Season 15, Episode 6 Transcript
– Hey guys, it’s CS Joseph CS at csjoseph.life. Filming from my, and recording from my deck tonight, because I have been exiled out here, because my children are visiting at random, and definitely not on the schedule, but their mother called me and needed my help. So, I rose the occasion and took my children so she could handle us some important business of hers. And here we are. And if you also notice, it’s also why I haven’t put out a lecture, at least since Tuesday, because of how long it’s been. But I mean, hey, I’m here. I mean, I got my like deck light thing, and it’s kinda cool. I kinda like it. But as far as like, actually seeing my face. Yeah, good luck. But that’s okay. We’re just more here to like, actually hear me instead of like potentially see my face as it were. So I’ll do my best with our really, really Uber crappy lighting. But I didn’t want any more days to go by without getting another lecture out. And besides, I mean, as long as you can kind of like mostly tell what I’m doing here, or basically hear me, I’m sure we’ll get through it. So anyway, tonight’s subject, it is season 15, episode six. We’re gonna be talking about the difference between affiliative rules versus pragmatic rules. This goes in our series to how to understand, and how to use the type grid basically, and what that means, what it means for you or anyone else using the type grid, we’ve been talking about direct versus informative. We’ve been talking about initiating versus responding, as well as movement versus control. Each of these components are tools in our tool test, and determining the interaction styles, we talked about earlier this week, abstraction versus concrete, and how that’s utilized in determining the temperaments. And this is the second tool of the three tools that we’re going to be utilizing to determine the temperaments, and these tools are what it means to be affiliative, and what it means to be pragmatic.
So tonight’s episode, we’re gonna be talking about the differences between being affiliative versus pragmatic, and how that basically, what makes sense in that regard. So, yeah, affiliative versus pragmatic. Now, before I begin, I wanna actually do a little bit of a disclaimer here because I’ve been noticing some people have been struggling with season 15 a little bit, because of a lack of this disclaimer. So, the disclaimer is basically to talk about primary versus secondary. So, primary, secondary. So imagine like a yin and yang. So you have the yang, is the white part with the little black dot, which is a little yin in there, because primarily yang is all about what’s firm, whereas what’s pliable is yin, but it has the secondary trait of the yin, in the primary side of the yang. Whereas the other side of the yin has the secondary trait of the yang, because it’s got a little white in the black part which is the yin side. Why is this relevant? Well, it’s relevant because when you look at the four sides of the mind, essentially, when it looks like, when you’re looking at the four sides of the mind, and the four sides of the minds, you have the ego, you have the subconscious, you have the unconscious, and you have the super ego. The four sides of the mind. Now, the subconscious specifically, the subconscious also known as the anima and the animus, and the anima and animus is always the opposite gender of what your ego is. So, if you are a member of the, biologically, you are a male. Then mentally, you would have, your subconscious would actually be female, and it’s the other way around, for like women, they have male subconscious. So, everyone actually has secondary male or female traits versus like their primary female male traits. Now, don’t worry about like the transgenderism argument, actually, this fits in partly with transgenderism, and I’m actually gonna be doing a deep dive into transgenderism in the future to show you how it manifests, how it works, how it comes, how it is mechanically within, how it represents itself mechanically within a person’s psychology, within the four sides of their mind, et cetera. So when I do that, we’ll be able to kind of have a better understanding of how that works. But anyway, for the sake of this discussion, primary and secondary is very important. So, listen, everybody can be direct. Everyone can be informative. Everyone can be movement. Everyone can be control. Everyone can be initiating. Everyone is responding. Everyone is abstract. Everyone is concrete. Everyone is affiliative. Everyone is pragmatic. And then there’s the third tool, which we’ll be talking out in our next lecture, within the series as well. But everyone has all of these traits. There isn’t anyone that doesn’t have any of these traits. So you have to understand everybody has these traits. Now, it’s just which of these traits they use primarily, it’s all about primary versus secondary. Because some of these traits are used primarily, and so half these traits are used primarily, the other half are used secondarily. So why is that? Because when someone’s in their ego, they’re primarily in their ego, and we’re looking at what traits are being used by their ego. So if these traits are used, primarily, it’s, what’s being used by their ego. ‘Cause we’re trying to identify their ego. That’s what the type grid is all about.
