Helpful. Personally when it comes to the example of the political stance, it's peculiar because for me i often critisized people who would almost have this weird clone-like attitude to political sphere, you know, for some reason it's like they're all made in factory, if you're a conservative then you're against abortion, you also love religion and other garbage, whenever i see people especially on social media nowadays, it's like they're all the same. In my case, i have bits of that, bits of this and bits of that, rather than obsessing on a singular thing i have things i agree with on the liberal side and vice versa which makes it really funny to see when someone is trying to label me politically. Maybe i'm just an old fuck nowadays who grew out of some rigid "you're a liberal thus a snowflake" thought process. Good vid as usual
I think Ti creative at least has ideological flexibility because it (and other functions) in creative are adaptive. ILE's for example won't be found ideologically consistent because they will find various different ideologies and mishmash them together, creating their ever-evolving "Perfect system."
As an IEE (i think) i have your exact stance on politics and the clone like attitude. I think it is an Te Ti overlap simply. Ti is also interested in CREATING something cohesive and is not simply adhering to the structure which is already there. To pick and choose from different sources is of course not exclusively "Te" but simply an elevated abillity to be more objective through reflection, intelligence, education (all what was mentioned in the video). You are synthesizing something. The question is for WHAT you are synthesizing this "something". The goal of someone with Ti is rather oriented towards building something internally coherent and functional/true/cohesive while the Te is just picking and choosing based on the results it harbors and the interfunctionality of things. Ti will still be more stable (maybe even rigid) when the correct believe/order/rule system is decided upon while Te (especially with polr Ti) will be way more flexible, flaky and open for changing the methode on the spot. For me politics and the game of the world is an constant evaluation game. So if i want to make some valuable statements myself or create some helpfull thought direction i simply need to set some rather objective axioms to not get lost in my personal likes/dislikes. For this someone like me will unavoidably turn to Te. This creates a rather consequentialist attitude. The set goal is "fixed" rather then the ideology/system. This goal of course is highly subjective but this for once is not avoidable. I have trouble understanding what the value of structure is when the outcome is not the central orientation of thought to build such structure which is probably Ti polr in a nutshell. (also i have L3 but i bet you can tell)
TiFe is about clarity, it looks for generalisation and principles, it finds the most redundant truth and sticks to that for clarity reasons. You get clear princples and rules out but you might also loose detail. whcih is noise not signal to them. FiTe looks for more nuances and the respective context and then of course must reject generalisations and strict principles. They say: "oh it depends..." a lot and hesitate to settle on what they see as a too simple truth. Each axis is right in some way. Sometimes you need a clear cut xy and sometimes you need more nuances and looking at the context more.
Phenomenal explanation of what Ti-Polr is NOT (aka, dumb). One of the things I appreciated when first hearing Jack's explanation of Ti was to realise how easily it could be mistaken for "feelings" or "morals/ethics" (Fi) given that it could take a very ideological turn + it could potentially appear "emotional/irrational" because it could be paradoxically stubborn on its interpretations even in the face of circumstances which do not match them. Loved watching your livestreams--you are way more playful and cheeky in those (and in this one too)! Can I ask you, when recording your videos, are you especially concerned with rambling/not getting to the point quickly enough?
Ideally I’d like videos to be as concise as possible and not needlessly veer off of course. Some write out scripts or do other long preparatory things. I just wing it and try to get my point across.
@@PracticalSocionics yeah, that's a skill you have right there to be able to just wing it. When you're not speaking in public and are just thinking to yourself, do you also try to keep your thinking on track (actively try to ensure your thoughts do not wander much)? Thanks!
There are literally some people out there who believe Ti PoLR = stupid… That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, thank you for explaining what it actually looks like.
I agree with Model G that SEEs and IEEs put twice as much effort into Ti than Te. Which makes them better at improving their Ti than Te. This can be seen in IEEs having a better understanding of theories than the ability to manage others. So no they are not dumb. But they are lazy when it comes to managing others.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Is not Ti in the avoidance block for IEE in model G? Hard to have energy for making the effort to improve yourself there? With pessimum energy…
Taking stuff from anywhere you find it, still is a principle. It is Ti. What is Te though, is doing research, it's evaluating sources. Ti looks at content, Te looks at form. Te is paired with either Ni or Fi, because those two things set goals, which Te itself is incapable of. Ti on the contrary is paired with Ne and Se, because that is the domain on which the principles(Ti) can be utilized to evaluate a course of action or a possibility. So its not that Te is more flexible than Ti, but rather that Ti values, whereas Te seeks out instruments to obtain a preset value-judgement made by a feeling or a vision.
Enfp here ... I always know the truth. My truth is a fi-truth. I always sense what people really feel, what their values really are. I don't need a ti- reasoning. I can hold the truth and all the variety of fi in the world, I don't get confused. I don't need the system to be my absolute truth, I would rather need a not so precise overall system to categorize all the fi. I'm honestly confused by Fe. Social norms. If I can relate authentically to every person seperately and know my values and all the emotional possibilities ... I am very consistent. To have a consistency in your own logic can be contradictory to live a consistency in your feelings and personal values. If you stick to your system: how can you be real? So, no, we Te/fi users are not inconsistent or like chameleons ... we are quite the contrary ... we are very real and honest and follow the real truth, the fi-truth
@@PracticalSocionics what is the unvalued function here? I am speaking of fi being valued as a truth-telling function ... so do you mean ti is not valued? Then yes, but I do more display here how fi works as truth... not so much putting ti down ... because it's mostly so, that ti is thought of as the only truth ... and it's not
@@wf4983 “My truth” implies a personal subjective view of what is real. “THE truth” is implying a universal reality that would apply uniformly for everyone. Your Fi types will show a changing approach to each person while a Ti will believe in one consistent approach regardless of the individual. For Fi, the individual involved always matters and changes things. For Ti the individual doesn’t matter and the prescribed approach should apply evenly. Ti may be seen as robotic while Fi might be seen as lacking consistent principles. This is in the abstract. In practice , the Ti polr types generally seem to have an inconsistent well reasoned, coherent structure to approach things or believe in. Ti types can have a consistent structure or principles to follow that may come at the expense of individuals or personal bonds. To adequately show all this one needs to look at the entire type and the full functional model.
@@PracticalSocionics yes, yes... I know that ti-user point of view. It's more often that the other perspective is not seen: It's something very basic and consistent about fi. We might adapt to different people/ emotions/ situations ... but the fundamental consistency lies exactly in that human approach. The human approach in itsself is the consistency and truth contrary to the application of principles (ti). For us (fi) these principles can appear to be very made up, simply not aligned with the heart of things ... and therefore (for fi-users) leading to false logical constructions. Yes, that's how it seems for us (and I don't only mean myself, I talked about this with many fi-users): a construction. What I mean to do here is to defend fi. It is not such an unsteady, random evaluation system ... it is on the contrary very consistent. It's just that most MBTI logicians are ti-users ... and if you haven't experienced fi, how can you judge it? It will always be in the distance. And that is also something that fi users are capable of: slipping into and experiencing someone else's truth ... and that is harder for ti.
