Jordan Peterson

[The Reality Denialist]

I thin creative is given because there's a lot emphasis on how to become strong and successful person. The ultimate goal for life.
Wants to become attached to the world but he is only a sage.
Facts for what life is. Mechanism deep down carries a lot less importance.

I think gamma NT who got stuck in university life but tries to take maximum benefits out of it.

[Jeremy8419]

I thin creative is given because there's a lot emphasis on how to become strong and successful person. The ultimate goal for life.
Wants to become attached to the world but he is only a sage.
Facts for what life is. Mechanism deep down carries a lot less importance.

I think gamma NT who got stuck in university life but tries to take maximum benefits out of it.

Yeah, except you're basically describing an LSI dual.

[ouronis]

I keep seeing echoes of his message in other places https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQ...utu.be&t=4m43s

[The Reality Denialist]

Overall focus is on testing, success, symbolism, survival, struggle etc. Beyond personal analysis of him... Anyways he seems to attract valuers. Thinks that life is something you should be part of.


I think everything his speak is highly self explanatory. Why bother?

[Leader]

Enfp

[ouronis]

at this point i'm just posting interesting shit related to him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHaEgwvqFZ8

[ouronis]

Just wanted to post some more impressions...

His professed hate for postmodernism seems to ironically be quite clearly the rejection of the same shadow he advocates others to know. His views are practically all postmodern except for in name.

He works like a dog. He advocates basically that people live up to the self-actualization that lives up to their core (big 5) personality traits. Someone like him that's conscientious should work work work and that'll make them happy. Someone who's egocentric should delight in fighting. Someone who's extraverted can't live in an introvert's world, etc.

While working like a dog, he almost (not quite) presents himself as the soft sciences' Elon Musk. He wants to singlehandedly change education and the way people think about myths. He wants to elevate rationality (in the form of studies) to a highest good. He is leading a witchhunt against accused postmodernists to erase their wishy-washiness from the discourse.

I don't agree with everything he says, specifically not everything centered around his rejection of socialism and "post-modernism." However, his Jungian stuff is top notch. In his field (and in some alleys in the philosophy world), he really shows his competency. I think he falls prey to the classic "tenured professor can't keep his mouth shut about stuff that's not his business." But I'm not convinced that it could be otherwise. Some people have to run their mouths in an ignorant way so that they have enough psychological relief for the good stuff. I think that's fairly common (on the scale of things with a lot of options).

LIE is still odd to me. Something interesting about his thinking style: he likes to codify things on the fly. That is, he will go give a lecture or speak, make up what he's saying by allowing his flurry of thoughts crystallize into a singular thought or concept on the spot. Once crystallize, he will use it in the future, rarely changing the formula unless having made a conscious concession to rethink, i.e. when in a one-on-one conversation with someone capable of challenging or engaging his ideas. This may be indicative of an inbuilt preference to let the unconscious speak. More likely it is something that was worked out after having attained competency at speaking for long amount of times and being someone who needs to get very dense subjects out in the least amount of time that still does justice to the core of the idea.

[Myst]

Something interesting about his thinking style: he likes to codify things on the fly. That is, he will go give a lecture or speak, make up what he's saying by allowing his flurry of thoughts crystallize into a singular thought or concept on the spot. Once crystallize, he will use it in the future, rarely changing the formula unless having made a conscious concession to rethink, i.e. when in a one-on-one conversation with someone capable of challenging or engaging his ideas. This may be indicative of an inbuilt preference to let the unconscious speak. More likely it is something that was worked out after having attained competency at speaking for long amount of times and being someone who needs to get very dense subjects out in the least amount of time that still does justice to the core of the idea.

Sounds like Thinking lead/base to me with the bolded. But I'd know for sure only if I saw some examples of what kind of thoughts/concepts/formulas you mean.

Other than that... ILI was suggested for him and that made me consider that too - didn't exclude LxI either but he seems a bit too removed for Sensing type and LII seems a bit off too though otherwise it would be an OK match.

Overall focus is on testing, success, symbolism, survival, struggle etc. Beyond personal analysis of him... Anyways he seems to attract valuers. Thinks that life is something you should be part of.

Idk if that means Ni ego.

[strrrng]

I lean ILI > EIE. the quotes make Ni/Se pretty clear -- focus on underlying processes that set the foundation for meaningful action -- and his realm of study and takes on things in light of that also point to it. but the way he expresses his ideas seems more gamma+4D Ti than beta+1D Ti. he'll take relevant bits and pieces and streamline them into a kind of ad hoc gestalt without really sacrificing coherency; beta NFs, especially EIEs, tend to get "stuck" in abstractions more and just endlessly draw things out. additionally, in the interview I watched part of, his inflective patterns matched ILI better than EIE, with the fact that he's probably sx-primary serving as the reason why he could seem more emphatic/passionate/whatever -- his eyes move fairly rapidly, he's somewhat removed but still maintains an inner tension characteristic of Ni/Se-valuers, especially introverts, and places expressive emphasis on key words and phrases at intervals, like he's just following his perceptions until something relevant punctuates them. I would guess Te-subtype and unsure on enneagram, 1 or 6 seems likely.

[anndelise]

I think he demonstrates Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition (Dynamic, Negativist, Evolutionary).
((see http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko))

Evolutionary: He uses a set of axioms (psychological/behavioral/etc theories) and moves out from those towards their natural consequences.
Negativst: He seems to prefer axioms that delineate points of separation and contrasts objects/ideas/groups, focusing on their differences.
Dynamic: He's synthesized all the above and approaches social and political constructs with that unified base.

This puts him as possibly EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI. I think it's pretty clear that he's not SEI.
LSE has 4D Se demonstrative. ILI has 1D Se seeking. EIE has 2D Se agenda. I can see the possibility of each of those being used to describe him.
However, I don't think Ne agenda describes him, so that crosses off LSE.

