Speaker A
Good evening to everyone once again. Today, we are going to start writing. Today, we are starting a lecture series dedicated to socionics. What is, so to speak, the relevance and the reason for this idea? I think that, finally, the
An introductory lecture series on socionics by Vitalii Polovynko, exploring its origins, key concepts, and practical applications.
Key Takeaways
- Socionics moves beyond simple typology to study interactions between personality types.
- Personality types are influenced by both biological and socio-psychological factors.
- Understanding intertype relationships can help resolve interpersonal conflicts.
- Socionics is rooted in psychological theories from Jung and Kępiński but extends them.
- Practical application of socionics can improve social and personal relationships.
What the video covers
- Introduction to socionics and its relevance beyond trivialization and popular horoscopes.
- Historical context of typologies including temperaments and character distinctions.
- Explanation of personality as shaped by socio-psychological environments.
- The influence of Jung’s typology and Kępiński’s work on neurosis as foundations for socionics.
- Aušra Augustinavičiūtė’s creation of socionics focusing on intertype relationships rather than just typology.
- Socionics as a science of society and the psychological unit called the 'socion'.
- The importance of understanding automatic, basal interpersonal relationships.
- Vitalii Polovynko’s personal involvement and practical orientation towards socionics.
- The goal of socionics to resolve interpersonal conflicts and improve social understanding.
- An overview of the first and fourth functions in socionics and their behavioral implications.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Relevance of Socionics
- 08:04Origins and Influences of Socionics
- 14:37Personal Experience and Practical Value of Socionics
- 21:05Brain Mechanisms and Temperament in Socionics
- 28:31Internal and External Reality in Psychological Context
- 34:11Understanding Emotional Stability and Temperaments
- 48:11Extracting Symbolic Information for Typology
- 62:09Social Suggestibility and Collective Life
- 85:36Functions in Socionics: First and Fourth Functions
- 97:30Summary and Practical Applications
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
trend for socionics—that kind of "playful" socionics—has passed. And it is possible to try to approach this information more seriously, more comprehensively, and try to understand, firstly, the very subject of socionics.
Speaker A
Secondly, how to use it. Because throughout the existence of socionics—and as you know, I, so to speak, got involved with socionics almost at the very beginning. Fate brought me together with Augustinavičiūtė, and I had the opportunity to personally
Speaker A
observe all the processes that took place around this knowledge. The processes were ambiguous, because for some time, there was a massive fascination with socionics. And naturally, socionics was quite heavily trivialized. It turned into some kind of block-shuffling, something like
Speaker A
popular versions of horoscopes. And slowly, little by little, those people who understood it more or less, following the client, also began to use socionics more as an art of paying compliments or the art of, so to speak, manipulating relationships, rather than
Speaker A
trying to introduce people to the essence of the matter. Therefore, I responded to this proposal and will try in these lectures to share everything I have accumulated myself, both in terms of insights regarding socionics and in the practice of its use. Let's get
Speaker A
started. First of all, let's recall the context. The context primarily consists of the fact that attempts to somehow systematize one's impressions of the people around them have been known since ancient times. And one of the first such typologies was the typology
Speaker A
of temperaments, right? Choleric, melancholic, sanguine, phlegmatic. Then Pavlov there, and other scientists, investigated how this is connected to the general type of nervous activity.
Speaker A
Well, you remember that, значит, a choleric is a strong, excitable type, right? At the extreme stage, their emotions are expressed as rage. A melancholic is a weak, excitable type.
Speaker A
At the extreme stage, their emotions are expressed as fear. And two strong, balanced types: the sanguine, who has a predominance of positive emotions, and the phlegmatic, who has a predominance of a lack of bright emotional expressions. But we must remember that
Speaker A
temperament speaks only of a very general property of a person—that is, their emotional attitude toward the reality surrounding them, toward themselves, and toward other people.
Speaker A
That is, temperament is a characteristic of relationship style. But we need to remember this, because when we try to determine the type of information metabolism, we must remember that, so to speak, this type is also a range, not a label, not a
Speaker A
fixed point. It is a range, including one connected to the general properties of the nervous system. The next psychological characteristic, as we know, is such a trait as character.
Speaker A
Character does not lend itself to typological classification, but empirically we all quite freely distinguish, so to speak, as we find some words, that people differ in their characters. And we must remember that character is primarily a characteristic of a person's activity, their way of
Speaker A
acting. That is, there is an active, a passive character, a goal-oriented character, an indecisive character, a passive-imitative character, and so on and so forth, so as not to get confused, you see, because this concept can be used in completely different contexts.
Speaker A
And again, we must say that the type of information metabolism itself is not a characteristic of character. The same type of information metabolism can possess a different character. The next concept that exists in the psychological definition of a person,
Speaker A
so to speak, is the concept of personality. The concept, so to speak, of personality as a totality of certain socially manifested features. Well, in our system, when we talk about personality, we speak primarily about what socio-psychological world formed
Speaker A
this given personality. What is the basis of personality? We say that the basis of personality, its body, is the socio-psychological environment in which the person grew up. Now, little by little, while keeping all this in mind, remembering all this, we will
Speaker A
slowly move directly to socionics. What was the catalyst? Which led Aušra Augustinavičiūtė to create socionics. We communicated a lot with her on this topic, and she shared with me.
Speaker A
Well, first of all, of course, Jung; first of all, the typology that Jung introduced, who said that the psychophysiological, mental base of a person consists of four elements: logic, ethics, sensory, intuition—this is according to Aušra, and if according
Speaker A
to Jung himself, then thinking, intuition, feeling, sensation. And, accordingly, with these four elements, with the combination of these elements, Jung tried, meaning, he created his own typology. Psychology, especially, so to speak, Western European, she learned a lot of material. She is a very erudite
Speaker A
person in this field. But the impetus was primarily the works of Kępiński. This is a very famous Polish psychotherapist, who among other works has a fundamental work called "Neurosis." Kępiński, relying, naturally, on the works of many scientists,
Speaker A
highlighted from his point of view the main cause of neurosis. You know that the neurotization of the population is one of the colossal problems of the 20th century. And in all countries, regardless of their economic, political, and so on, that primarily neurosis is
Speaker A
a concept coming from the social sphere of a person. That is, neurosis is a disease of the personality while and the main source of neurosis is interpersonal relationships. Because even if we look at neurosis as a conflict of motives, a conflict of
Speaker A
competing human needs, it manifests itself primarily in relationships, in relationships with other people. Tension, for instance, family conflicts, workplace conflicts, conflicts between an individual and society, and so on. And this was the main impetus, after which Ausra had an intuitive
Speaker A
insight that gradually led to the creation of her own theory. She realized that it is not enough just to look at people typologically, and it is not even enough to learn how to determine your own type or someone
Speaker A
else's. It is important to understand, to try to approach an understanding of how these types interact with each other. That is, what she called intertype relationships. Therefore, it is not a typology; what she created, she called socionics. Her main work, in
Speaker A
the Russian edition of which I participated, was titled "Introduction to Socionics," that is, the science of the socium, the science of the socion.
Speaker A
She said that the 16 types she identified are the elementary unit of society from a psychological point of view. The socion. This is very important to remember when you start trying to understand socionics and its application. What is the main thing in
Speaker A
socionics? Undoubtedly, it is an attempt to find a justification for those relationships between people that arise automatically, without reflection, that is, those relationships that are basal, which arise when a person is not thinking about what type I am or what
Speaker A
type they are, but for some reason, I just don't like them. Or they irritate me for some reason, or she demands things from me that I cannot fulfill.