Oh my, yes! Being an IEE, it does feel like having to use just one system/rule is like an artificial limitation that doesn't make sense...like you have to get from A to B asap but you are only allowed to jump on one foot. Unless it comes to morality, this is very hard to understand... And yeah, as soon as I hear about a one-size-fits-all something, my brain starts a knee-jerk exercise of finding all the cases when this just *won't* work 😅
On the other, it sucks being incoherent. While I have a decent understanding of how socionics works, or how cars work, if someone would ask me to explain, I'd look like the dumbest idiot because my mind immediately jumps to details and examples and analogies... If I literally don't have a diagram in front of my eyes, I can't calmly and logically move from general to specific without jumping all over the place... So in its own way, Ti polr hurts 🤕
I don’t think this is what Ti-polr is about, and I think people are mistaking the delta quadrant’s Te-Ne “indecisiveness” for general Ti-polr, or lack of Ti. As an SEE, this is not what lack of Ti is about in the gammas. Ti-polr in the gammas is more about their adherence to something WITHOUT understanding the theoretical structure behind it (lack of Ti). For example, SEE’s can even move people socially towards a political party, because that party is correct, following it works, and they can even prove it’s consistency because of the Te pragmatism. They “don’t need Ti.” If you interact with real Betas, you will see that they actually DON’T adhere to anything UNLESS they can Ti it. (When they do Ti it, they do expect loyalty to the rules, however.) A perfect example of this is actually Bruce Lee, who is most likely a Beta type. This type of logic is what gives beta types that “don’t adhere to any style” vibe to them that is demonstrated by Bruce Lee, even at the expense of pragmatism. Essentially, “don’t adhere to anything that you don’t fully understand.” It’s the gammas that will SEEMINGLY shortcut Ti to do the pragmatic thing. And unlike the delta IEE, I actually think the SEE is more likely to adhere strongly to certain principles WITHOUT needing to fully understand it. AND because of Ni, there actually won’t be as many contradictions, as the gammas eliminate all Si contexts, like comfort sensations. The contradictions that you mentioned exist in the IEE, is something that the delta quadrant types in general will give off to others, due to their Te-Ne. Even the logical types will give off this indecisiveness.
Sorry, but te-ne is not indecisiveness, it's open-mindedness. Indecisiveness points to weak se and/or te. LSEs are not indecisive at all (strong te and se). And they can't be, because they complement/make up for the indecisiveness of EIIs.
wouldnt Ti users be infuriated by socionics for its lack of 1 to 1 interpretability in people and the vast amount of mistypings and "ass pulls" some typists do by citing quadras or dichotomies and kind of larping you into a type.
@@jphone9200 While we can clarify a person's type with an EEG brain scan, that's not what typology is meant for, although such research is still valuable nonetheless. Jung intended for it to be a therapeutic framework and thus the individual experience of the self-which is subjective-is important.
@@jphone9200not being able to take the subjectivity out of a thing and the thing being wholly subjective aren’t the same things my friend, make sure you read and interpret properly 🤝🏼
Jung Ti: The Introverted Thinking Type Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper. The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486] disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation. With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within. The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.
Maturation occurs when you realize your neat box doesn't always work and when you realize that you not having a box means you won't have the tools necessary for the job
Bruce Lee literally wrote his own philosophy which is ni ti fi heavy Blending systems and using what works for oneself is literally ti He didn't do what just works , he wanted to spread that philosophy even to his own detriment . He wasn't supposed to share his knowledge of martial arts and paid for that He was also a ballroom dancer actor coke head spiritualist actor and beta drama for days All the sounds he makes very fe se I grew up on Bruce I get the point you're making tho and I see how you demonstrated te to make that point But doesn't it take all of us to make things work if we develop bias and prejudice type just becomes another form of racism , when we should be looking at the benefit and strength of our differences
@@PracticalSocionics how else would ti create its own system , from out its ass ? Ti still strives to be objective without bias but how could it form categories without blending objective systems? The tai jeet kune do is one he also did many interviews did you know hes part German But ne is about blending seemingly unrelated things not te or ti
In some cases , yes. Ti can pull from out of its ass. A priori knowledge. Using what has proven to work is a posteriori knowledge. If you choose to take what has proven to work and then recombine it all into its own cohesive, standardized system, then you can say that you’ve started from Te and moved towards Ti. But Bruce was against standardizing and systematizing his methods. He encouraged everyone to find their own unique approach. That shows me a heavy emphasis on Te and Fi. His philosophy was not something that was original and new to the world. All his main points come from Taoism. These philosophies have been used and practiced in China for over 2,000 years. The concepts of flowing like water is the central theme of Tai chi. It also pops up a lot in all Wudang martial arts. His great contribution was in popularizing these philosophies to western audiences through entertaining movies.
@@PracticalSocionicsWhat if the problem is we are trying to see these functions from a vacuum For example see and sle both are se Dom which us volitional force but see has fi which in its own is a form of force with the attraction repulsion So see might seem more aggressive than sle which has ti but also has fe , but see has fe demo And sle has stronger te than does see It says see likes to try to dominate those stronger than them , and they do it by emotional witchcraft so to speak Where as sle like to control those weaker than them But most people would assume sle is more aggressive especially due to being beta , buta sle is Merry and see is serious So it really depends on your type and the interrelationships of type . I'm LSI so I find see soft and cuddly until provoked but I also don't see sle a threat either If anything because of the social sphere I trend light when it comes to eii and ESE which can be far more problematic for me , so if I didn't know type I would have assume eii and ESE as se doms Its all a matter of perspective but you keep being you I could be wrong we all could be wrong and the whole system needs to be burned
Jung Te: The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material. In general, therefore, we may describe this kind of judgment as predicative. In any case, characteristic that it is never absolutely depreciatory or destructive, but always substitutes a fresh value for one that is demolished. This quality is due to the fact that thought is the main channel into which a thinking-type's energy flows. Life steadily advancing shows itself in the man's thinking, so that his ideas maintain a progressive, creative character. His thinking neither stagnates, nor is it in the least regressive. Such qualities cling only to a thinking that is not given priority in consciousness. In this event it is relatively unimportant, and also lacks the character of a positive vital activity. It follows in the wake of other functions, it becomes Epimethean, it has an 'esprit de l'escalier' quality, contenting itself with constant ponderings and broodings upon things past and gone, in an effort to analyse and digest them. Where the creative element, as in this case, inhabits another function, thinking no longer progresses it stagnates. Its judgment takes on a decided inherency-character, i.e. it entirely confines itself to the range of the given material, nowhere overstepping it. It is contented with a more or less abstract statement, and fails to impart any value to the experimental material that was not already there. The inherency-judgment of such extraverted thinking is objectively orientated, i.e. its conclusion always expresses the objective importance of experience. Hence, not only does it remain under the orientating influence of objective [p. 443] data, but it actually rests within the charmed circle of the individual experience, about which it affirms nothing that was not already given by it. We may easily observe this thinking in those people who cannot refrain from tacking on to an impression or experience some rational and doubtless very valid remark, which, however, in no way adventures beyond the given orbit of the experience. At bottom, such a remark merely says 'I have understood it -- I can reconstruct it.' But there the matter also ends. At its very highest, such a judgment signifies merely the placing of an experience in an objective setting, whereby the experience is at once recognized as belonging to the frame. But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking. Such a thinking, therefore, ceases to have any interest for our present discussion. Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle. To observe and investigate this thinking in itself is not easy, since, in the concrete case, it is more or less constantly repressed by the conscious attitude. Hence, in the majority of cases, it first must be retrieved from the background of consciousness, unless in some unguarded moment it should chance to come accidentally to the surface. As a rule, it must be enticed with some such questions as 'Now what do you really think?' or, again, 'What is your private view [p. 444] about the matter?' Or perhaps one may even use a little cunning, framing the question something this: 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' This latter form should be chosen when the real thinking is unconscious and, therefore projected. The thinking that is enticed to the surface this way has characteristic qualities; it was these I had in mind just now when I described it as negative. It habitual mode is best characterized by the two words 'nothing but'. Goethe personified this thinking in the figure of Mephistopheles. It shows a most distinctive tendency to trace back the object of its judgment to some banality or other, thus stripping it of its own independent significance. This happens simply because it is represented as being dependent upon some other commonplace thing. Wherever a conflict, apparently essential in nature, arises between two men, negative thinking mutters 'Cherchez la femme'. When a man champions or advocates a cause, negative thinking makes no inquiry as to the importance of the thing, but merely asks 'How much does he make by it?' The dictum ascribed to Moleschott: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst" (" Man is what he eats ") also belongs to this collection, as do many more aphorisms and opinions which I need not enumerate. The destructive quality of this thinking as well as its occasional and limited usefulness, hardly need further elucidation. But there still exists another form of negative thinking, which at first glance perhaps would scarcely be recognized as such I refer to the theosophical thinking which is to-day rapidly spreading in every quarter of the globe, presumably as a reaction phenomenon to the materialism of the epoch now receding. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent -- they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy. It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions. [p. 446]
White (introverted) logic  We call ‘logical’ those feelings that arise from the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of some objective criteria - for example, a sense of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation, which in certain situations help to activate or passivate the person who experiences them. Incoming information is recognized by such an individual as a sense of objects’ proper or improper correlation and proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between the objects, or a sense of understanding or lack of understanding of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that result from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena - curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one’s own power or powerlessness before different objects. All these feelings we shall call logical. Their sum is a person’s sense of logic, which is developed to different extents in different people. We might say that logical feelings convey information about presence or lack of knowledge, comparability and incomparability, and the presence or lack of balance between them, as well as about the space and location of object within it. These feelings are called objective because they do not take into consideration the interests and needs of the person him/herself, but only such correlations of objective qualities. This perceptual element determines a person’s ability or inability to see the objective, logical relations between objects or their components. When this element is in the leading position, the individual is distinguished by his or her ability to logically evaluate relations of the objective static reality, or the world of objects. He also has the ability to change the interrelations between properties of different objects according to his wishes, and through this influence objects themselves as carriers of these properties. Correct evaluation of one’s relations with other objects helps the individual know which objects should be avoided, and which can be “hunted.” Such an individual is able to set his logic - or his knowledge of objectifiable reality, patterns, laws, and correlations of the objective world - in opposition to knowledge of others. He has the ability to mold and perfect not only his own knowledge of objectifiable reality, but also that of other people. This creates a feeling of power when clashing with other people’s logic or lack thereof.
Black (extroverted) logic  Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects’ physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others’ work. When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to plan his and others’ work, understand the logicalness and illogicalness of processes, and correct the work activities of other people in accordance with this understanding. And the ability to apply personally and convey to others the most rational ways of doing things
In short…this misunderstanding of definitions is why won’t agree. Jack, Ibrahim Tencer and others have already discussed these definition in detail. So I refer you back to any of them.
@@PracticalSocionicsI didn't write that ashura did that's directly from socionics have you read it in Russian and even Carl Jung expressed it that way in psychological types as did van der hoop ect
There are so many examples of the two “Logics” Modern medicine reminds me of Ti and the holistic stuff that is often effective is more Te. Unfortunately I’m bad at using both 💀
@@Wimbledon-Tennismatch probably because mbti is very different from socionics, and i fit more into the Ti Ne stereotype than how ethical types are presented in mbti. Plus I was very young and didn’t really know myself as well. In socionics, Ti valuers are much less likely to use different methods of approach as I do, or in a chaotic way as I do.
Se in general can opportunistic. Trump’s goal is to win at all costs and by any leverage he can find. SLE types can be very good at tearing down structures or building them. Trump’s Fi has been consistently weak to exceedingly bad levels. He demonstrates an inability to tell friend from foe or maintain consistent personal attitudes towards people. Given this widely agreed upon evidence, it’s more likely that he’s an SLE rather than an SEE. Jack has a good video on dedicated to this on his channel. At the moment I think the only serious socionist that thinks Trump is an SEE is Gulenko.
rigidity is not a good adjective to describe te or ti. some te established things are much more rigid. for example you learn religion and nationalism in a te/fe way and zero ti way. your parents and society just injected those te/fe ideologies in your little brain when you were a kid and only through ti you can get rid of it. ti deconstructs, not te. fi deconstructs, not fe. ti and fi integrity seeking functions. it doesn't matter if something is presented to high ti or fi user as a fact (whether ethical or logical) they will still check if that so called "fact" holds. te doesn't do that. fe doesn't do that. "whatever works" directly means no integrity-checking. no motivation for deeper understanding of things for fe and te, because if it doesn't work then you use the other thing is their method. but this way, you can jump from wrong to wrong to wrong to wronger as you don't really fundamentally understand anything.
so you can say ti and fi seeks consistency but not ANY consistency. there are rigid wrongs too. and what breaks that wrong rigidity is again fi and ti.
For me, being Ti-PoLR feels like having this ease for just deducing what people mean from the context of what's going on & what they're saying. In more frustrating moments, it feels like Ti-valuers aren't actually reacting to what's being said - like they listen/read in a "Control+F" method where they look for some key word and then it's like "Ah ha! You've now invoked this framework!" - which leads to a chain of logical assumptions that have nothing to do with what's being said. I'm not saying that Ti valuers are actually doing that. What I am saying, is that it can feel like that. And I also understand that there's a mutual frustration there, absolutely. "Well if you don't mean to invoke this framework, Ian, then why are you using this keyword?" "I just...needed something to call this totally unrelated thing that's going on right now."
According to Model G, which I agree with, IEE and SEE put more energy into Ti and Te. I verified this through my IEE sister who told me that Te managing others activities completely drain her. And she wants other people (like her SLI Dual) to take care of Te for her. But she does appreciate others working with her to better understand (Ti) Ne theories. Every SEE and IEE I know have 1 D energy for Te. But 2 D energy for Ti. --------------------------------------------- Note: Socionics is a single engine airplane with one engine out when only Model A, and not Model G, is taken into account. Model G is every bit the equal to Model A. And Jack Oliver Aaron's rigid Causal Determinist +Ti does the entire Western Socionics community a disservice by suppressing it.