So I'm left with EIE or ILI.
If he tends to dismiss other axioms/theories than the ones he's synthesized, then he's likely ILI. (Ne ignoring)
But I think it more likely that he's EIE, with Se agenda, Ne demonstrative, and Fi ignoring (he doesn't necessarily like the consequences his synthesized axioms result in, but liking/disliking them is irrelevant).

[anndelise]

Shows an interesting side (I'm just learning about this guy). He seems pretty upset to have been considered, even briefly "alt-right". Almost like the feeling of realizing that one's been misunderstood despite all of one's efforts to the contrary. I'm not so sure he'd appreciate being typed on a forum like this. I could be wrong, but it seems to go against what he works for.

[ouronis]

Shows an interesting side (I'm just learning about this guy). He seems pretty upset to have been considered, even briefly "alt-right". Almost like the feeling of realizing that one's been misunderstood despite all of one's efforts to the contrary. I'm not so sure he'd appreciate being typed on a forum like this. I could be wrong, but it seems to go against what he works for.

That's interesting, what leads you to believe that?

Regarding his association with the alt-right: he seems to (from an outsider's perspective) walked into that blindly. Like it was as innocuous as drinking lemonade on a hot day. But the toxicity of everything about the alt-right's image (including its relations to others from those others, esp. media or emotion-led demonizers) seems to have never occured to him as an issue, like he was just getting invitations to talk to people who were curious about what he had to say.

While this is in line with his individualist, apolitical philosophy (and if done consciously, it's a brave and poignant move), it seems to show a striking ignorance of how other people are going to react to his image and his associations or a disinclination to put his beliefs into context.

[squark]

That's his Big 5 profile. He says high in Openness and Extraversion (mostly the assertiveness part of extraversion) very high in the industriousness aspect of conscientiousness (hard-working, dedicated) but not in the orderliness aspect, high in agreeableness for a man, and suffers periods of depression so overall higher in neuroticism.

[anndelise]

That's interesting, what leads you to believe that?

He seems genuinely upset at being misunderstood and mischaracterized. Misunderstanding and mischaracterizing is the kind of a thing that people typing someone else tend to do. The majority don't double check their typings, don't try to prove it wrong, don't expand their understanding of the person, and often only use minimal information for typing them. They also rarely, if ever, check with the person they are typing to see how well that person identifies with the typing, and what the typer could have done for better accuracy. Basically, the only feedback usually sought is how much group consensus there might be, regardless of the actual accuracy of the group's members.

It's also possible that I completely misread his body language and some of his voice tones.
But even then, his letters showed a persistence in something...maybe making a point, maybe clearing up the mischaracterization, maybe genuine astonishment that he could ever have been considered as part of the alt-right, or other possibilities.

Regarding his association with the alt-right: he seems to (from an outsider's perspective) walked into that blindly. Like it was as innocuous as drinking lemonade on a hot day. But the toxicity of everything about the alt-right's image (including its relations to others from those others, esp. media or emotion-led demonizers) seems to have never occured to him as an issue, like he was just getting invitations to talk to people who were curious about what he had to say.

While this is in line with his individualist, apolitical philosophy (and if done consciously, it's a brave and poignant move), it seems to show a striking ignorance of how other people are going to react to his image and his associations or a disinclination to put his beliefs into context.

Yeah, which led me to thinking, oh, ILI!

But, again, I've only seen maybe a total of 30-45 minutes of videos from him, so even my saying this and the previous post could be a misunderstanding/mischaracterization. I'd need to study him far more than I have.

[anndelise]

That's his Big 5 profile. He says high in Openness and Extraversion (mostly the assertiveness part of extraversion) very high in the industriousness aspect of conscientiousness (hard-working, dedicated) but not in the orderliness aspect, high in agreeableness for a man, and suffers periods of depression so overall higher in neuroticism.

I'm sure this blows my thoughts on him out of the water, and I'm sure I'll have to adjust my understanding of him quite a few times, heh.
(I'm actually more interested in the axioms he primarily uses for personality. Like the end of the video you posted linked to "2017 Personality 14: Introduction to Traits/Psychometrics/The Big 5" which in turn links to "2017 Personality 15: The Limbic".

Basically I'm saying thanks for posting that.

[squark]

I'm sure this blows my thoughts on him out of the water, and I'm sure I'll have to adjust my understanding of him quite a few times, heh.
(I'm actually more interested in the axioms he primarily uses for personality. Like the end of the video you posted linked to "2017 Personality 14: Introduction to Traits/Psychometrics/The Big 5" which in turn links to "2017 Personality 15: The Limbic".

Basically I'm saying thanks for posting that.

Yes, the discussions he has on Big 5 traits are good (and far more interesting than his socionics type imo) There's a lot of valuable and interesting information to explore there.

[Myst]

But I think it more likely that he's EIE, with Se agenda, Ne demonstrative, and Fi ignoring.

Guy seems 1D Fe. No way this is an EIE. The thinking process of his that you described can fit LII.

Shows an interesting side (I'm just learning about this guy). He seems pretty upset to have been considered, even briefly "alt-right". Almost like the feeling of realizing that one's been misunderstood despite all of one's efforts to the contrary. I'm not so sure he'd appreciate being typed on a forum like this. I could be wrong, but it seems to go against what he works for.

And this is pretty much LII. I didn't follow too much of what he was saying before so I never looked this closely before but this is very Ne creative with Se PoLR and Ti lead makes sense anyway.

Basically I see zero Se valuing in the way he handled this issue, he overreacted and overcomplicated it all in favour of his idealism disconnected from the real world.


A few very typical bits for Ne creative idealism:

"It appears that you have done so either carelessly or to add some narrative punch to your story. Neither of those reasons are in the least justifiable."

"no apparent let's call it crisis of conscience"

"I'm not in favor of people banding together in ideological groups and instead would much rather see people live fundamentally productive and meaningful and honest invididual lives and in that manner be a light unto their neighbors so to speak to show the way to live in the world without undue ideological possession and to move forward things productively in that manner."