You’re identifying their ego. It’s all about identifying their ego. So, you have to identify the ego. Once you know their ego, you instantly know the four sides of the mind, and then you know all of their eight cognitive functions, and you know how they think, how they feel, where their insecurity lies, where their worry is, what makes them happiest, you know where their innocence exists, you know where they’re responsible, et cetera. You know where their wisdom is. You know what they’re unaware of. You have all of these different things that you’re aware of, but you just have to identify their ego. ‘Cause once you identify their ego, you’re good to go. And luckily for us, the ego has these different tools or these different traits, and uses them on a primary basis. And then the other ones are secondary. They’re very secondary traits for the other sides of their mind, because they’re primarily in their ego. So just remember that. Anyone could be direct. Anyone could be informative. It’s just which one is the person communicating in primarily. What’s their primary interaction style? What’s their primary temperament? That’s the point. We’re just trying to identify the primary. So yes, everyone could do everything, and yes, it gets confusing. But if you just think for a minute, and focus on what is being done, primarily, which of these traits or tools are being used primarily by the person that you’re analyzing or yourself, for example. Which ones you are using, primarily, focus on that. Oh, what do I do more? Or what does he do more? That’s all you have to do, is like greatest to least. So just focus on the graters and you’ll be successful. You’ll learn how to use the type grid. So anyway, that being said, let’s now talk about the difference between affiliative versus pragmatic. So, we talked about abstract versus concrete, which is literally somewhat abstract is intuitive, someone who’s concrete is a sensor. It’s just identifying if they’re an intuitive or a sensor, essentially, that is abstract or concrete. Fair enough. And again, this is all according to Doctor Linda Berens, she wrote the book, “Understanding Yourself and Others.” Here it is. Although you probably can’t even see the title here, “Understanding Yourself and Others.” And this is an introduction to the four temperaments 4.0, version 4.0. And it’s like a series of books that Linda Berens did. So this content is taken directly out of her books.
I’m not here to like plagiarize or claim that this is my work. It’s not. Doctor Linda Berens has been excellent. And in my opinion, and in my opinion, Doctor Linda Berens is absolutely the authority on trying to type other people in terms of identifying people’s types. Whereas Doctor John BB would have more of a authority on cognitive functions. Doctor Linda Berens is like the authority on temperaments, interaction styles, and being able to identify people. I support Doctor Linda Berens, and then her work, and how it relates to Plato, for Plato’s Republic, et cetera. And I completely reject David Keirsey as a result, David Keirsey is absolutely terrible, and not someone to recommend. And actually in Linda Berenss book about the temperaments, she actually calls out Keirsey saying, oh yeah, Keirsey these terminology and whatnot is not exactly like something helpful, it’s because the terms kinda get, they confuse people. I mean, I’m confused a lot by Keirsey terminology. So I don’t like doing it. I don’t like having anything to do with his terms for temperament, but a lot of them people are used to Keirsey’s temperament names. So I use some of them, although I completely disagree with his point in calling the rational the rationals, because I’m sorry, half of the rationals are actually irrational. If you look at the difference between Te and Ti, and I’m sure Linda Berens would agree with me, because she also has her own names as well, but I don’t use them, because we’re just trying to make it easier for everyone. I’m not here to like espouse what I know to try to gain, like, notoriety within the psychological community. I don’t care about that. I care about educating and informing the lay person. The profane. I’m trying to get it to everyone. And not just some subset of people, because I really don’t care about like having notoriety in the psychological community. I really don’t care. I care about you folks getting educated, and you folks being able identify your type, and the types of other people, and then thus knowing the four sides of their mind, and knowing their cognitive function so that you can have a better relationship with any human being in your life, as well as understand yourself. Because if you’re able to understand yourself, you’re able to have a better life, because that’s the truth. I want you to have a better life. You need to have a better life, and I know how to get it. So for you.
