What do you think?
Rate this book
The Syntax of Love
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
November 3, 2022
psychosophy is an excellent system. shame about the misogyny
May 17, 2022
4.03 stars. ELVF here. This is a pretty solid system, but it is not without its flaws.
PT: Personality systems, books recommended by a friend
WIL
1) Functionality. I LOVE that this system, not unlike enneagram, focuses more on attitudes and motivations than the more unconscious processes of, say, mbti. This makes it a more practical system for everyday use. AWESOME.
2) Afanasyev has this characteristic cynicism that just CRACKED me up. I know this isn't a comedy book but MAN it totally could be for those who appreciate dry humor. (I spy with my little eye a 3E.) I legitimately had to pause in my reading for a bit because I was laughing SO hard at some of Afanasyev's zingers. He's particularly sarcastic in his descriptions of 4Fs (my people), which was as scathing as it was delightful. This is not for the easily offended. 😂
3) PAGE 24 PAGE 24! A direct quote:
FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH
"hammer" "river" "ulcer" "trifle"
process result process result
excess norm deficiency scarcity
monologue dialogue dialogue monologue
hardness flexibility flexibility hardness
cruelty pity envy indifference
caution fearlessness fearlessness fearlessness
confidence confidence doubt unreliability
independence compromise compromise dependence
THIS is the ESSENCE of the ENTIRE system, and this is what I will continually return to when I seek out the heart and soul of psychosophy (and its offshoot, attitudinal psyche). This bit right here was so immensely helpful as a compass while I navigated some of the later contradictions.
4) NEUROLOGY BABEY! There were a few comments in here suggesting the role of psychoneuroendocrinology in personality. HECK YEA!! LOVE THAT.
WIDL
1) the "mental energy" component. Afanasyev mentions, albeit fairly briefly, that the function order dictates the user's direction of mental energy with the first two functions using the majority of one's energy. Asanasyev THEN proceeds to outline people who appear to lean heavily upon their 3rd function "ulcer," which is a direct contradiction of this previous idea of mental energy distribution. (Rob Collopy's Attitudinal Psyche addresses this.)
2) Data sets and armchair theorizing. This system is all well and good (PAGE 24!!!) but it is so so theoretical. Where is the practical application! The surveys sent out to people with questionnaires to better understand typology and how each type tends to self-identify! Where is the research expanding and expounding upon this alleged universal truth of humanity as proposed by Afanasyev! I so wish there was more info here about how people responded to this concept.
3) Section lengths? Some type descriptions were around 3 pages, some were ten. I found the sections that were expanded upon were the sections that needed the least clarifying. ALL the descriptions, imho, should've been capped at five pages. Maybe that's the hyperactivity in me speaking (*cough cough* 3V *cough cough*)
4) Cramming Goethe into a box. (It's not just Goethe, but I liked that title.) A lot of these type descriptions seemed like a justification of a pre-existing notion rather than genuine speculation and analysis of character. Contradictions upon contradictions were explained away with strange little side comments. True, the human is a variable being and is not readily explained by any particular system so such comments further elucidating character are not to be done away with fully in a functional system, but the proportion of contradiction to base theory seems to effectively dispute the theory of psychosophy as a whole.
NEUTRAL GROUND
1) ELVF description. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yikes. But I mean, at least it's not as bad as VELF Anna Akhmatova. That was BRUTAL.
PT: Personality systems, books recommended by a friend
WIL
1) Functionality. I LOVE that this system, not unlike enneagram, focuses more on attitudes and motivations than the more unconscious processes of, say, mbti. This makes it a more practical system for everyday use. AWESOME.
2) Afanasyev has this characteristic cynicism that just CRACKED me up. I know this isn't a comedy book but MAN it totally could be for those who appreciate dry humor. (I spy with my little eye a 3E.) I legitimately had to pause in my reading for a bit because I was laughing SO hard at some of Afanasyev's zingers. He's particularly sarcastic in his descriptions of 4Fs (my people), which was as scathing as it was delightful. This is not for the easily offended. 😂
3) PAGE 24 PAGE 24! A direct quote:
FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH
"hammer" "river" "ulcer" "trifle"
process result process result
excess norm deficiency scarcity
monologue dialogue dialogue monologue
hardness flexibility flexibility hardness
cruelty pity envy indifference
caution fearlessness fearlessness fearlessness
confidence confidence doubt unreliability
independence compromise compromise dependence
THIS is the ESSENCE of the ENTIRE system, and this is what I will continually return to when I seek out the heart and soul of psychosophy (and its offshoot, attitudinal psyche). This bit right here was so immensely helpful as a compass while I navigated some of the later contradictions.
4) NEUROLOGY BABEY! There were a few comments in here suggesting the role of psychoneuroendocrinology in personality. HECK YEA!! LOVE THAT.
WIDL
1) the "mental energy" component. Afanasyev mentions, albeit fairly briefly, that the function order dictates the user's direction of mental energy with the first two functions using the majority of one's energy. Asanasyev THEN proceeds to outline people who appear to lean heavily upon their 3rd function "ulcer," which is a direct contradiction of this previous idea of mental energy distribution. (Rob Collopy's Attitudinal Psyche addresses this.)
2) Data sets and armchair theorizing. This system is all well and good (PAGE 24!!!) but it is so so theoretical. Where is the practical application! The surveys sent out to people with questionnaires to better understand typology and how each type tends to self-identify! Where is the research expanding and expounding upon this alleged universal truth of humanity as proposed by Afanasyev! I so wish there was more info here about how people responded to this concept.
3) Section lengths? Some type descriptions were around 3 pages, some were ten. I found the sections that were expanded upon were the sections that needed the least clarifying. ALL the descriptions, imho, should've been capped at five pages. Maybe that's the hyperactivity in me speaking (*cough cough* 3V *cough cough*)
4) Cramming Goethe into a box. (It's not just Goethe, but I liked that title.) A lot of these type descriptions seemed like a justification of a pre-existing notion rather than genuine speculation and analysis of character. Contradictions upon contradictions were explained away with strange little side comments. True, the human is a variable being and is not readily explained by any particular system so such comments further elucidating character are not to be done away with fully in a functional system, but the proportion of contradiction to base theory seems to effectively dispute the theory of psychosophy as a whole.
NEUTRAL GROUND
1) ELVF description. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yikes. But I mean, at least it's not as bad as VELF Anna Akhmatova. That was BRUTAL.
June 8, 2026
How tf some people consider this book as a Theory or even a system for psychology!!!
He set up four human functions will, body (or physics), logic, emotion and assigned each one a specific behavioral role depending on its position: first, second, third, and fourth.