I would not agree with the notion that Te has anything to do with “managing other people”. Se is more useful in managing other people since Se types can be more authoritative, energetic and pushy. Qualities that are useful in “managing other people”. This means SEE may have advantage over IEE’s at managing. You do realize that you can using the exact same analogy over and over again even when it’s unnecessary or ineffective right? It seems like your signature tag line. It’s impossible for Jack to suppress model G. He can’t physically block anyone from having a UA-cam channel, blog, host conferences, or throw Gulenko in a Gulag. Ben Vasserlan talks about model G on UA-cam, proof that Jack can’t “suppress it”. That’s a preposterous claim that borders on Delusion.
@@PracticalSocionics te is harsh lol I don't think he meant to sound delusional he's just enthusiastic about proving wws wrong about model g being useless , this is his version of a propaganda campaign lol
@@tricksterwitch Im aware of his desire to prove the use of model G and I’d encourage anyone that’s passionate about model G to make their own channel. Comments like “Jack wouldn’t get it”, or that “Jack is suppressing Model G” is silly and only serves to further bury model G in the ground. He’s hurting his cause more than he is helping it.
@PracticalSocionics I'm considering doing a teaching Socionics and other panjungian topics channel in a couple of years. I'm just not in a position to right now. Thanks for the suggestion. PS One possible name for my channel is "Panoramic Holograph" as us LIIs like to take the best from multiple systems and combine them into one. The opposite of ILEs who like to stick to one Ne cause that their Ti then makes causal connections to as determining everything.
I fully agree with fellow LII Ben Vaserlan that correctly typed IEE = mbti-ENFP. Just as correctly typed SLE = mbti-ESTP. 99 % of differences between mbti and Socionics is because mbti failed to see all SPs (including mbti-ISTP Craftsman who are SLI Craftsman and mbti-ISFP who are SEIs) lead with sensation and all SJs (including mbti-ISTJ who are LSIs and mbti-ISFJ who are ESIs) lead with judging. Which makes mbti fundamentally flawed.
and yet, your lover jack from worldsocionics types donald trump ti creative sle while donald trump is clearly a "whatever works" guy. he doesn't explain anything in detail, he uses sweeping phrases like "make america great again" (which is fe demonstrating too). and the most funny thing is jack says "if we can't agree on donald trump being sle then we can't agree on anything" or something along the lines. well, if you insist on being wrong we can't agree of course.
Gulenko was asked about his typing live on air and he dodged the question. Specifically how he accounted for Donald’s weak Fi. So there’s plenty of finger pointing to go around
If bruce lee had higher Te than he would've never been the father of mma , he wouldve stuck to only certain systems or wouldve just never been as spiritual as he was about it , the only te users you can try to say he was is the entj and intj mbti style and hes definitely not those two for many reasons even if he may look similar but the guy was a feeler and very likeable for it or else his ideas might've been off putting but we can just go with quadra values,he doesn't have third or fourth te neither because he doesn't belong to delta or gamma in short ,bruce lee was breaking in new systems by deducing old martial art forms ,taking everything he wanted while being disciplined to each martial art,but he took those forms , deduced the strengths and weaknesses and made his own martial art which was a combo of every martial art including boxing and wresting. He also made the martial art able to grow but either way it was not from inductive reasoning but it was deductive logic but either way ti wasnt his only function going into his work especially his martial arts is philosophy based and used for spiritual reasons , you can only guess 2 types out of the beta who he can be and you should be able to guess which one out of the 2. You dont have to agree although I do know I'm correct, physical sports is not just about sensing functions, tbh this is the problem with everyone thinking the intuitives are some how the weaker ones especially nfs all because we are sensitive , every warrior in the past is chosen from their sensitivities, someone like Alexander the great was picked on but look at the champion he became, he wasn't picked on because he was weak and couldn't fight back ,it happened because he was sensitive and trying to figure out the nature of life either consciously and or unconsciously understanding that he could still handle himself if pushed to far but as you see his sensitive traits brought him to be a champion like no other, you can only do that by understanding all walks of life, you can't be strong without knowing how the other side feels
Agreed brother or sista not sure but right warriors even the best boxers are choosen for sensitivity If you cannot dance you cannot fight nor are you good at sex because you don't know how to connect and read the person beautiful insight
@@gabriellucus2915lol brother brother and definitely preach brother to that , no connection if you can't dance your way with someone ,no connecting ,no real sex thankyou brother I appreciate it 💪💪🔥👊 right words right there
@@PracticalSocionics I would say more so I'm in the real world where types exist on and off the screen, plus there's plenty of ppl who would agree with me , have you actually seen the details of their life , have you been in to college for advanced philosophy, do you read Alexander the great everyday to know to say something like that?, that's not logical that sounds more so like a emotional statement backed behind subjective sentiments of your own, by far this are not se leads and let me tell you this ethical intuitive which is me has never lost a fight or whole competitions and i compete alot , my peers especially will never beat me and that's not for you to believe or not believe but that is my own statement , I see you have a clear wrong definition about intuitive types , especially mesomorph intuitives
@@PracticalSocionics you're in your feelings today calling people delusional in their own world why such a meanie Can't you just say you disagree rather than attacking someone , do you know Bruce Lee or Alex personally otherwise it's just speculation for everyone no need to be so mean don't turn into Eric I understand if you was weak and found Bruce Lee to give you strength so for you it's personal but can't you ever be humble and admit your bias Play nice no need for all the toxic masculinity
Helpful.
Personally when it comes to the example of the political stance, it's peculiar because for me i often critisized people who would almost have this weird clone-like attitude to political sphere, you know, for some reason it's like they're all made in factory, if you're a conservative then you're against abortion, you also love religion and other garbage, whenever i see people especially on social media nowadays, it's like they're all the same.
In my case, i have bits of that, bits of this and bits of that, rather than obsessing on a singular thing i have things i agree with on the liberal side and vice versa which makes it really funny to see when someone is trying to label me politically. Maybe i'm just an old fuck nowadays who grew out of some rigid "you're a liberal thus a snowflake" thought process.
Good vid as usual
I think Ti creative at least has ideological flexibility because it (and other functions) in creative are adaptive. ILE's for example won't be found ideologically consistent because they will find various different ideologies and mishmash them together, creating their ever-evolving "Perfect system."
@@gamerpopz9277 obligatory Slavoj Zizek mention
True. Ti creative would be more flexible
As an IEE (i think) i have your exact stance on politics and the clone like attitude.
I think it is an Te Ti overlap simply. Ti is also interested in CREATING something cohesive and is not simply adhering to the structure which is already there.
To pick and choose from different sources is of course not exclusively "Te" but simply an elevated abillity to be more objective through reflection, intelligence, education (all what was mentioned in the video). You are synthesizing something. The question is for WHAT you are synthesizing this "something".
The goal of someone with Ti is rather oriented towards building something internally coherent and functional/true/cohesive while the Te is just picking and choosing based on the results it harbors and the interfunctionality of things. Ti will still be more stable (maybe even rigid) when the correct believe/order/rule system is decided upon while Te (especially with polr Ti) will be way more flexible, flaky and open for changing the methode on the spot.