So, I’m teaching you to do these things so that you can have a better life as a result of having this knowledge. So, okay. So with that, let’s define what affiliative and pragmatic is. So affiliative people, affiliative people are two of the temperaments, they’re the guardians, and they are the idealists. So, guardians and idealists are affiliative. So what does affiliative mean? Affiliative focuses on people. They focus on groups or community, group effectiveness, interdependence. They’re very interdependent people. Pragmatic is kind of the opposite. Pragmatic focuses on the effectiveness of the individual. It’s all about individuality. It’s individualism, it’s independence. It’s about how can I be independent? How can I be the freest to do things? How can I basically do what I want? You know what I mean, or do what I need to. It’s not about my contributions to the group or getting other people to agree with me. It’s about what I want to do or what I need to do for myself, et cetera. That is a pragmatist. Very independent, focused. Whereas someone who is affiliative, they’re focused on interdependence with other people. They’re all about being focused on others. More other focused. Oftentimes, they’d been accused of being like too focused on other people’s, too centered on others. To the point where they can like their risk of being a doormat. Although yes, sometimes there have been way more doormatish, and that’s an ITV way. That would mean like, the INTP is pragmatic though. Yes, primarily, but their secondary side of their mind, their ESFA subconscious is very affiliative. And that’s where the doormat behavior could potentially come in. You see what I’m saying here? So, yeah. So, the focus of the affiliative is the interdependent, and the focus of the pragmatic is independence. Now, the intention behind this, according to Doctor Linda Berens for affiliative is all about inclusions. They want to be very inclusive of people, and this is kind of where a lot of social justice warriors come into play, ’cause the majority of social justice warriors out there are affiliated people. They are SJs and they are and NFs, because they don’t want anyone to feel discluded. It’s all about inclusion. Inclusion is super mega importance to the affiliatives. So, whereas with the pragmatics, they’re focused on like self-determination or things that are self-evident or self-manifest destiny, or what is my destiny? Where am I going? What do I want to do? Or what is the experiences that I’m seeking. What are the goals that I have to achieve? It’s all about excellence and personal achievement from the pragmatic point of view. So yeah, that’s where you get the SPs and the NTs out there, the artisans, the intellectuals of the world who are focused on being autonomous, and they’re seeking outcomes. And they wanna be able to make decisions that causes them to reach those outcomes or those goals faster. Whereas an affiliative person, they’re more focused on like, they behave more with a priority of having a cooperation, and they want agreement, and they always wanna check in with the norms, and the values.
Doctor Linda Berens says this specifically, being affiliative is all about checking in with the norms or the social values or the social norms of the group or the community or the collective, or the area that they’re with, or the family. It’s always a group thing. Or it could be like a study group at school, for example, or the classroom. It doesn’t matter, just whatever group setting. Whereas, and the pragmatics are trying to be as autonomous as possible. That’s the other side. So if you have someone in your family, or if you yourself are very autonomous, chances are, they are pragmatic. Chances are they’re an SP and NT, or if they’re more focused on getting cooperation, or agreement with people, then they’re more affiliative. So now they have different, like they could be taken, and they could be in their comfort zone or out of their comfort zone. And Linda Berens also states that affiliative need, they need like defined roles. It’s all about having defined roles. And they need people getting along or cooperating. If you’re in a social situation where there are people not getting along, or not cooperating, the affiliated people will literally be triggered. Like they will be triggered, not even able to like, handle it, like super triggered. So that presents a problem, because of how triggered they are. And they need to have that harmony. They need to have that cohesity, that cohesiveness within the group, everyone needs to get along. Everyone needs to be cooperating. Everyone needs to be sharing. Sharing is a big part of being affiliative. Pragmatic, it’s kind of the other way around, the pragmatic needs to be, have the room to engage in taking initiative, getting things done on their own, being who they are on their own. And they wanna be able to have the freedom to take these actions regardless of what roles they may have attached to them, because roles are kind of arbitrary to the pragmatic ’cause the pragmatics like, look, I need to be rewarded based on excellence and not my role. Here’s another way of looking at it. When you’re in an organization, let’s say for a job or whatnot, and you have people that are rewarded for like time served. When they’re promoted based on how much time they served on the company, instead of being like promoted based on who’s the most effective worker, or who has the most achievement, who has the most merit.