"I don't know of any pathway forward through this increasingly polarized political landcape that we find ourselves in that isn't absolutely rife with the possibility of conflict"

"So I would encourage those of you who are considering yourself say on the alt right for that matter as well as on the radical left to transcend your dangerous and impersonal ideological identification and start to live as true individuals in the world."


The parts against ideological possession could be seen as ILI too maybe but overall I see Ne and LII. Too disconnected from the actual reality of things, ILI is at least Se valuing.

[anndelise]

Guy seems 1D Fe. No way this is an EIE. The thinking process of his that you described can fit LII.

As you can see from the link I gave to the original article on Cognitive Style has that thinking process for EIE, ILI, LSE, and SEI.
LII, IEE, ESI, and SLE are holographic-panoramic style: static, negativist, involutionary. He doesn't show that style of thinking in any videos I've seen of him, yet.

[Myst]

As you can see from the link I gave to the original article on Cognitive Style has that thinking process for EIE, ILI, LSE, and SEI.
LII, IEE, ESI, and SLE are holographic-panoramic style: static, negativist, involutionary. He doesn't show that style of thinking in any videos I've seen of him, yet.

"Evolutionary: He uses a set of axioms (psychological/behavioral/etc theories) and moves out from those towards their natural consequences."

This can fit Ti as well, you put it too general for it not to.

"Negativst: He seems to prefer axioms that delineate points of separation and contrasts objects/ideas/groups, focusing on their differences."

LII is negativist, as far as that correlation to type even works... (skeptical)

"Dynamic: He's synthesized all the above and approaches social and political constructs with that unified base."

Same comment as for "Evolutionary".


Really, I would not see these speculative and hard to detect cogstyles as taking priority over Ego functions in the process of typing someone. Fe is clearly not in his Ego.

[Spermatozoa]

I only listened to a minute of the lecture, but...

Firstly, he varies the emotional pitch and inflection of his delivery a lot, so I'd say he's an Fe type just from that alone. Fi types are not so aware of the need to "entertain" and maintain audience interest in this way. He very consciously stresses certain words and phrases for effect. He also uses the royal "you" a lot, thus directly engaging the audience to make them feel included. Not all lecturers do this by any means.

I noticed that there is also an incoherence to the pattern of his speech. By that I mean he doesn't move through his points in a cool, sequential manner - instead he jumps from A to E, not explaining himself immediately, and this is what I would expect from a Ni heavy type. Because of the energy and directness of his delivery, I strongly suspect extroversion.

All and all, EIE-Ni seems likely. Alas, he is also a social Enneagram 1, and adopts a moralizing, self-righteous tone a little too often for my taste.

Also a note of caution to others: be careful not to give too much weight to a person's value system when you are typing them.

[anndelise]

"Evolutionary: He uses a set of axioms (psychological/behavioral/etc theories) and moves out from those towards their natural consequences."

This can fit Ti as well, you put it too general for it not to.

"Negativst: He seems to prefer axioms that delineate points of separation and contrasts objects/ideas/groups, focusing on their differences."

LII is negativist, as far as that correlation to type even works... (skeptical)

"Dynamic: He's synthesized all the above and approaches social and political constructs with that unified base."

Same comment as for "Evolutionary".


Really, I would not see these speculative and hard to detect cogstyles as taking priority over Ego functions in the process of typing someone. Fe is clearly not in his Ego.

Negativist is the only cognitive style dichotomy in common with EIE and ILI.

So we're talking about the difference between Static Involutionary style vs Dynamic Evolutionary style.

Static Involutionary style (LII, IEE, ESI, SLE) observes the phenomena first, then reduces them to diagrams and models (which may be axioms, or used to create axioms from). Rather than synthesizing models together, they use the models to observe other phenomena in differing ways. Like each model is a lens to look at a phenomena through; each lens you use gives a different understanding of what's being observed.

As opposed to Dynamic Evolutionary style (EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI) synthesizing (not creating) axioms together into a single lens for practical usage.


You could maybe argue that he observes something first and then uses certain axioms/theories to describe his observations. I suppose that could possibly fit. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I've only seen about 45minutes of video from him so far. Perhaps you could post a video that shows him doing that?

But thus far, I've not seen him approach his political leanings from differing povs (aka differing lenses). I don't see him doing 'on one hand this, but on the other hand that'; not even mentally.



From the link:

 

Describing Evolution–Involution at this level will initially contrast deductive vs. inductive thinking.

Unfortunately, the bulk of literature on this cognitive dichotomy treats it in at least two different senses. In the first sense, deduction is understood simply as a strict formal sequence or expository progression of thought (aka Socionics rationality), while induction is understood as conclusions stemming from practical experience (aka Socionics irrationality).

I will frame this dichotomy in the second sense, namely as simplification vs. complication of thought structure. Meaning that in deductive thinking, given a set of simple and obvious statements (axioms, postulates), the resultant consequences can be necessarily derived (theorem). Reasoning flows in the direction of simple to complex. Evolutionary types therefore mentally complicate the situation.
In inductive thinking reasoning proceeds the other way around. Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive thinking reduces them to generalized diagrams and models stripped of details. Involutionary types break down and simplify the situation in order to understand it. Reasoning flows in reverse order from complex to simple.

The Evolution–Involution dichotomy confers different scales of examination in a problem. Evolutionary types see small to large. Details are distinct. Scale is specific and precise like geographical map. Involutionary types on the other hand, see large to small. Details are vague. Scale is general and broad. The scale will alternate in Negativists, since they think more alternatively, but the same priority will remain.
It is worth noting that deductive thinking has always had priority in society over inductive thinking. Constructing a deductively consistent theory to explain a phenomenon, has always been seen as a researcher's coup de grace.

Static

 

Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend towards associative-synthetic thinking.

Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. Whereas synthesis is akin to associativity, i.e. the association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries.

The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism. Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. Later John Locke argued that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the association of ideas against purely semantic connections, which in his opinion were secondary.

Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. Here are some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.
Roman orator Cicero used the 'method of loci' to memorize his speeches by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room, mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required. Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk the route, 'raising' key concepts they had previously laid there.

Contemporary advertising cleverly exploits the Dynamic side of human cognition. It is mainly based on the mechanism of association by context (manly cowboy next to a pack of cigarettes) or contrast (ordinary laundry detergent vs. advertised laundry detergent). Judging by this means of consumer inducement, advertising presumably influences Statics much less than Dynamics. Statics memorize more effectively when material is structured in rigid semantic relationships, where each concept is fixed in memory cells like a computer.

Thus, Dynamics are stronger in synthesis operations (not mere simple connections, but confluence of associations), while Statics are stronger in analysis (not just any separation, but clear and precise delineations). Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with the Static–Dynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary Rationality/Irrationality. But then, what exactly is the latter? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over context).

[anndelise]

Also a note of caution to others: be careful not to give too much weight to a person's value system when you are typing them.

yes yes yes!!
(sorry, that's one of my pet peeves on this forum, heh)

[Spermatozoa]

yes yes yes!!
(sorry, that's one of my pet peeves on this forum, heh)

Cool, I feel so connected to you

Let's have sex.

[Tallmo]

I agree with Adam. He seems very LIE

[Adam Strange]

I agree with Adam. He seems very LIE

@Tallmo, thanks. Some other people have suggested ILI-Te, and after seeing more videos of him, I think that is also a possibility. He really reminds me of a friend of mine, and I'm not sure if my friend is LIE or ILI, and I've known him for twenty years. My friend has some issues which he hides by being brilliant, so his type indeterminacy is either due to this, or to the fact that "types" can blend smoothly into adjacent types in some cases.

[Myst]

Firstly, he varies the emotional pitch and inflection of his delivery a lot, so I'd say he's an Fe type just from that alone. Fi types are not so aware of the need to "entertain" and maintain audience interest in this way. He very consciously stresses certain words and phrases for effect. He also uses the royal "you" a lot, thus directly engaging the audience to make them feel included. Not all lecturers do this by any means.

I would need more to feel engaged than just the royal "you". I find him very disconnected in this sense. He may stress words where he thinks it's the logical point but (for the parts I watched anyway) he doesn't really do much of an emotional approach for things, he sticks with the objective approach for defining things instead, he really comes off very dry in that sense to me, even if his passionate conviction itself isn't dry of course. Same with me, I easily have some sort of passion for it when I present my thoughts but the content itself is dry.

I noticed that there is also an incoherence to the pattern of his speech. By that I mean he doesn't move through his points in a cool, sequential manner - instead he jumps from A to E, not explaining himself immediately, and this is what I would expect from a Ni heavy type.

The jumping the way he does it seems like Ne to me. Not like how you do it for example.

Because of the energy and directness of his delivery, I strongly suspect extroversion.

I dunno about extraversion - he doesn't pay much attention to the audience in the videos I had a glimpse at, comes off very "inside himself" introverted.

All and all, EIE-Ni seems likely. Alas, he is also a social Enneagram 1, and adopts a moralizing, self-righteous tone a little too often for my taste.

Yeah 1 sx/so.

Negativist is the only cognitive style dichotomy in common with EIE and ILI.

So we're talking about the difference between Static Involutionary style vs Dynamic Evolutionary style.

Static Involutionary style (LII, IEE, ESI, SLE) observes the phenomena first, then reduces them to diagrams and models (which may be axioms, or used to create axioms from). Rather than synthesizing models together, they use the models to observe other phenomena in differing ways. Like each model is a lens to look at a phenomena through; each lens you use gives a different understanding of what's being observed.

As opposed to Dynamic Evolutionary style (EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI) synthesizing (not creating) axioms together into a single lens for practical usage.

My point however was that two points of yours on cogstyle in terms of how he thinks were not necessarily about the D-A cogstyle at all, I see you did later note an alternative there though yeah. All in all, when conclusions drawn from trying to link things with cogstyles go strongly against conclusions on what the Ego functions seem to be, the latter has to take priority for typing. Do you directly see strong Fe in him beyond just interpreting the way of thinking as possibly D-A cognition? (I for sure don't...)

You could maybe argue that he observes something first and then uses certain axioms/theories to describe his observations. I suppose that could possibly fit. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I've only seen about 45minutes of video from him so far. Perhaps you could post a video that shows him doing that?

Yep I see that as possibly fitting for him. Absolutely a possibility. Not in a way that's unambiguous and no I don't have a video. What really decided the typing in my eyes is the Ne creative. See how well it fits for example this Ne creative description.

But thus far, I've not seen him approach his political leanings from differing povs (aka differing lenses). I don't see him doing 'on one hand this, but on the other hand that'; not even mentally.

I don't believe this can be seen too easily, so that's one reason why cogstyles are unreliable for typing. I don't think you can instantly observe all LIIs as doing that H-P thing even if it can fit for them eventually.

[anndelise]

First, I want to make it clear that I am NOT invested in this guy's type, nor in of being 'right' in my analysis. I'm just answering questions/thoughts that were posed to me, and trying to clear up some misunderstandings I'm seeing.

I would need more to feel engaged than just the royal "you". I find him very disconnected in this sense. He may stress words where he thinks it's the logical point but (for the parts I watched anyway) he doesn't really do much of an emotional approach for things, he sticks with the objective approach for defining things instead, he really comes off very dry in that sense to me, even if his passionate conviction itself isn't dry of course. Same with me, I easily have some sort of passion for it when I present my thoughts but the content itself is dry.

