56 mins...puuhh...Jack you are patient. I do not agree that an ENFP can not do 2-3 simple steps of genealogy. Eric claims he has nailed it on this point, this is exactly why I stopped following his system and watching his typings because everything became about the polr tests. As a kid I am sure that as Ti polr myself I would answer family or something. But as an adult having family myself I am fully aware of genealogy in my life. And can do a few steps. I am not great at it but through life there has been some development, a rather weak one but development still. Erics system does not account for growth or skills aquired through life in the tests. And if the polr is so blind....why does Eric say sometimes he has good fi for an ENTP? Is it truly blind or not in his system? Does not Eric even say later in the debate here to Jack...Boy your Fi polr is bad...As if his own is better? What does he mean?...Can Jack grow his Fi to be better? Can then not an ENFP evolve their Ti if they apply themselves to do so ? But how does that work when they dont have it at all according to Erics logic? This is a fail in my opinion. His tests also do not account for IQ when solving the Ti tests so to differentiate between 3rd slot and 2nd slot for example, without that into account, is also not reliable. Also he relies on his own intuition when typing and deciding where the slots are for say Ti through the tests. How can others who want to use his system, to type people, then use it? It seems a system spesifically designed for himself to use and noone else... And last but not least...where is this system of his written down or made into videos and clearly layed out and defined? Apart from «exciting tables and words» (great title, by the way:)) on google docs, which Eric has said maybe needs an update, and info here and there through 5000 videos, I have not found it layed out into an organized way like socionics is. This is partly what Jack is trying to find out through this debate i think. What is actually Erics system? And where is it? Why is it so superior that Eric needs to calm down and « okay Jack lets pretend we have equal ideas»?.
First time I see this epic battle. It looks like Ne Ti vs Te Fi (getting angry), Flexibility vs Stubborness, honest rightousness vs demanding order☆ I think Eric hits the spot better with his arguments and factuality, but Aaron has a better overview about how all arguments and facts will turn out in the further progress. Actually I wish the university was a place more like this :D
Golden I believe that Eric knew beforehand that his terminology would be misaligned with Jack’s terminology. I think that from Eric’s angle, the only way to assure that both Eric and Jack were referring essentially to the same concept/definition would be to force the issue (in lawyer-like counterquestioning fashion) so that the concepts would have a better shot of aligning and in order to create a more level playing field. So Eric was trying extremely hard to strategically force the issue to hopefully generate an alignment of terms and definitions. IMO, his strategy unfortunately didn’t work in this regard, but in terms of why Eric did what he did, I think that this explains it.
@darkprince Eric's strategy was absolutely to lure Jack into the exact trap that you refer to. I agree that Jack did a stellar job of not allowing this to take place. Amazing levels of patience and poise here for sure.
I heard on Ben Vaserlans channel something like this: Please someone correct me if I am wrong and if i misuse Bens words or something to that effect... Ti is so that if you reason from a subjective standpoint, you will reach an equally subjective conclusion, so your Ti conclusion is subjective even though your Ti reasoning from A to B is logically sound and objectively verifiable. Otherwise would not all Ti users claim objective truth to everything they say or think because they are logically coherent? They cant. So Ti is subjective
To expand on this: Logic in general can be either valid or valid and sound. You can validly express anything you want as long as you abide by the laws of logic. Same goes for mathematics. It's a symbolic language to describe what the phenomena you are trying to describe (which makes it subjective still as you mentioned). Even then you do not need logic to "get at" the truth. Similarly you can use rhetoric to express a truth. So you can be creative in a way with both Logic and Mathematics. Just like you can with natural language. People who claim to be logical only get by because we cannot truly find out if their premises are true. That would take a lifetime so people just assume they are right because it sounded nice.
TWFP is not an ENTP because he is not interested in novel and differing information. (If he is an ENTP, then he is the unhealthy manifestation.) He is not interested in debating ideas. He seems to have entered into this "debate" to be seen as right, not to get to the truth. Moreover, he seems to couch ideas in concrete terms and is unable or unwilling to comprehend nuance.