Pragmatics focus on merit. SPs and NTs care about merit. Pragmatism is all about merit. Whereas with affiliative, it’s actually more focused on time served per se. Because, oh, you put in so much time for the group, we wanna reward you for that. Whereas the pragmatics like, wow, that guy is actually like, he has no merit and he doesn’t deserve that, because I’m way better at that job than he is. And I should have gotten that promotion, but because he’s been here an extra five years more than I did, he has seniority over me. So, that means he gets to have that job. That’s bullshit. Like, how does that even work? So again, it’s the difference between affiliative versus pragmatic, because pragmatic is focused on merit, because that having excellence in performance. That’s direct out of Doctor Linda Berens books. She talks about excellence in performance for pragmatics. It’s very important. So, a couple of things about affiliative people, they get very uneasy when people don’t work together, they get frustrated by what seems to be a lack of cooperation. They get surprised when people don’t like having roles foisted upon them, especially with SPs and NTs, although SPs, because they’re concrete like them, they can kind of deal with that. But when it comes to abstract types like NTs, it just absolutely triggers them. It absolutely triggers them, especially on the SJ side, although they are abstract, like the NF that doesn’t trigger them as much. So, there’s different levels of trigger. You know what I mean. Depending on the type of affiliative versus the type of the pragmatic, because some temperaments like going together, SPs love going together with SJs, because they’re both concrete, and then NTs love going together with NFs, because they’re both abstract. So, they can kind of have a higher tolerance if they’re affiliative versus pragmatism is not aligned to each other. But if you’re doing it like an S versus an N, and they’re both affiliative, and one’s affiliative, and one’s pragmatic, then that’s actually create even more conflict. So you gotta be aware of like how these things kind of change or interact with each other. So just be aware of that. So, like the pragmatics, for example, they get really uneasy when things are decided for them, when decisions are made or where like when they have roles foisted upon them, it makes them feel like their independence or their personal sovereignty is being threatened.
And we know I talk a lot about personal sovereignty, and personal sovereignty is a very primary thing for pragmatic types. It’s very primary for SPs and NTs. It’s kind of a secondary thing for NFs and SJs, guardians and idealists. So, guardians being SJs, idealist being an NFs, it’s a secondary thing, personal sovereign team, it’s still a priority. It’s just not as important. They more care about the group or the family as it were. But then again, they also would recognize that the sovereignty is more attached to the group than necessarily the individual. Whereas the pragmatics disagree. The sovereignty would be attached more to the individual. Although, from a, that’s more human nature. From a human nurture standpoint, everyone should be responsible for their own personal risk sovereignty, because personal sovereignty leads to self-respect, because if you have self-respect, you could basically get anywhere in life. Because self-respect, having self-respect is wise. And you wanna have all the wisdom that you could possibly get. Because if you have wisdom, you can have anything you want. If someone was going to offer me $10 billion right now, or like a bunch of wisdom, what would I take? I would take the wisdom, because if I have all the wisdom in the world, guess what? That means I could actually get that 10 billion, if not more than 10 billion as a result of having that wisdom in my life. Instead of just being handed money, that’s why the people who work for their money, and have keeping their money, but people are given money, especially like in the lottery, they end up addicted to drugs or in jail or dead, statistically. So it’s like, okay, wow. That’s really good, I guess. Or even like jail time too. Pragmatic people don’t like obstacles. And they don’t like roadblocks get in the way. Sometimes they actually see roles or even affiliative people or the group itself as a roadblock, for example. Someone studying in college or in a study group, in a school, and they’re doing like a group project. And oftentimes, the pragmatic person looks at the other people like all these people are gonna slow me down.