Here's another video that more clearly demonstrates the kinds of behaviors that @<a href="http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/member.php?u=9467" target="_blank">Cuivienen</a> is noticing:
https://youtu.be/9VM1UA0pCMQ

One thing I've noticed about him is that there's a clear differences between when he's reading from his papers vs when he's in a more natural element. He's quite animated when he's in a more relaxed setting, but then, most people are. Do you have videos of LIIs in a similar situation as the video I just posted? I'm curious to see how animated LII get when they're relaxed.

The jumping the way he does it seems like Ne to me. Not like how you do it for example.

...

I dunno about extraversion - he doesn't pay much attention to the audience in the videos I had a glimpse at, comes off very "inside himself" introverted.

The jumping between A to E thing is a sign of an Xe base type. Xe isn't social extroversion, it's object oriented. It's easier to think of it as nodes vs connections between nodes. An Xe type's thoughts jump around between the nodes, while an Xi's thoughts attend more to how those nodes are connected.
The video I just posted also shows, however, that he does have an awareness of his audience and ways of making them laugh and feel comfortable in these types of classes he provides. And that that comes easily enough to him that he stutters and pauses less often while grouping his thoughts.

This node jumping that he does, and the signs that a node temporarily distracted him (some of the times when he pauses and regroups his thoughts) is one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to lean ILI more.

Also, LII (and LSI) utilize explicit links between their nodes. I'm not seeing that happening in any of his videos. And he doesn't particularly offer it as he's giving his presentation, either. His links are implicit links, which also suggests to me, in this case, as Ni ego rather than Ti ego. Admittedly, however, LII would have the demonstrative implicit fields of Ni, but I would still expect there to be some attempts to more clearly define the fields/links being used, since that's LII's base ego function.

My point however was that two points of yours on cogstyle in terms of how he thinks were not necessarily about the D-A cogstyle at all,

My initial points on the cogstyle used very specific terminology that when combined could only infer D-A cogstyle. I even offered the link to the original article so that readers could read further on what I was referring to if they didn't understand me or if they wanted to see how well their own initial typing of him fit the cogstyles and their interpretations of him.

All in all, when conclusions drawn from trying to link things with cogstyles go strongly against conclusions on what the Ego functions seem to be, the latter has to take priority for typing. Do you directly see strong Fe in him beyond just interpreting the way of thinking as possibly D-A cognition? (I for sure don't...)

Firstly, many people have some weird interpretations of what socionics' Fe means. I've also noticed that when it comes to typing or interacting with high intelligence F types, that the high intelligence can often seem to mask the F, and people interpret the info as coming from T. This man is highly intelligent. He's also highly conscientious (of the hardworking, dedicated sort rather than the orderly sort) and an e1 to boot. That tells us that he was driven to get his understandings of what he's talking about near perfect (as he could at the time). We're not seeing him as he's learning the axioms, nor as he's synthesizing his axioms. We're seeing him after years of discussing, describing, and using his lens and refining his presentations of them. We don't know which information elements were utilized during all that, and which, if any, difficulties he had during the process. That kind of info would give us a far clearer demonstration of his ego elements than his presentations could.

To answer your question more directly, I do not seeing anything about him yet that says "cannot be Fe based D-A". And, to be honest, When I first saw a video from him (I don't remember which one it was, but not in this thread), my immediate reaction was "ooh, an intelligent F talking about psychology, this should be interesting!" I even initially thought that he could be a highly intelligent IEE, even though I disagree with his political assertions. But after watching more of his videos, I saw zero HP style and so had to dismiss that idea.

Yep I see that as possibly fitting for him. Absolutely a possibility. Not in a way that's unambiguous and no I don't have a video. What really decided the typing in my eyes is the Ne creative. See how well it fits for example this Ne creative description.

That's probably the closest description of LII that could apply to what I've seen of him.
Though I could also see activating Ne combined with e1, high conscientious (hardworking, dedicated), being a male F, and depression as also fitting him.
And as mentioned in my posts here, there's other reasons for lessening the possibilities of LII being his type.

I don't believe this can be seen too easily, so that's one reason why cogstyles are unreliable for typing. I don't think you can instantly observe all LIIs as doing that H-P thing even if it can fit for them eventually.

HP cogstyle is the easiest for me to recognize, probably because it's my style as well. It makes it easier for me to follow along what a person's saying, or at least feel more assured that the jumps between lenses will eventually more fully describe the idea/phenomena that they are describing.


And on that last note, something else came to mind. Static types focus on the "What" pathway. What something is, what are it's attributes, etc. Dynamic types focus on "Where/How" pathway. The direction something's going in, how to best utilize the levers for changing the system, etc. In every single video I've seen of this guy, his focus is like, 75%, or more, on the where/how pathway and definitely not on the what pathway.
So again, another thing that drops LII lower on the possibility scale, imo.

 

I think my own posts show a clear HP cogstyle. I use a variety of lenses to observe this guy, and from the observations and interpretations through each of these lenses I create a clearer understanding of the guy (assuming my lenses, observations, and interpretations are somewhat accurate, and that he's not wearing masks). Through some lenses I can see LII, LSI, EIE, ILI, and LIE as maybe describing what I've seen of him. But when the hologram is put together, the type that seems to fit the most, imo, is EIE, followed by ILI.

Can I give you a CD cogstyle answer/reasoning? No. And I don't feel a need to, though I can understand that CD types might feel inclined to dismiss the HP approach.

((edited to add: I'm not sure why the mention of Cuivienen isn't working, but at least I made the attempt to notify this person that I referenced her and something she wrote.))

[darya]

He isn't ethical. He's argumentative in such way that he dryly and clearly states facts, he's not trying to persuade or emotionally impact anyone as Fe type would be. That has nothing to do with intelligence.

[The Reality Denialist]

The thing with Peterson is that he explains mechanisms a lot. Maybe this points towards ILI-Te.

OTOH: One theme is new beginnings. This is LIE.

[Olimpia]

ILI-Te Sx/So 1.

