Syntax of love Afanasyev. Alexander Afanasyev: Syntax of love

ALEXANDER AFANASYEV

SYNTAX OF LOVE

(TYPOLOGY OF PERSONALITY AND PROGNOSIS OF PAIR RELATIONSHIPS)

PREFACE

Dedicated to Irina

“A man is broad, too broad, I would narrow it down,” said Dostoevsky and he knew what he was saying. The writer himself was characterized by such a frightening breadth of nature that Dostoevsky’s old friend, the critic Strakhov, was forced to admit: “I cannot consider Dostoevsky either a good or a happy person (which, in essence, coincides). He was angry, envious, depraved, he spent his whole life in such unrest that made him pathetic, and would have made him funny if he had not been so angry and so smart. He himself, like Rousseau, considered himself the best of people and the happiest. On the occasion of the biography, I vividly recalled all these features. In Switzerland, in front of me, he pushed the servant around so much that he was offended and reprimanded him: “I, too, am a man!” I remember how then I was amazed that this was said to a preacher of humanity.”

It’s a platitude to say: a person is complex, contradictory. However, repetition does not make this banality any less obvious. Here is another typical sketch from life: “Strange people surrounded Chaliapin. He could mock them to his heart's content, and from these people his retinue was formed, with whom he dealt harshly: Chaliapin said, “bad things happened to those who did not agree with any of his opinions.” Denying autocracy, he himself was obsessed with autocracy. When he dined at home, which happened quite rarely, his family was silent at dinner, as if taking water into their mouths.”

Paradox? The defender of the humiliated and insulted loved to humiliate, the singer of the freemen turned out to be a domestic despot! But it is not enough to state the paradoxical nature of human nature; I would like to understand its nature...

There is an old sad story about an Arab caliph. He ascended the throne as a child, reigned long and happily, died in old age, surrounded by numerous offspring; The caliph was respected by his subjects and neighbors, loved by women, successful in wars and immensely rich. Everyone called him "Lucky". But when, after the death of the caliph, they opened the diary that he kept daily and counted the number of days he marked as happy, it turned out that there were only fourteen. Only fourteen days, two weeks of happiness - for such a long and outwardly prosperous life.

Sad story. A story that can serve as a visual illustration of a simple and obvious idea: a person is unhappy, deeply and chronically unhappy. The only thing that saves a person from despair is unrealistic hopes, ignorance about the misery of his situation and the constant troubles of those around him, poor fellows just like him. Lack of happiness is the norm of human life, and like any norm, even a negative one, it willingly or unwillingly reconciles us with the existing order of things.

If we try to name the main source of human ill-being, then, I think, it would be loneliness. By “loneliness” in this case we should mean not only its generally accepted forms, such as the forced loneliness of Robinson Crusoe or the celibacy of 20 million adults in the former USSR and every ninth resident of the United States. The faces of loneliness are diverse. A person is alone, even when he is never alone, even when, it seems, all external forms of active social existence are observed, he is alone in the family, in the crowd, in the church, in the party, in the club, at work...

In turn, loneliness has its own reason: the eternal ignorance of oneself and others, the lack of clear ideas about one’s own inner world and the possibilities of contact with the inner worlds of others. "Who are we? String dolls? And the puppeteer is our firmament?” - asked Omar Khayyam, and he himself did not dare to answer this question. Indeed, we know the essence of our nature so poorly that we feel like helpless toys in the hands of fate, which, being itself blind, drags us, blind, over the bumps and holes of existence without purpose or meaning. That is why a person often chooses, in fear of his own and others’ blindness, the path of a solitary wanderer. In darkness, which is empty, bumps are less likely to occur - such is the logic of the blind.

* * *

"Know yourself!" was written on the pediment of the temple of the Delphic oracle. And no matter how many centuries have passed, this call has not become less topical; on the contrary, the increased value of the individual personality has made it even more pressing and significant. Therefore, without at all pretending to create an exhaustive picture of a person’s inner life, I will still try to give an answer to a number of basic questions of human psychology: Who are we in ourselves? What are the motives for our behavior and attitude towards others? Where are the origins of love, love mistakes and delusions?

Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:44 ded-kf

Afanasyev Alexander

The subtitle of the book is “personality typology and forecast of couple relationships”
Words in the site tables are clickable. The theory itself is very clear and concise, and numerous tabular examples can be read selectively.
Very briefly on the contents of the book.

Comments

And finally, some

ded-kf- Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:45 .

And finally, some notes on the correlation between the Afanasyev system and the Biblical 12 tribes of Israel.
Apparently it’s like this: the 1st and 2nd will are male psychotypes, the 3rd and 4th are female. In total, we have 12 male psychotypes and 12 female ones, and “male” and “female” here are a characteristic of a psychotype, not a gender one, that is, a man can sometimes have a female psychotype, and a woman a male one. In total, 12 Biblical psychotypes expand to 24 Afanasyevskys, taking into account that each tribe belongs to both men and women (marriages, by the way, were initially concluded only within their own tribe).
In addition to the Old Testament, where the characteristics of the ancestors of the tribes are extremely brief, it is probably worth digging up the Old Testament apocrypha “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”

Extracted from here.For better

ded-kf- Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:46 .

Extracted from here.
For a better understanding, parallel terms are introduced - effective function (1 and 4) = personal function, processive function (2 and 3) = social function.

Quote:

Slogan 1tsy. "I know what I need"
Slogan 2ki. "Let's find common ground"
Slogan 3ki. “Everything should be discussed by everyone”
Slogan 4ki. “Everything is individual, why try to look for something common?”

Example for will:

Quote:

1B acts according to his own or other people’s desires*. Takes one or another desire holistically and acts according to it, often neglecting all other desires.
2B collects and coordinates all desires, provides a compromise when everyone begins to want something together, sacrificing their original desires in favor of a compromise. Then everyone acts synchronously to achieve this desire.
3B suppresses and compensates for the desires of those who do not want to coordinate their desires. For 3B, the main thing is to block individual desires; 3B will only allow agreed upon desires.
4B will interfere with the process of coordinating and settling desires and will resist the process of compromise. If everyone has their own desires, what's the point of reaching a compromise? Why even try?

* There is a seeming contradiction here - the author did not express himself quite clearly. In this case, the first function simply integrates someone else’s desire into its picture of the world, turning it from someone else’s to its own. By the way, in this way you can carefully correct the behavior of all sorts of sheepish personalities - quietly throw in the right idea, let it be absorbed, and now the authorship of the idea has passed from you to the client (and he often sincerely believes that he himself generated such a good idea :)). Well, this is natural, if you care not about vanity (MY idea!), but about the benefit of the business.

In general, we can say that the 2 upper functions are constructive, creative, and the 2 lower ones are rather destructive.

Despite all the given descriptions of the properties of functions, I regularly experience difficulties with the placement of 3s and 4s. While browsing on a psychological forum, I saw the following description: the 2nd and 4th functions are more likely to be “opportunistic,” while the 1st and 3rd functions are more likely to change the world around them (people) to suit themselves, to dominate.

In addition to the Afanasyev system,

ded-kf- Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:47 .

In addition to the Afanasyev system, I am familiar with the older psychotyping system - socionics. I don't like it because the classification criteria are unclear. The psychotype in it is built on the basis of the following functions: functions of judgment (rational) and functions of perception (irrational) ( from me - how is this?!?). The functions of judgment include logic and ethics ( from me - a vague term, in meaning close to emotions. Rational emotions are cool!). The functions of perception include sensory and intuition ( approx. - this is completely out of the question. I hate terms that mean who knows what!). Each of the four functions can be introverted or extroverted (in meaning it is very close to Afanasyev’s effectiveness and processivity). From the combination of all this crap we get 16 psychotypes. Descriptions of psychotypes (as opposed to functions) are more or less clear ( approx. - of course, because the system was built from reality to description, and not vice versa). You can view the tables. Naturally, you can always find more or less suitable clients for specific descriptions, which is why the system as a whole can be considered conditionally working.