Speaker A
Or he affects me in such a way that I am constantly reporting to him and wanting to hear his assessment. A third one like that. A fourth one like that.
Speaker A
And all of us who participated in this work at that time, in spreading this knowledge, typed it out, reprinted it, and reproduced it. We traveled wherever we could, wherever we had connections, trying to give this knowledge some kind
Speaker A
of official status. Above all, we were inspired by the fact that this is an opportunity to help people figure out conflicts that arise infernally, inexplicably. For me, the first le
Speaker A
figured out why, between me and my mother—whom I love and who loves me —totally wild conflicts would arise from time to time that were very difficult to explain rationally. One could, of course, find some reason, but in reality, both she and I felt that it
Speaker A
was somehow beyond our will. And when, with the help of this knowledge, I determined my mother's type of information metabolism, my own type, and our intertype relationships, then literally within a month I eliminated any possibility of such conflicts
Speaker A
arising. And since then, there are none and there never have been. And then I became convinced from personal experience that socionics is a thing that works, and since I am a practically oriented person, if a thing works, it is worth pursuing. Therefore,
Speaker A
I dedicated three years to studying socionics and even, so to speak, entered the canonical text with Kaminavsky’s steering wheel, and I use it to this day when a natural need for it arises. But throughout all these years all my acquaintances who were
Speaker A
more or less seriously involved struggled with the same thing, with this very same issue. How to determine the information type with a sufficient degree of accuracy? At first, they tried, Aushra tried to use the famous German MBTI test, which is based on
Speaker A
Jung. It didn't work out with its help. Then, with the help of empirical descriptions, portraits, and sets of photos—I mean, there were such manuals, you understand, showing photos of one type, but again, it was determined empirically or by such, you
Speaker A
know, group expert assessment. Like, who do you think this is? Who do you think this is? And then tests from this Kiev author started appearing, where you define yourself by the method of elimination and so on, and so on, and
Speaker A
so on. It is still very difficult to this day. For me, for example, the only thing I managed to figure out that was more or less objective is that a minus on the first function triggers an aggressive reaction, and a minus on the
Speaker A
third function triggers an avoidance reaction. Well, first of all, you need to know how to create this minus, which we will talk about later, that is, what it depends on. Such is the backstory.
Speaker A
The second story, which no one has managed to deal with and regarding which a hypothesis arose upon becoming acquainted with the works of Pavel Vasilyevich Simonov. If anyone wants to get acquainted with this in more detail , Pavel Vasilyevich Simonov’s
Speaker A
monograph is called "The Motivated Brain." There is a chapter there called "Individual Differences of People." And there he lays out his concept related to those brain structures that determine the characteristic features of individual development at the level of reacting to the environment and
Speaker A
internal stimuli. Once, Eva Israelievna and I even wrote a small article for a collection in Irkutsk, but then it turned out that no one intended to print it; rather, those cunning former Komsomol figures from Irkutsk simply went around the entire Soviet Union,
Speaker A
gathered whatever they could from everyone, and then opened an institute of socionics and started making money on it. The collection was never published. What what is the essence of what Simonov writes about? Its essence lies in the fact that he identifies
Speaker A
four brain structures that largely determine human behavior. Upon analyzing what Simonov writes regarding these structures, first a hypothesis arose, and today a conviction that these four structures can can to identify as sources those four elements which Jung distinguished and uses—
Speaker A
that is, thinking, sensing, intuition, and emotions. As for which structures, whoever is interested, look in the book , because it takes a long time to tell.
Speaker A
Well, in general, the neocortex, that is, the frontal lobes, not all of them, but certain parts. The hippocampus, hypothalamus, and amygdala. I will now draw for you a diagram that I took from this book, and based on it, we will
Speaker A
then bring this into alignment with the elements. By the squatting method. Please excuse my not-so-expert form.
Speaker A
Maybe we should place it here, Igor Nikolaevich, maybe we should put it here? Uh.
Speaker A
Maybe move closer, you can stand here on the floor, we'll move to the edge of the stage.
Speaker A
It's fine, it's fine, it's fine, it's fine. Understood. So, here we will have the frontal neocortex, to put it simply, the frontal lobe. And the very, very front part. Right here we will have the hypothalamus. So, here we will have the
Speaker A
hippocampus. Here we will have the amygdala. And these are the arrows for the range of behavior. So, well, at the basis of the range of behavior lies emotional stability, that is, exactly what we were talking about regarding temperaments and types of nervous
Speaker A
systems. You will see everything now. So, regarding the neocortex and the hypothalamus, according to Simonov, the neocortex builds, that is, is responsible for constructing probabilistic forecasts, timing reactions in space, and organizing the external world. It is also capable of
Speaker A
selecting highly significant signals, filtering out those secondary to the dominant motivation. That is, here we can say that the neocortex, just like the hypothalamus, is occupied with highly probable events. This is very important. Highly probable, corresponding, and naturally, the
Speaker A
dominant need. The hypothalamus in this sphere is connected with the actualization of needs, the emergence of emotions, and hypotheses regarding, that is, the possibility of satisfying these needs. And to it belongs the most important role in initiating behavior,
Speaker A
that is, the trigger mechanisms. Translating this into the language of Socionics, we get logic here, and here emotions. The hippocampus and amygdala deal with the low-probability and, naturally, the subdominant ones. This can be photocopied later for those interested, right? So, the hypothalamus
Speaker A
, what is its connection? With the actualization of needs, the emergence of emotions. The hypothalamus belongs to—oh, yes, excuse me, I misspoke here. No, everything is correct.
Speaker A
Everything is correct, right? Hypothalamus. So, I missed the hippocampus here. I mixed something up just now. Excuse me, excuse me, let me check myself. Correct. Hippocampus. Yes . Here is the hypothalamus. I, so to speak, we already read this, right? Now
Speaker A
, the hippocampus. Events in the environment are recorded in time and space. It plays a very important role in the creative activity of the brain, especially in generating hypotheses.
Speaker A
There is experimental basis to assume the direct involvement of the hippocampi in the genesis of mental situations, unpredictable but random combinations of traces stored in memory . In a waking state, this mechanism participates in the creative process at
Speaker A
the stage of intuitive riddles, hypotheses, and assumptions. Well, that is an accurate description of what is called intuition. So. And The amygdala.
Speaker A
Its functions are more or less dependent on environmental factors and the availability of situations for satisfying needs. It is necessary for adjusting behavior in accordance with changed conditions. It participates in choosing behavior by weighing competing emotions generated by competing needs.
Speaker A
Thus, so and then it is connected, sorry. What is important for us to remember here for future reflections?
Speaker A
First of all, it is important to remember that a major role in the human type is played by the specifics of how they perceive high-probability and low-probability environmental factors.
Speaker A
This is extremely important. A person who mainly perceives high-probability events ignores or in most cases ignores everything that is not related to their currently dominant needs. That is, they are focused and selective; naturally, they might miss some low-probability
Speaker A
things that could have provided a creative spark. They are somewhat inert , but at the same time, they are concentrated. A person who mainly reacts to low-probability events is a creative person, they are, mm, a flexible person, but at the same time,
Speaker A
they are a vulnerable person because they can get confused, they can get overemotional about it, and, so to speak, fail to realize that none of this has any relation to their real dominant need at the moment. This is
Speaker A
very important. Naturally, there is another factor that is easily identified and easily confirmed experimentally as extraversion and introversion. Introverts, as is known, are more inert, more stable, and more occupied with the question of, so to speak, self-assertion and success.