The first function is dominant. It shows up more than necessary, to the point where the person feels their entire existence is tied to it.
The second function is the helper it understands itself and others, assists without overreaching.
The third is the wound. The person’s weak spot. It shows up ugly to others and embarrassing to the person themselves.
The fourth is passive and gets pulled along by whoever has a stronger version of that same function.
Perfect what else? How these functions appear? How they act?
Oh actually
Napoleon his type is VFLE so he lead like this and appear emotion like this and his logic was like that?
Ok how VFLE act? Like Napoleon
Wtf??
That’s the actual “theory” instead of developing it properly, he went and picked historical figures ones he personally decided belonged to what type and used their behavior as “proof” of his theory.
Then when he got to the part where he describes each type individually, you’d think he’d FINALLY explain the theory itself!!
Instead it’s more of the same: just more historical figures, how they acted emotionally, intellectually, physically, in their work and personal lives.
So the whole book is essentially him illustrating a framework he never fully built
Im sorry this is bullshit
He set up four human functions will, body (or physics), logic, emotion and assigned each one a specific behavioral role depending on its position: first, second, third, and fourth.
The first function is dominant. It shows up more than necessary, to the point where the person feels their entire existence is tied to it.
The second function is the helper it understands itself and others, assists without overreaching.
The third is the wound. The person’s weak spot. It shows up ugly to others and embarrassing to the person themselves.
The fourth is passive and gets pulled along by whoever has a stronger version of that same function.
Perfect what else? How these functions appear? How they act?
Oh actually
Napoleon his type is VFLE so he lead like this and appear emotion like this and his logic was like that?
Ok how VFLE act? Like Napoleon
Wtf??
That’s the actual “theory” instead of developing it properly, he went and picked historical figures ones he personally decided belonged to what type and used their behavior as “proof” of his theory.
Then when he got to the part where he describes each type individually, you’d think he’d FINALLY explain the theory itself!!
Instead it’s more of the same: just more historical figures, how they acted emotionally, intellectually, physically, in their work and personal lives.
So the whole book is essentially him illustrating a framework he never fully built
Im sorry this is bullshit
August 22, 2023
The system Afanasyev coined in this book is an absolute one. It offers insane depth and consistency - both theoretical & practical- and gives food for thought, i.e. concepts that can be analyzed, and improved even further. I've been studying Psychosophy for 2 years now, and so far my understanding of the system can be briefed down to this;
4 Positions;
1st Spot- 50% of Energy. Resultative + Strong (immovable, self-oriented, overflowing, thick-skinned, domineering, crude, confidence)
2nd Spot- 30% of Energy. Processional + Strong (fluid, both self and others oriented, morbid, regular-skinned, flexible, tuned, confidence)
3rd Spot- 15% of Energy. Hyper Processional + Weak (fluid, both self and others oriented, lacking -mostly exaggerated within ones psyche, unconfident, sensitive, dominance desiring, extra tuned & gentle, insecurity)
4th Spot- 5% of Energy. Resultative + Weak (immovable, others oriented, neglected, thick-skinned, flexible, crude, uncaringness)
4 Aspects;
Physics (F):
Basically the realm of the physical world. Money, sex, sports, food, clothes, personal space, physical activity, body, appearance, personal requests (again, in the realm of the material), and everything of that nature. A purely physical concept. Non-Rhetoric.
Will/Volition (V):
Confidence, birthright, the extent to which a person is willing to go to achieve their goals, and dreams. It is the confidence in own existence, and abilities, the will to go further and beyond, amount of responsibility, control, and ownership. Purely a metaphysical, existential/spiritual concept. Non-Rhetoric.
Emotion (E):
Own bubble, own little reality. The importance of emotions, sentiments, and color in ones world, reality. It is the expressiveness, creativity, passion, depth, turmoil, aesthetics, atmosphere, personal experience and palette. Purely a metaphysical, existential/spiritual concept. Rhetoric.
Logic (L)
Opinions, the importance of the views, the breadth of subjects an individual has an opinion on, depth, the ability to defend own view, the willingness to discuss and change own opinion & the opinions of others, the ability to connect different concepts, apply them onto different ones, as well as apply them to reality, the ability to think of new things, build onto the existing concepts, the interest in all things intellectual. A metaphysical concept. Rhetoric.
Whereas his system itself is insanely good, accurate, and consistent, I wish Afanasyev dug deeper into topics such as Clubs (ex. FE Club - FELV, FEVL, EFLV, EFVL), Sextas (Pente Sexta/5th Sexta - Resultative F & V, Processional E & L, so types such as FELV, FLEV, VELF and VLEF), Accentuations (1V-3; Aggressive 1V, 1V-2; Strong 1V, 1V-4; Resultative 1V), maybe even the possible interactions between Psychosophy and Socionics (since Afanasyev did know about Socionics back when he wrote the book), and many many more such officially unexplored branch outs. Although, this does give us more opportunities to explore everything ourselves, with which I am both grateful and frustrated; grateful because it satisfies my curiosity & relieves me from boredom, and frustrated because it is always nice to see the opinion of the predecessor & very sad keeping all these opinions & revelations (seemingly at least) to oneself since it is hard finding people that are as passionate about things like this. Hopefully a big, informed community will come together, so I can share my own personal theories on the system, and we can all share and delve into these question and topics deeper collectively.
As for his writing ability, I would prefer to leave no comment. Haha
4 Positions;
1st Spot- 50% of Energy. Resultative + Strong (immovable, self-oriented, overflowing, thick-skinned, domineering, crude, confidence)
2nd Spot- 30% of Energy. Processional + Strong (fluid, both self and others oriented, morbid, regular-skinned, flexible, tuned, confidence)
3rd Spot- 15% of Energy. Hyper Processional + Weak (fluid, both self and others oriented, lacking -mostly exaggerated within ones psyche, unconfident, sensitive, dominance desiring, extra tuned & gentle, insecurity)
4th Spot- 5% of Energy. Resultative + Weak (immovable, others oriented, neglected, thick-skinned, flexible, crude, uncaringness)
4 Aspects;
Physics (F):
Basically the realm of the physical world. Money, sex, sports, food, clothes, personal space, physical activity, body, appearance, personal requests (again, in the realm of the material), and everything of that nature. A purely physical concept. Non-Rhetoric.
Will/Volition (V):
Confidence, birthright, the extent to which a person is willing to go to achieve their goals, and dreams. It is the confidence in own existence, and abilities, the will to go further and beyond, amount of responsibility, control, and ownership. Purely a metaphysical, existential/spiritual concept. Non-Rhetoric.
