Jordan Peterson

[whodat]

everytime something definitive says LII, like his order of the universe, something like this video pops up and makes EIE and the other intuitions seem plausible.

[whodat]

Here he is with Russel Brand.

[whodat]

He really should use Kermit hand puppet in his lectures.

The frog thing became a Jung'in synchronicity event for Peterson, as he was given the spirit animal name of Frog from the Coast Nations. The frog is Coast Nation culture means : the harbringer of future events and the warning against danger. Acasual events holding connective meaning for the individual: that's straight up intuition Ni/ or Ne.

[Olimpia]

Here he is with Russel Brand.

I find this video illustrates the I vs E difference between Peterson and Brand rather well.

Brand, extrovert. Peterson, introvert. (Both leaning towards "ambiversion".)

Peterson sounds like a typical Serious type (IxTx communication style) in that interview.

[whodat]

I find this video illustrates the I vs E difference between Peterson and Brand rather well.

Brand, extrovert. Peterson, introvert. (Both leaning towards "ambiversion".)

Peterson sounds like a typical Serious type (IxTx communication style) in that interview.

Peterson is a self described extrovert is he not? Also, he seems pretty okay with being out there in the spot light and seems to pursue engagements online, like having skype interviews ect.

[Olimpia]

Peterson is a self described extrovert is he not? Also, he seems pretty okay with being out there in the spot light and seems to pursue engagements online, like having skype interviews ect.

Social instinct stuff. Energetically and so forth he clearly isn't truly an extrovert, at least imo.
Again, you can see the difference with Russell Brand, who is a fellow Social instinct individual (Sx/So to be specific), but also actually an extrovert (in the Jungian sense).

P.S: You can see the same difference in his interview with Ben Shapiro, who is LIE So/Sp.

[whodat]

Social instinct stuff. Energetically and so forth he clearly isn't truly an extrovert, at least imo.
Again, you can see the difference with Russell Brand, who is a fellow Social instinct individual (Sx/So to be specific), but also actually an extrovert (in the Jungian sense).

Alrighty that could be.

[Myst]

Of course they do. But you selectively edited my post. The main point was that I think he relies more on one than the other (the part you chose not to quote). Which one a person uses more can say a bit about their personality.

Why emphasize that he relies on both though? Was my point. I do agree with you that some people rely on one of them more.

[Myst]

everytime something definitive says LII, like his order of the universe, something like this video pops up and makes EIE and the other intuitions seem plausible.

EIE doesn't talk in this IxTx style.

[whodat]

EIE doesn't talk in this IxTx style.

That business like style goes away as soon as he is standing in front of a crowd waving his hands around.

[Myst]

That business like style goes away as soon as he is standing in front of a crowd waving his hands around.

I've never seen him turn into EIE in that situation.

[perpetuus]

Why emphasize that he relies on both though? Was my point. I do agree with you that some people rely on one of them more.

I guess I left some of my reasoning out. I think that he often uses both very well. I think it's usually easy to distinguish in which one a person shows more aptitude and experience, but this isn't as clear to me in Peterson's case.

[perpetuus]

He's spent much of his adult life trying to attain a state of healthy integration of his anima. It would follow that his type is going to be less clear cut.

I suppose it's ironic he has criticized Myers Briggs (a criticism I assume would extend to similar systems like socionics), although I'm not saying that should stop us from trying to type him.

[Bertrand]

yeha but keep in mind he likes Jung, so I feel like his problems with typology aren't so much in principle but with their implementation, which is super fair

[The Reality Denialist]

Because those are left to the individual, as they should be. He only draws together the derivitives and leaves you, the player, to find your own answers. Any conclusion would be limited capacity.

Kinda like how the word parse came from Petterson, used by bertrand, and now common forumite vocab.

Aslo: higher power is something unique when Petterson uses it, not as the traditionalists.

Yes, I can't perceive life from this context. Greatest struggle of mine has been to see world in front of me which I tend to approach from angle of logical (de)construction by zooming in using top to bottom view. Peterson, finds logical in the meaning of life experiences and rituals that belong to the life path. In this sense he differs very little from Jung. This seems to be quite LII'ish perspective.

It is actually quite funny how I can't still say for sure if he is LII or EIE. I think he shows too much emotionality for LII. LII's are just telling it to you. Self transformation to become something concrete seems very EIE'ish theme. The adaptation of factual role only seems to serve his mentoring.

Semi-dual resemblance. It happens if we trust all knowing Gulenko guy.

[perpetuus]

https://youtu.be/UgzxsO0iXnk

I like how they also pasted Joe Rogan's, Dave Rubin's, and Gad Saad's faces in the background.

Should've had a scene where Cathy Newman's face is pasted over an enemy pilot.

[Muddy]

9 page long thread full of arguments and bullshit and here I am just not giving a shit about this guy's type.