A couple of articles have been found around the bush that can serve as the basis for a more meaningful analysis of the psyche.
Once . Everything here is more or less clear from the diagram. The only thing is that the author is in vain highlighting separate circuits for subconscious processing of information.
The term “subconscious” is also quite vague, but it can be given a very specific meaning: the subconscious includes processes that occur outside the zone of our attention (that is, automatic). Automation in many cases is not bad at all. For example, when reading fluently, recognition of letters, words and their corresponding meanings occurs automatically. For a child learning to read, this process belongs to the sphere of attention. For an adult, extracting this process from the subconscious would be a regression. The only thing worth taking from there for revision is some of our habitual, automatic reactions.
Two . From here it is useful to extract the concepts of high and low threshold perception. They fit well into Afanasyev’s model. So, for example, the 3rd function according to Afanasyev can be described as having a low threshold (high sensitivity) for the incoming signal, and a high threshold for the outgoing signal.

Regarding professions.

ded-kf- Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:47 .

Regarding professions. Afanasyev shows that the choice of type of activity does not have a direct correlation with a person’s psychotype (more precisely, there is a correlation, but not simple, not linear).

Habits. Let me remind you that the psychotype is in its own way the foundation of the personality, on which the qualities formed by upbringing, cultural environment, gender expectations of society, etc. are built on. Nevertheless, habits are often a continuation of the psychotype. For example, the habit of fighting, as a consequence of 1F, the habit of hysteria, as a consequence of 1E, the habit of commanding, as a consequence of 1B. An ulcer in the 3rd function forms another kind of habit aimed at protecting the weak, painful 3rd function.

A few words about the effectiveness and processivity of functions. The effectiveness of the 4th function is a consequence of the principle of least action. If there is a need to use it, then a person strives to achieve the required result with the least effort, so as not to once again strain the weak 4th function. The effectiveness of the first function, on the contrary, is a consequence of its strength. Let us note that processional functions involve regular interaction with other people, while productive ones are self-sufficient.

Pay attention to this

ded-kf- Sat, 04/27/2013 - 10:48 .

Pay attention to this detail: there are gender expectations in society. That is, a man should be like this, a woman should be like this. Nature, however, doesn’t give a damn about our gender expectations and psychotypes are distributed regardless of gender. However, it is possible that there is some kind of dependence. Here is a topic for research. You can also explore the connection between the psychotype of the child and the parents, not forgetting the grandparents (the inheritance of many qualities often goes through generations). It is not clear whether a person’s psychotype is innate or formed in infancy through imprints.

You can talk about the psychotype of a people or a religion.

Quote:

Obviously, among the Russian people, Emotion and Physics are at the top, while Logic and Will are at the bottom. And this order of functions immediately and well explains why the historical path of Russia turned out to be so tortuous; why is she so poor in manifestations of a strong spirit and deep mind, but so rich in artistic talents; why the people’s physiognomy turned out to be characterized by what Berdyaev very accurately called “eternally feminine” in the character of the Russian person. When Emotion and Physics are at the top, and Logic and Will are at the bottom, the stigma of “femininity,” even when applied to a nation, looks, although offensive, but quite understandable and justified.

It is clear that the psychotype of a group of people is a statistical concept. In addition, within any large group there is some play, which allows the owners of one or another specific psychotype to group together (let me remind you that the greatest psychological attraction - eros - is observed between owners of identical psychotypes). In religion, examples of such groups are Catholic orders, movements in Protestantism, and Islam.

One critical note. Afanasyev’s definition of the psychotypes of a number of ancient figures is in some way speculation. Historical figures of the 18th-20th centuries are one thing, with fairly detailed biographies, correspondence, and memoirs of contemporaries, and another thing is the ancients - such as the semi-mythical Lao Tzu. The psychotype here can only be determined tentatively, with an accuracy of plus or minus a tram stop.

