething...
He relates information model to rotting antiquity, then relates Freud/Jung to orthodox and close-minded vs open and creative, then relates Freud/Jung to antiquity/future, then relates Freud/Jung to Socionics/Gulenkos school, then states that his school (which is small) is a majority being ignored despite reasoning. His entire first two opening sections are an introduction that essentially states, "if you don't follow me, you're not Jungian, you're an idiot, and you're future is non-existent."
 
Discussion starter · #35 · (Edited)
He is still stating that the reason for Model G is that Leading and Creating are not both extroverted or introverted, and that people display their two strongest functions, and that Model G must exist because the 2nd function doesn't fit this proof. Leading and Demonstrative are the two strongest and share the same extroversion or introversion. Them not being next to each other in a chart that doesn't go by strength and internal/external doesn't necessitate another model. If it did, there would be a Model C that had Inert functions in order of strength on top and Contact functions in order of strength on bottom.q
I apologize for a delayed reply.

The main reason for Model G is the concept of externalities/internalities. EII's Ne is the strongest function at close range (i.e. at home, with friends...) but Viktor thinks externalities (i.e. society) is more important. Hence, EII: FiNi.

That's the same as model A and model B.
Which is probably why he is "controversial" now. In his model, he has PoLR as being easier to use than both Ignoring and Activating in Model A. That's not an addendum, but directly saying that core aspects of Model A are just straight up wrong.
No, Model A and Model B are ordered from the most conscious function to the most unconscious function.

EII's Te is easier to use than his/her Ti according to Model G.

EII:
+Fi -Ni +Ti -Si
+Ne -Te +Se -Fe

I: It claims that externalities/internalities is the main dichotomy. Society sees EII's FiNi, and friends and family (and colleagues) see EII's NeTe.
You: Model B already does that too.
Can you explain this a bit further?

Energy demand being a call to expend energy, which can include all aspects of libido. Energy supplied being the actual energy (i.e. physics energy) used. Since we are talking about the human psyche, this would be the calling of a function to process information vs the physical energy supplied to the portion of the brain in which that function resides. The strength of the function would be related to the efficiency (physics) of the actual work achieved.
He says "oh, well this isn't libido, but real, physics energy." But look:
 
For example, when a teacher asks a classroom a question, and everyone knows the answer, the first people to raise their hands will be the extroverts. This is how the division happens, through this simple example. This particular dichotomy is the basis of the energy model.

This isn't "physics energy." This is libido, as directly described by Jung, with similarly described differences in introversion and extroversion. Model B also addresses this, however, it does not rebuild fundamentals of Model A so much; it only adds libido and has libido and information flows reversed between Extroverts and Introverts. Model G, on the other hand, changes everything besides Ego, while simultaneously leaving out the counter-flow for information and libido that Model B provides.
This is why I say this model is purely holographic. It offers a different angle to look at the psyche of socionics, which offers easier views of the lesser, hidden dynamics between scattered functions, but at the same time, completely blurs "the meat" of Socionics. You get to see an interaction between Leading and Demonstrative of Model A, which is only slightly described, while you completely lose mental/vital aspects of Model A. You get to see the bridge between Model A's Super-Ego and Super-Id in the forefront, while you completely lose the main points of the Super-Ego and Super-Id blocks. It's just a holograph of Model A and Model B, which focuses on minor points (which may not even be correct) while giving up and denying major, readily socially visible aspects of Model A and Model B. This isn't even including the significant amounts of simply, directly wrong information he uses.
I agree... "when a teacher asks a classroom a question..." seems to be about libido. I'll ask Ben.


Reinins are derived. You can't use a derivation to disprove the source and keep using the derivations.
He is also still using them with two different meanings. He is stating in that quote that he is treating signs to be independent of functional pairings, yet in his descriptions of the different elements' poles, still uses descriptions that are combinations of the element with its appropriate pairing. Notice just in the screen capture of the video the other guy posted about signs, Se contains "Hierarchy". That is Se from socionics that is paired with Ti (hierarchy).
The real reason for his "enlightenment" is that he hit a brick wall for polarity patterns when making Model G, and had to change words around and retract parts of his theories to make it fit logically.
The descriptions should coincide since all socionists observe the same personlity traits, even though the theories differ. But you are right... his definitions of the +/- signs (both process/result and positivist/negativist) are in many respects different from the mainstream.