Emotion (E):
Own bubble, own little reality. The importance of emotions, sentiments, and color in ones world, reality. It is the expressiveness, creativity, passion, depth, turmoil, aesthetics, atmosphere, personal experience and palette. Purely a metaphysical, existential/spiritual concept. Rhetoric.
Logic (L)
Opinions, the importance of the views, the breadth of subjects an individual has an opinion on, depth, the ability to defend own view, the willingness to discuss and change own opinion & the opinions of others, the ability to connect different concepts, apply them onto different ones, as well as apply them to reality, the ability to think of new things, build onto the existing concepts, the interest in all things intellectual. A metaphysical concept. Rhetoric.
Whereas his system itself is insanely good, accurate, and consistent, I wish Afanasyev dug deeper into topics such as Clubs (ex. FE Club - FELV, FEVL, EFLV, EFVL), Sextas (Pente Sexta/5th Sexta - Resultative F & V, Processional E & L, so types such as FELV, FLEV, VELF and VLEF), Accentuations (1V-3; Aggressive 1V, 1V-2; Strong 1V, 1V-4; Resultative 1V), maybe even the possible interactions between Psychosophy and Socionics (since Afanasyev did know about Socionics back when he wrote the book), and many many more such officially unexplored branch outs. Although, this does give us more opportunities to explore everything ourselves, with which I am both grateful and frustrated; grateful because it satisfies my curiosity & relieves me from boredom, and frustrated because it is always nice to see the opinion of the predecessor & very sad keeping all these opinions & revelations (seemingly at least) to oneself since it is hard finding people that are as passionate about things like this. Hopefully a big, informed community will come together, so I can share my own personal theories on the system, and we can all share and delve into these question and topics deeper collectively.
As for his writing ability, I would prefer to leave no comment. Haha
March 22, 2018
Название книги «Синтаксис любви» может сбить с толку, это не селфхэлп для влюблённых. Автор максимально просто объясняет свою теорию о четырех «функциях» человека, которые влияют на характер и поведение. Must read
Чему научит книга: Проще относиться к своим «слабым сторонам» и понимать их природу.
Кому читать: всем, главное, выбрать правильное время. Лучше читать во время очередного возрастного кризиса.
Чему научит книга: Проще относиться к своим «слабым сторонам» и понимать их природу.
Кому читать: всем, главное, выбрать правильное время. Лучше читать во время очередного возрастного кризиса.
March 5, 2017
Оригинальная система классификации людей по психотипам. Хороша для использования в бизнесе.
June 24, 2026
my dream and nightmare blunt rotation would both include afanesyev. i'm being so fr.
August 2, 2026
Another typology book. This system’s goal is to describe differences and similarities in character, defined as mental perceptions and reactions. The author says it's more like yoga than surgery/psychology. The starting point for PY was the research of ausra augustinaviciute.
PY’s four functions can be “traced back to aristotle’s doctrine of four kinds of soul, hippocrates’ theory of four temperaments, the four-member typologies of jung, seago, acoff and emery, pavlov’s four types of higher nervous activity, william james’ four forms of the self, kretschmer’s four body types, g. Murphy’s four personality components.murphy, apel’s four biorhythms, etc." (8).
Claims jung's extravert is dependent and willful, the introvert independent with weak will (143).
The four functions:
Physics: body, sensations, external concerns
Emotion: soul, feelings, mood, heart reactions, experiences
Volition: desire, control, character, personality, innings, i, willpower
Logic: mind, reason, intellect
Each is stacked like a brick, one on top of the other. Something must be strong and others weak. In other words, PY uses a function stack. Functions 1 and 4 are called productive; functions 2 and 3 are called processional. There are 24 types possible, and one extra which is the perfect person whose functions are all equal in strength.
1st function p. 18-23
Strongest, main weapon in conflicts, uncompromising.
“The 1st Physics beats the opponent if not to death, then to a complete blackout; the 1st Will seeks undivided power, absolute leadership; the 1st Logic in discussions has only one truth - its own and, proving it, does not stop until it crushes the opponent on all counts; the 1st Emotion screams until it stuns and silences the opponent" (19).
"The First function, blocked by outsiders, gives the Second function the features of the First, including the redundancy, effectiveness, monologue, etc. typical of the latter. In general, a phenomenon of this kind, when, with the First function blocked or unrealized, the Second function takes on its form, I call for myself “the phenomenon of the First without a result,” and it is one of the many deceptions that await every researcher on his psychognostic path" (518).
Second function p. 24-25
Best side of man (24)
2e cries easily on demand, reads others emotions well
2f cares for people’s health
3rd function p. 26-33
Our shame/embarrassment/fear. We have empathy for ppl suffering in that way, insult ppl strong in it, envy them, marry them. Our greatest pride when we do well in it
3f afraid of outside world, beaten, empathy for those whose bodies suffer
3L afraid of debate, being accused of incompetence
3e afraid of being hysterical
3v afraid of humiliation
How would u respond to being challenged in the thing in this position? P.32
1 would not compete cuz confident, dont need to prove
2 do it for fun
3 do it to the breaking point
4 wouldnt compete cuz dont care
4thfunction p. 34-36
Uncomfortable with using it, dependent on others who have it
4f physically and sexually submissive
4e infected by others’ moods
4L accepts concepts without argument
4v lets others make decisions
Emotion p. 38-66
1. romantic, emotionally expressive, exaggerates their emotion, selfish, moody, artistic, poetic, lively, metaphorical, cries easily, mystical/religious/superstitious, big bulging eyes, controlled by emotion.
2. movie actor. Master of emotions. Can easily switch from emotion to emotion at will, influence others’ emotions. Understands and acts out the proper emotion at the proper time. Interest in artistic things like poetry or novels. Empathetic. Good with words/language. Dislikes using metaphors.
3. cracker. Dry, cold, cynical, lonely, reliable, well behaved, feels but rarely shows feelings. Worst lover in the world. Uninterested or fearful of having kids. Tells ironic jokes. Falsetto voice. Handwriting is neat, small, simple. Downplay things. Loves animals/nature. Dislikes artistic fields. Diplomatic. Not charismatic.
4. onlooker. Not very creative but consume artistic products. May be emotional/artistic during teen years but grows out of it.
Logic p. 71-92
1. Dogmatic. Analytical, Stoic, critical, honest, introverted, paranoid, philosophical, strategic. Not talkative. Thinks before speaking. Seeker of truth. Rigid and confident in opinions once formed. Believes them to be truth. Not spontaneous. Prefers simple solutions (86). Good memory for concepts, ideas, theories, but bad memory for dates, facts, names, numbers. Ixtj. “Usually not curious and often not even well read” (76). Handwriting is quick, ugly, simple, difficult to read, contains shorthand.