He (Eric) could have the best understanding in the world of something but he is impossible to watch. He never sits still, he comes across as rude and even if his information is correct (which I am not saying it is or isn't) he just tries to steamroll to get his point across. Was hoping for a bit of a lesson myself, but interactions like this (his chaos) just make me cringe. Taylor just chimed in, Eric seems to be calming down some, hopefully it will get better now.
I've mentioned this on his videos before. He is terrible at communicating his thoughts in a way that everyone can understand. He unnecessarily makes things more complex than it needs to be. I wish someone was more assertive when engaging with him because you literally have to supervise him.
21:00 This is an example of why aspect qualities like _"Internal"-(NF) / "External"-(ST)_ and _"Detached"-(NT) / "Involved"-(SF)_ should be treated as functionally distinct conditions, in much the same way _"Introversion"/"Extroversion"_ are. So, one's usage of *Intuition* is either _"Internal"_ or _"Detached",_ *Logic* is either _"Detached"_ or _"External",_ etc. _"Subjective"-(PF)_ would encompass *Ethical* elements and all the *Perceiving* aspects blocked with them, while _"Objective"-(PT)_ would broadly apply to *Logical* elements and their tandem *Perceiving* aspects. Likewise, *Intuitive* blocks are _"Abstract"-(NJ),_ while *Sensoric* blocks are _"Concrete"-(SJ)._ With such clear delineations, I'm sure even someone like Eric would have a harder time attempting to dismiss the theory with silly semantic quibbling 😜
It's hard to listen to loud talking for several reasons, but one of the reason is that Eric might not think about is that if you say every word loud, there will be no distinction between more important and less important parts, therefore it'll become much more pain in the a** to process them. Especially if you not just speak loud but also so fast that sometimes you say stuff that you yourself don't realize you said a different word, example: Eric said "stumped" (and Jack heard that correctly) instead of "some", but Eric didn't even noticed, because after that he even said the word "some" to Jack 2 times as if he said "some" correctly at the first time (which he didn't). You could try to improve on this, Eric. I wish you the best
Eric is mostly right but not able to voice things properly. All cognitive functions are internal. Introverted is Subjective (as Jung defined it) Extroverted is Objective (as Jung defined it) Things don't have to be true to be Objective. example: "The world is flat" was once (and still is) an objective intuitive observation and also an objective sensory observation. It may not be true but it's still objective. There is a partiality element (interest) to Subjective And there is an impartiality element (disinterest) to Objective. Objective also has a disorganized and uninterpreted element to it (high entropy information). Subjective has an organized and interpreted element to it (low entropy information). Objective information can be disagreed upon and resolved via comparison and public polling. Subjective information need not be agreed upon and cannot be resolved via public polling. Objective information has an immediate element to it and can change from moment to moment. Subjective information has an eternal element to it and remains more consistent over time. Objective information can be agreed upon but interpreted in many different ways for it to become subjective. Subjective information can be built upon in many different ways but has a very specific interpretation that only the subject can clarify. This subjective information needs to be extrapolated for it to attain an objective status for comparison and polling. Objective information is more specific to situations, moments, cases, circumstances.... etc. Subjective information is less specific and more general and broad to all situations, moments, cases, circumstances... etc.
I think Jung defined it too simplistically and did not make the distinction between the explicitness/implicitness of information and the increasing breadth/refining depth approach to information, which are crucial to having clear definitions of the functions.
@@WorldSocionics Your definition is far more simplistic.... "Internal vs external" doesn't mean anything. Jung's definitions are elegant deep and not simplistic. They require a keen wit and depth of exploration before you can begin to understand.
@@WorldSocionics You can say a lot of things about Jung. You can say that he lacks clarity, organization, explanation accuracy... etc. But you definitely can never refer to his work as simplistic. When you do that, it shows that you haven't truly understood him.
