Critical overview of Gulenko's interview - Part 1.
Saying that I did not yet write any critical articles I decided to correct the error and summarise my thoughts. Recently we had an opportunity to watch the interview of Victor Gulenko. Where he answered a few questions from English speaking socionists related to his view of Socionics in general but mainly talking about his theoretical approach. I think this is a very positive step forward as we can learn more information quicker and being able to find the answers to the concrete questions which we are interested in. I found interview interesting and useful as I also found some answers related to the humanitarian theory of socionics. However, in this article I wish to pin point certain arguments which I saw as being inconsistent or erroneous in my view. Therefore I would like to share my thoughts with you, dear reader.
1.50 Elena speaks of DCNH –system as being validated.
Recognized and popular – certainly but in a sense of scientific confirmation like statistics and the logical consistency definitely not. I thought it is important to mention because no concept is valid in socionics in scientific terms. We can only speak of popularity of the concepts. Later on in the interview to the questions of statistical proof Victor explains that he did not bother gathering statistics because his theory is a “living” theory of socionics.
2.12 Elena mentions 3 names of very popular soionists taking part in standardization of socionics theory.
The influence could be a better word because standards in socionics are problematic. Socionics developed through years similar to psychanalysis which means that different schools have differences and sometimes significant in their theory and practice which is not a secret.
Even though Elena mentioned that Victor is the second cited socionist I need to state that his approach, model G, for example, is way too different from the original theory of Aushra and model A. Therefore I see the word of standardization as wrong and misleading in this context.
Further I will use the transcript of the translation from the site http://ift.tt/Y9bNQr
( http://ift.tt/Y9bO6G).
1. The first questions was: Is type innate? If so, at what age does type become set and can be observed? If not, what affects one's typing?
While answering the first question Victor mentions the main method of type diagnostics used in his school – observation:
“….We don't have some kind of constant attached X-ray to our brains to monitor such spontaneous reactions, so you can instead observe the behavior of the person to detect the type. This is also how you can detect a type: you divide a group into two groups. For example extroverts and introverts and you give them the same task. Distantly you observe the differences of task implementation. Only with this contrast you can see the difference clearly.”
I am not sure what exactly he meant here about the type detection. If you divide the groups on the basis of the dichotomy (polar difference) then you may only find evidence for this dichotomy and not for the type. In order to diagnose somebody according to this method you have put the person through a series of tasks in order to detect his or her type on the basis of different dichotomies. I see this approach as the most awkward and time consuming. If I need to type somebody I have to compare him or her with somebody else during tasks implementation. This does not sound realistic.
On another hand if Victor meant this approach as the method of finding evidence for existence of the personality differences and their expression in behaviour, this makes sense. The question remains: how effective the method of observation on the basis of task implementation generally is? What if you cannot observe the person in real life not talking about being able to ask him to do some tasks?
This means to me an obvious limitation of Victor’s approach to type diagnostics.
2. The questions was: How do you take mental illness into account when typing a person? What types are more susceptible for certain disorder? Is it possible for a severe mental illness or a traumatic event to change someone's type? What about substance abuse and typing?
I found interesting how Victor explains changes in psychological states due to the accents on different functions because I also consider those changes but from a different perspective of psychodynamics which may involve the change of subtypes. I called it psychological imbalance which is associated with unusual distribution of psychic energy in the psyche of the person.
However I am a bit uncomfortable with idea of psychological upgrade and downgrade referring to different subtypes. Some subtypes are considered as higher (Creative) and some as lower (Harmonising) psychological level:
“This subtype change can happen in one of two ways. The first way is called upgrade. It is when you go to the higher level of the psychological step. For example, if you are normalizing subtype you will become creative. The second way is called downgrade, which is when you go to the lower level of the psychological step, so if you are normalizing you will become harmonizing”.
I don’t think this is the ethically acceptable way to differentiate between group qualities like subtypes or similar concept of TPE in associative socionics. What is psychological upgrade or downgrade for the person will depend heavily on circumstances. More appropriate would be to speak about adequate or inadequate psychological states and not to refer to some subtypes as upgrade or downgrade. For example, while making a diagnose I refer to psychological imbalance which can occur on the basis of any changes in psychodynamic profile and subtypes.