Speaker A
Extraverts are more labile, more, so to speak, stress-resistant, and more occupied with, so to speak, not so much recognition as achievement, and so on and so forth. There is a huge amount of literature on this. Thus, we can
Speaker A
understand that all these brain mechanisms serve both external and internal situations. Because for the brain, it is equivalent. You and I once said that subjective reality, as we are used to dividing it—internal and external—is only subjective to us.
Speaker A
From the point of view of an outside observer. It is also part of objective reality. And thus we obtain these elements in their objective and subjective expression. One somewhat formal, but at the same time very interesting fact, also serves as a
Speaker A
confirmation of this hypothesis. Do you know how many combinations can be made from four elements in mathematics?
Speaker A
16. 16. And from eight? And well like 16 factorial 4 factorial. And 4 factorial.
Speaker A
So how much would that be? 16. So. And from eight? Ah, Well, well, count faster.
Speaker A
24. 24, exactly. Why, with eight elements present, did we end up with 16 types?
Speaker A
This was a complete mystery. I asked everyone, even Ausra herself. I said, " Ausra, why 16 and not 24?""Did you just calculate," I asked, "that four elements equal 16 variants, and extraversion and introversion have nothing to do with it?" She said, "No."
Speaker A
I said, "I have this intuitive feeling that the others are not viable." I asked, "Why?""Well, I don't know, you see?" So, she did it, but she couldn't explain it. And there is even this one socionist, a State Prize laureate, an
Speaker A
engineer, what’s his name, that famous one who always made cubes. Rubik. Ah. Diagrams? No, he used to bring these diagrams to socionics lectures.
Speaker A
Frameworks. A scientist from Kyiv. He really is a very good scientist, a technician. Shulman.
Speaker A
Shulman, I think. Yes. A State Prize laureate in his profession. There. But I ask him, and he can't explain it at all. He says, " Well, everything is actually just four elements, that’s why there are 16." Well, if you try even to pair them up,
Speaker A
making these 24 pairs just from the eight elements, you will see that eight variants are indeed not viable because their reaction balance is disrupted.
Speaker A
They react either only to a low-probability event or only to a high-probability event. So, by using the data obtained by Simonov, we find a normal scientific, well, how to put it, at least a natural science answer to the question of why there are 16 types,
Speaker A
not 24. And this is Ausra's brilliant intuition. She knew nothing about Simonov back then, but she said purely intuitively at the time: "I feel that the other eight are not viable." So, if you make a typology just by
Speaker A
combinations, eight combinations must be discarded. And when we turn to Simonov, we realize that, indeed— Kolya is drawing it already, right?
Speaker A
Right, that's right. But this is all important for us. Why? First of all, because you and I not only felt it intuitively or generalized it empirically, but also understood that the very fact of the typology arose not by invention, but through the actual
Speaker A
analysis of human behavior. And behind this lie completely real structures, that is, a completely real neurophysiological and neuropsychic foundation. Some people react quite simply when I tell them this; they say, "Am I doomed? That's it, since my brain
Speaker A
is like this, I can't do anything. I'm doomed." Yes, we are all doomed. We were born when we were born. We live where we live. We have this body shape, not another. And so on, and so on.
Speaker A
Including the specific features of our neuropsychic mechanisms. But a given state is not a sentence. A given state becomes a sentence when we know nothing about it. And do not want to know. That is when it becomes infernal. Then I am
Speaker A
who I am because I am who I am. But why are you the way you are? Well, that's just how I am. Like in that joke, I am you understand? Our given state is our very own individual biological and
Speaker A
psychic reality. It is the closest thing to us, much closer than clothing. Yet we sometimes worry a great deal about our clothing. But in most cases, we do not worry at all about studying ourselves. I am convinced that first
Speaker A
and foremost, everyone needs this for themselves, but most people are convinced they need it to build relationships with others. Well, as they say, it is known that all needs are for oneself. But there are needs for others; you see, as Simonov writes,
Speaker A
there is the growth of anxiety and the growth of fear. Yes, when needs for oneself are not satisfied, I am in constant anxiety. When needs for others are not satisfied, I am in constant fear. Also, needs can be dominated by
Speaker A
preservation, that is, of an adaptive nature, or by development, that is the complete opposite for now. So, a given state is infernal as long as we do not know it and have not learned how to use it. In this case, it was important and
Speaker A
very joyful for me when I became acquainted with Simonov's works. Overall, it is wonderful work, a remarkable scientist, and an excellent thinker. But specifically for socionics , it was important to me because there appeared to be some support that this
Speaker A
is truly not fiction. Therefore, when people use socionics data to define types very freely, to put it mildly, they create a neurotic situation for themselves or for others. So, we can say that so-called logical types, having a first function, extraverted
Speaker A
logic, subjective or objective, or extraverted, introverted—that is not quite correct. So, to limit the concept , I use subjective and objective. Well, those who read "Alone with the World," it is there. They are conservative, that is, primarily regarding the first
Speaker A
function, in relation to highly probable events, primarily to a highly probable event. Also, which, by the way , even for those who know socionics quite well, are also conservative toward highly probable events, as are the so-called emotional, ethical types,
Speaker A
like yours. What does this mean? It means, to put it in plain language, they are stubborn. Stubborn in one specific area. Therefore, changing anything for them in that area, It's a whole major tragedy. That is, for them, the experience associated specifically
Speaker A
with the first function. The first function, in general, is the conservative element in a person, yes.
Speaker A
For them, this experience is primarily connected to the fact that there must be maximum high probability in this matter. Not a very digestible word, perhaps, but maximum. What does this mean? It means that when they speak, it must be understandable and clearly
Speaker A
logical, meaning understandable in the way they are accustomed to understanding. And clear, meaning the order must be what they are used to, which primarily corresponds to their needs, of course. As we know, in everyday language, this is expressed as
Speaker A
a commitment to external order, and here it is to internal order, that is, to understanding, so the content, to put it simply, the content of these. As for the ethical types, it's clear: they are either conservative and committed
Speaker A
to high-probability relationships with others. Therefore, the relationships that once occurred are the most highly probable, and so they try to preserve them at any cost. And any encroachment on this by objective reality, or heaven forbid, by a specific person, triggers
Speaker A
an unequivocally aggressive reaction; or they are committed to high-probability attitudes toward themselves from others. That is why their attachment to people who treat them well is persistent. And even when everyone is already saying that he has long treated you badly, I won't believe
Speaker A
it. In the realm of relationships, they are completely stubborn. So-called intuitive types. Naturally, their first function is connected with low probability. Therefore, these people, as we say, are fickle, changeable, and often called spineless, though this isn't always true, but, in general,
Speaker A
it's accurate. Why? Because for them, the conservative element is an absolutely non-conservative perception of the surrounding world or the internal one. This so-called integrity of an external situation or integrity of an internal situation. And this thing is so fluid for them. It depends
Speaker A
on so many, so diverse, sometimes seemingly completely insignificant factors. You know, if someone tells them that the world is arranged this way and only this way, and is always like that, then at best, nothing but a harsh response is what you will get
Speaker A
from them, because for them, this is the norm. The world is arranged such that it is always changing. And the inner world of a person is arranged such that it is always changing. And this has been, is, and will always be.