Quote:

I have a boy I know with this order of functions: 1st Physics, 2nd Will, 3rd Logic, 4th Emotion. So, one day, coming home from kindergarten and undressing, the boy dropped several sweets on the floor. An older sister passing by quickly picked them up and put them in her pocket. The boy's reaction was completely consistent with his order of functions. At first, silently, without any preliminary negotiations, the kid poked his fist at his sister (1st Physics). To no avail. Then the fist was followed by a strong-willed imperative: “Give it back!” (2nd Will). Nothing. I had to turn to logic: “This is mine!” (3rd Logic). When logic didn’t help, the boy’s lips twisted and he sobbed loudly (4th Emotion). The sobs had an effect more on the parents than on the sister, but, be that as it may, the candies returned to their rightful owner. :)

That is, in any extreme situation, the order in which you use your functions will be exactly this - from the strongest to the weakest.
Even in extreme situations, paralysis of the fourth function often occurs - it is simply turned off. It is clear how paralysis of the will or mind will manifest itself. Paralysis of emotions in an extreme situation does not seem to be bad, but it can result in cruelty and heartlessness. As an owner of the fourth physics, I’ll tell you how it behaves. In an extreme situation, strength and coordination of movements are lost. It is possible to control the body only with great effort of will. Very disgusting.
One should not think that the owner of, say, 1st logic will always be smarter than the owner of, say, 2nd logic. The order of functions determines only the priority of their use, but not the level of human development.

ALEXANDER AFANASYEV

SYNTAX OF LOVE

(TYPOLOGY OF PERSONALITY AND PROGNOSIS OF PAIR RELATIONSHIPS)

PREFACE

Dedicated to Irina

It’s a platitude to say: a person is complex, contradictory. However, repetition does not make this banality any less obvious. Here is another typical sketch from life: “Strange people surrounded Chaliapin. He could mock them to his heart's content, and from these people his retinue was formed, with whom he dealt harshly: Chaliapin said, “bad things happened to those who did not agree with any of his opinions.” Denying autocracy, he himself was obsessed with autocracy. When he dined at home, which happened quite rarely, his family was silent at dinner, as if taking water into their mouths.”

If we try to name the main source of human ill-being, then, I think, it would be loneliness. By “loneliness” in this case we should mean not only its generally accepted forms, such as the forced loneliness of Robinson Crusoe or the celibacy of 20 million adults in the former USSR and every ninth resident of the United States. The faces of loneliness are diverse. A person is alone, even when he is never alone, even when, it seems, all external forms of active social existence are observed, he is alone in the family, in the crowd, in the church, in the party, in the club, at work...

The great scope of this book itself might not seem excessive if it were devoted to a topic other than psychology. But when it comes to the inner life of an individual, about such subtle matter as human relationships, any attempt to capture them in the network of theories and methods seems obviously doomed to failure. It's like that. But just as the unique pattern of the skin on a person’s finger is made up of a few simple elements, so his personality is a sum of several describable mental modules. In addition, no matter how complex and poorly perceptible the system of human relations may be, it remains a system - a system in which everything is not accidental. It is not by chance that we love, it is not by chance that we hate, sympathize or remain indifferent. Despite the unconsciousness of most of our mental movements, they are not without meaning. Usually, uncontrolled sympathy, hostility, and indifference always turn out to have their own reason in the end, and this means that it is possible and meaningful to trace what this reason is.

The person is generally a born psychologist. And not being a psychologist, he is not able to survive. Another thing is that most of our correct psychological observations remain unformulated, rely on intuition and are rooted in the subconscious. I think it’s unlikely that anyone will challenge La Bruyère, who said: “In any, the smallest, most insignificant, most inconspicuous act of ours, our entire character is already reflected: a fool enters and leaves, and sits down and gets up, and is silent, and moves.” differently than an intelligent person."

A person’s psychological vision becomes especially acute in an extreme situation. A.I. Solzhenitsyn’s very first prison experience consisted precisely in discovering this gift of insight. He said: “...the guard on duty brought my bed in, and I had to set it up quietly. A guy my age, also a military man, helped me: his jacket and pilot cap were hanging on the bedpost. He asked me even before the old man - not about the war, but about tobacco. But no matter how dissolved my soul was towards my new friends and no matter how few words were spoken in a few minutes, something alien breathed into me from this peer and front-line soldier, and for him I immediately and forever became isolated.