For me politics and the game of the world is an constant evaluation game. So if i want to make some valuable statements myself or create some helpfull thought direction i simply need to set some rather objective axioms to not get lost in my personal likes/dislikes. For this someone like me will unavoidably turn to Te.
This creates a rather consequentialist attitude. The set goal is "fixed" rather then the ideology/system. This goal of course is highly subjective but this for once is not avoidable.
I have trouble understanding what the value of structure is when the outcome is not the central orientation of thought to build such structure which is probably Ti polr in a nutshell.
(also i have L3 but i bet you can tell)
Even chaos is organized to a degree, thankfully our minds create natural balances in these ways
True wisdom in this one . The force is strong in this one
@@tricksterwitch xd
TiFe is about clarity, it looks for generalisation and principles, it finds the most redundant truth and sticks to that for clarity reasons. You get clear princples and rules out but you might also loose detail. whcih is noise not signal to them.
FiTe looks for more nuances and the respective context and then of course must reject generalisations and strict principles. They say: "oh it depends..." a lot and hesitate to settle on what they see as a too simple truth.
Each axis is right in some way. Sometimes you need a clear cut xy and sometimes you need more nuances and looking at the context more.
Phenomenal explanation of what Ti-Polr is NOT (aka, dumb). One of the things I appreciated when first hearing Jack's explanation of Ti was to realise how easily it could be mistaken for "feelings" or "morals/ethics" (Fi) given that it could take a very ideological turn + it could potentially appear "emotional/irrational" because it could be paradoxically stubborn on its interpretations even in the face of circumstances which do not match them.
Loved watching your livestreams--you are way more playful and cheeky in those (and in this one too)!
Can I ask you, when recording your videos, are you especially concerned with rambling/not getting to the point quickly enough?
Ideally I’d like videos to be as concise as possible and not needlessly veer off of course. Some write out scripts or do other long preparatory things. I just wing it and try to get my point across.
@@PracticalSocionics yeah, that's a skill you have right there to be able to just wing it. When you're not speaking in public and are just thinking to yourself, do you also try to keep your thinking on track (actively try to ensure your thoughts do not wander much)? Thanks!
There are literally some people out there who believe Ti PoLR = stupid… That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, thank you for explaining what it actually looks like.
I agree with Model G that SEEs and IEEs put twice as much effort into Ti than Te. Which makes them better at improving their Ti than Te.
This can be seen in IEEs having a better understanding of theories than the ability to manage others.
So no they are not dumb. But they are lazy when it comes to managing others.
@@jaredvaughan1665 Is not Ti in the avoidance block for IEE in model G? Hard to have energy for making the effort to improve yourself there? With pessimum energy…
Taking stuff from anywhere you find it, still is a principle. It is Ti. What is Te though, is doing research, it's evaluating sources. Ti looks at content, Te looks at form. Te is paired with either Ni or Fi, because those two things set goals, which Te itself is incapable of. Ti on the contrary is paired with Ne and Se, because that is the domain on which the principles(Ti) can be utilized to evaluate a course of action or a possibility. So its not that Te is more flexible than Ti, but rather that Ti values, whereas Te seeks out instruments to obtain a preset value-judgement made by a feeling or a vision.
Enfp here ... I always know the truth. My truth is a fi-truth. I always sense what people really feel, what their values really are.
I don't need a ti- reasoning. I can hold the truth and all the variety of fi in the world, I don't get confused. I don't need the system to be my absolute truth, I would rather need a not so precise overall system to categorize all the fi.
I'm honestly confused by Fe. Social norms. If I can relate authentically to every person seperately and know my values and all the emotional possibilities ... I am very consistent.
To have a consistency in your own logic can be contradictory to live a consistency in your feelings and personal values. If you stick to your system: how can you be real?
So, no, we Te/fi users are not inconsistent or like chameleons ... we are quite the contrary ... we are very real and honest and follow the real truth, the fi-truth
Well that sounds like an excellent display of a stubborn, unvalued function. I’m glad you have you know your type
@@PracticalSocionics what is the unvalued function here? I am speaking of fi being valued as a truth-telling function ... so do you mean ti is not valued? Then yes, but I do more display here how fi works as truth... not so much putting ti down ... because it's mostly so, that ti is thought of as the only truth ... and it's not
@@wf4983 “My truth” implies a personal subjective view of what is real. “THE truth” is implying a universal reality that would apply uniformly for everyone.
Your Fi types will show a changing approach to each person while a Ti will believe in one consistent approach regardless of the individual.
For Fi, the individual involved always matters and changes things. For Ti the individual doesn’t matter and the prescribed approach should apply evenly.
Ti may be seen as robotic while Fi might be seen as lacking consistent principles.
This is in the abstract. In practice , the Ti polr types generally seem to have an inconsistent well reasoned, coherent structure to approach things or believe in.
Ti types can have a consistent structure or principles to follow that may come at the expense of individuals or personal bonds.
To adequately show all this one needs to look at the entire type and the full functional model.
@@PracticalSocionics yes, yes... I know that ti-user point of view. It's more often that the other perspective is not seen:
It's something very basic and consistent about fi. We might adapt to different people/ emotions/ situations ... but the fundamental consistency lies exactly in that human approach. The human approach in itsself is the consistency and truth contrary to the application of principles (ti). For us (fi) these principles can appear to be very made up, simply not aligned with the heart of things ... and therefore (for fi-users) leading to false logical constructions. Yes, that's how it seems for us (and I don't only mean myself, I talked about this with many fi-users): a construction. What I mean to do here is to defend fi. It is not such an unsteady, random evaluation system ... it is on the contrary very consistent. It's just that most MBTI logicians are ti-users ... and if you haven't experienced fi, how can you judge it? It will always be in the distance. And that is also something that fi users are capable of: slipping into and experiencing someone else's truth ... and that is harder for ti.
Oh my, yes! Being an IEE, it does feel like having to use just one system/rule is like an artificial limitation that doesn't make sense...like you have to get from A to B asap but you are only allowed to jump on one foot. Unless it comes to morality, this is very hard to understand... And yeah, as soon as I hear about a one-size-fits-all something, my brain starts a knee-jerk exercise of finding all the cases when this just *won't* work 😅
Socionics type psychology ect are all ti things
Ni as well because it forms archetypes even the DSM is about disordered archetypes
On the other, it sucks being incoherent. While I have a decent understanding of how socionics works, or how cars work, if someone would ask me to explain, I'd look like the dumbest idiot because my mind immediately jumps to details and examples and analogies... If I literally don't have a diagram in front of my eyes, I can't calmly and logically move from general to specific without jumping all over the place... So in its own way, Ti polr hurts 🤕
I don’t think this is what Ti-polr is about, and I think people are mistaking the delta quadrant’s Te-Ne “indecisiveness” for general Ti-polr, or lack of Ti. As an SEE, this is not what lack of Ti is about in the gammas.
Ti-polr in the gammas is more about their adherence to something WITHOUT understanding the theoretical structure behind it (lack of Ti). For example, SEE’s can even move people socially towards a political party, because that party is correct, following it works, and they can even prove it’s consistency because of the Te pragmatism. They “don’t need Ti.”