Speaker A
Like any first function, it is always. It is so, it has been so, and regarding the so-called sensors, we know that this element is primarily connected, that is, object sensory is linked primarily to a sense of one's own
Speaker A
effectiveness, power, wealth, beauty, and the ability to do something, so to speak. a specific craft, and so on, and so on, and so on. Subjective sensory is connected with a sense of constant reliability, there must be a kind of
Speaker A
invulnerability and so on, and they are also oriented, with the first function, toward unlikely events, and naturally, for them, some kind of iron stability in this area cannot exist, that is I will state a paradox, but you can check
Speaker A
it quite accurately on Zhukovs. You will always be rich. No joy in that. Yes. And what to do with that? What does "always" mean? I want to keep getting richer. There should be at least some kind of process. But when
Speaker A
they say: "You are rich now and you will always be this rich." You will always, you only know how to do this and only this, and you will continue and you will never need anything new.
Speaker A
That is a minus for the first functions . Try the same thing, well, let's say, on Dumas or Gabens, saying that the way your body is at this moment in time, it will always be like that. There is no
Speaker A
other way, and there cannot be. You can go and hang, or hang the person who said that. How can that be? Today you are one way, tomorrow another, the day after tomorrow a third. In general, it's all very easy, simple, and clear.
Speaker A
That is why they boldly can undertake the repair of things they know nothing about, or treat any organism as their own. They are great experts and craftsmen. And it must be said that they often succeed because they are not
Speaker A
afraid to try. Well, try it, so what if it doesn't work out. If I, say, were to risk trying to disassemble or repair a mechanism I'm not familiar with. What would happen at the level of the " superego"? What do you mean, it didn't
Speaker A
work? That's it, I'm stuck; I will sit day and night until it works, because for me, this is the fourth function.
Speaker A
But with the first, well, it didn't work out, but I did everything, I tried , it's fine. So here, it is very important to understand this. Why?
Speaker A
Especially for the owners of this type of information, that is, for the holders, to understand where they are conservative, in that they persist in constancy or, conversely, they persist in inconstancy, do you understand?
Speaker A
Therefore, the complementary types, the so-called ones we will talk about later , they persist in the same thing. They have different first functions, but their persistence is directed toward the same thing: either constancy or inconstancy. Therefore, in this area,
Speaker A
they do not bother each other. It is very important not to provoke each other at the primary level, do you understand? Because then it is possible to live without an aggressive, subconscious attitude toward one another. And if you are worried about
Speaker A
the relationship with your partner, then fine, they cannot control themselves. But if you really want to, you must remember that if they persist in inconsistency, then that is how it must be. You should also pretend that you agree with them on this. Otherwise,
Speaker A
the constantly accumulating subconscious aggression will, sooner or later, break out. Great. It is good that we have persistence in inconsistency after all.
Speaker A
So, for example, my mother is a sensory-logical extrovert. And I, therefore, am an intuitive-logical extrovert. Do you understand what it means for my mother to change anything in her surroundings? If a bottle was once assigned a place here, you can be
Speaker A
sure that even 10 years later the bottle will always be in that spot. And if you were to move it like this, even slightly, then quite automatically, Mom says this. Everything was fine. We struggled with those problems, tried to
Speaker A
sort them out, searched for a way to define the meaningful side, primarily, of course, those in the group I belonged to, because for us it was important to use it practically. But naturally, socionics did not have any widespread distribution. Just as few
Speaker A
people are occupied with Jung, Kempinski, Simonov, and the like. Nothing interesting. And then a fateful incident happened. One of my good acquaintances. And he certainly took his own path. He teaches intuitively, he doesn't just lecture a person. There
Speaker A
is a very famous Lithuanian playwright, Kazys Saja. A very witty person, very ...He wasn't a dissident, but he was quite ironic nonetheless. He didn't become president because he had relatives in America and needed to get a visa there, but most of his plays ran
Speaker A
two or three times until someone from the USSR Ministry of Culture arrived. And after that, the play was successfully shut down. Young says: " Your wife is such a purposeful, complete fanatic of her work." And she told everyone about socionics. "Why are
Speaker A
you struggling?""Who can remember this? ""Logical, intuitive extrovert.""You," he says, "give each type the surname of a famous person""who had that type""and that’s it.""And you will be as popular as I am." Well, of course, he was mistaken about us. But Aušra
Speaker A
became even more popular than him after that, because naturally, a madhouse began. Who are you? "I'm Stierlitz,"" Who am I?", "Am I Dostoevsky?" And before I was Chekhov, now I'm a Hugo.
Speaker A
There are no more Tutankhamuns either. No, Tutankhamuns, yes, they were from Yesenin. I have the first imprint, I remember the first names, but later many names were changed. Don Quixote became...
Speaker A
And before that, he was Darwin. And the second Don, meaning Don Juan. became Huxley, he was Huxley. Huxley, that is, Don Juan became Huxley, and Darwin became Don Quixote. That's the story. Although, precisely using the example of the historical relationship
Speaker A
between Darwin and Huxley (Aushra wrote an excellent paper on the relationship, meaning between Don Quixote and Huxley, that is, two kindred types)—how is this realized in relationships? Yes, because if it weren't for Huxley, no one would have known Darwin at all,
Speaker A
because Darwin, as is known, had little interest in fame as such and what needed to be done for it. He was busy with his theories. Huxley, naturally, was a professor, naturally, held a chair, and from that chair, he began to
Speaker A
propagate Darwin's teachings. So everything turned out wonderfully for them. Naturally, until they didn't. Kindred types, if they quarrel, it's for a long time. That's why Aushra called them kindred. Although, Aushra was lucky. Her husband, who lost his job because of her, was a responsible
Speaker A
official in one of the ministries, a member of the ruling party. As a result , he was quickly sent into retirement.
Speaker A
There. And especially if you consider that he was a logical-sensory extrovert . Few people react to everything at once. There. All he managed to defend was one room in their apartment, where it was the way he liked. The way he had
Speaker A
it, where the bottle always stood in the same place. Otherwise, the whole house was a madhouse. Then he became completely crazy there, because later, when the fascination with socionics started, the house was filled with all sorts of psychics in quotation marks.
Speaker A
And the chaos began. They started tying elements to meridians. Well, you've probably all read it. To the chakras, I especially liked the chakras. It turns out each type has one chakra, and the rest don't work. So, I draw your
Speaker A
attention once again to extracting the maximum possible from the symbolic information. So, first of all, it is very important for us, in what sense, so that we can later practically orient ourselves, yes, in the people around us from the point of view of typology.
Speaker A
First of all, it is important for us that this typology is connected with the reception and processing of information. Because, although Aushra always, as I said, TIM—yes, type of information metabolism—that is, how it is decomposed, digested, and what
Speaker A
comes out of that information, but thanks to the light touch of socionists who, so to speak, became socionists after reading the book "Socionics" by [ author]. Luckily, this little brochure is very popular there. It turned into a personality type. Guys, to determine a
Speaker A
personality type, you need to study a person's history, the history of their socio-psychological world where they were formed. But the type of information metabolism is a type of way of perceiving and processing information. Therefore, in behavior, it is not always easy to detect. Only in
Speaker A
standard situations was it possible to obtain a reliable result with a confidence of 0.8, that is, in eight cases out of ten. predict the behavior of a person with one or another type of information metabolism, but not 100%in
Speaker A
any way. No experimental data has provided this. Do you understand? It is very important to remember this, otherwise such a mess begins. Next. I will peek, because I hardly understand these words. So, let's look at what the difference is from the point of view of
Speaker A
neuropsychology between logical and ethical types. Yes, logicians primarily adapt all their informational activity to the spatial organization of the external world or to the spatial organization of their field of thought.