They’re actually gonna get me, I’m gonna end up having a lower grade, because of them and whatnot, or the affiliative is in that group setting. I’m like, wow, this pragmatic person is just gonna make our grade go down, because he’s not cooperating with us. That lack of cooperation is gonna continue to cause a problem. And it’s gonna be even more dramatic here, here, and here and here and here. And it’s like, Holy crap, what are we gonna do? You know what I mean? And it’s like, okay, wait a minute. But who’s right. Who’s right. Is the affiliative person right? No. Is the pragmatic person right? No. They’re all wrong. Or they’re both right. See, it’s not about that. It’s about, so you have to interact with people. You have to respect the affiliative, and as much as you have to respect the pragmatic, and you have to recognize that there are affiliated people, and that there are pragmatic people, but you also have to recognize that there are technically less pragmatic people on the planet. So you have 30 plus 15%. So, that’s 45% of the world’s population are pragmatic. Whereas 55% of the world’s population are technically affiliative. So you have to be aware of that the affiliative technically has the majority, and the pragmatic are the minority, but you still have to respect both. And I would challenge the affiliatives to respect the pragmatics more, because they have the majority. And it’s not necessarily fair to the pragmatics. You get people like Gandhi, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King. Those are very affiliative individuals. But we got pragmatic people like Benjamin Franklin. He’s very pragmatic or Nikola Tesla. He’s very pragmatic. So it’s as a result of them being so pragmatic that they’re there to have the success they were, but the other guys, they were very successful with what they were, because of how affiliative they are. So again, it’s just two sides of the same coin. Almost they’re able to get to where they’re going, or get their agenda handled, or their goals met as a result. There’s just different ways of going about doing it. One focuses on the group, and cooperation and agreement while the other focuses on the individual. It’s kind of, and if we wanna talk about extremes, we can talk about political extremes.
We could talk about, oh, communism. Or ooh, Rand and objectivism, where it’s communism is all about the commune. I mean, it seems that way, at least. And then there’s Rand and objectivism, which focuses on the individual, and the power of the individual, and the power of individual, in which could be seen as overtly selfish, or way too selfish for example. I mean, Ayn Rand herself was pragmatic, because she was an INTJ. Because she’s an NT. So to be aware of that. So affiliatives can be like seen as way too focused on other people, potentially at risk of being a doormat, pragmatics can be seen as way too self-centered, way too selfish, way too independent, not willing to work with others, do not work well with others, et cetera. That could be potentially an issue. And probiotic people kind of sometimes get surprised when other people are offended at how independent they are, whereas, like I said, affiliates get surprised when people don’t like receiving roles and they get frustrated on roles being foisted upon them, or when people have a lack of cooperative, so. And another way to look at affiliative versus pragmatic, and I’ve always enjoyed this. So, this is one way that you can actually like, be aware of some of the ways of, like a practical example, a practical example, or a practical model that you could use in determining if someone is like affiliative versus pragmatic. And here it is, it’s an old saying, so. Or it’s. I don’t know, maybe it precepts or, but it goes like this, never ask forgiveness, always ask for permission. Or always ask forgiveness, but never asked permission. So think about that. A pragmatic person always seeks to ask forgiveness, never asking permission. They take action. They take the initiative. They make, they just make it happen regardless of the consequences, because they know and believe in themselves that, yes, this is the right thing for me to do. I am going to do it. I do not need to ask these people for permission to do the right thing. I am going to do the right thing and they can get over it. And then after I’ve done the right thing, and after I’ve proven that it works, and my idea works and I am correct, then I’ll ask them for forgiveness as a result. I would have to do this all the time, especially the affiliative people, especially when I played Eve online, for example, when I was in this alliance called Northern Coalition, I was even this alliance called Goonswarm as well.