2. Ritor/rhetorician. Talkative, questioning, cynical, believes in nothing, finds debate fun, plays devil’s advocate, doesnt take self seriously, has many interests, good memory, quick thinker, tactical, makes notes in books they read, not a long term thinker, not a writer; entp
3. Skeptic. Silent, cautious in assumptions and conclusions, avoids and fears arguments and being questioned; dislikes conflict, likes small talk, crossword/logic puzzles, prefers complex solutions, has trouble with priorities, writing. Long winded when speaking because of uncertainty or wanting more time to think as he speaks. Prone to superstition, mysticism, irrational art.
4. Schoolboy. Pragmatic, lives in the present, gets bored easily without external stimulation, finds it hard to think independently, fickle in opinions/beliefs, gullible. Schoolboys make up the majority of the world.
Physics p. 93-142
1. Owner, possessor, proprietor. Powerful, athletic, careless, promiscuous, usually tall, impulsive, lazy, messy, gluttonous, stingy, slow reflexes, good looking until 30 in men or first pregnancy in women, then becomes fat. Early to gray, bald, go infertile. Dislikes kids. Likes crafts, gambling, mechanics, sports, bright colors, expensive showy clothes, gaudy jewelry, heavy spicy or tart food. In conflicts, their first impulse is to use violence; this is more obvious is childhood. Prone to criminality more than any other type. Happy and optimistic when young, irritable and gloomy when older. Wants to feel like she has more money than others, otherwise will be obsessed with money and unable to pursue other things. Supports private property, strong*military, and social programs. May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of open mindedness. Women have flat butts, low sex drive, are lazy with marital duties (465).
2. Laborer/toiler/worker/workaholic. Round face, short height, small short straight nose, girls have small breasts, big butts, narrow thighs. Thin before childbirth/age 30; after that, the body becomes more squarish or round but not overweight; men go bald early. Graceful, affectionate, strong, confident, resourceful, tolerant, kind, orderly, clean, fast, agile, fearless, altruistic, economical, fidgety, has sex young and continues to do it in old age, the best lover, also loves kids. Likes to collect things. Believes in moderate taxes, respects the law, good fighter. If a criminal, most likely a thief. He is overall like a japanese. May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of curiosity.
3. Unsavory/underachiever/prude/undertaker/untouchable/underdog/undertruth/undertrophy. Thin, pale, slouchy, bad skin, delayed puberty, delayed sex life, submissive in sex, asymmetrical face, wide long nose, bashful, cautious, compassionate, cowardly, empathetic, fidgety, jealous, mistrustful, nosy, pacifist, sensitive, suspicious, timid, moves cautiously, fears the opposite sex, has trouble with respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. Interested in yoga, raw food diets, fasting, gymnastics. May be doctors. If beaten, ill, starving in childhood, becomes psychic. Dislikes being tickled. May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of fear. Likes to be married, have kids as opposed to having sex out of wedlock. Overprotective parent, law abiding, thinks of suicide but doesnt do it. Complex Like chinese cuisine. Generous with big things, stingy on small things, spendthrift. Values her small amount of possessions. Communist.
4. Lazybones, slacker. Fearless, suicidal. Subtle, dry, gentle, melancholy, usually thin with thin features. Outside naturally attractive but inside he feels like he is decaying. His external appearance doesnt change much with age. Like the moon. Indifferent to physical life.May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of indifference.
Volition p. 145-228
1. King. Calm, graceful. Has piercing eyes. Likes clothing with buttons, snaps, belts, fasteners, etc. Likes to be a Leader, alpha, ambitious, authoritarian dictator, confident, determined, egocentric, elitist, energetic, gatekeeps, jealous, persevering, rude, rebellious but law abiding, selfish, social, stubborn, uncompromising, uncontrollable, feels special and superior, makes others afraid, seeks power r more than fame. Depressed if he cannot accomplish his will. Overrides his lower functions. Immune to passions, temptations, weaknesses, and attachments. Rarely an alcoholic or drug addict because likes to always be in control. Reliable friend and business partner. Unscrupulous. “the 1st Will is not given to love, to truly love, the “king” is given to need, to depend, but not to love. True love is not consumption, but sacrifice, even personal self-destruction for the sake of another being. What the 1st Will is completely incapable of” (166).
2. Nobleman. Has calm eyes. Dresses in discreet clothing which doesnt restrict movement. Confident, Delegates, dignified, dislikes praise, doesnt crave fame or glory. Can rule and obey. Faithful, Fearless, Flexible, generous, gentle, gullible, heartfelt, honest, independent, kind, modest, moral, natural, open, peaceful, playful, respectable, self-sufficient, simple, sympathetic, tolerant, trustworthy, firm where it counts, not curious. Likes people. Believes people should be free and equal. The only type capable of love, which means sacrifice. They dont cuss.
3. Bourgeoisie. Has shifty eyes, avoids eye contact. Usually attractive but has an angry expression. Aggressive, angry, ashamed, awkward, careful, dependent, dissatisfied, embarrassed, envious, fearful, follower, half-hearted, hateful, has mob mentality, holds grudges, indecisive, insecure, lies often, lonely, low humor, low self esteem, nervous, overly agreeable/obedient until blowing up with anger/revenge, pathological, puts on an act, restless, satirical, secretive, self-doubting, Sensitive, stubborn, suspicious, tactful, touchy, vulnerable. Ambivalent toward glory and power. Desires it but doesnt do well in it. If placed in power, can be swaggering and tyrannical but not actually proud or persevering. Ranks people in a hierarchy in all areas of life. Doesnt love or respect self or others. Doesnt take responsibility. When drunk, acts disgracefully—brutal, rude, getting naked. Wants a partner or sleeps around for social status. Does not want an equal. Can be creative and talented but not original. Uses a lot of slangs, insults, nicknames, and swears. Likes to follow fashion and fit in.
4. Serf. Kind, respectful, honest, modest, passive, childlike, great behavior, polite, humble, faithful, loyal, unambitious. Doesnt want to take on responsibility.
The third function wants love (448).
Euphoric addictive love lasts three yrs (449).
As Tolstoy wrote: “The main reason for family misfortunes is that people are brought up in the idea that marriage gives happiness... The same things that should be redeemed: care, satisfaction, help, all this is taken for granted; nevertheless, shortcomings are not due , and they suffer the more, the more happiness was expected from marriage" (450).
Types of love: “eros” (love based on the principle of opposition), “philia” (love based on the principle of identity) and “ agape" (love is an evolution that moves partners from opposition to identity). Of the listed “systems,” only the last one, “agape,” is truly fruitful and can claim to be a genuine “formula of love,” but to be convinced of this, it is necessary to analyze all types of love combinations. (451)
Eros. “everything is bright, magically attractive, but inconvenient and unfruitful” (519).