Gulenko:

Originally I have assigned the positive and negative signs of communicative functions, including logic, to the dichotomy "left/right" [also known as process/result]. "Right" logic I have denoted with symbol +L and left logic by -L. What is the difference between these two logic types?

Right/Process/Evolutionary logic: straight and absolute, has no reverse feedback. This type of logic as if delineates contours of forms on some background that is then discarded as insignificant. It is characterized by absence of context and is categorical, explicit in judgements.

Left/Result/Involutionary logic: inversive, derived from straight logic using the operation of subtraction. It is reflexive and considers not the upfront side as much as the back side of the coin. It underlines the background, contextual dependencies of judgements.

----------

However, there is another way of assign + and - signs that is no less substantiated: using the dichotomy of negativism/positivism. Then +L will denote the logic of positivists while -L will denote the logic of negativists.

Positivist logic: unified, accordant in all parts. This kind of logic comes closest to what is known as formal logic. An example of this kind of logic is syllogism - inferential sequence of arguments described by Aristotle in "Organon".

Negativist logic: logic of contradictions. Dialectic, containing in itself oppositions and contradictions. This logical instrument works best when analyzing complicated multilayered systems.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't speaking of Model B in this instance. I was speaking of:
And
So, he stated his stance that Conscientiousness is Rationality, and studies show that Conscientiousness correlate strongly with MBTI J. He (unknowingly) equated Rationality to Judging, yet also, somehow, denies this being the case in his works on Model G (or maybe those are just videos from Western audiences incorrectly placing MBTI types to Socionics types, and saying that Gulenko believes such?), even though in other articles of his he previously stated Rationality is Judging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Big_Five

I can't make myself watch video bloggers. They are a level of asinine that makes me want to shake them and say "I don't give a F that no other humans ever see your face! Just get to the damn point or post an article!"
I agree with the "get to the damn point" :) ... I think this is process vs. result... both Viktor and Ben are LIIs.
 
The main reason for Model G is the concept of externalities/internalities. EII's Ne is the strongest function at close range (i.e. at home, with friends...) but Viktor thinks externalities (i.e. society) is more important. Hence, EII: FiNi.

Can you explain this a bit further?
Model B has internalities and externalities. The outer cube is externalities. The inner cube is internalities. At close distance, EII displays intuition, which is part of the bridge between the gaps of MBTI translating to Socionics. MBTI shows the internality of introverts as dominant, and Myers-Briggs even stated that her reasons for J/P being auxiliary for introverts, which are the same things being described by internalities and externalities. This is what Bukalov is talking about in his article.

EII's Te is easier to use than his/her Ti according to Model G.

EII:
+Fi -Ni +Ti -Si
+Ne -Te +Se -Fe
Yeah. I realized I had it wrong.

The descriptions should coincide since all socionists observe the same personlity traits, even though the theories differ. But you are right... his definitions of the +/- signs (both process/result and positivist/negativist) are in many respects different from the mainstream.

Gulenko:

Originally I have assigned the positive and negative signs of communicative functions, including logic, to the dichotomy "left/right" [also known as process/result]. "Right" logic I have denoted with symbol +L and left logic by -L. What is the difference between these two logic types?

Right/Process/Evolutionary logic: straight and absolute, has no reverse feedback. This type of logic as if delineates contours of forms on some background that is then discarded as insignificant. It is characterized by absence of context and is categorical, explicit in judgements.

Left/Result/Involutionary logic: inversive, derived from straight logic using the operation of subtraction. It is reflexive and considers not the upfront side as much as the back side of the coin. It underlines the background, contextual dependencies of judgements.

----------

However, there is another way of assign + and - signs that is no less substantiated: using the dichotomy of negativism/positivism. Then +L will denote the logic of positivists while -L will denote the logic of negativists.

Positivist logic: unified, accordant in all parts. This kind of logic comes closest to what is known as formal logic. An example of this kind of logic is syllogism - inferential sequence of arguments described by Aristotle in "Organon".

Negativist logic: logic of contradictions. Dialectic, containing in itself oppositions and contradictions. This logical instrument works best when analyzing complicated multilayered systems.
Bukalov and most socionists use positive for Right Ring Social Progress and negative for Left Ring Social Progress. It also represents the flows through externalities and internalities, and the element pairings within blocks.


What's point of link? That's same part of article I was linking you to. Conscientiousness is negatively correlative to P, which means it is positively correlative to J.
 
21 - 40 of 173 Posts