If you interact with real Betas, you will see that they actually DON’T adhere to anything UNLESS they can Ti it. (When they do Ti it, they do expect loyalty to the rules, however.)
A perfect example of this is actually Bruce Lee, who is most likely a Beta type. This type of logic is what gives beta types that “don’t adhere to any style” vibe to them that is demonstrated by Bruce Lee, even at the expense of pragmatism. Essentially, “don’t adhere to anything that you don’t fully understand.”
It’s the gammas that will SEEMINGLY shortcut Ti to do the pragmatic thing. And unlike the delta IEE, I actually think the SEE is more likely to adhere strongly to certain principles WITHOUT needing to fully understand it. AND because of Ni, there actually won’t be as many contradictions, as the gammas eliminate all Si contexts, like comfort sensations.
The contradictions that you mentioned exist in the IEE, is something that the delta quadrant types in general will give off to others, due to their Te-Ne. Even the logical types will give off this indecisiveness.
Agreed so much
Most definitely 💪
Please tell me you will mention this on your channel, because you got it right but I'm Jason defense he has ti. Ignoring
@@amberroses7285 Good idea! 😝
Sorry, but te-ne is not indecisiveness, it's open-mindedness. Indecisiveness points to weak se and/or te.
LSEs are not indecisive at all (strong te and se). And they can't be, because they complement/make up for the indecisiveness of EIIs.
wouldnt Ti users be infuriated by socionics for its lack of 1 to 1 interpretability in people and the vast amount of mistypings and "ass pulls" some typists do by citing quadras or dichotomies and kind of larping you into a type.
Nope thats everyone. At the end of the day you can never take out the subjectivity aspect of typology.
@@PracticalSocionics so you're admitting it's not real?
@@jphone9200 While we can clarify a person's type with an EEG brain scan, that's not what typology is meant for, although such research is still valuable nonetheless. Jung intended for it to be a therapeutic framework and thus the individual experience of the self-which is subjective-is important.
@@Kojitsu you're low iq
@@jphone9200not being able to take the subjectivity out of a thing and the thing being wholly subjective aren’t the same things my friend, make sure you read and interpret properly 🤝🏼
Jung Ti:
The Introverted Thinking Type
Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.
The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486]
disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.
With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.
The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.
You are high Fi, Ti valuers do what works logically and ideologically, but do not follow a "set guide" of values, thats Fi.
Maturation occurs when you realize your neat box doesn't always work and when you realize that you not having a box means you won't have the tools necessary for the job
Bruce Lee literally wrote his own philosophy which is ni ti fi heavy
Blending systems and using what works for oneself is literally ti
He didn't do what just works , he wanted to spread that philosophy even to his own detriment .
He wasn't supposed to share his knowledge of martial arts and paid for that
He was also a ballroom dancer actor coke head spiritualist actor and beta drama for days
All the sounds he makes very fe se
I grew up on Bruce I get the point you're making tho and I see how you demonstrated te to make that point
But doesn't it take all of us to make things work if we develop bias and prejudice type just becomes another form of racism , when we should be looking at the benefit and strength of our differences
What philosophy did he write that was all his own?
Blending systems and using works is not ti. It’s the exact definition of Te.
@@PracticalSocionics how else would ti create its own system , from out its ass ?
Ti still strives to be objective without bias but how could it form categories without blending objective systems?
The tai jeet kune do is one he also did many interviews did you know hes part German
But ne is about blending seemingly unrelated things not te or ti
@@SansAvecAmour2-kv3pf do u believe Jason isn't entj?
In some cases , yes. Ti can pull from out of its ass. A priori knowledge.
Using what has proven to work is a posteriori knowledge.
If you choose to take what has proven to work and then recombine it all into its own cohesive, standardized system, then you can say that you’ve started from Te and moved towards Ti. But Bruce was against standardizing and systematizing his methods. He encouraged everyone to find their own unique approach. That shows me a heavy emphasis on Te and Fi.
His philosophy was not something that was original and new to the world. All his main points come from Taoism. These philosophies have been used and practiced in China for over 2,000 years. The concepts of flowing like water is the central theme of Tai chi. It also pops up a lot in all Wudang martial arts.
His great contribution was in popularizing these philosophies to western audiences through entertaining movies.
@@PracticalSocionicsWhat if the problem is we are trying to see these functions from a vacuum
For example see and sle both are se Dom which us volitional force but see has fi which in its own is a form of force with the attraction repulsion
So see might seem more aggressive than sle which has ti but also has fe , but see has fe demo
And sle has stronger te than does see
It says see likes to try to dominate those stronger than them , and they do it by emotional witchcraft so to speak
Where as sle like to control those weaker than them
But most people would assume sle is more aggressive especially due to being beta , buta sle is Merry and see is serious
So it really depends on your type and the interrelationships of type .
I'm LSI so I find see soft and cuddly until provoked but I also don't see sle a threat either
If anything because of the social sphere I trend light when it comes to eii and ESE which can be far more problematic for me , so if I didn't know type I would have assume eii and ESE as se doms
Its all a matter of perspective but you keep being you I could be wrong we all could be wrong and the whole system needs to be burned
Jung Te:
The thought of the extraverted thinking type is, positive, i.e. it produces. It either leads to new facts or to general conceptions of disparate experimental material. Its judgment is generally synthetic. Even when it analyses, it constructs, because it is always advancing beyond the, analysis to a new combination, a further conception which reunites the analysed material in a new way or adds some., thing further to the given material. In general, therefore, we may describe this kind of judgment as predicative. In any case, characteristic that it is never absolutely depreciatory or destructive, but always substitutes a fresh value for one that is demolished. This quality is due to the fact that thought is the main channel into which a thinking-type's energy flows. Life steadily advancing shows itself in the man's thinking, so that his ideas maintain a progressive, creative character. His thinking neither stagnates, nor is it in the least regressive. Such qualities cling only to a thinking that is not given priority in consciousness. In this event it is relatively unimportant, and also lacks the character of a positive vital activity. It follows in the wake of other functions, it becomes Epimethean, it has an 'esprit de l'escalier' quality, contenting itself with constant ponderings and broodings upon things past and gone, in an effort to analyse and digest them. Where the creative element, as in this case, inhabits another function, thinking no longer progresses it stagnates. Its judgment takes on a decided inherency-character, i.e. it entirely confines itself to the range of the given material, nowhere overstepping it. It is contented with a more or less abstract statement, and fails to impart any value to the experimental material that was not already there.
The inherency-judgment of such extraverted thinking is objectively orientated, i.e. its conclusion always expresses the objective importance of experience. Hence, not only does it remain under the orientating influence of objective [p. 443]
data, but it actually rests within the charmed circle of the individual experience, about which it affirms nothing that was not already given by it. We may easily observe this thinking in those people who cannot refrain from tacking on to an impression or experience some rational and doubtless very valid remark, which, however, in no way adventures beyond the given orbit of the experience. At bottom, such a remark merely says 'I have understood it -- I can reconstruct it.' But there the matter also ends. At its very highest, such a judgment signifies merely the placing of an experience in an objective setting, whereby the experience is at once recognized as belonging to the frame.