I also doubt about this statement of Victor:
“With over 30 years of experience of observing different types from different angles, it has become clear that the central quadras that are Beta and Gamma have more tendency to substance abuse”. As there is no statistics I cannot say that it make sense for me based on my experience.
3. How does The Big 5 relate to neuroticism index?
I would agree on some of his suggestions but the following conclusions I doubt:
“The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality”.
This quality is unlikely to be typological. It may be to a certain degree belong to the Normalising subtype which is Superego-type quality in associative socionics but only in very general terms.
“The last factor is emotional stability, which was discovered later. It doesn't relate to Aushra or Jung's dichotomies, but Gulenko discovered that it could relate to a DCNH subtype dichotomy called terminality. It is is about how well you adapt emotionally, and see your goals through to the end without being swayed emotionally.”
Actually the original definition of terminality – initiation dichotomy sounds different. There is no reference to emotionality what so ever and Gulenko is stating that this is only specification of the usual dichotomy of rationality -irrationality :
“I understand terminality as the ability to finish what you started and and a tendency towards regulation. Initiating – on the opposite is the ability to initiate, easy to switch and corresponding disorder in things and affairs. As you can see, this specification of the usual dichotomy rationality / irrationality. It would be wrong to think that any rational house is order, and it clearly plans, and all irrationals throw things and burdened by planning. “
Emotional stability relates more to the stable temperament and statics in my view - as a possible association with socionics.
(Гуленко В. В. Теория подтипов: система DCNH)
. http://ift.tt/1sXqrmt
4. Does socionics consider individual human characteristics or only model ones?
“Yes, it does consider individual characteristics of the human being through the functional profile. It shows what functions are stronger and which are weaker in the person, in comparison to standard type, giving a close-up view of the individual person, and not just the type.”
Is this actual individual human characteristics? In my view this is the version of subtype-system on the functional level. It depends on what we mean by individual human characteristics. There are qualities which are not embraced by typology because typology means common features on different levels.
Saying that I did not yet write any critical articles I decided to correct the error and summarise my thoughts. Recently we had an opportunity to watch the interview of Victor Gulenko. Where he answered a few questions from English speaking socionists related to his view of Socionics in general but mainly talking about his theoretical approach. I think this is a very positive step forward as we can learn more information quicker and being able to find the answers to the concrete questions which we are interested in. I found interview interesting and useful as I also found some answers related to the humanitarian theory of socionics. However, in this article I wish to pin point certain arguments which I saw as being inconsistent or erroneous in my view. Therefore I would like to share my thoughts with you, dear reader.
1.50 Elena speaks of DCNH –system as being validated.
Recognized and popular – certainly but in a sense of scientific confirmation like statistics and the logical consistency definitely not. I thought it is important to mention because no concept is valid in socionics in scientific terms. We can only speak of popularity of the concepts. Later on in the interview to the questions of statistical proof Victor explains that he did not bother gathering statistics because his theory is a “living” theory of socionics.
2.12 Elena mentions 3 names of very popular soionists taking part in standardization of socionics theory.
The influence could be a better word because standards in socionics are problematic. Socionics developed through years similar to psychanalysis which means that different schools have differences and sometimes significant in their theory and practice which is not a secret.
Even though Elena mentioned that Victor is the second cited socionist I need to state that his approach, model G, for example, is way too different from the original theory of Aushra and model A. Therefore I see the word of standardization as wrong and misleading in this context.
Further I will use the transcript of the translation from the site http://ift.tt/Y9bNQr
( http://ift.tt/Y9bO6G).
1. The first questions was: Is type innate? If so, at what age does type become set and can be observed? If not, what affects one's typing?
While answering the first question Victor mentions the main method of type diagnostics used in his school – observation:
“….We don't have some kind of constant attached X-ray to our brains to monitor such spontaneous reactions, so you can instead observe the behavior of the person to detect the type. This is also how you can detect a type: you divide a group into two groups. For example extroverts and introverts and you give them the same task. Distantly you observe the differences of task implementation. Only with this contrast you can see the difference clearly.”