[The Reality Denialist]

Gulenko writes in his cognitive styles article that this kind of intellectual role is quite typical for EIE or ILI (not in this case). Dialectical-Algorithmic types. I can see it. Anyways, this is not motivating me because I think that life is there for wondering and understanding stuff. Fighting for yourself seems quite stupid. I find ideas more important.



In a way he compliments Darwin (ILI).

[perpetuus]

I find this video illustrates the I vs E difference between Peterson and Brand rather well.

Brand, extrovert. Peterson, introvert. (Both leaning towards "ambiversion".)

Peterson sounds like a typical Serious type (IxTx communication style) in that interview.

What about Brand?

Is he an IEE?

[Olimpia]

What about Brand?

Is he an IEE?

Yeah, I think so.

[Myst]

Yes, I can't perceive life from this context. Greatest struggle of mine has been to see world in front of me which I tend to approach from angle of logical (de)construction by zooming in using top to bottom view. Peterson, finds logical in the meaning of life experiences and rituals that belong to the life path. In this sense he differs very little from Jung. This seems to be quite LII'ish perspective.

Yeah very Jung-like.

It is actually quite funny how I can't still say for sure if he is LII or EIE. I think he shows too much emotionality for LII. LII's are just telling it to you.

Way too little emotionality or outside focus (extraversion) for EIE tho'

I see Peterson as "just telling it to you" while being passionate on the side (but not really utilized directly like EIE would do it).

Self transformation to become something concrete seems very EIE'ish theme. The adaptation of factual role only seems to serve his mentoring.

"Self transformation to become something concrete" O_o The EIEs I've known are a bit more worldly and practical than this vague thingie... thank god, because I wouldn't be able to do too much with such vague guidelines.

[whodat]

"Self transformation to become something concrete" O_o The EIEs I've known are a bit more worldly and practical than this vague thingie... thank god, because I wouldn't be able to do too much with such vague guidelines.

Something vague said that for sure would be made specific if he was talking directly to you. worldy and practical also sounds vague. just saying.

[Myst]

Something vague said that for sure would be made specific if he was talking directly to you. worldy and practical also sounds vague. just saying.

You have no basis for being so sure about it being made usable.

And your "just saying" bit is trolly annoying - which I suppose was the intention by you - and has zero point/makes no sense.

[whodat]

You have no basis for being so sure about it being made usable.

No just a guess seeing how he is a clinical psychiatrist and I know enough to know how they talk.

And your "just saying" bit is trolly annoying - which I suppose was the intention by you - and has zero point/makes no sense.

You call what he dsaid as being vague while what you've said, by words alone, is equally vague. If you felt trolled, that's because I meant it too, yes. I figured you weren't super sensitive, going off our past conversations together. If you got annoyed, sorry, and also toughened up girl.

[Myst]

No just a guess seeing how he is a clinical psychiatrist and I know enough to know how they talk.

Heh it depends on their specific discipline. Someone doing CBT will be very different from a psychoanalyst in the ideas/approaches that they express.

You call what he dsaid as being vague while what you've said, by words alone, is equally vague. If you felt trolled, that's because I meant it too, yes. I figured you weren't super sensitive, going off our past conversations together. If you got annoyed, sorry, and also toughened up girl.

It's absolutely not equally vague. I used simple everyday words, not some vague phrasing of some conceptual process.

I dislike trolling, end of story.

[Myst]

There is something a little off putting about the "this is how it's been for X period time" points he often makes. Even in the infamous Cathy Newman Interview/Debate, which he performed well in, it was very obvious when he made those type of points. They're made in a very matter-of-fact manner, so it can be misleading to people who disagree with him.

Could you please give examples of these points? That seem off-putting to you. And, any idea why they are off-putting?

I don’t think he really shows a reliance or dependence on hard facts, as some suggested. He actually makes a lot of what appear to be huge leaps in logic, perhaps appearing so because he might be operating more from an inner system/understanding where his logic is quite clear to himself, if not always so clear to observers. Despite certain statements referencing facts, he doesn’t present facts as though they should speak for themselves.

This might be one explanation for the lobster meme going viral.

edit: logic trumps facts for him, I suspect. Notice his “gotcha” moment with Cathy Newman. A statement is laid out where the logic is very hard to refute. It is put forth in a “fuck your feelings” manner, though his intent doesn’t seem to be making her feel crappy about herself. Nonetheless, it grinds the discussion to a halt as she is left trying to work out and counter his point. It’s like a Star Trek moment with Kirk using logic to cause a malevolent supercomputer to overload.

Heh watched that now, and I absolutely agree it's a good example of Ti>>>>Te.

As long as he does not go into certain very abstract psychology or other very N crap, I don't find he makes leaps of logic. Have you got an example of what seems a "huge leap in logic" to you?

on the other hand, when he makes factual arguments, they sometimes come across as the kooky ramblings of a misunderstood holy man.