Speaker A
which is also external. I mean in the case if it is subjective. And they, in this sense, although they also filter out all signals they consider insignificant, they are attached to this. And here the socionic characteristic of logicians and the
Speaker A
neuropsychological one coincide. Further, as for ethical types, while they are also oriented towards highly significant signals, it is important that for them in the first place is the initiation of behavior. That is, they rely on it; the basis of their
Speaker A
information processing is an emotional attitude toward behavior. Therefore, they are very attentive, sometimes to their own detriment, to the behavior of people, their own and others '. Why?
Speaker A
Because trifles have great importance for them. Trifles—from our perspective, from another point of view , these are trifles. But from their point of view, if it enters their high-probability range, that is, if they strongly suspect that you want to
Speaker A
deceive them (because such people have already deceived them at some point, or deceive them in such situations, or will deceive them in such relationships ), then they will not miss the slightest detail of your behavior which they interpret as a sign of deception.
Speaker A
Therefore, in communicating with ethical types, you need to try to figure out these signals, you see?
Speaker A
Because you can accidentally ruin relationships, because you won't take into account that your behavior in this case is a text. Do you understand? You have a habit of picking your nose or scratching your head. Well, just think, what is it? Well, you scratched your
Speaker A
head. But if this ethical person once had something unpleasant associated with a person who did that, it's funny.
Speaker A
For some it's funny, for others it's tears. Like, what is funny for the cat, is tears for the mouse and vice-versa.
Speaker A
Now, it is clear, logicians are oriented toward order. is ethically oriented toward behavior. This is very understandable, because many believe they are ethically oriented toward relationships. They are not oriented toward relationships. With relationships, everything is always clear to them. They are oriented toward
Speaker A
behavior. If you laughed where you should have cried, your chances for a good relationship were doomed. Although you aren't at fault, and the other person isn't at fault either, for being ethical. That is, the first function is mine. Right, now let's try to figure
Speaker A
this out here. so-called intuitives. What is it for them? Time and space. Due to the fact that there is no constancy in anything, yes, there are things within which this inconstancy is contained, otherwise the integrity of everything would fall apart. this is
Speaker A
the space within which events occur, or within which, uh, so to speak, something is happening to objects or subjects. Or it is subjective space in which something is constantly happening , but it exists. And time. everything connected to time is infinitely
Speaker A
important. Whereas for, let's say, ethical types, time is a very abstract concept due to the fact that it is essentially not constant. It's always changing, after all. Or, for example, for logical types, for them it's the order of space, right? But what is time
Speaker A
? Well, strictly speaking, what is it, Kolya? By the way, about time in different types. It's very important, because these people are primarily generators. Of hypotheses. often built on completely improbable facts. And they firmly believe in this structure.
Speaker A
Well, it didn't work out. So what? What a hypothesis, what beauty. In this. Well, they are strategists, so everything is in time. And in 2,000 years, it will be just trivial. Now, as for the sensory types, here the feeling
Speaker A
of pleasure and displeasure is very important. Is the cadaver satisfied or unsatisfied? Hungry. a sensory type, especially a subjective one. is scary.
Speaker A
A connected objective sensory type is also scary. That is, deprive them of the ability to move, to move their limbs. Well, an intuitive might say, " Go ahead and tie me up, I don't mind." ethically, sort of, well, because of
Speaker A
people, because and, naturally, they are very dependent on what are called conditions of existence. specifically comfort or discomfort from the perspective of either sensory safety or from the perspective of physical activity, you see? That is, if, let's say, a Zhukov type lives or works in
Speaker A
rooms where, sorry, you can only take two steps between a desk and a cabinet, and you can't even wave your arms—or everything will break—then, naturally , it needs to be changed immediately, because aggression will grow until they simply—you see—start circling and
Speaker A
breaking down walls, shouting: "Set me free!" By the way, if If a Gaben is cold, you know, if something is pricking, pinching, rubbing, or irritating them, if there’s no sensory security or something like that around. Take swamps, for example.
Speaker A
That’s also very hard for them, of course, because the aggression of the environment is a constant threat to their health. And physical well-being, for a Dumas too. A Dumas should live in Italy, ideally. It’s nice there.
Speaker A
Etoshkin, tell me, the food is interesting. In Tashkent, in Tashken, Tashkent. You could even go to Tashkent.
Speaker A
Yes, it was very good there at the time . For a ruble, you can get a mass of sensory experiences. So, little by little, we are penetrating into the inner content of these. You see, when you read Jung, say, about thinking,
Speaker A
intuition, feeling, sensation. For practice, guess what that is, right? Or his logic, ethics, sensing, intuition.
Speaker A
When we start to figure out how this affects human behavior, how it...and when we realize that it’s not the person’s whim—it’s their design, we understand that trying to remake a person in this regard is not only impossible, it’s a form of fascism.
Speaker A
It’s vivisection, you see, an autopsy of the brain, an attempt to connect electricity to some, and, conversely, to disconnect it from others. This is the first and most important thing in socionics. Understanding that our relationships in society are
Speaker A
conditioned by our structural design. From this point of view, I don’t know , I’m ready to talk about it anywhere , you understand. Why? Because this knowledge, if perceived correctly, gives a very important understanding that every person is like a device with
Speaker A
certain characteristics that shouldn't be broken, it's meaningless to break, and it's inhumane, and so on. What kind of humanism can we talk about if there is such a wonderful song? "If I have invented you, become who I want you to
Speaker A
be." That is what many people do with their loved ones, subconsciously trying to create a complementary type, or something else, or a "requester," because they can no longer live without a "requester." Mom was a requester, so the wife must be a requester, my
Speaker A
girlfriend must be one, and my best friend must be a requester too. That’s when I feel I’m alive—all the time, being pushed. But once you take the requesters away, I’m not used to that activity, having grown up with a requester mom. I have long
Speaker A
wanted to organize a public association that detects these things. Well, not for everyone, just that the "requester" ...
Speaker A
Yes, there is already a whole group of candidates. Because thanks to this knowledge, one can understand some peculiarities of a person’s history. Coming from their family, from their immediate environment. Because these things are not reflected upon by people who do not
Speaker A
possess or know how to use this knowledge. It is perceived as "I was just unlucky." My mom was good, but she was mean. Actually, here is a phrase.
Speaker A
Yes, she isn't mean, she is just a conflict type. Maybe one day this will be taught as the basics of behavior, the foundations of interpersonal interaction, because it really is a wonderful thing. So, we have analyzed this using the first function as an
Speaker A
example. Why is it important to use the first function specifically? Because the first function, as you know, is what defines a person's attitude toward themselves as a stable attitude. And regarding the first function, as we know from the knee of the scythe of the
Speaker A
notorious one. If we look at it from the perspective of methodo-qualitative structures, our first function is located right here, that is, at the level of organization. And at the level of organization, a person must receive; they depend on what is given to them.