(I didn’t yet know the word “mother hen”, nor that there should be one in every cell, I didn’t even have time to think about it and say that I didn’t like this person, G. Kramarenko, - but a spiritual relay had already worked in me , a recognition relay, and closed me forever to this person. I would not have mentioned such an incident if it had been the only one. But I soon began to feel the work of this recognition relay inside me with surprise, delight and alarm as a constant natural property. years, I lay on the same bunks, walked in the same formation, worked in the same brigades with many hundreds of people, and always this mysterious recognition relay, in the creation of which I had not a single trace of merit, worked before I remembered it, worked at the sight of a human face, eyes, at the first sounds of a voice - he opened me wide open to this man, or only a crack, or closed it tightly. This was always so unmistakable that any fuss of the detectives with the snitches’ equipment began to seem like a bug to me: after all, whoever undertakes to be a traitor, it is always obvious on the face and in the voice, for others it seems to be cleverly feigned - but unclean. And, on the contrary, the recognizer helped me distinguish those to whom, from the first minutes of acquaintance, I could reveal the most intimate, the depths and secrets for which heads would be cut off. So I went through eight years of imprisonment, three years of exile, another six years of underground writing, no less dangerous - and for all seventeen years I recklessly opened myself up to dozens of people - and did not stumble even once! I have not read about this anywhere and am writing here for psychology lovers. It seems to me that such spiritual devices are contained in many of us, but, people of an overly technical and intellectual age, we have neglected this miracle and do not allow it to develop in us.” To what Solzhenitsyn said, it only remains to add that the prison old-timers were almost professional in this kind of equipment, and one glance at the next stage was enough to indicate the informers. But even such prison regulars could hardly describe the nature of their insight, since its roots are deep, at the very bottom of the subconscious.

The relationship between consciousness and subconscious is a special and interesting area of psychology. The Indian yogis were the first to make a hole in the wall between one and the other. The great merit of yogis is that they made the passive, subconscious control of the brain over the body active, conscious. Before yogis, the possibilities of physiological self-control were limited to the subconscious maintenance of body functions at the level initially set. Yogis, having transferred self-control from the subconscious to consciousness, were able to not only maintain what was given by nature for a long time, but also correct congenital defects of the body and endlessly improve its functions.

Something similar to Indian yoga, but not in the physiological, but in the psychological field, is the method outlined in this book, called by analogy “psyche yoga”. The essence of psyche yoga is to subordinate unconscious mental movements to conscious control, and with solid knowledge of oneself and others to release the enormous, previously undisclosed psychological potential of a person. There is no doubt that such a method is absolutely necessary; after all, our psyche continues to be under the complete control of the subconscious, which is passive in its essence, capable of responding to blows only with flight, alienation and loneliness.

Psyche-yoga has little in common with that area of human knowledge, which is usually called “psychology” only by misunderstanding (no matter what connotation - everyday or scientific - is given to this term). The difference seems to be that psychology is more like surgery than yoga. Whatever one may say, it is based on violence against the psyche: be it internal self-coercion (autogenic training) or the widest range of means of external violence: from the parental belt...

Marta Lec

If a relationship deteriorates, despite all efforts, it is not the partners who are to blame, but the incompatibility of their psychotypes

ABOUT PSYCHOSOPHY

"What are you doing?" - I asked. "Like all science, -
said the hook-nosed one. - Human happiness."
Strugatsky. "Monday starts on Saturday"

Good intentions are not enough for a harmonious family. And even love is not enough. Character compatibility is required. Otherwise, love will pass, but incompatibility will remain.

Compatibility also varies: from tolerable convenience to happy harmony, when people feel that they are made for each other.

Throughout the history of mankind, until very recently, it was unknown what determines compatibility between people and harmony in relationships. The sad experience of humanity is summed up, for example, in the song of Mikhail Tanich: “We choose, we are chosen... How often this does not coincide!”