But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking. Such a thinking, therefore, ceases to have any interest for our present discussion. Our concern is rather with the constitution of that thinking which cannot be subordinated to the dominance of another function, but remains true to its own principle. To observe and investigate this thinking in itself is not easy, since, in the concrete case, it is more or less constantly repressed by the conscious attitude. Hence, in the majority of cases, it first must be retrieved from the background of consciousness, unless in some unguarded moment it should chance to come accidentally to the surface. As a rule, it must be enticed with some such questions as 'Now what do you really think?' or, again, 'What is your private view [p. 444] about the matter?' Or perhaps one may even use a little cunning, framing the question something this: 'What do you imagine, then, that I really think about the matter?' This latter form should be chosen when the real thinking is unconscious and, therefore projected. The thinking that is enticed to the surface this way has characteristic qualities; it was these I had in mind just now when I described it as negative. It habitual mode is best characterized by the two words 'nothing but'. Goethe personified this thinking in the figure of Mephistopheles. It shows a most distinctive tendency to trace back the object of its judgment to some banality or other, thus stripping it of its own independent significance. This happens simply because it is represented as being dependent upon some other commonplace thing. Wherever a conflict, apparently essential in nature, arises between two men, negative thinking mutters 'Cherchez la femme'. When a man champions or advocates a cause, negative thinking makes no inquiry as to the importance of the thing, but merely asks 'How much does he make by it?' The dictum ascribed to Moleschott: "Der Mensch ist, was er isst" (" Man is what he eats ") also belongs to this collection, as do many more aphorisms and opinions which I need not enumerate.
The destructive quality of this thinking as well as its occasional and limited usefulness, hardly need further elucidation. But there still exists another form of negative thinking, which at first glance perhaps would scarcely be recognized as such I refer to the theosophical thinking which is to-day rapidly spreading in every quarter of the globe, presumably as a reaction phenomenon to the materialism of the epoch now receding. Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved. But, fundamentally, this sort of thinking is just as negative as materialistic thinking. When the latter conceives psychology as chemical changes taking place in the cell-ganglia, or as the extrusion and withdrawal of cell-processes, or as an internal secretion, in essence this is just as superstitious as theosophy. The only difference lies in the fact that materialism reduces all phenomena to our current physiological notions, while theosophy brings everything into the concepts of Indian metaphysics. When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'? Not only are both methods of explanation quite impotent -- they are actually destructive, because by interposing their seeming explanations they withdraw interest from the problem, diverting it in the former case to the stomach, and in the latter to imaginary vibrations, thus preventing any serious investigation of the problem. Either kind of thinking is both sterile and sterilizing. Their negative quality consists in this it is a method of thought that is indescribably cheap there is a real poverty of productive and creative energy. It is a thinking taken in tow by other functions. [p. 446]
where is this from?
White (introverted) logic 
We call ‘logical’ those feelings that arise from the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of some objective criteria - for example, a sense of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation, which in certain situations help to activate or passivate the person who experiences them. Incoming information is recognized by such an individual as a sense of objects’ proper or improper correlation and proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between the objects, or a sense of understanding or lack of understanding of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that result from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena - curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one’s own power or powerlessness before different objects.
All these feelings we shall call logical. Their sum is a person’s sense of logic, which is developed to different extents in different people. We might say that logical feelings convey information about presence or lack of knowledge, comparability and incomparability, and the presence or lack of balance between them, as well as about the space and location of object within it. These feelings are called objective because they do not take into consideration the interests and needs of the person him/herself, but only such correlations of objective qualities. This perceptual element determines a person’s ability or inability to see the objective, logical relations between objects or their components.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual is distinguished by his or her ability to logically evaluate relations of the objective static reality, or the world of objects. He also has the ability to change the interrelations between properties of different objects according to his wishes, and through this influence objects themselves as carriers of these properties. Correct evaluation of one’s relations with other objects helps the individual know which objects should be avoided, and which can be “hunted.” Such an individual is able to set his logic - or his knowledge of objectifiable reality, patterns, laws, and correlations of the objective world - in opposition to knowledge of others. He has the ability to mold and perfect not only his own knowledge of objectifiable reality, but also that of other people. This creates a feeling of power when clashing with other people’s logic or lack thereof.
Black (extroverted) logic 
Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects’ physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others’ work.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to plan his and others’ work, understand the logicalness and illogicalness of processes, and correct the work activities of other people in accordance with this understanding. And the ability to apply personally and convey to others the most rational ways of doing things
Idk where everyone is getting their definitions from
Why are you even evoking the word feeling to begin to discuss logic.
In short…this misunderstanding of definitions is why won’t agree. Jack, Ibrahim Tencer and others have already discussed these definition in detail. So I refer you back to any of them.
@@PracticalSocionicsI didn't write that ashura did that's directly from socionics have you read it in Russian and even Carl Jung expressed it that way in psychological types as did van der hoop ect
Thank you!
There are so many examples of the two “Logics” Modern medicine reminds me of Ti and the holistic stuff that is often effective is more Te. Unfortunately I’m bad at using both 💀
I remember back 3 years ago u were a ENTP? What made you come to the conclusion of EII in Socionics if u don’t mind me asking?
Eii isn't bad at ti they just don't value it and they have te aspiration they are also rational types so they get te and ti they don't value it
@@Wimbledon-Tennismatch probably because mbti is very different from socionics, and i fit more into the Ti Ne stereotype than how ethical types are presented in mbti. Plus I was very young and didn’t really know myself as well.
In socionics, Ti valuers are much less likely to use different methods of approach as I do, or in a chaotic way as I do.
I should not use the adjective chaotic…perhaps “practical” ; “least path of resistance”
What about Trump? He's an SLE right? Seems very opportunistic and lacks any sort of principles.
SEE
Se in general can opportunistic. Trump’s goal is to win at all costs and by any leverage he can find. SLE types can be very good at tearing down structures or building them. Trump’s Fi has been consistently weak to exceedingly bad levels. He demonstrates an inability to tell friend from foe or maintain consistent personal attitudes towards people. Given this widely agreed upon evidence, it’s more likely that he’s an SLE rather than an SEE. Jack has a good video on dedicated to this on his channel. At the moment I think the only serious socionist that thinks Trump is an SEE is Gulenko.
rigidity is not a good adjective to describe te or ti. some te established things are much more rigid. for example you learn religion and nationalism in a te/fe way and zero ti way. your parents and society just injected those te/fe ideologies in your little brain when you were a kid and only through ti you can get rid of it. ti deconstructs, not te. fi deconstructs, not fe.
ti and fi integrity seeking functions. it doesn't matter if something is presented to high ti or fi user as a fact (whether ethical or logical) they will still check if that so called "fact" holds. te doesn't do that. fe doesn't do that. "whatever works" directly means no integrity-checking. no motivation for deeper understanding of things for fe and te, because if it doesn't work then you use the other thing is their method. but this way, you can jump from wrong to wrong to wrong to wronger as you don't really fundamentally understand anything.
so you can say ti and fi seeks consistency but not ANY consistency. there are rigid wrongs too. and what breaks that wrong rigidity is again fi and ti.
esi
?