Speaker A
That is, regarding the first, a person is very dependent on the people around them, their environment, and existence, and at the same time, they are very conservative. There are eight variations of this conservatism.
Speaker A
Therefore, if you want to help a person ensure their sense of their own reality and existence is sufficiently stable, you must analyze their interaction at the level of information metabolism with the environment and the people around them. Constant negative input
Speaker A
into the first function never leads to anything good. When we were working part-time as psychologists during tough times at various enterprises, first and foremost, we wouldn't tell them anything. We would say that this person needs to hang a picture right here.
Speaker A
Here, we need to move their desk over there and tilt the frame a bit. But in reality, it's just to make the surrounding situation match the expectations of their first function.
Speaker A
It gets a bit easier, though not completely, just partially, and so on. But as we know, and I consider this remarkable as well, it is not so much a discovery as it is a wonderful formulation of the situation. You
Speaker A
remember that in the beginning, Ausra's socionics used two elements to characterize a type: the dominant and the sub-dominant—that is, intuitive-logical, let's say, or ethical-intuitive, sensory-logical.
Speaker A
Then she realized that there are clearly four functions. Well, she didn't just realize it; she has brilliant intuition, she herself is an intuitive-logical type, extraverted, intuitive-logical, that is , a "Don Quixote," so that from the perspective—when we met, that was
Speaker A
when I said that from the point of view of methodo-qualitative structures, there certainly must be four aspects, but she, purely intuitively, and by carefully observing people, realized that besides the dominant and sub-dominant—that is, the conservative and creative information
Speaker A
methods—there exist two more that are barely realized by the person. These functions are realized by a person to a greater or lesser extent. They do not realize them as functions or as elements, but they have some sort of
Speaker A
self-report regarding these areas of their activity. As for the third and fourth functions, a person, as a rule, if they do not possess the relevant knowledge and developed reflection, is not aware of them. And her perfectly correct intuition was based on the fact
Speaker A
that people could never overcome their innate differences if they were not suggestible. The foundation of collective life is the element of social suggestibility. If we didn't have this mechanism of social suggestibility, how, well, how would we even live among other people? They are
Speaker A
all like that, after all. Well, no, it's impossible to select, really, just two or three people and close yourself off. You still go out into the street, you go to events, you sit in a hall, and so on. And here, the element of
Speaker A
suggestibility, the element of automatic suggestion, exists. It is necessary, it exists. This is what all those grand social phenomena like Kashpirovsky on television were built upon. Do you understand? Because this is part of a human being. We are all
Speaker A
suggestible in certain areas. And it's not about—it’s one thing that we may not succumb to hypnosis. Due to the fact that 5%of people cannot be hypnotized, but to never succumb to social suggestion means becoming a psychopath. That is already a diagnosis
Speaker A
. Psychoticism. Eysenck calls it psychoticism. That is, when a person loses this ability to be suggestible in their social environment. And psychoticism is a dangerous thing because it leads a person to the desert or to prison. This needs to be flipped
Speaker A
somehow. Well, maybe we should take a break now. Let's see what questions have arisen regarding this part. No questions. All right. So, once again, for those interested, I remind you that the work by Pavel Vasilyevich Simonov is called "The Motivated Brain." You
Speaker A
can skip the descriptions of the experiments, you know, and the statistics on rats, but everything else is clearly laid out in very normal language. If you keep in mind, the only thing for context is to remember that Pavel Vasilyevich Simonov is a
Speaker A
proponent of the need theory, that is, needs lie at the basis of human behavior. And it is a very correct book , very correct. It doesn't say "it is this way and only this way"; it takes into account all the nuances, and most
Speaker A
importantly, it takes into account the range. Definition. Okay, then a break and this piece of paper.
Speaker A
All right. So, let's continue. So, after talking about the first function, which is, so to speak, the embodiment of conservatism, but at the same time completely depends on whether or not it matches the external situation. We will turn to the fourth, continuing our
Speaker A
conversation about suggestion. The fourth function also completely depends on the surrounding situation. Why? But it depends on it completely unconsciously, if a person does not reflect on it. And it depends on it because the fourth function, its specific content is linked to a feeling
Speaker A
. Now I will find a more precise word. Linked to a feeling of peace or anxiety . Moreover, as a rule, this is an unaccountable, that is, an unreflected state. Either I feel at ease, or I feel uneasy in this or that situation. This
Speaker A
is expressed by the fact that a person unconsciously strives to find themselves in a situation where the fourth function receives the greatest amount of reinforcement. That is, the fourth function, just like the first, is what a person wants to receive.
Speaker A
Moreover, in this case, they cannot even show much activity due to it being unconscious. And therefore, when they send out signals that things are bad for them, in the fourth, they are uneasy, they have no sense of peace.
Speaker A
Naturally, either the receiver reacts to this, or the complement. Let's assume the fourth function belongs to either logic or ethics. This means, first of all, people of such a type of information metabolism will feel calm where the situation is tried and tested
Speaker A
. That is, where the situation is highly probable. The probability is either average or supported by some source of information that is authoritative for the given person; in a situation where such solid stability of high probability is absent, this
Speaker A
person will experience constant anxiety . I cannot recall by heart right now which types have this fourth function.
Speaker A
Dostoevsky, Hamlet. Ah, Dreiser, Dostoevsky, Hamlet. That is, for them it is very important to have stability. connected it cannot be, the fourth function can be four- oh, I see, the fourth.
Speaker A
Yes, well, they are, yes, they are tied to high probability from the bottom, with the first and the fourth, that's all. It is very important for some that the situation, let's say, for those who have logic as their fourth function. It
Speaker A
is very important that everything around is either understandable, if it is subjective, that is, they need constant explanation. If nothing is explained to them, then there can be no talk of any peace. This is very important. That is, they will always
Speaker A
move into a situation, unconsciously, where they will have the feeling that they understand everything. But the most interesting thing is that since this is a suggestible fourth function, they will understand things the way they are explained to them. Therefore,
Speaker A
if you want to draw a person with such a fourth function closer to you, do not forget to explain everything to them.
Speaker A
Wherever you happen to be with them, look, this is this restaurant. It is very prestigious. They don't smash bottles here. And in general, you can easily understand, actually when you tell such a person "you can easily understand," it immediately calms them
Speaker A
down. But if you say to such a person: "It will be very difficult for you to understand," then you might as well not explain anything. Simple words, all these incantations, yes, spells or whatever, what are they based on? If
Speaker A
you say the right words to a person from the point of view of the information method, they will calm down . If you say the wrong words to them, they will become anxious. Well, imagine , for those who have a fourth function,
Speaker A
right? to understand. You tell them: " It will be very difficult for you to understand." Goodbye. He will go where he is told: "This is actually quite easy to understand. This here is an integral, and, he will understand
Speaker A
everything. Indeed, if you explain it clearly to him, he learns to understand very easily. That is, his understanding depends on the quality of the explanation, first, and on the confidence coming from you that he can understand. Do you understand how
Speaker A
important it is, say, in the learning process, to know that you must not tell this person that it will be difficult.
Speaker A
If you do, it means everything immediately shuts down for him, he stops listening altogether. Why listen if it’s going to be hard to understand? I can't understand it.