When, example?

[perpetuus]

Could you please give examples of these points? That seem off-putting to you. And, any idea why they are off-putting?

Sometimes he says things like (paraphrasing) "this is how it's been.." or when pressed by Newman on why businesses don't model themselves to reward the Big 5 traits that tend to be measured higher in women, he says there's no evidence to support that being a viable alternative to more traditional models. It might come across as a traditionalist mindset to some observers.

Tradition for the sake of tradition seems like circular reasoning and poor justification for the preservation of tradition. However, the more I listen to Peterson, the less I think he's arguing to preserves tradition simply for the sake of tradition.

Heh watched that now, and I absolutely agree it's a good example of Ti>>>>Te.

As long as he does not go into certain very abstract psychology or other very N crap, I don't find he makes leaps of logic. Have you got an example of what seems a "huge leap in logic" to you?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Ti or Jordan's style, but I think Ti, being something that is directed inward, is very meticulous and systematic in leading to very complex and ordered understandings of things and reality. The person using Ti probably isn't making huge leaps in logic, but when explaining the endpoint of their logic, I can see how certain details and steps in their logic might get left out (especially if they're an N type trying to explain things in very broad strokes), and what seems to them to be very well-thought out conclusions may not always appear so to an observer.

The aforementioned comparison of humans to lobsters may be a good example. I'll try and find some good examples in some of his lectures and share them with timestamps later.

When, example?

His N, when he gets into heavy discussions about symbolism--I think it might come across as "new agey" to some of his critics. I've listened to so many of his lectures recently that it's hard to remember the specific instances from specific lectures, but I'll try to find a few and link them here. I suppose it's more of a general vibe I get, in seeing how he could be dismissed as a misguided disciple of Jungian quackery (probably by people who have little use for Jung's ideas to begin with). I don't personally think he's a kook, but I can see why some of his critics could think that.

[Chae]

Sigh. I sat down to finally, properly type the annoying fucker. He keeps popping up on my timeline and haunts me in my dear dreams so I figured I — JUST DO IT BEFORE HE KEEPS MAKING ME MAD AS HELL!!!





Verdict:Brainwashed by Conservative Christianity and white male supremacy. Just kidding: INTj. Your typical social 5w6, 1w2, 2w1.

Suggestive and dependent on the response of the audience, , as he explains in the interview, and vulnerable to "onslaught" (). The only trace of ethics being his conception of good and evil, but again in an analytical format that he hardly applies to anyone and just uses to elaborate on something abstract. 1D , he has minimal deliberate mimicry and emotional statements, but anticipates input.

Key sentences for how he uses the NT elements, particularly and 4D :

"I can't sleep at night because I'm thinking about something, what I'll do is go write it down. I'll try making videos and telling people what I'm thinking about to see if that performs the same function as writing. Butthe fundamental purpose for me is to clarify my thoughts. So that I know, if something is disturbing you what that means is that it needs to be articulated, it's the emergence of unexplored territory. That's the right way to think about it. It's like a vista of threat and possibility and you need to articulate a path through it. I was thinking well this [...] seems to be why, this is what I think is going on... [But] It's never obvious what's going on, because things go on on multiple levels. They go on on a theological level, familiar etc... You have to pick a level of analysis that is most suitable to the problem."

"Making the video was probably illegal under the pending legislation. The university helpfully delivered me a letter certainly informed by legal advice that what I had feared about actually doing was actually the case. I was violating the university's principles of inclusion and diversity and also likely violating the provincial guidelines. I thought thank you very much, you proved my point. [...] you should take both sides of the argument into account, present both sides, and then say you decided you needed to discipline me but don't omit half the story!"

ILI is the only other type I considered but here he values over , ignoring doesn't work:

"It's the power of speech to transform reality. But more importantly, more fundamentally, it's the power of truthful speech to transform reality into a positive direction. We have this magic ability to change the future. And we do that through action obviously. But action is oriented by thought! And thought is mediated by dialogue. It's speech that's particularly critically important to this logos process. The logos is symbolically represented in the figure of Christ who's the word that was there at the beginning of time. So... that's a very complicated topic. But what it essentially means is that that the west has formulated a symbol for the ideal human being. There is emphasis in other belief systems [he goes on analyzing and creating categories]. What happens if you aggregate enough hero myths and extract out the central theme you end up with the logos. It's the thing that's common to all heroes, that's a good way of thinking about it. It's articulation and dissemination into society as a whole. Imagine that these ideas are implicit."

His exact opposite would be type Napoleon: utterly and confidently grounded in his or her surroundings, completely partial and attached instead of rule-bound, volatile moods and disregard for making sense and breaking down things in an abstract way.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yeah. I think that LII-D and EIE-N might overlap a bit in their social roles.