Third attracted to first. Love hate. Passion at first. Third assumes the person with function in first place will make up for her weakness in it, but it is only so in public life; he is not kind to her in private.
Second and fourth dont work either (456).
with “eros” only processional Wills and Physics show a real readiness to divorce. The same cannot be said about processional Logics and Emotions (461).
Philia (p. 477): similarity. Identical types. No growth. Interest is short lived. When 2nd and 4th wills are identical, Marriage is peaceful but not interesting (or passionate?). “everything is convenient, but dim and unfruitful” (519).
Pseudophilia doesnt work out (485). “where everything is not very bright, little fruitful and a little convenient” (519).
Agape (490): “ a little convenient, not very bright, but fruitful system of relations” (519).
2nd and 3rd swap. The couple enters into relationship slowly unlike in eros. Same interests, different values and priorities. “No less hatred with it than love” (492).
The euphoria still evaporates after a time.
The person stronger in the second function helps the person's third function to strengthen while the first person's second function becomes softer. Because the first was strong only to protect the weak third. If the first gets softened, the fourth becomes stronger. In effect all the functions become equally strong and in 2nd position, becoming The 25th psychotype. Implying that it is possible for someone to have more than one letter in the same spot.
“the final, ideal “system of love” is “full agape”, a crosshair for processive functions with a crosshair for effective functions" (518). It is fruitful but painful, not easy.
the 25th type = “hardworking, sensual, sensitive, thoughtful, caring, responsible, sensitive, decent, in a word, he is the ideal of a person” 494. One flaw: not in love, not amorous. Self sufficient, compassionate, rare. Goethe reached it at age 60 but lost it almost immediately from wine and time (495).
How to start becoming 25: “For 3rd Logic, this means studying rhetoric, chess, science, and participating in discussions of a purely intellectual nature. For the 3rd Emotion - theater, literature, art, religion in its emotional, ritual form. For 3rd Physics - everything that is connected with the physical layer of life: fertility, love of children, economic independence, an organized life, health, beauty, etc. For the 3rd Will - complete independence in all functional layers and freedom in decision making.” 495. At the same time, try to remove your excess of whatever is in first position. Also have sex and dance. Sex is an action in which the entire personality of a person, the entire order of functions, participates (496). The will determines: with whom, when, how much, how, etc. have sex. Dancing: “consensus is constantly sought on Will (where and how to move together), adequacy is sought in Emotion, both in relation to the partner and to music, the measure of bodily proximity and the strength of touch is determined in Physics. Only there is no Logic in dancing, so it is better to call it “shortened sex (497).
I learned that this is what Gandhi was like when he was young: “I constantly watched her every step; she did not dare leave the house without my permission. This led to quarrels. The ban I imposed was actually something like imprisonment, and Kastrubai was not the kind of girl to easily submit to such demands. She decided that she could go wherever she wanted and whenever she wanted. The more I forbade her, the more she resisted, and the angrier I became" (164-165). Wow!
PY’s four functions can be “traced back to aristotle’s doctrine of four kinds of soul, hippocrates’ theory of four temperaments, the four-member typologies of jung, seago, acoff and emery, pavlov’s four types of higher nervous activity, william james’ four forms of the self, kretschmer’s four body types, g. Murphy’s four personality components.murphy, apel’s four biorhythms, etc." (8).
Claims jung's extravert is dependent and willful, the introvert independent with weak will (143).
The four functions:
Physics: body, sensations, external concerns
Emotion: soul, feelings, mood, heart reactions, experiences
Volition: desire, control, character, personality, innings, i, willpower
Logic: mind, reason, intellect
Each is stacked like a brick, one on top of the other. Something must be strong and others weak. In other words, PY uses a function stack. Functions 1 and 4 are called productive; functions 2 and 3 are called processional. There are 24 types possible, and one extra which is the perfect person whose functions are all equal in strength.
1st function p. 18-23
Strongest, main weapon in conflicts, uncompromising.
“The 1st Physics beats the opponent if not to death, then to a complete blackout; the 1st Will seeks undivided power, absolute leadership; the 1st Logic in discussions has only one truth - its own and, proving it, does not stop until it crushes the opponent on all counts; the 1st Emotion screams until it stuns and silences the opponent" (19).
"The First function, blocked by outsiders, gives the Second function the features of the First, including the redundancy, effectiveness, monologue, etc. typical of the latter. In general, a phenomenon of this kind, when, with the First function blocked or unrealized, the Second function takes on its form, I call for myself “the phenomenon of the First without a result,” and it is one of the many deceptions that await every researcher on his psychognostic path" (518).
Second function p. 24-25
Best side of man (24)
2e cries easily on demand, reads others emotions well
2f cares for people’s health
3rd function p. 26-33
Our shame/embarrassment/fear. We have empathy for ppl suffering in that way, insult ppl strong in it, envy them, marry them. Our greatest pride when we do well in it
3f afraid of outside world, beaten, empathy for those whose bodies suffer
3L afraid of debate, being accused of incompetence
3e afraid of being hysterical
3v afraid of humiliation
How would u respond to being challenged in the thing in this position? P.32
1 would not compete cuz confident, dont need to prove
2 do it for fun
3 do it to the breaking point
4 wouldnt compete cuz dont care
4thfunction p. 34-36
Uncomfortable with using it, dependent on others who have it
4f physically and sexually submissive
4e infected by others’ moods
4L accepts concepts without argument
4v lets others make decisions
Emotion p. 38-66
1. romantic, emotionally expressive, exaggerates their emotion, selfish, moody, artistic, poetic, lively, metaphorical, cries easily, mystical/religious/superstitious, big bulging eyes, controlled by emotion.
2. movie actor. Master of emotions. Can easily switch from emotion to emotion at will, influence others’ emotions. Understands and acts out the proper emotion at the proper time. Interest in artistic things like poetry or novels. Empathetic. Good with words/language. Dislikes using metaphors.
3. cracker. Dry, cold, cynical, lonely, reliable, well behaved, feels but rarely shows feelings. Worst lover in the world. Uninterested or fearful of having kids. Tells ironic jokes. Falsetto voice. Handwriting is neat, small, simple. Downplay things. Loves animals/nature. Dislikes artistic fields. Diplomatic. Not charismatic.
4. onlooker. Not very creative but consume artistic products. May be emotional/artistic during teen years but grows out of it.