Speaker A
That's it, I'm out of here. Can you imagine how many such stories have happened to each of us at the level of these automatic social interactions, in middle school, in college, when the wrong words were said to us. for this
Speaker A
person. You see, you brought him to a dump, he is in a panic, it’s total disorder. Say that everything is ordered. This trash goes on the left, and this kind of trash goes on the right. And he starts to calm down, you
Speaker A
see? And he begins to see this order that you have proposed to him. The world is arranged this way, it is very ordered. Even the chaotic movement of atoms is actually complete order, because they move chaotically within a
Speaker A
limited volume. Everything, everything is clear. But if you say:" My friend, there is no order, never has been and never will be in Russia. You have already provoked this person, an irresistible desire to leave Russia will arise, and it will keep gnawing at
Speaker A
him. Because if everyone says it very authoritatively, and if there are several of them, and if it's in a newspaper too—for people of this type , the printed word is very...
Speaker A
It is written that you cannot understand Russia with your mind. That means you cannot understand Russia with your mind. That's it. What is a person with such a worldview supposed to do in Russia?
Speaker A
You can't understand it anyway. And if it's written that there is no order, there never was, and there never will be. Do you remember Kurochkin's verses?
Speaker A
Yes. The only thing is there's no order . The chorus there is so catchy. The only thing is there's no order. Well, that's it, for these people that is total propaganda. Get out as fast as you can. It's funny. But the funniest
Speaker A
thing is not that, but the fact that it all works. You know, my whole life, by virtue of the fact that I belong to this first function, I experience a dual feeling when I learn anything. And some hypothesis is born in me. Do you
Speaker A
know why? Because suddenly it turns out that it works. But how can that be? If it works, it means it's already fixed.
Speaker A
And if it's fixed, that's not right. It happens, yes, a scientist who worries that reality corresponds to the theory.
Speaker A
Therefore, we urgently need to create another theory that will cancel this out. There. But they work, this is sociologics, you see? It works. This has been verified by the vast and very specific experience of a practicing psychologist and simply a person who
Speaker A
knows and uses it. I mean, I want a person to floor, and they have this fourth function, I should be able to figure it out very easily. It is clear, to understand something. Look, tata.
Speaker A
Understood, understood. And they will explain it to everyone exactly the way I explain it to them. And if someone digs into them, I don't have to say it's understandable. What difference does it make to them? Clear or unclear.
Speaker A
There is a certain order in this and it is very easy to see. I will be talking about the same thing. Using these very words. So, like this. In the left corner neurons, in the right corner protons. That's it. Well, remember,
Speaker A
this is a mnemonic method. In the left drawer I keep names, in the right drawer surnames. I mean, for me, this is an empty sound. I won't remember names or surnames from this. But a person with such a fourth function will
Speaker A
memorize it instantly, because for them it is normal. Order. In the left drawer , they open it and there are names in alphabetical order. And the right one has surnames here. Now let's turn to the ethical types with the fourth
Speaker A
function. Such a what is it if the fourth function is objective ethics? This person needs a stable attitude towards themselves. They feel calm only in a situation where they are exactly sure how people feel about them. And it
Speaker A
doesn't matter if it's good or it is important to be certain. Such a person needs everything. This is your friend, and this is your brother. And pay no attention to this one at all. They are not from our company. That's it, I'm
Speaker A
calm. So you brought them into a completely unfamiliar company. This one secretly loves you. This this one is not from our company. And they will behave quite calmly, because everything was shown to them. Shown who feels how towards them. But if you put them in a
Speaker A
situation of a foreign language that they don't understand, then they won't be worried that they aren't understood, that they are there will be constant anxiety, because how can I find out how people feel about me? And they don't
Speaker A
even realize it yet. Nobody is telling them. Therefore, they will react to people who express their attitudes openly.
Speaker A
And everyone who does not express their attitude towards me, all those people are dangerous. And imagine you are that type who is not used to expressing any attitudes at all. And on top of that, by temperament, you are a phlegmatic.
Speaker A
And you approach this person with the best of intentions. You tell them something, but they slowly...Because, well, the first thing you must do, through words or behavior, is show how you feel about someone, and only then stand nearby. Why are you standing
Speaker A
there? Can’t you understand what the problem is? Someone might think well of him, but he doesn't know it. But if you haven't expressed your attitude, that's it, you're a phantom. But if you expressed a negative one, you are not a
Speaker A
phantom. But people also need to distance themselves from you because, naturally, a person will move toward a situation where the attitude toward them is predominantly positive.
Speaker A
Therefore, this person is very dependent. On whom? Yes. God, deliver me from my friends. I can deal with my enemies myself. He needs to get rid of friends. I said, the person said: "I'm already distancing myself, how do you get rid
Speaker A
of him?" You have to explain to him that you need to get rid of him. "But he treats me so well.""Am I really such a total pushover?" Then we need to analyze why. Actually, it’s not simple, but it will be difficult. So,
Speaker A
regarding subjective ethics in the fourth position, for them, it's a complete unknown as to how to relate to those around them. I mean, even with this bouquet. I have never had experience with such a bouquet, and I have this kind of fourth position. I
Speaker A
need someone to tell me: "I like it." Yes. Yes. From then on, from the first time, I will always like them. Do you understand? But if no one said it, or someone accidentally said—I was just standing there looking at the bouquet,
Speaker A
I have my processes, and someone happens to walk by and says, "How awful ." That's it, I'll start worrying about why I’ve been looking at this "awful" thing for so long. I won't even know why it's awful, but they said it was
Speaker A
awful. Not to mention, when someone says to such a person: " Are you an idiot or what?" Suggestion takes over, and off it goes, and then you can’t find the one who said it to you, it's too late. Now, let's look at
Speaker A
the intuitive, that is, intuition in the fourth position, let's describe the fourth so we don't accidentally skip it . Intuitive. So, as you understand, for intuitive and sensory types, everything is the opposite.
Speaker A
And what is stable here must be unstable there. Here is a person with the fourth function as objective intuition. That is, the integrity of the external situation. What is the integrity of the external situation? It is a specific space in which specific
Speaker A
events occur at a specific time. It turns out they ask: "So, is it on Thursday?" And you say: "I don't know." The guy is stunned. How can you not know? Then I don't know either. But if you tell him, he says: "Right, on
Speaker A
Thursday." And you say: "Well, either Thursday or Friday." Oh, well, fine. He didn't calm down. You see? Well, sometime, but sometime. And he says: " Where? Where?
Speaker A
At your place or mine?""Such an intimate question. Yes. At your place or mine?" If you say: "I don't know." I'm afraid your relationship will start to crumble. But if you firmly say: "At my place"?
Speaker A
And why? Why can't you refuse to host at your place? He says: "Well, either at my place or yours, depending on the circumstances." And that calms everything down. It's a childish part, after all. Well, where, where? Either at yours or mine, it’s
Speaker A
so complicated. And until the last moment, there must be options in terms of time, place, and a person's space.
Speaker A
But you should never say "I don't know" to these questions, because then it doesn't exist. There is only what can be placed in some space, in some time with variants, but within some goal.