@@WorldSocionics Untrue, and this has nothing to do with his definition of subjective vs objective. His definition includes all of the parts which I have written in my original response up above and more. None of which you have bothered to refer to. Besides, internal vs external is not just simplistic it's not even close to being similar to what Jung was talking about when describing the introverted vs extroverted attitudes. So in the Jungian context, it's just plain wrong.
What? Meaning can exist without people that's obvious if l die and l am buried the people presently alive at my funeral can attest l was buried six foot in the grave that's the meaning you can infer that l was buried and dead. So even if l have no consciousness when l'm dead my body is still visible before it decays. My consciousness doesn't make the body real it is real without my consciousness of cause it cannot live on without the breath but the fact it lingers after my breath is gone shows matter can exist without consciousness. Even then when my body decomposes it turns into dust it doesn't disappear. Eric is smart but dumb at the same time well his not dumb but oh boy his vexing. Well l am not vexed but l would be if someone was passing themselves as the one who knows better and yet they are not making sense. You can say something and mean something but if it has no sense behind it its meaningless hence senseless. My example is not the best but hey l am surprised at Eric.
Finally, I got to send some loonie bucks your way. You can now rent a movie on Google Play (I recommend Knives Out) ... Now somebody needs to edit this into a music video meme remix, using the Mortal Kombat theme song But not for real because it'll get demonitized
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Eric clearly is not prepared for a discussion or debate. He's a debate coach? Lord help those children. It's quite clear that man is not happy.
Props to Jack's style of communication 👏 i think its very healthy and he dealt with this interaction very well.
Why is dude getting so mad 💀💀💀
Eric is completely unconscious lol
56 mins...puuhh...Jack you are patient. I do not agree that an ENFP can not do 2-3 simple steps of genealogy. Eric claims he has nailed it on this point, this is exactly why I stopped following his system and watching his typings because everything became about the polr tests. As a kid I am sure that as Ti polr myself I would answer family or something. But as an adult having family myself I am fully aware of genealogy in my life. And can do a few steps. I am not great at it but through life there has been some development, a rather weak one but development still. Erics system does not account for growth or skills aquired through life in the tests.
And if the polr is so blind....why does Eric say sometimes he has good fi for an ENTP? Is it truly blind or not in his system? Does not Eric even say later in the debate here to Jack...Boy your Fi polr is bad...As if his own is better? What does he mean?...Can Jack grow his Fi to be better? Can then not an ENFP evolve their Ti if they apply themselves to do so ? But how does that work when they dont have it at all according to Erics logic?
This is a fail in my opinion. His tests also do not account for IQ when solving the Ti tests so to differentiate between 3rd slot and 2nd slot for example, without that into account, is also not reliable. Also he relies on his own intuition when typing and deciding where the slots are for say Ti through the tests. How can others who want to use his system, to type people, then use it? It seems a system spesifically designed for himself to use and noone else...
And last but not least...where is this system of his written down or made into videos and clearly layed out and defined? Apart from «exciting tables and words» (great title, by the way:)) on google docs, which Eric has said maybe needs an update, and info here and there through 5000 videos, I have not found it layed out into an organized way like socionics is. This is partly what Jack is trying to find out through this debate i think.
What is actually Erics system? And where is it?
Why is it so superior that Eric needs to calm down and « okay Jack lets pretend we have equal ideas»?.
First time I see this epic battle. It looks like Ne Ti vs Te Fi (getting angry), Flexibility vs Stubborness, honest rightousness vs demanding order☆
I think Eric hits the spot better with his arguments and factuality, but Aaron has a better overview about how all arguments and facts will turn out in the further progress.
Actually I wish the university was a place more like this :D
Eric's inability to sit still is extremely distracting.
And just plain rude
Good grief the first 40 minutes was hard to listen to, why was Eric so upset?
Golden I believe that Eric knew beforehand that his terminology would be misaligned with Jack’s terminology. I think that from Eric’s angle, the only way to assure that both Eric and Jack were referring essentially to the same concept/definition would be to force the issue (in lawyer-like counterquestioning fashion) so that the concepts would have a better shot of aligning and in order to create a more level playing field. So Eric was trying extremely hard to strategically force the issue to hopefully generate an alignment of terms and definitions. IMO, his strategy unfortunately didn’t work in this regard, but in terms of why Eric did what he did, I think that this explains it.