His subtype and instinctual stacking make him seem more extroverted than he truly is.
(Besides that, the subtype makes him seem more ST superficially. Read this for more.)

The way he uses and introduces systems and models is very much Demonstrative 4D , and would be quite uncharacteristic of Ti Ignoring.

Also, his Role is non-existent.

Compare him to Elon Musk (LIE-Ni) ...

 

Below, you will see how ILI-Te and LIE-Ni technically have around equally strong Te, Ni, Se, Fi (depending on how strong the subtypes are).

If you want to determine whether someone is either Mirror type, besides understanding the functions, it would be best to focus on the types' strongest and weakest IEs. In this case, it is strong Ti vs strong Ne , and weak Fe vs weak Si .

ILI-Te (LII-Ti is the same btw)
1. Ti
2. Ni / Te
3. Ne / Si
4. Fi / Se
5. Fe

LIE-Ni (ILE-Ne is the same btw)
1. Ne
2. Ni / Te
3. Ti / Fe
4. Fi / Se
5. Si

Go here for more.

The fact that some people type Jordan as Ti lead is to me a good sign that his Ti is very strong, and technically his strongest IE, which is also a good deciding factor for ILI vs LIE.

[Myst]

First, I want to make it clear that I am NOT invested in this guy's type, nor in of being 'right' in my analysis. I'm just answering questions/thoughts that were posed to me, and trying to clear up some misunderstandings I'm seeing.

Don't worry about that.

Here's another video that more clearly demonstrates the kinds of behaviors that @<a href="http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/member.php?u=9467" target="_blank">Cuivienen</a> is noticing:

One thing I've noticed about him is that there's a clear differences between when he's reading from his papers vs when he's in a more natural element. He's quite animated when he's in a more relaxed setting, but then, most people are. Do you have videos of LIIs in a similar situation as the video I just posted? I'm curious to see how animated LII get when they're relaxed.

I don't have a collection of videos of types or anything like that, so usually it's pointless to ask me for one. I've seen animated LxIs though yes. This video is still LII to me, he's still detached overall with some moments where unconscious-seeming Fe comes to the surface/expression. (It was an interesting video, otherwise.)

The jumping between A to E thing is a sign of an Xe base type. Xe isn't social extroversion, it's object oriented. It's easier to think of it as nodes vs connections between nodes. An Xe type's thoughts jump around between the nodes, while an Xi's thoughts attend more to how those nodes are connected.

Yeah, Ne is extraverted. He doesn't jump as much as Ne base types.

The video I just posted also shows, however, that he does have an awareness of his audience and ways of making them laugh and feel comfortable in these types of classes he provides. And that that comes easily enough to him that he stutters and pauses less often while grouping his thoughts.

This node jumping that he does, and the signs that a node temporarily distracted him (some of the times when he pauses and regroups his thoughts) is one of the reasons why I'm hesitant to lean ILI more.

Also, LII (and LSI) utilize explicit links between their nodes. I'm not seeing that happening in any of his videos. And he doesn't particularly offer it as he's giving his presentation, either. His links are implicit links, which also suggests to me, in this case, as Ni ego rather than Ti ego. Admittedly, however, LII would have the demonstrative implicit fields of Ni, but I would still expect there to be some attempts to more clearly define the fields/links being used, since that's LII's base ego function.

I see pretty clear definitions and distinct judgments being used in his explanations. Yes I see Ni demo as well. I also see him going into his head a lot still though overall yes he was in a pretty good mood.

My initial points on the cogstyle used very specific terminology that when combined could only infer D-A cogstyle. I even offered the link to the original article so that readers could read further on what I was referring to if they didn't understand me or if they wanted to see how well their own initial typing of him fit the cogstyles and their interpretations of him.

Heh we are going to disagree on this, in terms of how specific the terminology was.

Firstly, many people have some weird interpretations of what socionics' Fe means. I've also noticed that when it comes to typing or interacting with high intelligence F types, that the high intelligence can often seem to mask the F, and people interpret the info as coming from T. This man is highly intelligent. He's also highly conscientious (of the hardworking, dedicated sort rather than the orderly sort) and an e1 to boot. That tells us that he was driven to get his understandings of what he's talking about near perfect (as he could at the time). We're not seeing him as he's learning the axioms, nor as he's synthesizing his axioms. We're seeing him after years of discussing, describing, and using his lens and refining his presentations of them. We don't know which information elements were utilized during all that, and which, if any, difficulties he had during the process. That kind of info would give us a far clearer demonstration of his ego elements than his presentations could.

To answer your question more directly, I do not seeing anything about him yet that says "cannot be Fe based D-A". And, to be honest, When I first saw a video from him (I don't remember which one it was, but not in this thread), my immediate reaction was "ooh, an intelligent F talking about psychology, this should be interesting!" I even initially thought that he could be a highly intelligent IEE, even though I disagree with his political assertions. But after watching more of his videos, I saw zero HP style and so had to dismiss that idea.

Okay, so you don't see anything specifically in terms of how his Fe is positioned.

As for intelligence, I don't confuse intelligence with socionics Logic IEs. What darya just posted about that now is what I see also.

I do agree on the point that someone can spend a lot of time with a weak IE in a specific area/task and then be decent at it for that task. But he doesn't do his approach just for some isolated tasks.

That's probably the closest description of LII that could apply to what I've seen of him.

Yeah. To me that was a strong enough point that combined with other things I've observed (him being in the head a lot, very "inside himself", being a removed N type as well, and strong Ti), it had me make my conclusion on his type.

Though I could also see activating Ne combined with e1, high conscientious (hardworking, dedicated), being a male F, and depression as also fitting him.
And as mentioned in my posts here, there's other reasons for lessening the possibilities of LII being his type.

Sure, I made my conclusion, if you want to consider possibilities further for yourself, feel free to.

HP cogstyle is the easiest for me to recognize, probably because it's my style as well. It makes it easier for me to follow along what a person's saying, or at least feel more assured that the jumps between lenses will eventually more fully describe the idea/phenomena that they are describing.