And this is back when I played video games, instead of playing video games, I do a YouTube channel instead, if you know what I mean, ’cause I don’t have time for video games anymore. Like I have to be a man. I have responsibilities, a career. I have a father, and I have to focus on my health. And I’m here educating you folks on YouTube, and on my podcast so that we can continue to help people understand themselves and each other, just like Doctor Linda Berens does. Anyway, when I was playing games, I would often make decisions without asking authority figures for permission, because for one, I believe that those authority figures were roadblocks themselves. They took too long to decide anything. It’s kinda like that movie “Spies Like Us” with Dan Akroyd and Chevy Chase, that’s a great film. If you’ve never watched “Spies Like Us,” you should definitely watch “Spies Like Us.” And for some reason, anytime I think of that movie, I think of two scenes, the one scene with the chick, the hot Russian chick and the others scene where he’s talking about, okay, well, we have 20 minutes before this nuclear missile goes off, and then Washington will need an additional 20 minutes to make a decision. And it’s like, yeah, it’s because they’re affiliative, they’re waiting on the group consensus to make their decision because they’re allowing affiliative authoritarian point of view to make the decision. I’m not gonna do that. I’m just going to make decision on my own, because I know it’s the right thing to do. And then after I’ve implemented it, then I’ll talk to the authority figures, and I’ll ask them forgiveness after that, because I’ve already proved that works. Whereas I know that if I went to them, and ask them permission, they’re just gonna tell me no right off the bat. So I’m not even gonna do that. I’m not even gonna give them the chance to tell me no. And then be like, well, we told you no. No, no, no, I’m just gonna do it. And then just be like, oh, well, you didn’t tell me I couldn’t do it. So that was a very pragmatic point of view. Affiliative is the opposite. Affiliative will always ask permission. That’s the issue.
They will always ask permission ahead of time. So you just gotta be aware you know that difference with affiliative. Another political example also of affiliative versus pragmatic. If you have like a cube, or no, or it’s a square broken up into four sub-squares. And on the top you have authoritarian, and then at the bottom, you have libertarian. So you had the authoritarian left, and then you have the authoritarian right. And you had the libertarian left and the libertarian right. And it’s where on this grid of four, does anyone do they like take this test, and they end up on one of these things, and then sometimes they’re centrists or whatever, but affiliated people would test typically authoritarian if it’s like authoritarian left, authoritarian right. Whatever, I don’t care. But they would be authoritarian, because they’re very authority based. You ask permission first and you give people the power to make rules and you ask permission if you can like potentially bend or break rules or amend rules or whatever. Whereas libertarian is more pragmatic approach, that pragmatic folk would actually test as libertarian left or libertarian right, for example. This is typically. Now of course, there are some SJs that do test libertarian left or right. Because they’ve developed their own personal philosophy or they’re more harmonized within, or integrated between the four sides of their mind. Yes, there are people that test differently. I’m just saying in general, people who are affiliative prefer authoritarian, and people who are pragmatic prefer libertarian. That just kind of a difference. And so, and the majority of people prefer authoritarian, and the minority of people prefer libertarian. That’s just how it works. So anyway, just remember affiliative focuses on interdependence and community, and being about the group, and the effectiveness of the group and inclusion, whereas the pragmatic is focused on what being independent, it’s on about being freedom, and having freedom, like free to do things. And it’s about effectiveness. It’s about excellence. It’s about merit. It’s about self-determination or having autonomy, et cetera.