[Muddy]

Peter my Peterson.

[Myst]

Sometimes he says things like (paraphrasing) "this is how it's been.." or when pressed by Newman on why businesses don't model themselves to reward the Big 5 traits that tend to be measured higher in women, he says there's no evidence to support that being a viable alternative to more traditional models. It might come across as a traditionalist mindset to some observers.

Tradition for the sake of tradition seems like circular reasoning and poor justification for the preservation of tradition. However, the more I listen to Peterson, the less I think he's arguing to preserves tradition simply for the sake of tradition.

Oh that actually seems pretty logical to me from him really, no evidence really means no evidence, no more no less.

As for tradition for the sake of tradition... I would say, change it only if the new method really is proven to be better. That to me isn't keeping tradition just for the sake of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disparaging Ti or Jordan's style, but I think Ti, being something that is directed inward, is very meticulous and systematic in leading to very complex and ordered understandings of things and reality. The person using Ti probably isn't making huge leaps in logic, but when explaining the endpoint of their logic, I can see how certain details and steps in their logic might get left out (especially if they're an N type trying to explain things in very broad strokes), and what seems to them to be very well-thought out conclusions may not always appear so to an observer.

The aforementioned comparison of humans to lobsters may be a good example. I'll try and find some good examples in some of his lectures and share them with timestamps later.

Actually I followed the lobster comparison very well. But that's because I have similar views on that topic/area (evolution etc). I can see why some would feel that he didn't explain his thought process because yeah he didn't, lol

His N, when he gets into heavy discussions about symbolism--I think it might come across as "new agey" to some of his critics. I've listened to so many of his lectures recently that it's hard to remember the specific instances from specific lectures, but I'll try to find a few and link them here. I suppose it's more of a general vibe I get, in seeing how he could be dismissed as a misguided disciple of Jungian quackery (probably by people who have little use for Jung's ideas to begin with). I don't personally think he's a kook, but I can see why some of his critics could think that.

Oh, if it's like Jung's symbolism I know what you mean, no need to bother with finding examples. That sort of thing does my head in

[perpetuus]

I understand the lobster comparison but I think those who mocked him for it saw it as a huge leap. Or they were just stupid.

[Myst]

I understand the lobster comparison but I think those who mocked him for it saw it as a huge leap. Or they were just stupid.

More like stupid : p

If they saw it as a big leap then by all means ask away about the details of the reasoning instead of jumping to conclusions...

[perpetuus]

More like stupid : p

If they saw it as a big leap then by all means ask away about the details of the reasoning instead of jumping to conclusions...

good luck getting many people to ask questions.

This is why Peterson is being painted as a dangerous ideologue and people are accepting it at face value.

[Myst]

good luck getting many people to ask questions.

This is why Peterson is being painted as a dangerous ideologue and people are accepting it at face value.

Yeah I know most people won't bother with that. Tbh when I see the topic as too speculative, I'll also judge it as definitely bullshit. But when I don't see it as too speculative, I just don't really make a conclusion when I can see that there is something unexplained. I might just not bother with delving into it.

[azbestos]

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=Iv...&authorName=xd

Still not EIE enough for you? xD

spoiler: he gets so emotional talking about individuality and responsibility that he starts crying. You still can't see the Fe and heavy beta quadra values in him?

[Myst]

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=Iv...&authorName=xd

Still not EIE enough for you? xD

spoiler: he gets so emotional talking about individuality and responsibility that he starts crying. You still can't see the Fe and heavy beta quadra values in him?

He still looks introverted in the video. EIEs are extraverted types.

[darya]

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=Iv...&authorName=xd

Still not EIE enough for you? xD

spoiler: he gets so emotional talking about individuality and responsibility that he starts crying. You still can't see the Fe and heavy beta quadra values in him?

Crying/getting emotional is not an indication of Fe. It's not even exclusive to ethical types.

[Chae]

Crying/getting emotional is not an indication of Fe. It's not even exclusive to ethical types.

I would even go as far as saying it is often exclusive to logical types who simply can't control the waterworks for the right occasion. Ethical types are very deliberate with the floodgates. Peterson crying when it comes to that topic makes for a good suggestive to come along and reassure him in his passion. When someone cries about a topic that is conventionally not associated with getting teary at all (1D !) something's been pent up there. Which as Darya says is universal.

[Slade]

I think he shows too much emotionality for LII. LII's are just telling it to you.

It would make more sense if you separated your idea of emotionality from type. The two are separate. Fe is a function that is aware of the output of emotionality, it is not emotionality itself. I would be very surprised if you have not met someone of a logical type or even specifically IT that shows emotionality. It it not uncommon at all. This depends on other things like psychological health. Jordan's battled depression for a very long time, and the circumstances he has now found himself in I'm sure don't make that any easier.