Speaker A
You see? So, you want to treat such a person to something wonderful, something you love very much, quite sincerely, and you put an opened bottle on the table. He knows nothing. You didn't tell him that you opened this
Speaker A
bottle yesterday because of this or that, or 2 weeks ago you opened it just because you had to leave. That's wonderful. Well, the foam, something I don't want it today. Because the integrity is broken. And how it was
Speaker A
broken is unknown. But if you say: "You know, I have some wonderful wine, but here's the thing.""You know, I was saving it exclusively for you, but the day before yesterday, Sidor Sidorovich stopped by." He says: "Give me some of
Speaker A
that,""well, I had to open it.""So, you see, I gave him some, and here is some for you." Aha. What does a consistent situation mean? It has taken shape. The main thing is that this picture should take shape. Everything worked out
Speaker A
normally, rather than everything feeling unsettling. And the person doesn't know why he suddenly became anxious. He became anxious because why is it open? Why is it half-finished? I need to know. But he doesn't reflect on any of this, you see? He just starts to
Speaker A
get worried. Disturbing thoughts are born from his worry. And you know, you could say that circumstances turned out that way and what is there to talk about? Oh, for heaven's sake, the main thing is the wine, not how much of it
Speaker A
there is. Well, you yourself should calm down. Or you brought him to show him an apartment, but it isn't finished yet. This is a fatal mistake, because he definitely won't like this apartment . Because of this. Unfinished work
Speaker A
should not be shown. Never, if a person has this kind of fourth function, never share unfinished work with them. Either the backstory must be so detailed, the whole situation must be laid out for them completely, so that they see that
Speaker A
circumstances turned out that way, that I am forced to show you something that is, as it were, unfinished. But only because of that—and then remember what their second function is—so that you can advise me, or suggest, or explain; but that depends on the second
Speaker A
function, which we will talk about later. But it is better just not to show it; it’s less trouble. Just say it’s not finished yet. "Oh, okay, I’ll wait." If the fourth function is such an internal, cohesive one, God
Speaker A
forbid you just happen to say: "Well, you're a contradictory person; one can't figure out where you stand." That's it, they will subconsciously bid you farewell. Of course, they don't understand what's going on inside themselves. You are the one who needs
Speaker A
to tell them, to show them: "You see, what a complex person you are." You have to start teaching them like this.
Speaker A
"It's all so interesting with you."" With others, it's immediately clear."" But you have, as it were,"" contradiction, yet at the same time such integrity," and everything goes your way. And they are not just yours; you helped them in that moment, you
Speaker A
calmed them down because they have integrity inside. They are not contradictory. They are consistent, they are true to their principles.
Speaker A
It’s good to raise such fighters, if done correctly. Of course, you shouldn't pester such a person and ask them to tell you what's going on with them. "What's going on inside you there ?""I don't know, nothing's happening," but that's it, a shadow has already
Speaker A
crossed their face. "Why are they asking such questions?""What do they want to say?" Already, they the machine is working. Now let's turn here.
Speaker A
Well, naturally, you can't say that it is so and it will always be so. We remember, yes, with this one, you can't say anything definitive, you see, "How you are developing.""You don't see it yourself, but I see how you are
Speaker A
developing, how everything is maturing inside you." A good person. The word " good person." That they say the right words? Correct. Calming. We are sometimes surprised at how people are friends. It would seem, well, we can see that one is deceiving the other or
Speaker A
doing something wrong. So what? That’s hitting the fourth function. Everything is correct, and no one else ...But this one, when they speak, it’s so peaceful. When they say: " Well, this person calms me down.""I won't give them up for anything." And
Speaker A
you haven't seen them, perhaps? Well, that’s their nature. And Chubais? No, love is there. it calms you down.
Speaker A
It’s the most important thing, to have a person nearby who makes you feel at peace. As for the object, you want to give a person a compliment, right?
Speaker A
You say to such a person: "How wonderfully you whittle these planks. There’s nothing you do as well as if you had given a wonderful compliment on the first level." True, not quite. Well , a compliment, but what do you want on
Speaker A
the fourth? What are you trying to say by that? That I’m one-armed, then? Yes, my hands are crooked, and a conflict starts to develop. Do you see?
Speaker A
Or you said, "Wait, you need to do something about your appearance?" Uh-huh. Fine, you wanted to completely change your image, right? You can do it, you can do it. Then, please. But if you just say: "You need to do something,
Speaker A
you don't all this is useless." What for me? "Well, you’ll be asking everyone, what did they mean by that?" What is that? No, everything is great there. Well, you see, you always go around looking the same. How can we
Speaker A
diversify things? Just change it, and that’s it. And this is good, that is good, and that's it. And the person is ready, under your guidance, to change their image an infinite number of times , you understand? An infinite number of
Speaker A
times. They might decide, for example, the wife says to the husband, let’s move the furniture. But why? But why?
Speaker A
Ask her, she has that French charm. Well, it’s very pleasant for me to watch when you are moving it like that and he goes off to move it. He why?
Speaker A
Well, then, and he will explain, "Well, she wanted to, so I moved it for her," and he feels calmer because it seems she likes how he moves things around there. As for this, I'm completely at a loss here, it's my fourth function, I
Speaker A
don't even know if I should talk about it. Well, it’s clear that first and foremost it's health, sensory sensations. How to calm someone down? A person loves to eat well, so feed them.
Speaker A
If he loves something special, he is yours. If you did this when he came home all restless, nervous, saying things, thinking something is wrong.
Speaker A
Say: "Listen, let's just forget about all that for now.""You know, remember you said that you really wanted those meatballs in that sauce?" Boom-boom-boom. Eat them. "I don't want to eat." Eat them. It'll only take 5 minutes. He ate, his heart softened, he
Speaker A
calmed down. You can talk to him, say " Let me massage your hand.""Why is your hand like that?""Let's massage it." Just don't massage the same spot every time. Things should change, after all.
Speaker A
Everything should change. Sensations should change once in a while. which and of course, you shouldn't tell such a person anything about them being sick . You'll kill the person that way, because if someone else more authoritative doesn't say: "Yes, you're
Speaker A
healthy." How could they be? looking for living faith, a person from the fourth street believes they said he got sick, there is such a Sufi parable, they found out students wanted to take revenge on a bad and good teacher, they
Speaker A
came to school, they probably felt a bit sick the next one, probably, got sick. It all ended badly, he left, went to bed, called a doctor. Do you understand? At that point, he performed either a subtle move or a hex, yes, a
Speaker A
victim, suggestion. Therefore, if you want to help people, even in passing, say: yes, you were never sick, aren't sick, and won't be sick. And all your so-called illnesses are actually something completely different. He won't even ask: "What exactly?" The
Speaker A
main thing is, it's not an illness. I feel like I'm running out of steam, I'm having a bit of trouble with examples and time is running short. I was careless enough to be told at the first function that I only had half an hour.
Speaker A
So today we will wrap up. I think the first meeting is always more about being together than about what we are doing. Those of you who felt an interest in this approach to Socionics, I think, will come again, and we—I
Speaker A
will honestly and sincerely tell you everything I know. and even what I don't know, I'll tell you what I want to learn. But, in any case, it seems to me that today we had the opportunity to see Socionics with different eyes, to
Speaker A
see that these aren't just blocks, aren't toys that can be rearranged however you like, but to see that this is, on one hand, a structure, and on the other hand, this structure is knowable, and you can learn to use it
Speaker A
for good. for yourself and others, and thereby, naturally, increase your social what? Success. Social what? Joy from interacting with people. Stop being afraid of them. Not all of them bite. And often they only bite because you are simply pressing the wrong
Speaker A
button. That's all, thank you for your attention. Until the next meeting.
Topics:socionicspersonality typesintertype relationshipsAušra AugustinavičiūtėJung typologypsychological typologytemperamentscharacter traitsinformation metabolismneurosis