A discovery explaining harmony and disharmony in human relationships was made in 1990 on the basis of socionics. Afanasyev proposed his own typology: it does not have 16 psychotypes, as in socionics, but 24, in accordance with the number of possible combinations of the four elements of human character (emotion, physics, logic and will). This system explains all the many options for human behavior and the attraction or repulsion between representatives of different psychotypes.

Each of us carries these four elements within us, two of them are strong or feel strong, and two are weak or feel weak. In addition, two of them (one strong and one weak) are static and do not need dialogue, while the other two are dynamic and need a fruitful dialogue with the environment. Not only the character, interests and inclinations of a person depend on the order of these elements, but also which people he is comfortable communicating with and which he is not. For comfortable communication it is necessary that partners have the same elements in static and dynamic positions, and for harmony it is also necessary that strong and weak elements do not coincide, but intersect - and then people turn out to be mutual therapy for each other, and both become happier, friendlier and more harmonious.

Finding the right mate is the best thing that can happen to a person on earth. This is ideal love - agape in Afanasyev’s terminology.

If the dynamic weak element of each partner corresponds not to the dynamic strong element of the other, but to the static one, then, despite mutual attraction, people quickly get tired of each other, due to the mismatch of elements that need dialogue. If such people start a family, then one can accurately predict in advance that the relationships in such a family will be difficult. It was precisely this kind of family that Leo Tolstoy and Sofia Andreevna had, for example, who suffered from each other all their lives and tried to escape, although they loved each other painfully. Afanasyev’s method allows you to determine which psychotype each of them belonged to, and even calculate the coefficient of comfort in relationships between any two representatives of each psychotype (relationship table: http://www.psihosofiya.ru/tabl.html).

With the correct correspondence of psychotypes, people have a feeling of some kind of mysticism: they are very different people, not the same in anything (or partially the same, and partially very different), but they are very interested in spending time with each other, and mutual therapy arises between them. The best thing about this method is that every person can become happy and become a therapy for another, including the most shy and lonely, who has given up on himself and believes that a couple does not exist for him at all, like Akaki Akakievich. This is not so: it necessarily exists. And “Akaky” will blossom, and his partner will blossom with his help, because he vitally lacked exactly what “Akaky” has - in this case, healthy hard work.

Afanasyev's theory is quite simple. Practice can be difficult - that is, determining the psychotype of a particular person. Sometimes it is easy, but sometimes it is very difficult. External manifestations of a psychotype can be typical, but they can also be atypical. For example, strong static physics is usually characterized by obesity, and weak dynamic physics is usually characterized by thinness, but sometimes such people are overweight due to certain diseases or nuances of heredity.

In general, the signs of each of the elements can manifest themselves very differently in different people. The quantitative spread can be enormous. For another person, a “weak” element may work much better than a “strong” element for another. For example, A.S. Pushkin's logic was in fourth and last place - although Pushkin was one of the most educated people of his generation and a recognized brilliant polemicist. Thus, if some element is in a “weak” place, this does not mean at all that it is necessarily weak objectively, but only means that in the mental structure of a given person it is less important compared to other elements. This can also make it difficult to correctly determine the psychotype.

Another effect that makes it difficult to correctly determine a psychotype is the repression of certain elements due to life circumstances. For example, many children, especially boys, are taught to suppress the expression of emotions, and if their emotion was initially strong in the psychotype, then as a result of such upbringing it acquires signs of being weak and vulnerable.

It is extremely important not to make a mistake in determining your psychotype; this requires careful and competent testing.

Let's talk about this in more detail.

I usually don’t read books like this (because of the cover:), but my good friend (who has been studying the theory of the author for four years) gave me this one, intriguing me with several interesting quotes. In the end, I read it and did not regret it (Olya, thank you!).