And on that last note, something else came to mind. Static types focus on the "What" pathway. What something is, what are it's attributes, etc. Dynamic types focus on "Where/How" pathway. The direction something's going in, how to best utilize the levers for changing the system, etc. In every single video I've seen of this guy, his focus is like, 75%, or more, on the where/how pathway and definitely not on the what pathway.
So again, another thing that drops LII lower on the possibility scale, imo.

Have seen a bit too many things on cogstyles about people before to see it as unambiguous for determining type. As for the Dynamic stuff: I see a lot of "what" (those definitions/judgments) too and the rest fits Ni demo okay.

I think my own posts show a clear HP cogstyle. I use a variety of lenses to observe this guy, and from the observations and interpretations through each of these lenses I create a clearer understanding of the guy (assuming my lenses, observations, and interpretations are somewhat accurate, and that he's not wearing masks). Through some lenses I can see LII, LSI, EIE, ILI, and LIE as maybe describing what I've seen of him. But when the hologram is put together, the type that seems to fit the most, imo, is EIE, followed by ILI.

Can I give you a CD cogstyle answer/reasoning? No. And I don't feel a need to, though I can understand that CD types might feel inclined to dismiss the HP approach.

Disagreement is disagreement, has nothing to do with C-D dismissing H-P. But again as I said, don't worry about it.

((edited to add: I'm not sure why the mention of Cuivienen isn't working, but at least I made the attempt to notify this person that I referenced her and something she wrote.))

Idk why the mention on @Cuivienen didn't work, so I'll do it too.

[Adam Strange]

That's his Big 5 profile. He says high in Openness and Extraversion (mostly the assertiveness part of extraversion) very high in the industriousness aspect of conscientiousness (hard-working, dedicated) but not in the orderliness aspect, high in agreeableness for a man, and suffers periods of depression so overall higher in neuroticism.

This is a video which, I think, really points towards ILI for Peterson. Note that the guy he's talking to VI's (to me, at least) as an SEE. If I were being interviewed by an SEE, I'd be meeting and greeting (LIE & SEE = Activity = Crazy Party Madness). Instead, Peterson has his eyes closed (which means, Look at me. When a person is looking away from you, they want you to look at them.) through much of the interview, and even has his hands shading one eye. I'd expect an ILI to want to be looked at by his dual.
I (an LIE), on the other hand, would be returning the attention back towards the SEE as much as possible. ("Dude - I see you have guitars. Let's grab one, find some babes and make a party!")

I said earlier that Peterson resembles a friend of mine. They even have the same shirt. I showed a pic of my friend to someone here who is a good typer, and they said he was ILI. So, Peterson probably is ILI-Te, too.

Not a Ti argument, but probably not wrong, either.

"It ain't bragging if you can do it." - Dizzy Dean

[Olimpia]

This is a video which, I think, really points towards ILI for Peterson. Note that the guy he's talking to VI's (to me, at least) as an SEE. If I were being interviewed by an SEE, I'd be meeting and greeting (LIE & SEE = Activity = Crazy Party Madness). Instead, Peterson has his eyes closed (which means, Look at me. When a person is looking away from you, they want you to look at them.) through much of the interview, and even has his hands shading one eye. I'd expect an ILI to want to be looked at by his dual.
I (an LIE), on the other hand, would be returning the attention back towards the SEE as much as possible. ("Dude - I see you have guitars. Let's grab one, find some babes and make a party!")

I said earlier that Peterson resembles a friend of mine. They even have the same shirt. I showed a pic of my friend to someone here who is a good typer, and they said he was ILI. So, Peterson probably is ILI-Te, too.

Not a Ti argument, but probably not wrong, either.

"It ain't bragging if you can do it." - Dizzy Dean

The funny thing is, someone asked me once what I thought his type was before I knew of him, and I said ILI based on the V.I (google images) and the stuff I skimmed on his wiki page.

He very much V.Is as Fe PoLR... Especially this pic made me think he could be ILI.

[squark]

But thus far, I've not seen him approach his political leanings from differing povs (aka differing lenses). I don't see him doing 'on one hand this, but on the other hand that'; not even mentally.

Well, actually that points towards positivism over negativism for him then imo - as it is a negativist quality to switch viewpoints, contrast, and so on. Positivists converge on a single solution, while negativists branch outward into alternatives and other options, so DA thinking is very flow-chart like with varying options and contingencies. Negativism is why this was said re. DA types

The disadvantages in DA cognition include instability and uncertainty. Algorithmics suffer from difficulty in making choices and embracing unambiguous decisions

CD thinkers suffer the opposite problem of being too sure of themselves sometimes heh, and that's partly a result of positivism. Negativism/Positivism was summed up by Gulenko as Divergent/Convergent thinking and that's the simplest way to think about it imo.

Also, LII (and LSI) utilize explicit links between their nodes. I'm not seeing that happening in any of his videos. And he doesn't particularly offer it as he's giving his presentation, either. His links are implicit links, which also suggests to me, in this case, as Ni ego rather than Ti ego. Admittedly, however, LII would have the demonstrative implicit fields of Ni, but I would still expect there to be some attempts to more clearly define the fields/links being used, since that's LII's base ego function.

True that there are explicit links with Ti, but these aren't always verbalized. I've found the connections he's made very clear and easy to follow, as in they do seem to be explicit (imo) and I haven't noticed any kind of jumping between things like you pointed out as Xe or hazy nebulous kinds of connections that are harder for others to see as in Ni (and one video he seemed quite amazed by Nietzsche's Ni like it was some kind of wonderous superpower he couldn't fathom,) but like you I haven't watched a ton of his videos, only a few of them. I could be missing something. The psychology videos of his though I have been enjoying and learning from.