Logic p. 71-92
1. Dogmatic. Analytical, Stoic, critical, honest, introverted, paranoid, philosophical, strategic. Not talkative. Thinks before speaking. Seeker of truth. Rigid and confident in opinions once formed. Believes them to be truth. Not spontaneous. Prefers simple solutions (86). Good memory for concepts, ideas, theories, but bad memory for dates, facts, names, numbers. Ixtj. “Usually not curious and often not even well read” (76). Handwriting is quick, ugly, simple, difficult to read, contains shorthand.
2. Ritor/rhetorician. Talkative, questioning, cynical, believes in nothing, finds debate fun, plays devil’s advocate, doesnt take self seriously, has many interests, good memory, quick thinker, tactical, makes notes in books they read, not a long term thinker, not a writer; entp
3. Skeptic. Silent, cautious in assumptions and conclusions, avoids and fears arguments and being questioned; dislikes conflict, likes small talk, crossword/logic puzzles, prefers complex solutions, has trouble with priorities, writing. Long winded when speaking because of uncertainty or wanting more time to think as he speaks. Prone to superstition, mysticism, irrational art.
4. Schoolboy. Pragmatic, lives in the present, gets bored easily without external stimulation, finds it hard to think independently, fickle in opinions/beliefs, gullible. Schoolboys make up the majority of the world.
Physics p. 93-142
1. Owner, possessor, proprietor. Powerful, athletic, careless, promiscuous, usually tall, impulsive, lazy, messy, gluttonous, stingy, slow reflexes, good looking until 30 in men or first pregnancy in women, then becomes fat. Early to gray, bald, go infertile. Dislikes kids. Likes crafts, gambling, mechanics, sports, bright colors, expensive showy clothes, gaudy jewelry, heavy spicy or tart food. In conflicts, their first impulse is to use violence; this is more obvious is childhood. Prone to criminality more than any other type. Happy and optimistic when young, irritable and gloomy when older. Wants to feel like she has more money than others, otherwise will be obsessed with money and unable to pursue other things. Supports private property, strong*military, and social programs. May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of open mindedness. Women have flat butts, low sex drive, are lazy with marital duties (465).
2. Laborer/toiler/worker/workaholic. Round face, short height, small short straight nose, girls have small breasts, big butts, narrow thighs. Thin before childbirth/age 30; after that, the body becomes more squarish or round but not overweight; men go bald early. Graceful, affectionate, strong, confident, resourceful, tolerant, kind, orderly, clean, fast, agile, fearless, altruistic, economical, fidgety, has sex young and continues to do it in old age, the best lover, also loves kids. Likes to collect things. Believes in moderate taxes, respects the law, good fighter. If a criminal, most likely a thief. He is overall like a japanese. May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of curiosity.
3. Unsavory/underachiever/prude/undertaker/untouchable/underdog/undertruth/undertrophy. Thin, pale, slouchy, bad skin, delayed puberty, delayed sex life, submissive in sex, asymmetrical face, wide long nose, bashful, cautious, compassionate, cowardly, empathetic, fidgety, jealous, mistrustful, nosy, pacifist, sensitive, suspicious, timid, moves cautiously, fears the opposite sex, has trouble with respiratory and gastrointestinal systems. Interested in yoga, raw food diets, fasting, gymnastics. May be doctors. If beaten, ill, starving in childhood, becomes psychic. Dislikes being tickled. May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of fear. Likes to be married, have kids as opposed to having sex out of wedlock. Overprotective parent, law abiding, thinks of suicide but doesnt do it. Complex Like chinese cuisine. Generous with big things, stingy on small things, spendthrift. Values her small amount of possessions. Communist.
4. Lazybones, slacker. Fearless, suicidal. Subtle, dry, gentle, melancholy, usually thin with thin features. Outside naturally attractive but inside he feels like he is decaying. His external appearance doesnt change much with age. Like the moon. Indifferent to physical life.May engage in unconventional sex (gay, bestilality, fetishes, masturbation) out of indifference.
Volition p. 145-228
1. King. Calm, graceful. Has piercing eyes. Likes clothing with buttons, snaps, belts, fasteners, etc. Likes to be a Leader, alpha, ambitious, authoritarian dictator, confident, determined, egocentric, elitist, energetic, gatekeeps, jealous, persevering, rude, rebellious but law abiding, selfish, social, stubborn, uncompromising, uncontrollable, feels special and superior, makes others afraid, seeks power r more than fame. Depressed if he cannot accomplish his will. Overrides his lower functions. Immune to passions, temptations, weaknesses, and attachments. Rarely an alcoholic or drug addict because likes to always be in control. Reliable friend and business partner. Unscrupulous. “the 1st Will is not given to love, to truly love, the “king” is given to need, to depend, but not to love. True love is not consumption, but sacrifice, even personal self-destruction for the sake of another being. What the 1st Will is completely incapable of” (166).
2. Nobleman. Has calm eyes. Dresses in discreet clothing which doesnt restrict movement. Confident, Delegates, dignified, dislikes praise, doesnt crave fame or glory. Can rule and obey. Faithful, Fearless, Flexible, generous, gentle, gullible, heartfelt, honest, independent, kind, modest, moral, natural, open, peaceful, playful, respectable, self-sufficient, simple, sympathetic, tolerant, trustworthy, firm where it counts, not curious. Likes people. Believes people should be free and equal. The only type capable of love, which means sacrifice. They dont cuss.
3. Bourgeoisie. Has shifty eyes, avoids eye contact. Usually attractive but has an angry expression. Aggressive, angry, ashamed, awkward, careful, dependent, dissatisfied, embarrassed, envious, fearful, follower, half-hearted, hateful, has mob mentality, holds grudges, indecisive, insecure, lies often, lonely, low humor, low self esteem, nervous, overly agreeable/obedient until blowing up with anger/revenge, pathological, puts on an act, restless, satirical, secretive, self-doubting, Sensitive, stubborn, suspicious, tactful, touchy, vulnerable. Ambivalent toward glory and power. Desires it but doesnt do well in it. If placed in power, can be swaggering and tyrannical but not actually proud or persevering. Ranks people in a hierarchy in all areas of life. Doesnt love or respect self or others. Doesnt take responsibility. When drunk, acts disgracefully—brutal, rude, getting naked. Wants a partner or sleeps around for social status. Does not want an equal. Can be creative and talented but not original. Uses a lot of slangs, insults, nicknames, and swears. Likes to follow fashion and fit in.
4. Serf. Kind, respectful, honest, modest, passive, childlike, great behavior, polite, humble, faithful, loyal, unambitious. Doesnt want to take on responsibility.
The third function wants love (448).
Euphoric addictive love lasts three yrs (449).