For me, being Ti-PoLR feels like having this ease for just deducing what people mean from the context of what's going on & what they're saying.
In more frustrating moments, it feels like Ti-valuers aren't actually reacting to what's being said - like they listen/read in a "Control+F" method where they look for some key word and then it's like "Ah ha! You've now invoked this framework!" - which leads to a chain of logical assumptions that have nothing to do with what's being said.
I'm not saying that Ti valuers are actually doing that. What I am saying, is that it can feel like that. And I also understand that there's a mutual frustration there, absolutely. "Well if you don't mean to invoke this framework, Ian, then why are you using this keyword?" "I just...needed something to call this totally unrelated thing that's going on right now."
According to Model G, which I agree with, IEE and SEE put more energy into Ti and Te.
I verified this through my IEE sister who told me that Te managing others activities completely drain her. And she wants other people (like her SLI Dual) to take care of Te for her.
But she does appreciate others working with her to better understand (Ti) Ne theories.
Every SEE and IEE I know have 1 D energy for Te. But 2 D energy for Ti.
---------------------------------------------
Note: Socionics is a single engine airplane with one engine out when only Model A, and not Model G, is taken into account.
Model G is every bit the equal to Model A. And Jack Oliver Aaron's rigid Causal Determinist +Ti does the entire Western Socionics community a disservice by suppressing it.
I would not agree with the notion that Te has anything to do with “managing other people”.
Se is more useful in managing other people since Se types can be more authoritative, energetic and pushy. Qualities that are useful in “managing other people”. This means SEE may have advantage over IEE’s at managing.
You do realize that you can using the exact same analogy over and over again even when it’s unnecessary or ineffective right? It seems like your signature tag line.
It’s impossible for Jack to suppress model G. He can’t physically block anyone from having a UA-cam channel, blog, host conferences, or throw Gulenko in a Gulag. Ben Vasserlan talks about model G on UA-cam, proof that Jack can’t “suppress it”. That’s a preposterous claim that borders on Delusion.
@@PracticalSocionics te is harsh lol I don't think he meant to sound delusional he's just enthusiastic about proving wws wrong about model g being useless , this is his version of a propaganda campaign lol
@@tricksterwitch Im aware of his desire to prove the use of model G and I’d encourage anyone that’s passionate about model G to make their own channel. Comments like “Jack wouldn’t get it”, or that “Jack is suppressing Model G” is silly and only serves to further bury model G in the ground. He’s hurting his cause more than he is helping it.
@@PracticalSocionics😅
@PracticalSocionics I'm considering doing a teaching Socionics and other panjungian topics channel in a couple of years. I'm just not in a position to right now.
Thanks for the suggestion.
PS One possible name for my channel is "Panoramic Holograph" as us LIIs like to take the best from multiple systems and combine them into one.
The opposite of ILEs who like to stick to one Ne cause that their Ti then makes causal connections to as determining everything.
I fully agree with fellow LII Ben Vaserlan that correctly typed IEE = mbti-ENFP. Just as correctly typed SLE = mbti-ESTP.
99 % of differences between mbti and Socionics is because mbti failed to see all SPs (including mbti-ISTP Craftsman who are SLI Craftsman and mbti-ISFP who are SEIs) lead with sensation and all SJs (including mbti-ISTJ who are LSIs and mbti-ISFJ who are ESIs) lead with judging.
Which makes mbti fundamentally flawed.
The legendary Si crusade of 2023
and yet, your lover jack from worldsocionics types donald trump ti creative sle while donald trump is clearly a "whatever works" guy. he doesn't explain anything in detail, he uses sweeping phrases like "make america great again" (which is fe demonstrating too). and the most funny thing is jack says "if we can't agree on donald trump being sle then we can't agree on anything" or something along the lines. well, if you insist on being wrong we can't agree of course.
Gulenko was asked about his typing live on air and he dodged the question. Specifically how he accounted for Donald’s weak Fi.
So there’s plenty of finger pointing to go around
If bruce lee had higher Te than he would've never been the father of mma , he wouldve stuck to only certain systems or wouldve just never been as spiritual as he was about it , the only te users you can try to say he was is the entj and intj mbti style and hes definitely not those two for many reasons even if he may look similar but the guy was a feeler and very likeable for it or else his ideas might've been off putting but we can just go with quadra values,he doesn't have third or fourth te neither because he doesn't belong to delta or gamma in short ,bruce lee was breaking in new systems by deducing old martial art forms ,taking everything he wanted while being disciplined to each martial art,but he took those forms , deduced the strengths and weaknesses and made his own martial art which was a combo of every martial art including boxing and wresting. He also made the martial art able to grow but either way it was not from inductive reasoning but it was deductive logic but either way ti wasnt his only function going into his work especially his martial arts is philosophy based and used for spiritual reasons , you can only guess 2 types out of the beta who he can be and you should be able to guess which one out of the 2. You dont have to agree although I do know I'm correct, physical sports is not just about sensing functions, tbh this is the problem with everyone thinking the intuitives are some how the weaker ones especially nfs all because we are sensitive , every warrior in the past is chosen from their sensitivities, someone like Alexander the great was picked on but look at the champion he became, he wasn't picked on because he was weak and couldn't fight back ,it happened because he was sensitive and trying to figure out the nature of life either consciously and or unconsciously understanding that he could still handle himself if pushed to far but as you see his sensitive traits brought him to be a champion like no other, you can only do that by understanding all walks of life, you can't be strong without knowing how the other side feels
Agreed brother or sista not sure but right warriors even the best boxers are choosen for sensitivity
If you cannot dance you cannot fight nor are you good at sex because you don't know how to connect and read the person beautiful insight
@@gabriellucus2915lol brother brother and definitely preach brother to that , no connection if you can't dance your way with someone ,no connecting ,no real sex thankyou brother I appreciate it 💪💪🔥👊 right words right there
You’ve made my point for me.
If you’re gonna suggest that Bruce lee and Alexander the Great are not Se leads then you’re in a world all your own.
@@PracticalSocionics I would say more so I'm in the real world where types exist on and off the screen, plus there's plenty of ppl who would agree with me , have you actually seen the details of their life , have you been in to college for advanced philosophy, do you read Alexander the great everyday to know to say something like that?, that's not logical that sounds more so like a emotional statement backed behind subjective sentiments of your own, by far this are not se leads and let me tell you this ethical intuitive which is me has never lost a fight or whole competitions and i compete alot , my peers especially will never beat me and that's not for you to believe or not believe but that is my own statement , I see you have a clear wrong definition about intuitive types , especially mesomorph intuitives
@@PracticalSocionics you're in your feelings today calling people delusional in their own world why such a meanie
Can't you just say you disagree rather than attacking someone , do you know Bruce Lee or Alex personally otherwise it's just speculation for everyone no need to be so mean don't turn into Eric
I understand if you was weak and found Bruce Lee to give you strength so for you it's personal but can't you ever be humble and admit your bias
Play nice no need for all the toxic masculinity