One thing that I find interesting regarding his type though are the differing interpretations of the same behavior. For instance,

Regarding his association with the alt-right: he seems to (from an outsider's perspective) walked into that blindly. Like it was as innocuous as drinking lemonade on a hot day. But the toxicity of everything about the alt-right's image (including its relations to others from those others, esp. media or emotion-led demonizers) seems to have never occured to him as an issue, like he was just getting invitations to talk to people who were curious about what he had to say.

While this is in line with his individualist, apolitical philosophy (and if done consciously, it's a brave and poignant move), it seems to show a striking ignorance of how other people are going to react to his image and his associations or a disinclination to put his beliefs into context.

I took this as being Ne polr, and sympathized as I could see myself easily doing the same thing, but you saw it as ILI (I'm assuming you saw it as weak Fe) which makes perfect sense as well and I hadn't considered that take on it.

His Big 5 traits are interesting and I hope everyone will look more into them and what the different aspects are actually referring to rather than assuming correlations between them and socionics types that either don't exist at all, or aren't very strong. I hope it mostly because it's interesting and would add to discussion, but also because it will stretch frames of reference creating a broader viewpoint of personality which would be refreshing. Seeing disagreement on his type here though kind of illuminates the differing frames of reference that people are coming from which is interesting in itself.

Firstly, many people have some weird interpretations of what socionics' Fe means. I've also noticed that when it comes to typing or interacting with high intelligence F types, that the high intelligence can often seem to mask the F, and people interpret the info as coming from T. This man is highly intelligent. He's also highly conscientious (of the hardworking, dedicated sort rather than the orderly sort) and an e1 to boot. That tells us that he was driven to get his understandings of what he's talking about near perfect (as he could at the time). We're not seeing him as he's learning the axioms, nor as he's synthesizing his axioms. We're seeing him after years of discussing, describing, and using his lens and refining his presentations of them. We don't know which information elements were utilized during all that, and which, if any, difficulties he had during the process. That kind of info would give us a far clearer demonstration of his ego elements than his presentations could.

This is a good point. We're generally not seeing his cognition in action, and just seeing the results.

[anndelise]

This is a good point. We're generally not seeing his cognition in action, and just seeing the results.

Your post had some good points. Thank you.

I wanted to add a couple of videos that show him answering questions from the audience. I think these can give an idea of his cognition in action.






I haven't analyzed them yet, and might not actually get around to it (I'm waaay behind on chores right now), but after watching them both, I still think negativist because of the contrasts. What do you think?

[squark]

I haven't analyzed them yet, and might not actually get around to it (I'm waaay behind on chores right now), but after watching them both, I still think negativist because of the contrasts. What do you think?

Ahhh, this is actually really hard for me, because I find following his thoughts so easy that it becomes harder to step outside of that to think about he's actually processing things. You know, when someone says something that is confusing or you don't follow right away, as they explain themselves you can follow along with how they were thinking about it to get to that conclusion. So, it's easier to see how people think differently from yourself and how they actually are processing things when they come at things from a direction that you wouldn't come from, or in a way you weren't expecting.

And recognizing poor reasoning is also very easy and you can see where someone has gaps either in their understanding of something (where they are missing key pieces of information or not understanding a definition etc) and when it's their reasoning itself that's poor (as in they can't follow an argument, and their own arguments are poorly constructed) and that too can give clues into their cognition. But, I can't do that with him - he presents ideas, and when he realizes that they aren't fully fleshed out says, "And I don't believe this, but I think it" which I usually phrase as "This idea hasn't fully fermented" or something along those lines, where you know you don't have the full picture yet but there's something to the idea itself. . .

Anyway, I don't know how to pull his cognition apart to separate it from how I think, and whether that's because he's rational and reasonable enough that I don't see glaring holes in his thought processes, or if it's something else, I don't know, and ironically I can't contrast it with positivist thought enough to be able to see negativism. But, I can say that he uses Ti rather than Te - he's always about making sense of things, understanding them, seeing how things fit together into an understanding, a puzzling-out sort of thought process, rather than a more Te approach. Even his ideas of sorting yourself out - that's about understanding yourself, figuring yourself out, and not about following a pre-set plan or step-by-step approach which you see a lot in "self-help" kind of things which are usually Te. (I think I'm characterizing his approach accurately, but maybe need to look into it more)

[Jake]

LIE

[Delilah]

@anndelise gave such a thoughtful analysis, but i can't shake that impression of an xSxx type, why not LSE?

[ouronis]

coincidentally...

[Milo]

He links articles from the Daily Mail and blog posts from A Voice For Men on his social media. Not very fitting for a distinguished academic if you ask me.

lol, and not very Te.

I haven't decided yet if he's LII or LSI. A friend of mine was watching a lot of his videos and he wanted me to watch them. First, he'd ask me my thoughts on an issue, and then he'd laugh and say, "Yeah, that's what Jordan said too" and we'd watch it, and he was saying what I had said. For multiple issues. For that reason, I don't find the issue related videos all that interesting - though the way people react to him is - as people react irl to me the same way, and it's interesting to see it from an outside perspective. (Edit to add: I don't think a person's stance on any issue says what their type is, as even conflictors can agree on some issues and points. It's more with the approach someone takes to it, how they go about explaining their pov and why they came to the conclusions they did that speaks to type)

I do find some of the ones about meaning and so on interesting, but I don't like watching videos in general so I haven't seen many of those.

Good points It's interesting that you relate to him so much and self-type as LSI. I've listened to one of his lectures on Big 5 after which Youtube flipped to this video, the topic of which sounded resoundingly similar to Beta quadra values in socionics.

This quote in particular reads a lot like Ti (coherence, consistency, sense of structure) and introversion:

J.Peterson.
"I always feel when I talk whether or not the words I'm saying are either making me aligned or making me come apart. I really do think alignment - I think alignment is the right way of coceptualizing it, if you say things as true as you can say them - then they come up, they come out of the depths inside of you."

this is not like any LIE description ...