@darkprince I completely agree!
@darkprince Eric's strategy was absolutely to lure Jack into the exact trap that you refer to. I agree that Jack did a stellar job of not allowing this to take place. Amazing levels of patience and poise here for sure.
Eric is as bad a listener as he is a typer.
I heard on Ben Vaserlans channel something like this: Please someone correct me if I am wrong and if i misuse Bens words or something to that effect...
Ti is so that if you reason from a subjective standpoint, you will reach an equally subjective conclusion, so your Ti conclusion is subjective even though your Ti reasoning from A to B is logically sound and objectively verifiable. Otherwise would not all Ti users claim objective truth to everything they say or think because they are logically coherent? They cant. So Ti is subjective
To expand on this: Logic in general can be either valid or valid and sound. You can validly express anything you want as long as you abide by the laws of logic. Same goes for mathematics. It's a symbolic language to describe what the phenomena you are trying to describe (which makes it subjective still as you mentioned). Even then you do not need logic to "get at" the truth. Similarly you can use rhetoric to express a truth. So you can be creative in a way with both Logic and Mathematics. Just like you can with natural language. People who claim to be logical only get by because we cannot truly find out if their premises are true. That would take a lifetime so people just assume they are right because it sounded nice.
TWFP is not an ENTP because he is not interested in novel and differing information. (If he is an ENTP, then he is the unhealthy manifestation.) He is not interested in debating ideas. He seems to have entered into this "debate" to be seen as right, not to get to the truth. Moreover, he seems to couch ideas in concrete terms and is unable or unwilling to comprehend nuance.
oh now this explains the almost argument he and i had about internal external
that outfit is so dapper almost looks like a dandy i love it
Why is Eric talking too fast and in a disrespectful tone?
Because it's what he does.
@@checkersssss9 "Because it's what he does." What do you mean by this? You mean what you do?
@@amusicians2centsby “it’s what he does” they mean that’s his entire shtick, as in he does it all the time, it’s a frequent behaviour
He (Eric) could have the best understanding in the world of something but he is impossible to watch. He never sits still, he comes across as rude and even if his information is correct (which I am not saying it is or isn't) he just tries to steamroll to get his point across. Was hoping for a bit of a lesson myself, but interactions like this (his chaos) just make me cringe. Taylor just chimed in, Eric seems to be calming down some, hopefully it will get better now.
I've mentioned this on his videos before. He is terrible at communicating his thoughts in a way that everyone can understand. He unnecessarily makes things more complex than it needs to be. I wish someone was more assertive when engaging with him because you literally have to supervise him.
I find this very entertaining.
Obfuscating is a bad debate tactic.
21:00
This is an example of why aspect qualities like _"Internal"-(NF) / "External"-(ST)_ and _"Detached"-(NT) / "Involved"-(SF)_ should be treated as functionally distinct conditions, in much the same way _"Introversion"/"Extroversion"_ are. So, one's usage of *Intuition* is either _"Internal"_ or _"Detached",_ *Logic* is either _"Detached"_ or _"External",_ etc.
_"Subjective"-(PF)_ would encompass *Ethical* elements and all the *Perceiving* aspects blocked with them, while _"Objective"-(PT)_ would broadly apply to *Logical* elements and their tandem *Perceiving* aspects. Likewise, *Intuitive* blocks are _"Abstract"-(NJ),_ while *Sensoric* blocks are _"Concrete"-(SJ)._
With such clear delineations, I'm sure even someone like Eric would have a harder time attempting to dismiss the theory with silly semantic quibbling 😜
This got off to a weirrrd start
It's hard to listen to loud talking for several reasons,
but one of the reason is that Eric might not think about is that
if you say every word loud, there will be no distinction between more important and less important parts,
therefore it'll become much more pain in the a** to process them.