Once I already talked about a book about socionics - (false, as some believe:) the science of human psychological types. The book “The Syntax of Love” is also about psychotypes, but uses a different approach to typification. Instead of introverts, sensors, rationals, etc., the gradation in it is relative to the other four basic characteristics of the psychotype: Physics, Will, Emotion, Logics.

Each person has all four characteristics, but they manifest themselves in different forms and degrees. Because There are four signs, each of them can be in first, second, third or fourth place. There can be 24 psychotypes in total (according to the number of permutations). For example, 1-Logic, 2-Emotion, 3-Will, 4-Physics (this is my psychotype, as my friend defined it). The position of the attribute means the following:

The sign in the first position is expressed in excess in a person (in my case, the first Logic leads to the fact that I am stubborn to the point of stupidity:).
The sign in the second position is the most harmonious - it is the most beautiful thing in a person (my second Emotion allows me to subtly perceive emotions - both my own and those of others).
A sign in the third position is a vulnerable spot - something that a person constantly protects, regardless of whether it is necessary or not (because of my third Will, I constantly think that they are trying to impose someone else’s will on me, so I actively resist this). Defense is usually built starting from the first function (i.e., in my case, my obstinacy according to the first Logic increases many times over if I feel that my opinion is being imposed on me - even if in fact this is not the case).
The fourth position is not caring (my fourth Physics allows me not to worry too much about life, food, housing, sex and the physical side of other pleasures).

All this is greatly simplified - the book says much more about this.

Why is all this needed and how to use it?

Knowing your own and others’ psychotypes allows you to better control yourself and develop your emotional intelligence (this is my opinion, the author does not write about EI). Knowledge about the psychotypes of others makes it possible to better build relationships, avoiding obviously “sick” topics.

For each psychotype there is the most harmonious "mirror" psychotype Two “mirror” people, interacting, can most fully reveal each other’s capabilities inherent in nature (at the genetic level, as the author believes). While with the wrong combination of psychotypes, people will simply waste time on each other and will not achieve anything good.

Full mirroring looks like this:
1 – 4
2 – 3
3 – 2
4 – 1

Those. If for one the sign is in first place, then for the other it is in fourth. For example, in the case of my psychotype, “mirror” would be:
Logic - Physics
Emotion - Will
Will - Emotion
Physics - Logic

There is also a 25th nameless psychotype of a harmoniously developed personality - when all the signs are in the second position (the so-called horizontal - when there are no more or less strong signs). This is apparently something like a Buddha or a Zen master :).

Determining a psychotype is very difficult. While you read the book, it seems that all the descriptions fit you. An additional complexity is imposed by the fact that the relative arrangement of signs has different effects on the psychological properties of the individual. In general, here, as in socionics, experience is needed.

The book provides examples of real historical figures with descriptions of their psychotypes (apparently to make it easier to determine your own). It didn't help me at all, but rather the opposite :). However, I have exactly the same problem with socionic psychotypes :)). Some examples seemed far-fetched to me, for example, the description of Lao Ji (the mythical author of the Tao De Ching).

Analyzing what I read and myself, I can say that there is some truth in all this. Of course, by reading a medical reference book, you can find all your illnesses, but if you approach the issue constructively, you can benefit from the theory. In any case, the book can be useful from the point of view of self-knowledge and expansion of psychological horizons. But you shouldn’t hope for a quick practical result - everything is too vague (even less clear than in socionics, where there are at least some formal tests).

It would be interesting to see a completely “mirror” team at work.

Advantages: An interesting look at a person and his relationships with other people.
Flaws: difficulty to use (for inexperienced readers); the author died two years ago.

A. Afanasyev “Syntax of love. Personality typology and forecast of paired relationships", 2007, Black Squirrel, ISBN 978-5-98982-003-0.

Syntax of love Afanasyev. Alexander Afanasyev: Syntax of love

Comments

And finally, some

Extracted from here.For better

In addition to the Afanasyev system,

Regarding professions.

Pay attention to this

Marta Lec

If a relationship deteriorates, despite all efforts, it is not the partners who are to blame, but the incompatibility of their psychotypes

ABOUT PSYCHOSOPHY

Latest

You need to know this