As Tolstoy wrote: “The main reason for family misfortunes is that people are brought up in the idea that marriage gives happiness... The same things that should be redeemed: care, satisfaction, help, all this is taken for granted; nevertheless, shortcomings are not due , and they suffer the more, the more happiness was expected from marriage" (450).
Types of love: “eros” (love based on the principle of opposition), “philia” (love based on the principle of identity) and “ agape" (love is an evolution that moves partners from opposition to identity). Of the listed “systems,” only the last one, “agape,” is truly fruitful and can claim to be a genuine “formula of love,” but to be convinced of this, it is necessary to analyze all types of love combinations. (451)
Eros. “everything is bright, magically attractive, but inconvenient and unfruitful” (519).
Third attracted to first. Love hate. Passion at first. Third assumes the person with function in first place will make up for her weakness in it, but it is only so in public life; he is not kind to her in private.
Second and fourth dont work either (456).
with “eros” only processional Wills and Physics show a real readiness to divorce. The same cannot be said about processional Logics and Emotions (461).
Philia (p. 477): similarity. Identical types. No growth. Interest is short lived. When 2nd and 4th wills are identical, Marriage is peaceful but not interesting (or passionate?). “everything is convenient, but dim and unfruitful” (519).
Pseudophilia doesnt work out (485). “where everything is not very bright, little fruitful and a little convenient” (519).
Agape (490): “ a little convenient, not very bright, but fruitful system of relations” (519).
2nd and 3rd swap. The couple enters into relationship slowly unlike in eros. Same interests, different values and priorities. “No less hatred with it than love” (492).
The euphoria still evaporates after a time.
The person stronger in the second function helps the person's third function to strengthen while the first person's second function becomes softer. Because the first was strong only to protect the weak third. If the first gets softened, the fourth becomes stronger. In effect all the functions become equally strong and in 2nd position, becoming The 25th psychotype. Implying that it is possible for someone to have more than one letter in the same spot.
“the final, ideal “system of love” is “full agape”, a crosshair for processive functions with a crosshair for effective functions" (518). It is fruitful but painful, not easy.
the 25th type = “hardworking, sensual, sensitive, thoughtful, caring, responsible, sensitive, decent, in a word, he is the ideal of a person” 494. One flaw: not in love, not amorous. Self sufficient, compassionate, rare. Goethe reached it at age 60 but lost it almost immediately from wine and time (495).
How to start becoming 25: “For 3rd Logic, this means studying rhetoric, chess, science, and participating in discussions of a purely intellectual nature. For the 3rd Emotion - theater, literature, art, religion in its emotional, ritual form. For 3rd Physics - everything that is connected with the physical layer of life: fertility, love of children, economic independence, an organized life, health, beauty, etc. For the 3rd Will - complete independence in all functional layers and freedom in decision making.” 495. At the same time, try to remove your excess of whatever is in first position. Also have sex and dance. Sex is an action in which the entire personality of a person, the entire order of functions, participates (496). The will determines: with whom, when, how much, how, etc. have sex. Dancing: “consensus is constantly sought on Will (where and how to move together), adequacy is sought in Emotion, both in relation to the partner and to music, the measure of bodily proximity and the strength of touch is determined in Physics. Only there is no Logic in dancing, so it is better to call it “shortened sex (497).
I learned that this is what Gandhi was like when he was young: “I constantly watched her every step; she did not dare leave the house without my permission. This led to quarrels. The ban I imposed was actually something like imprisonment, and Kastrubai was not the kind of girl to easily submit to such demands. She decided that she could go wherever she wanted and whenever she wanted. The more I forbade her, the more she resisted, and the angrier I became" (164-165). Wow!
March 5, 2025
La psicosofía es un gran sistema. La jerarquía de funciones parece casi perfecta y es respetada en los psicotipos (normalmente). Es un sistema simple y fácil de entender: cuatro funciones (Emoción, Lógica, Físico y Voluntad) ordenadas por prioridades. A pesar de la simpleza, es un sistema preciso y el toque final llega con la sintaxis del amor.
Afanasiev es un gran escritor, tiene un humor muy bueno y gran conocimiento de la cultura. Invade de ejemplos a algunos psicotipos (VELF, EFVL), pero en otros no menciona ninguno (ELVF, LEVF). Si bien esta desproporción se ve algo negativa, no afecta la riqueza de las descripciones.
¿Cómo se puede estudiar al amor? La sintaxis del amor responde esta pregunta y lo hace de manera espectacular: Eros, Philia y Ágape son recetas perfectas para las relaciones. En “Una letra”, Afanasiev aclara que las relaciones de, por ejemplo, Eros total, no están destinadas al fracaso. “El libro trata no solo el futuro, sino también el presente, y su propósito no solo es predecir, también lo es corregir.” Las relaciones siempre pueden mejorar y el amor siempre puede florecer.
Me gustaría mucho que la psicosofía se haga más conocida porque Afanasiev le tiene mucho aprecio a la cultura rusa. ¿Cómo sería la psicosofía aplicada en Latinoamérica? Quien sabe, sabe…
Afanasiev es un gran escritor, tiene un humor muy bueno y gran conocimiento de la cultura. Invade de ejemplos a algunos psicotipos (VELF, EFVL), pero en otros no menciona ninguno (ELVF, LEVF). Si bien esta desproporción se ve algo negativa, no afecta la riqueza de las descripciones.
¿Cómo se puede estudiar al amor? La sintaxis del amor responde esta pregunta y lo hace de manera espectacular: Eros, Philia y Ágape son recetas perfectas para las relaciones. En “Una letra”, Afanasiev aclara que las relaciones de, por ejemplo, Eros total, no están destinadas al fracaso. “El libro trata no solo el futuro, sino también el presente, y su propósito no solo es predecir, también lo es corregir.” Las relaciones siempre pueden mejorar y el amor siempre puede florecer.
Me gustaría mucho que la psicosofía se haga más conocida porque Afanasiev le tiene mucho aprecio a la cultura rusa. ¿Cómo sería la psicosofía aplicada en Latinoamérica? Quien sabe, sabe…
June 24, 2026
Psychosophy is one of the best and most entertaining typology systems out there, which unfortunately isn't saying much since most typology, especially psychosophy, were arguably created to be used as biodeterministic justification for misbehavior and violence in our society.
That being said, I can't help but find typology to be really fun and engaging. Despite not being an empirical science I think there are some logical truths to psychosophy that many people resonate with, resulting in its longevity. Even if you can't look past the fact that it's a pseudoscience, I definitely learned a lot of random information about philosophy and history from reading this that I might not have encountered elsewhere.