So, when you’re looking at somebody to find out their type, you just like, okay, is this guy pragmatic? Or is he affiliative? And then you go through all of these different things, and these different traits you could find okay, yes, he’s pragmatic. Okay, yes, he’s affiliative. So, let’s do an example on the type grid. Let’s say you’re dating some girl. You wanna know if you’re compatible with her and whatnot, and you going out on a first date, and you’re like, okay, yeah, she’s very direct, and she’s very movement, so, okay. So, she’s definitely chart the course, automatically is okay, yeah. Now, I know she’s an introvert, because she’s chart the course, also, I wanna see it through her finisher type. So she’s either an ISTJ, an ISTP, an INTJ or an INFJ. And you know, me, in this example, let’s say I was dating this woman, and I’ll an ESTP in this example. So, and then I talked to her more, and then I realized that she’s very concrete. So I’ve eliminated INFJ and INTJ from that, I’m like, oh, thank God. So she could either be an ISTP or an ISTJ, which one? So one of them is pragmatic. One of them is affiliative. I started talking to her more, and she doesn’t really seem very focused on independence or autonomy. She’s constant talking about other people, constantly talking about her family, talking about people at our work. And she’s asking me permission to do things, asking me permission to order something for the menu. ‘Cause we’re at a date right now. And she seems very interdependent. Like, okay, yeah. So she is actually affiliative, which means she’s an SJ. So, there I go, I know she’s an ISTJ, and thank God, she’s an ISTJ, because that’s super compatible with an ESTP, and I could definitely see this relationship working for the long-term. I’m definitely going to invest more into it So that’s just in the dating example that you could use on how important it is, the type grid is so that if you know your type, you know other people type, you know how you jive with them, and you know how to behave yourself around them to get the best possible results. And that’s why we do this. That’s why we’re learning about the type grid. That’s why we’re doing season 15. And which, by the way, if you’re watching season 15, and you haven’t watched season two, I recommend you watch season two because, or listen to season two, because season two provides the foundation that we have for the type grid. So that once you have that foundation, kind of that more general level, and then you get into season 15, this is more of like the deep, we’re getting into the weeds. Whereas the season two is like the forest if that makes sense.
So anyway, I think that’s it for this lecture. If you found this lecture useful, helpful, educational, enlightening, insightful, and all those other crazy adjectives that I throw in there to describe how awesome these lectures are, or at least I would hope you’d think or feel that these lectures are awesome. Please subscribe to the channel here on YouTube, and also on our podcasts. Leave a like while you’re at it. And you have any questions or comments about affiliative versus pragmatic, leave it in the comment section below. And I will do my best to answer your questions. And I, like, I spent like probably two hours a day reading comments. So just so you know that I do that. Although, I don’t get 100% of the little comments, because sometimes I actually have to go back to some of the videos themselves, and then scroll down to look at all of them. Because for some reason, YouTube doesn’t give me an alert for every single comment like they do for like new, fresh comments, but like replies, it doesn’t really keep track of replies very well. So, I do my best to try to look for your replies. Also, if you’ve not joined our discord server, please do. We’re gonna be having another Q and A session coming up here pretty soon after I get back from the East Coast, ’cause I’m flying to the East Coast next week. I’m going to be in Ohio. And so while I’m in Ohio, I’m gonna be doing a couple of lectures. But when I get back from Ohio, I’m definitely gonna be doing a Q and A session the following week. So if you wanna get your questions in for that Q and A session, join the discord server, put them in the Q and A section. And there’s a chance that they will be answered in the show. I try to answer them all in order as they come, et cetera. Also, if you haven’t joined the Bay Area meetup group, make sure you’re in it. Actually, as I travel with this meetup group, which by the way, the link to the meetup group and the discord is in the description of this lecture. If, as I travel, I’m actually gonna be scheduling meetups in various locations as I travel so that we could have like meetups while I’m like out of town too. So look for those, I’ll be talking about them, at least announcing them on the discord server. So, that’s another reason for you to get on the discord server in case there’s like a meetup that’s scheduled, and you don’t wanna miss it. And it’s in your area. I’m gonna traveling the country a lot or for like the rest of this year, including, I got another trip to Seattle, I got another trip to Atlanta. I got another trip to Denver. I’m gonna be all over the place. So, because of how all over the place I’m going to be, let’s take advantage of these meetups, and definitely, do that and have fun and see each other, meet each other, type each other, and discuss yang, yin analytical psychology or self-actualization, whichever one. So anyway, that was, that’s it for tonight. I expect to be back tomorrow. So, y’all have a good night. And I’ll see you tomorrow.