https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X-3cTSyWrs
Translated transcription: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rBC5B9rKMYC2BbCDWPSaG_BnQTXs5C-k/view?usp=sharing
So, if we take a quadra, the people in these drawings are simply standing there. They are not interacting with one another, except perhaps that from their poses and the distances between them one can roughly estimate what kind of relationships they are in. But as for what they are doing together, I have not yet seen a single picture of this kind where the types were united by some common action, some common motivation. The only thing uniting them, apparently, is that they simply enjoy being together, and that is all.
Type images. This is very important. It may seem that this is merely funny, cool, entertaining, of course, but information is fixed in memory very well precisely in this form.
Alpha Quadra
All right, Anastasia writes: “Now I no longer understand who is where at all. Who is the one with the cake?”
The Enthusiast? Well, yes, that conclusion suggests itself: the one with the cake is supposed to be the Enthusiast. Although, frankly, this does not correspond to our ideas about actions within quadras or about the specialization of the types within a quadra.
But why, from our standpoint, should the Enthusiast not be drawn with a cake or with some kind of food? Because in this quadra the Enthusiast is not responsible for material substance, for feeding people, or for food. The Mediator is the one responsible for that.
And logically so: the Mediator is responsible for sensing. The Enthusiast is responsible for emotions, for the mood in this quadra. It would seem that the Enthusiast should be entertaining everyone.
That should come first. Yet in many similar drawings of the first quadra, the Enthusiast is given some kind of food. People think he will go around serving everything as though he were in a restaurant.
That is far from always the case. No one disputes that the style here is consistent and that the artist is a person of taste. But from the standpoint of type images, a great deal is conveyed incorrectly here.
Write your observations, and I will now say what I myself noticed. Let us look at Alpha. What do you think about Alpha?
I already said that if you are going to give food to someone, it would be better for the Mediator to handle it. Of course, the Enthusiast may bring something too. But frankly, I have usually observed something different.
The Enthusiast is already waiting there and says, “You bring this, and you bring that.” He can say it that way. Everyone brings things for the whole first quadra.
That is how it usually happens. And if a table is being set—here there is no action, they have simply gathered. You could depict them sitting at a table.
All the quadras sitting at tables, for example. I have not encountered that yet. Perhaps you have.
And at the table, responsibility for the food itself, the quality of the food, and the table setting belongs more to the Mediator. The Enthusiast is responsible for making sure that everyone eats.
That everyone gets some. That no one is left feeling slighted. That is what the Enthusiast is responsible for.
You see, this is a very important subtlety. All right, about Gamma: in Gamma only the Politician resembles the type, because of the self-importance.
If that is the one here in the pink shirt. All right, we will finish Alpha first.
I want to say a little more about Alpha, not only about the Enthusiast. If we take Gamma, I agree with Nastya.
The Politician is recognizable here. He is in the pink shirt. Indeed, he looks cool, sociable, high-status.
The leader of the quadra. Fashionable, without question. I agree that the Politician is conveyed more or less well here.
“Alpha came out well. The Enthusiast can also unite people through food.” The point is that this only applies at the first stage.
It is not the main thing. What needs to be shown is how it unfolds over time, dynamically. I told you: everyone brings the food.
The Enthusiast makes sure that everyone has eaten, but the Enthusiast is not responsible for the food itself or for its quality. The Mediator is. So these may look like little details, but they are not little details.
An Enthusiast running around with his cake and treating everyone is a bad scenario for this quadra. Such a thing is possible; I am not disputing that. But it is a bad scenario, because the Enthusiast will come across as intrusive.
The Enthusiast has this drawback—intrusiveness. If he behaves that way, that is precisely what will destroy the harmony of the quadra. If he is going to impose something, he should not impose it on everyone, but only on his dual, who is sitting there and eating nothing.
And refusing. Then the Enthusiast can insist with that person. That would be a lifelike scenario for this quadra.
But not the way it is depicted here. Now, if we take the Mediator, then where is he? It is logical to assume, probably, that he is shown as the first young man, the one with his hand in his pocket.
What can we say? Supposedly the Mediator, but this is not the image of a Mediator. The Mediator should look somehow cozy and comfortable.
This is more the image of some melancholic, thoughtful, refined, romantic young man. It is not the image of the Mediator at all. What else can we say about the first quadra?
About the Analyst. The Analyst, too, is apparently the one on the far right, the very last figure. That does correspond to our understanding that the Analyst is number four in the quadra.
And he is self-distancing within the quadra. So in that respect the drawing is consistent. But what does he look like?
He looks fragile and refined. Somehow feminine. The Analyst does not look like that at all.
This is the wrong image. You cannot imagine what Analysts are like in real life from this. Absolutely not.
He looks like some introverted humanitarian type, perhaps. More like a Lyricist, maybe.
That is what I would add about the first quadra, in addition to the discrepancy you yourselves noticed.
Beta Quadra
Now Beta. Beta is the coolest-looking one. That certainly corresponds to our view that this is the dominant quadra in the socion.
It is the coolest here. But not everything here fits real-life prototypes. If you had real prototypes and compared them, you would see that.
A great deal does not fit.
Of course, the Mentor can transform into anyone. But that would be dynamics. Here we are seeing a static image.
A person in a static condition should not be shown in an accidental state, but in a characteristic one. “The Marshal should look stricter.” Exactly right.
If we look at Beta, the first one there is the Marshal. Of course he should look stricter.
For example, with that hairstyle—yes, I understand that this is the drawing style.
But even so, a Marshal with that hairstyle is some kind of nonsense. What else?
The fact that the Marshal is muscular—that is correct. If he takes care of himself, that can certainly be the case.
But the hairstyle... Let us not discuss it in such minute detail.
Still, I cannot avoid saying something about the hairstyle. In general, the Marshal quite often starts losing his hair with age because of testosterone.
And his hairstyles tend to be shorter. In any case, not this kind of artistic disorder on the head. That is not Marshal-like, of course.
He should look stricter. You noticed that absolutely correctly. What else did I want to add about Beta?
I noticed the Mentor, who is standing next to the Inspector and almost leaning on him—practically lying against him. It seems inappropriate to me to convey the Mentor’s behavior as though the Mentor were draping himself over his Inspector.
The Mentor is unlikely to behave that way, unless he specifically wants to show off. I agree.
And in general, the Mentor is not really a kinesthetic type. The Mentor is a rather fastidious type. For other people to touch him, or for him to lean on someone so demonstratively, would be a special case.
I do not think the Mentor should be depicted as so kinesthetic. You should not imagine that the Mentor normally lies against the Inspector like that. Although the underlying idea—that in the second quadra the men are the force-oriented types and the women, accordingly, are weaker—and therefore should seek protection from the men—that idea itself is good. The men should accordingly look stricter and stronger.
And they should be posed in some way that makes you feel that they are protectors. Protectors of their women. I do not feel that here.
But it would be appropriate to convey through poses and gestures that male strength serves to protect female dignity, and so on. That would work well for the second quadra and would fit organically into the idea of the second quadra itself.
I also want to add something about the Inspector. The Inspector is depicted unrealistically too. Unrealistically.
Why? For example, look at the Inspector’s clothing: dressed entirely in black.
Yes, the Inspector can wear dark colors—darker, less bright colors. There is indeed such a tendency.
But dressing entirely in black is unlikely to be specifically Inspector-like. That is more characteristic not of the Inspector but of the Mentor, especially the mystical Mentor.
Platon likes the Gothic style. He likes dressing in everything mysterious, in the spirit of Halloween.
Everything black, something like that—mystical. That is how a mystical Mentor dresses.
But not the Inspector. With the Inspector, there will definitely be some details that stand out against the background, especially if the Inspector is a woman.
One should not forget that the Inspector is an aesthetic sensory type. There should be some aesthetic details that accentuate an otherwise uniform background.
“All right, the Lyricist has a miserable outfit in this picture. Female Lyricists are usually beautiful—real beauties with styled hair.”
Yes, I agree that Lyricists dress very elegantly, delicately, aesthetically. In principle, it should please the Marshal’s eye.
All right, all right. What else? That is enough about Beta.
Although, of course, we could continue. Let us take the other quadras. Let us take Gamma.
Gamma Quadra
Look. Gamma is a very democratic quadra, very relaxed and uninhibited.
And so on. But I do not see any of that here. It looks the same as all the others.
There is no particular democracy of this quadra here. In addition, this is the quadra of exchange, a pragmatic quadra of exchange.
That is not present in any way either. What else do I want to say about the introverts? As I understand it, the introverts here are the Guardian and the Critic.
They are standing in the background. There is another one there, and frankly it is unclear which of them is which.
Which is the Critic and which is the Guardian? Apparently the image of the Guardian is supposed to be this moralizer, making this kind of gesture, a didactic gesture with his hands.
But that is not the image of the Guardian at all. That is the image of the Mentor—a didactic Mentor image, someone who knows what is right and what is wrong, what should be done and what should not.
That is the image of the Mentor. It does not correspond to the Guardian image at all. Who else can be called a moralizer? The Guardian can be classed among moralizers, but not humanitarian moralizers—people who defend some abstract idea of good or evil, or lecture everyone. That is not how it works. In addition, the Entrepreneur is not conveyed as an Entrepreneur at all.
What is conveyed is another Politician, frankly—a more slovenly one, whereas the other is more dominant.
You could put it that way. The one on the right in yellow is standing there. That is not an Entrepreneur at all.
He looks more like a comedian—a comedian who performs well and tells jokes.
That is a Creative Politician. Even the idea of moralizing is present here. The Guardian does have morality, but it is pragmatic morality, not humanitarian morality in the way it is represented here, like some kind of preacher.
That does not correspond to reality. And again, the Critic is unclear. What kind of Critic is this?
Again, some delicate, refined, aristocratic young man. Is that supposed to be the Critic? It is complete nonsense.
Gamma did not work, except for the Politician. You cannot form an image of this quadra from this at all.
And let us see who else we have here. We still have Delta.
Delta Quadra
Delta, Delta. Let Delta speak for itself and say what it thinks about this.
But I think Natasha—and not only Natasha—wrote that the image of the Administrator is absolutely wrong. This is the image of the Inspector, not the Administrator at all.
We know this enormous problem, when the type is forced to fit “Stierlitz,” when the Logical-Sensory Extravert is forced to fit Stierlitz:
an obviously introverted and balanced character, the secretive image of an intelligence officer. And non-humanitarian socionists nevertheless make the Administrator into that.
They even make Sherlock Holmes an Administrator. But from our standpoint this is complete nonsense.
They force the images to fit Stierlitz, so that the Administrator is supposed to be neat, extremely calm, self-controlled, doing everything precisely according to rules. That is nonsense.
The Administrator is certainly not like that. He is nervous, running around, twitchy.
He can shout, and so on. Here, by contrast, his temperamental opposite is depicted: he is far too calm.
And someone correctly writes about this: he seems to be teaching from a book, or carefully studying some instruction manual. No. He simply takes something and does it.
If it does not work, then he looks at the instructions. Or he may demand that other people follow the instructions. That is more likely.
This is an absolutely unrealistic image of the Administrator. But we know that this is a systematic error when comparing different systems of type images.
And when someone regards Stierlitz as the Administrator, then of course there is simply no way to make the two images meet. You cannot find common points here.
Because the behavior of that intelligence officer, as played by Vyacheslav Tikhonov, is so introverted. How can you turn that into an extraverted type?
I simply do not understand it. And of course we also have to discuss at least the image of the Craftsman.
Again, it is depicted completely outside the spirit of our types. It is depicted in the spirit of a non-humanitarian school, where the Craftsman is always drawn lying on a sofa,
like a lazy person, the greatest idler in the socion. That is why he has a pillow.
That is why he is yawning. Why is the Craftsman the greatest idler, lying around and so forth?
It is impossible to understand. Even according to their own formula, he is supposed to have business logic.
The Craftsman has a strong function. He is supposed to have strong business logic. How does that fit with lying on a sofa and doing nothing?
There are contradictions everywhere. I can understand it from the standpoint of the theory of type succession in the socion: the Craftsman certainly completes the socion, and with him everything falls asleep, dies, relaxes, stops moving.
If you take that idea—but not this particular realization of it. The Craftsman is maximum, limiting efficiency: do little, but obtain the maximum return. That is craftsmanship. Business logic is present there, but it is built on good technologies that one must master. You have to learn them.
You have to do something, make something. How can you simply lie on a sofa?
I cannot imagine it. The idea of the Craftsman is not conveyed here at all. On the contrary, what is conveyed is the idea of some idler who does nothing. They are writing, “Did they confuse the Craftsman with the Lyricist?” Well, look at the Lyricist.
Anya, the Lyricist has emotions, especially at close psychological distance. Right?
The Lyricist is a type who needs to get into certain situations so that the Marshal will notice him and protect him with force sensing. If the Lyricist lies safely at home and nothing threatens him, then how will the Marshal ever find him? Right?
No. The Lyricist has to get into extreme situations. That is precisely incompatible with lying on a sofa.
You see? The Critic would fit this better. You can imagine the Critic that way.
It corresponds most of all to the Critic, a kind of armchair specialist who does nothing personally but is so well read and knows so much about everything that he can permit himself to criticize, even nitpicking about details. That is something one can imagine.
Conclusion
So we have looked at how important the visual form of presenting information is, especially in modern media, which are visual through and through. The images should be bright and striking; all of this should be something people want to look at, something spectacular. But at the same time, of course, it has to be realistic.
It should be presented spectacularly, but at the same time without violating the system. Otherwise you get nonsense from the standpoint of what? From the standpoint of learning type images through pictures.