Especially if you not just speak loud
but also so fast that
sometimes you say stuff that you yourself don't realize you said a different word,
example:
Eric said "stumped" (and Jack heard that correctly)
instead of "some",
but Eric didn't even noticed,
because after that he even said the word "some" to Jack 2 times
as if he said "some" correctly at the first time (which he didn't).
You could try to improve on this, Eric.
I wish you the best
Eric is mostly right but not able to voice things properly.
All cognitive functions are internal.
Introverted is Subjective (as Jung defined it)
Extroverted is Objective (as Jung defined it)
Things don't have to be true to be Objective.
example:
"The world is flat" was once (and still is) an objective intuitive observation and also an objective sensory observation.
It may not be true but it's still objective.
There is a partiality element (interest) to Subjective
And there is an impartiality element (disinterest) to Objective.
Objective also has a disorganized and uninterpreted element to it (high entropy information).
Subjective has an organized and interpreted element to it (low entropy information).
Objective information can be disagreed upon and resolved via comparison and public polling.
Subjective information need not be agreed upon and cannot be resolved via public polling.
Objective information has an immediate element to it and can change from moment to moment.
Subjective information has an eternal element to it and remains more consistent over time.
Objective information can be agreed upon but interpreted in many different ways for it to become subjective.
Subjective information can be built upon in many different ways but has a very specific interpretation that only the subject can clarify.
This subjective information needs to be extrapolated for it to attain an objective status for comparison and polling.
Objective information is more specific to situations, moments, cases, circumstances.... etc.
Subjective information is less specific and more general and broad to all situations, moments, cases, circumstances... etc.
I think Jung defined it too simplistically and did not make the distinction between the explicitness/implicitness of information and the increasing breadth/refining depth approach to information, which are crucial to having clear definitions of the functions.
@@WorldSocionics Your definition is far more simplistic....
"Internal vs external" doesn't mean anything.
Jung's definitions are elegant deep and not simplistic. They require a keen wit and depth of exploration before you can begin to understand.
@@WorldSocionics You can say a lot of things about Jung.
You can say that he lacks clarity, organization, explanation accuracy... etc.
But you definitely can never refer to his work as simplistic.
When you do that, it shows that you haven't truly understood him.
@@Binyamin.Tsadik in this case, he assumes fewer working parts than there are. That's what I mean by simplistic. Nothing to do with depth.
@@WorldSocionics Untrue, and this has nothing to do with his definition of subjective vs objective. His definition includes all of the parts which I have written in my original response up above and more. None of which you have bothered to refer to.
Besides, internal vs external is not just simplistic it's not even close to being similar to what Jung was talking about when describing the introverted vs extroverted attitudes.
So in the Jungian context, it's just plain wrong.
Eric is EIE
Clearly he is emotion function is dominant in his interaction
I suppose ESE is possible
You are brave to jump into the chaotic brain of Eric.
Thank you to this old video for proving that it's not worth being civil with Eric Strauss. What did it accomplish? Better to just outyell this fool
I loved this!
What? Meaning can exist without people that's obvious if l die and l am buried the people presently alive at my funeral can attest l was buried six foot in the grave that's the meaning you can infer that l was buried and dead. So even if l have no consciousness when l'm dead my body is still visible before it decays. My consciousness doesn't make the body real it is real without my consciousness of cause it cannot live on without the breath but the fact it lingers after my breath is gone shows matter can exist without consciousness. Even then when my body decomposes it turns into dust it doesn't disappear. Eric is smart but dumb at the same time well his not dumb but oh boy his vexing. Well l am not vexed but l would be if someone was passing themselves as the one who knows better and yet they are not making sense. You can say something and mean something but if it has no sense behind it its meaningless hence senseless. My example is not the best but hey l am surprised at Eric.
Finally, I got to send some loonie bucks your way. You can now rent a movie on Google Play (I recommend Knives Out)
...
Now somebody needs to edit this into a music video meme remix, using the Mortal Kombat theme song
But not for real because it'll get demonitized
Really appreciate that, Mutant. Glad to know the super stickers work. Will do some Q&As in the future for people :)