My largest complaint about this book is just that over half of the chapter for my type, ELFV, is dedicated to detailing really disturbing, incestuous childhood experiences. Dark mango psychology
That being said, I can't help but find typology to be really fun and engaging. Despite not being an empirical science I think there are some logical truths to psychosophy that many people resonate with, resulting in its longevity. Even if you can't look past the fact that it's a pseudoscience, I definitely learned a lot of random information about philosophy and history from reading this that I might not have encountered elsewhere.
My largest complaint about this book is just that over half of the chapter for my type, ELFV, is dedicated to detailing really disturbing, incestuous childhood experiences. Dark mango psychology
September 29, 2024
This is a …strange book to say the least. However Afanasyev is still a talented writer, and the ridiculousness and colorful dramatization of his descriptions make for an entertaining read. The descriptions of each type feel as if they were written about someone that he knew very well- and it feels humorous and sentimental.
When actually applying his typology system you can’t take all of the details at face value because he is so heavily biased for or against certain placements. Another disclaimer I’d add is I do not believe his typings of historical figures is entirely accurate. I’d recommend looking into these people’s lives yourself and applying his structure to them instead of taking him at his word.
When actually applying his typology system you can’t take all of the details at face value because he is so heavily biased for or against certain placements. Another disclaimer I’d add is I do not believe his typings of historical figures is entirely accurate. I’d recommend looking into these people’s lives yourself and applying his structure to them instead of taking him at his word.
July 21, 2026
worst framework. inaccurate and when his typings are combined the community deems it “contradictory”, the most peusdoscience of them all, this system is truly trash, ALSO worse than religion misogynist pseudoscience fan base bashes people for intellect superiority, misses whole point of theory, worships authors and spreads toxicity
mf talking about strict correlations on page like they go outside and interact with real human beings. know your fucking limits
mf talking about strict correlations on page like they go outside and interact with real human beings. know your fucking limits
October 10, 2024
Idk if I read a bad version but there wasn’t any chapter on the emotion placements, which is unfortunate because I would’ve liked to read about those. I was looking forward to it. Otherwise it was very good
June 16, 2025
maybe a bit biased, read when age 12 (ikik was into typo back then, was 1st book i read ant typo, then i read gifts differing)
(copy-pasting my review from when i read it)
3.5/5. Skipped last part (the one abt love) also WHERE ARE THE EMOTION PLACEMENTS AUGHHH
(copy-pasting my review from when i read it)
3.5/5. Skipped last part (the one abt love) also WHERE ARE THE EMOTION PLACEMENTS AUGHHH
December 28, 2024
really easy to understand introduction to psychosophy. i love the way afanysev describes things tbh
Read
August 29, 2025were you born as an alpha chicken (1V) or an ant (2V) or a mosquito (also 1V)
when you hate jung's and augusta's ideas then this might be one outcome
when you hate jung's and augusta's ideas then this might be one outcome
January 5, 2026
bastante divertido de leer y aprender sobre la teoria
February 3, 2026
I'd like to know what Afanasyev was smoking and how much when he wrote this.
May 2, 2024
Not sure about my type but I absolutely love this book. Afanasyev's writing is beautiful and the book is enjoyable to read. He uses many detailed and interesting examples when writing, and the way he describes each type is almost romantic, putting a lot empathy and humor in it.
July 7, 2024
Апокрифичная производная от соционики, написанный одним дядькой из 90-х, который даже не психолог, а вовсе театральный художник. Автор взял 4 сферы — Физиологическую, Эмоциональную, Волевую, Интеллектуальную — и разложил их в матрицу 2x2, вдохновившись Моделью А из соционики. Почему именно эти 4, а не 6, как, например, в D&D? Просто интуитивно автору так показалось правильнее. Зачем надо было раскладывать в матрицу? Наверное, Модель А очень понравилась, хотелось что-то подобное.
Но читается приятно, любителям типирования ради типирования вполне зайдёт. Интересные факты из биографий знаменитостей. Интересные гипотезы о психологических чертах и отношениях, разбросанные мелкой россыпью по тексту. Если соционика нравится, но кажется сложной, то попробуйте психософию Афанасьева (так же известную как психе-йога, ПЙ).
Проблемы начнутся, когда попытаетесь типировать окружающих: если в иерархию 4 психософские функции ещё более-менее можно выстроить, то разложить их по ячейкам матрицы уже задача посерьёзнее. Современные типизаторы (почему-то психософия получила заметную популярность среди социоников) допиливают теорию Афанасьева напильником, отказываясь от части определяющих критериев, добавляя собственные интерпретации, а так же опираясь субъективность восприятия функций вместо объективных наблюдений и т.д. Вы тоже можете, почему бы и нет?
Но читается приятно, любителям типирования ради типирования вполне зайдёт. Интересные факты из биографий знаменитостей. Интересные гипотезы о психологических чертах и отношениях, разбросанные мелкой россыпью по тексту. Если соционика нравится, но кажется сложной, то попробуйте психософию Афанасьева (так же известную как психе-йога, ПЙ).
Проблемы начнутся, когда попытаетесь типировать окружающих: если в иерархию 4 психософские функции ещё более-менее можно выстроить, то разложить их по ячейкам матрицы уже задача посерьёзнее. Современные типизаторы (почему-то психософия получила заметную популярность среди социоников) допиливают теорию Афанасьева напильником, отказываясь от части определяющих критериев, добавляя собственные интерпретации, а так же опираясь субъективность восприятия функций вместо объективных наблюдений и т.д. Вы тоже можете, почему бы и нет?
July 2, 2025
Afanasyev has a dark humour that appeals to me, his archetypes are wicked in descriptions — leaving me baffled on more than one occasion on how he thought to use the language he did but it worked a charm on me. I only wish he didn’t seem to grapple with ropes in the dark to cover up inconsistencies in aspects correlating with the living symbols associated.
On a side note, to this day I have not gotten any closer to ascertaining my own psychotype. I believe it impossible to accurately assign a type to yourself as they are too specific to observe in others and thus a non-empirical theory. Stick to Jung, maybe even Naranjo or Ichazo.
On a side note, to this day I have not gotten any closer to ascertaining my own psychotype. I believe it impossible to accurately assign a type to yourself as they are too specific to observe in others and thus a non-empirical theory. Stick to Jung, maybe even Naranjo or Ichazo.
March 11, 2017
отличная книга по психотипам с детальным разбором и конкретными примерами на основе известных исторических фигур. понравилась то что автор не стесняется и прямо описывает особенности по типам, без намёков и двойных смыслов. хорошее дополнение к различным разным теориям психотипов.
May 21, 2023
Теория психософии от ее основателя.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews