Rick's Socionics Videos

[xerx]

[Gilly]

He could have said "hot air" in many fewer words.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm somewhat like Rick. Same sort of dopey romantic-ish eyes, and same laid-back and languid movements. I'm just more emotional and faggy.

He's an old soul. He lacks masculine throat fuck vigor that women that age want. Like most intelligent, languid men he's probably not going to find a happy relationship until later in his life.

[717495]

I CANT BELIEVE I WATCHED THE WHOLE THING OMG I AM SO PROUD OF MYSELF PAT ON THE BACK YO

[Gilly]

For someone who claims to be focused on the practical value of socionics and condemns mental masturbation, he spends a lot of time talking about himself and none at all about the actual theory. Am I the only one who noticed this so far?

Reminds me of how Barrack Obama gave some foreign minister an iPod filled with his own speeches. Nonchalant, understated narcissism taking its due form...you people are lucky, at least I'm honest...

[Creepy-male]

I noticed that in the first video. I think it's just Rick being an IEE.

[Gilly]

Yay, using types to make excuses for character defects, now we're getting somewhere...

[xerx]

For someone who claims to be focused on the practical value of socionics and condemns mental masturbation, he spends a lot of time talking about himself and none at all about the actual theory. Am I the only one who noticed this so far?

Reminds me of how Barrack Obama gave some foreign minister an iPod filled with his own speeches. Nonchalant, understated narcissism taking its due form...you people are lucky, at least I'm honest...

Why does talking about himself involve mental masturbation? It's not like he's amnesiac and has to theorize about himself.

[717495]

It's just a video, all videos are boring, that's why I jump off of trains and throw valuable objects at them, give him a break, etc.

[Gilly]

Why does talking about himself involve mental masturbation? It's not like he's amnesiac and has to theorize about himself.

Then why did he make the videos? Personal memoir? Find me one point at which he actually says something useful. Either he unwittingly disguises an intractable self-centeredness behind the veil of common-sense shallow intellectual pretension and mild-mannered harmlessness, or he is just plain stupid and wanted to waste his time. Or both.

[xerx]

Then why did he make the videos? Personal memoir? Find me one point at which he actually says something useful. Either he unwittingly disguises an intractable self-centeredness behind the veil of common-sense shallow intellectual pretension and mild-mannered harmlessness, or he is just plain stupid and wanted to waste his time. Or both.

I think he's just describing some of his experience with socionics. So yeah memoir. Personally, I found the little bits of information about Russian socionists sort of interesting.

I don't think he meant the video to be thought provoking in any way, nor was he calculating for effect. I didn't pick up on any of the same nefarious motivation that you did. There was a bit of the old dogma about most new socionics theories being unnecessary and VI being wrong, but he wasn't forcing anyone to adhere to it.

[Creepy-male]

YTPing it, nothing is sacred.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I would consider doing something indecent for signed copies of Augusta's collected works in English.

[Park]

He could have said "hot air" in many fewer words.

+1

He made some good points, but it took him over 20 minutes to say what could have been said in about 2.

I don't think I'd have the patience to listen to any more of his videos.

[Rick]

Thanks for the responses. I agree that the video is too long. My goal was to talk a bit about socionics and how I got into it, and what I think about it in general. I don't think I have it in me any more to talk about the specifics of socionics theory, hence the "memoir" feel of the video. If I make more in the future, I'll put in a warning about the contents. I'd never made a video before, so in the future I'll have to think more carefully about what I'm going to say and keep it shorter.

Gilly, you're right, in a way. But give me a break -- to hear this critique coming from someone who has, what, 50 threads devoted to himself?? I have an unfulfilled need to talk about my life experience, which has been highly unusual, and I'm too modest to just start threads about myself. So I work it into videos and articles as I can.

To be perfectly honest, at this point I'm more interested in reflecting about what I've seen and experienced in socionics, and in talking about personality, relationships, and personal development than in talking about socionics itself. It's a bit of a shame, because I think I had some good things to say when I had my mind wrapped around it 3-6 years ago, but it seems that point is past for good. Now I'm interested in wrapping things up and summarizing the past. It's understandable that people who are actively studying socionics might find that boring...

The other day I spent a few hours with Dmitry Lytov. We barely mentioned socionics. These days his passions are things like archeology, paleolinguistics, and paleoclimatology. You'd never guess that once upon a time he was the most active socionist of his generation. Likewise, in a couple years if nothing big changes I plan to go back to school to study physical geography. Socionics was a gateway to adulthood; now it's become irrelevant and I have to think about what to do for the rest of my adult life.

>> "Rick is married and to his dual, according to his public testimony."

Yes, correct. But BulletsAndDoves is mostly right. If I hadn't gotten my act together and made an effort, I could have easily ended up wandering around without serious relationships into my late 30s or more.

[Gilly]

I think he's just describing some of his experience with socionics. So yeah memoir. Personally, I found the little bits of information about Russian socionists sort of interesting.

I don't think he meant the video to be thought provoking in any way, nor was he calculating for effect. I didn't pick up on any of the same nefarious motivation that you did. There was a bit of the old dogma about most new socionics theories being unnecessary and VI being wrong, but he wasn't forcing anyone to adhere to it.

Did I say it was nefarious? No, I said it was unwitting. My point is, I'm just not really sure what the purpose of the video was. It seems like there is no real motive other than to get people to "take it less seriously."

[xerx]

Did I say it was nefarious? No, I said it was unwitting. My point is, I'm just not really sure what the purpose of the video was. It seems like there is no real motive other than to get people to "take it less seriously."

There doesn't need to be a spectacular motive behind everything people do. We're not all EIEs.

[Gilly]

Spectacular? All I expect is that he talk about what he said he would talk about. Stop making it out like I am saying everything should be as hysterical and grand as I am; surely that would lessen my use to the world, and greatly disappoint me.

I mean, whatever, I'm not going to accuse him for making a video about himself, it's useless. I just think it's silly.

[xerx]

He did talk about what he set out to talk about, which was his personal experience.

[Gilly]

He didn't explain anything about Socionics, other than to espouse on the very vague and overly general sources of his skepticism at unnecessary length, while mysteriously citing experiences that confirm the theory.

[xerx]

He didn't explain anything about Socionics, other than to espouse on the very vague and overly general sources of his skepticism at unnecessary length, while mysteriously citing experiences that confirm the theory.

For all it's unnecessary length, you've wasted all this time criticizing it in this thread.

[discojoe]

Rick, you're quite the looker. When can we expect a nude vid?

[Gilly]

For all it's unnecessary length, you've wasted all this time criticizing it in this thread.

And you defending it. At least I'm asserting my own viewpoint instead of being a lapdog for vacant, useless expression, lol.

[xerx]

And you defending it. At least I'm asserting my own viewpoint instead of being a lapdog for vacant, useless expression, lol.

Jesus, did you really expect something mundane to carry a grand expression behind it? I can't think of anything more self-defeating to expect from a youtube video. If you think it's useless, don't watch it.

[Creepy-male]

NF quasi fight!!!!!

This kind of reminds me hating my ESI guild leader for destroying the social atmosphere. Lelles.

[Gilly]

Jesus, did you really expect something mundane to carry a grand expression behind it? I can't think of anything more self-defeating to expect from a youtube video. If you think it's useless, don't watch it.

Sorry for expecting something more substantial from the guy who runs the Socionics Wikipedia and the most widely referenced theoretical source in English.

And when did I say anything about grand expression? Please quit projecting stereotypes onto me like they actually add to your case.

[Rick]

Sorry for expecting something more substantial from the guy who runs the Socionics Wikipedia and the most widely referenced theoretical source in English.

I haven't written anything substantial on socionics itself for nearly 2 years. The video expresses my current attitudes. I probably will have little to say of interest about socionics until I have a breakthrough, if ever, about what is "the true essence of the types."

My current opinion is that, while the types exist and are useful, socionics doesn't work as well as its basic theoretical apparatus suggests, and real life observations of types often contradict traits or features that socionics theory suggests should exist. Therefore, the theory is not an entirely accurate representation of reality and needs improvement. That's partly why I haven't written much about socionics for 2 years. I'm not too interested in continuing to delve into something that looks more and more like a dead end. It's both a personal dead end for me (there's nothing left to learn from socionics that would help me with the rest of my life), a professional dead end (pursuing a role similar to Bukalov or David Keirsey would leave me isolated and at the margins of society among other nonacademic theories), and an intellectual dead end (because the theory is an unprovable hypothesis, likely only semi-accurate, and I think that any significant development of the field is likely to come from outside the field, not from building more conjectures upon existing ones). At the same time, I acknowledge that socionics is definitely on to something, and I continue to recognize types around me as a matter of fact.

[Rick]

Rick, you're quite the looker. When can we expect a nude vid?

As soon as Maritsa needs it for typing purposes.

[The Exception]

Did anyone else have difficulties viewing the first video? I tried watching it and it kept pausing on me as if it was trying to finish loading but never finished.

[Park]

Thanks for the responses. I agree that the video is too long. My goal was to talk a bit about socionics and how I got into it, and what I think about it in general. I don't think I have it in me any more to talk about the specifics of socionics theory, hence the "memoir" feel of the video. If I make more in the future, I'll put in a warning about the contents. I'd never made a video before, so in the future I'll have to think more carefully about what I'm going to say and keep it shorter.

That's understandable.

[Jarno]

and real life observations of types often contradict traits or features that socionics theory suggests should exist.

do you have any examples what you exactly mean by this? Have you encountered some errors or just little inaccuraties.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Rick what was your secret to finding a good relationship?

It seems like you're empathetic and you just sort of behaved how other people wanted you to behave, and you got a lot of respect for that. It doesn't seem like you really got that far being totally yourself. Or am I mistaken?

As for you not having your act together... I don't know you but I disagree with that. I'm not sure we'd hang out but you seem like you got your head on your shoulders. If anything you were always the most well-adjusted person on here. That's why you were so boring. Same thing with Tereg. Girls probably just didn't give you the time of day because there was nothing to redeem, you were already good. =p You just always seemed like those really super responsible straight guys that girls don't like because they're too busy trying to be in love with all these guys who don't give two shits about them.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

My current opinion is that, while the types exist and are useful, socionics doesn't work as well as its basic theoretical apparatus suggests, and real life observations of types often contradict traits or features that socionics theory suggests should exist. Therefore, the theory is not an entirely accurate representation of reality and needs improvement.

I don't think this is true. How do you figure?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I didn't think the videos were too long. They kept me engaged...although probably not in the way discojoe had in mind.

[Jarno]

I don't think this is true. How do you figure?

Go make up your own questions instead of stealing mine!

'-)

[Absurd]

I don't think I'd have the patience to listen to any more of his videos.

Must be love. That means you didn't have the patience to begin with.

I knew someone like him before. Yeah, I did. I remember.

[Krig the Viking]

Just got around to watching these videos. Some observations:

I found the repeated use of the phrase "mental masturbation" an amusing window into how Fi-Egos view what they see as the excessive use of Ti -- logical systematization beyond the point of practical Te usefulness.

Again on that note, it's interesting that your primary measure for the value of socionics, at least as expressed in this video, is "usefulness" (which, as I said, seems related to Te). Most of your criticisms of the current state of socionics seem to be centred around there being too much Ti, too much theorizing and increasingly detailed systematization, and not enough Te, not enough factual underpinning or practical use. Additionally, you express the usual Delta NF doubts that everything in life can be fit into neat Ti categories.

As an Alpha NT, "usefulness" is quite far down on my list of what makes things valuable -- accuracy and truth are the big ones for me. I want to understand things completely, making use of that knowledge seems secondary. I suspect this is the attitude of those socionists whom you disparage as engaging in "mental masturbation".

Anyway, I thought they were enjoyable videos, and if I had any doubts about you being IEE (which I didn't, really), they're certainly gone now.

[anndelise]

Just got around to watching these videos. Some observations:

I found the repeated use of the phrase "mental masturbation" an amusing window into how Fi-Egos view what they see as the excessive use of Ti -- logical systematization beyond the point of practical Te usefulness.

A couple of years ago this phrase was very commonly thrown by almost anyone at anyone who didn't agree with the first person's pov of socionics. It was actually pretty disgusting how often it was thrown at people. Some people picked up on the phrase, who wouldn't have normally thought that way. Ni used it about Ne, Ne about Ni, Te/Fi about Ti, and Ti/Fe about Te/Fi. A couple of people even left in part because they were disgusted by it's common usage.

[Rick]

>>> "My current opinion is that, while the types exist and are useful, socionics doesn't work as well as its basic theoretical apparatus suggests, and real life observations of types often contradict traits or features that socionics theory suggests should exist. Therefore, the theory is not an entirely accurate representation of reality and needs improvement."

I don't think this is true. How do you figure?

Well, you have to understand I'm starting from Augusta's understanding of socionics. She herself wrote something to the effect of, "it's unclear how, given our model, people are able to survive without duals at all." She wrote a monograph on how ILE is the best type for the leader of a research institute. Her descriptions of Ne in particular or not strictly Ne per se, but the Ne of an academically minded person.

In socionics "dualization" is basically a synonym for "falling in love." It can happen with types other than your dual, and you won't fall in love with all duals. Early socionists, and some today still talk of dualization as if it were some special socionics-specific phenomenon, when in fact what they're describing is simply the state of being in love. You might say, "well yes, but with a dual you get what you're expecting, and with other types you don't." But looking at couples who have been married for 20 years or more, I have to say that some non-duals still have a spark of true love.

Of course, these and numerous other minor misconceptions can be corrected, but we're still left with the fact that a person rejects one dual and accepts another, or even prefers someone of another type who is easier to deal with than a dual that for some reason is not. The model of 8 functions interchanging information with the functions of other individuals is not complex enough to explain what actually goes on between people. So many, "ifs, ands, and buts" have to be added. It's also clear that the socionics model is not a model of the psyche, but just a layer of the psyche. I disagree that you can relate any stimulus-response relationship to one of the 8 functions. If you start doing that, things just get too complicated. Why, then, does one IEE have heightened sensitivity to a class of phenomena when another one doesn't?

Real-life observations of types: there's always a "kernel of a type" within a person that becomes obvious over time, but one SLE may be highly rational in thought and another one irrational. If you are obligated to relate everything to a socionics function, it's hard to explain. Leave socionics out of the picture for a moment, and it becomes easy. One is rational because he has well-developed mental abilities and rational thought, and probably a higher IQ. Another one may be less mental, with less academic training, etc. Often explanations for things lie on the surface, not hidden deep within Model A...

Of course, all these points are debatable!