Talk:Ganin, Sergei

Could we consider him a socionist ? Machintruc 06:46, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Without his site, there would be less interest in the west than now, and it's about Socionics -- we don't have to agree with everything he writes. Expat 06:49, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Even if he teaches bogus socionics ? Like VI, which doesn't work, and bogus definitions for dichotomies ? Machintruc 06:55, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

What 'bogus definitions for dichotomies'?--Electric 06:58, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Our job isn't to include or exclude things from socionics, but to provide objective descriptions and discussions of all significant concepts, socionists, events, works, etc. etc. Ganin definitely qualifies as a "publishing socionists whose work is of relevance to the English speaking community."

We can and should comment on practices like V.I., which I have begun here, on any important differences between different socionists' approaches, on different models people use, etc. (Admin 08:37, 9 June 2007 (CDT))

If Ganin is a socionist, then McNew is one. Ganin's definitions of dichotomies seem pretty myersian to me. Machintruc 08:50, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

If McNew had anything published that was being referenced by other people, we would want to include him in this section. Being a forum administrator isn't enough (we'll wait till his new site comes out).

Ganin's definitions of dichotomies seem pretty myersian to me. -- Then what we need is a page comparing Myers-Briggs definitions and approaches with those of socionics. I've started on that here, and more sections could be added. (Admin 09:04, 9 June 2007 (CDT))

So what does that mean offically being a socionist ? Machintruc 09:29, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

I think a good working definition is "someone who has published articles on socionic topics (on the web or in journals), teaches classes on socionics, and/or renders socionic services for pay." (Admin 09:43, 9 June 2007 (CDT))

Visual identification

A generally fair article, but it gives Ganin a bit too much credit, as least far as his website is concerned -- yes, his views in other articles and in those comments suggest that his actual approach to VI is not that much different from yours (Rick).

Yet, he still has that one article (with the drawings of the tie etc) as the introduction to VI, and that "VI skills test" which is based only on single pictures of individuals without any other information, and without any discussion -- they only have one "correct" answer, as in "Correct he's ISTp!" without even explaining why.

Finally, his huge celebrities gallery has no comment except for single pictures, suggesting (even if not true) that he typed them only with VI, and, honestly, in some cases I do think that's what he did.

Your own gallery, Rick, is a perfect example of combination of "reasonable" VI with other information.

I think that it remains accurate to say that whoever has his site as first introduction to socionics will think that VI from single pictures is much more reliable than it really is.

Expat 04:19, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I think you're right. It would be good to add those comments to the article as being the source of the controversy and misunderstandings. --Admin 04:54, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Hidden agenda

This is good material. Do you think a separate page should be created for more detailed discussion (my opinion), or have a redirect to this section? --Admin 03:58, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Do you want to discuss it from Ganin's point of view, that is, on the accuracy of his concept, or to use it to discuss more thoroughly the 6th function as we understand it? Or both? I'm not sure. The big problem I have with it that I still see people (although much less than in the beginning) doing things like typing Hillary Clinton as "ESXj" due to her supposed "to be perfect" hidden agenda; and especially the "Socionix" version of socionics followed that line, even implying that the 6th function was as visible as the 2nd. I suppose that that view is still prevalecent in Ganin's own forum. I think that it's best to write a separate article on the mobilizing function as we understand it, and even mention the Ganin's concept there briefly, and reserve this article here for the views that are Ganin's own contribution and that we don't agree much with. A similar view to the take on VI - we don't have to write a separate article on Ganin's specific views on VI. Expat 04:10, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, but the difference is that "hidden agenda" is a well-known term. I dunno -- let's flesh out the analysis and critique here, then, and see how it fits. --Admin 04:20, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I also use the term "hidden agenda" instead of "mobilizing" or "activation" function, but the problem is that it leads people to think of Ganin's precise concept. It's a similar problem to VI -- we can't just dismiss outright the concept or even Ganin's own concepts, because there is a lot of truth to it, but we have to be careful. Expat 04:26, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, I see what you're saying. --Admin 04:31, 12 July 2007 (CDT)