I am not sure what exactly he meant here about the type detection. If you divide the groups on the basis of the dichotomy (polar difference) then you may only find evidence for this dichotomy and not for the type. In order to diagnose somebody according to this method you have put the person through a series of tasks in order to detect his or her type on the basis of different dichotomies. I see this approach as the most awkward and time consuming. If I need to type somebody I have to compare him or her with somebody else during tasks implementation. This does not sound realistic.
On another hand if Victor meant this approach as the method of finding evidence for existence of the personality differences and their expression in behaviour, this makes sense. The question remains: how effective the method of observation on the basis of task implementation generally is? What if you cannot observe the person in real life not talking about being able to ask him to do some tasks?
This means to me an obvious limitation of Victor’s approach to type diagnostics.
2. The questions was: How do you take mental illness into account when typing a person? What types are more susceptible for certain disorder? Is it possible for a severe mental illness or a traumatic event to change someone's type? What about substance abuse and typing?
I found interesting how Victor explains changes in psychological states due to the accents on different functions because I also consider those changes but from a different perspective of psychodynamics which may involve the change of subtypes. I called it psychological imbalance which is associated with unusual distribution of psychic energy in the psyche of the person.
However I am a bit uncomfortable with idea of psychological upgrade and downgrade referring to different subtypes. Some subtypes are considered as higher (Creative) and some as lower (Harmonising) psychological level:
“This subtype change can happen in one of two ways. The first way is called upgrade. It is when you go to the higher level of the psychological step. For example, if you are normalizing subtype you will become creative. The second way is called downgrade, which is when you go to the lower level of the psychological step, so if you are normalizing you will become harmonizing”.
I don’t think this is the ethically acceptable way to differentiate between group qualities like subtypes or similar concept of TPE in associative socionics. What is psychological upgrade or downgrade for the person will depend heavily on circumstances. More appropriate would be to speak about adequate or inadequate psychological states and not to refer to some subtypes as upgrade or downgrade. For example, while making a diagnose I refer to psychological imbalance which can occur on the basis of any changes in psychodynamic profile and subtypes.
I also doubt about this statement of Victor:
“With over 30 years of experience of observing different types from different angles, it has become clear that the central quadras that are Beta and Gamma have more tendency to substance abuse”. As there is no statistics I cannot say that it make sense for me based on my experience.
3. How does The Big 5 relate to neuroticism index?
I would agree on some of his suggestions but the following conclusions I doubt:
“The third factor is conscientiousness, which relates to socionics rationality”.
This quality is unlikely to be typological. It may be to a certain degree belong to the Normalising subtype which is Superego-type quality in associative socionics but only in very general terms.
“The last factor is emotional stability, which was discovered later. It doesn't relate to Aushra or Jung's dichotomies, but Gulenko discovered that it could relate to a DCNH subtype dichotomy called terminality. It is is about how well you adapt emotionally, and see your goals through to the end without being swayed emotionally.”
Actually the original definition of terminality – initiation dichotomy sounds different. There is no reference to emotionality what so ever and Gulenko is stating that this is only specification of the usual dichotomy of rationality -irrationality :
“I understand terminality as the ability to finish what you started and and a tendency towards regulation. Initiating – on the opposite is the ability to initiate, easy to switch and corresponding disorder in things and affairs. As you can see, this specification of the usual dichotomy rationality / irrationality. It would be wrong to think that any rational house is order, and it clearly plans, and all irrationals throw things and burdened by planning. “
Emotional stability relates more to the stable temperament and statics in my view - as a possible association with socionics.
(Гуленко В. В. Теория подтипов: система DCNH)
. http://ift.tt/1sXqrmt
4. Does socionics consider individual human characteristics or only model ones?
“Yes, it does consider individual characteristics of the human being through the functional profile. It shows what functions are stronger and which are weaker in the person, in comparison to standard type, giving a close-up view of the individual person, and not just the type.”
Is this actual individual human characteristics? In my view this is the version of subtype-system on the functional level. It depends on what we mean by individual human characteristics. There are qualities which are not embraced by typology because typology means common features on different levels.
Critical overview of V. Gulenko Interview
No comments:
Post a Comment