Jordan Peterson

[Bertrand]

https://youtu.be/UdJBqCI4dpU?list=PL...r1q-HxLf&t=127

another, I think, insightful video from early peterson where he talks about his own motivation

[Kill4Me]

Peterson is even more tangential at a young age...in the above clip, he starts at 2:00 minutes about his conscious academic motivation to build a collection of data about social conflict, gets distracted for about three minutes and ends up picking back up at the 5:00 minute mark:

"Interested in why people become rigid in their ideological identifications..."

Then he goes through all the information he collected for his investigation. a small snippet of his lecture:

"the way mind functions
north American neurologists have been loathe to give any consideration to this notion that....
by contrast this has been a central tenet of the Russians' neurological theories...this is true of alexander luriak
literacy is a relatively new talent
it's only been five hundred years that the capacity to read has been widespread
reading silently is a new development and localizes to a part of the brain
its the same place in everybody
people thought Julius casear was a magician because he could read silently.
the point of all this is that your brain is an organ that produces suborgans as a consequence of environmental programming
you can sustain immense amounts of neurological damage in childhood
sometimes surgeons take out a whole hemisphere, these children still grow up to be relatively normal
other cases where people's ventricles don't bend properly..."

the tangents are incredible. one moment he's in studies by north American neurologists and then the next moment leapfrogs into studies by Russian neurologists and then centuries back into ancient rome. he's simply reporting what the evidence shows. on and on from one empirical finding to the next (Ti/Ne as fuck)....the logic is very mechanical, as if implying the research says x about roman culture, therefore x, simply going where the evidence leads and reporting as much.

it's like there is no rock he hasn't turned over in the quest to investigate his starting interest...i.e. the perfectionist drive of Type One:

The right way, for a One, is to gather facts and accumulate data prior to making a decision, believing that the more data you have on hand to make a decision, the more perfect that decision will be, sometimes arriving them at conclusions that seem to narrow and wooden in scope or pushing them into ‘data paralysis’.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...83#post1173183

[The Reality Denialist]

In Gulenko terms that kind of tangential thinking which happens on high level contrasting and comparing stuff is called Holographic Panoramic. Specifically the context where it happens is pretty much LII thinking style.

Specifically his logic leaves possible "plot holes".

[powerrainbowcrystal]

Sometimes I feel like they almost prefer it that way because they want everything light and positive and carefree. They just want to relax with some good food and make jokes and pleasant conversation.

Nah alphas aren't that naive. It just appears that way, because Fes ability to be lighthearted and witty or something. Just because somebody can lighten the mood up doesn't mean they have suddenly completely forgotten about the horrible cruelty/unfairness and grimdarkiness of the real world. You're kinda making it sound as if alphas are pollyannas lol that's just kind of ridiculous. I do agree though they will usually try to fight negativity or a bad situation by being positive/uplifting - but that is also kind of like common sense 'only light can drive out darkness' type of thing. If you hang around ILEs irl you will see the nuance of this more.

Alphas enjoy sad/serious shit all the time, I think the difference is they don't 'soak constantly in it' or something- which is a Fe thing in general to me.

I realize me white knighting alphas in this thread is just more proof to some people that I'm SEI and not IEI but so be it. hehe.

[The Reality Denialist]

I don't know about other but ignoring in me makes me think that I should just reject life and stop existing as it would be better not to have life if it is supposed have misery and therefore I have been considering that species with enough self consciousness should just go extinct to avoid negativity.
Therefore I might view reproduction as being in sadomasochistic loop.

[falsehope]

Let me bring some of his quotes:

• Pain is the only thing that people will never deny.
• Everybody acts out a myth,
  but very few people know what their myth is.
  And you should know what your myth is,
  because it might be a tragedy.
  And maybe you don't want it to be.
• Weak and miserable as I am, I can still stand up to the terrible tragedy of life and prevail!
• The truth is something that burns, it burns off deadwood and people don't like having their deadwood burnt off often because they're 95% deadwood
• Love is something like the notion that despite its suffering Being is good and you should serve Being.
• There is nothing more useful in combating the tragedy of life than to struggle with all your soul on behalf of the good.
• The human capacity for eternal transformation is the antidote to unbearable suffering and tragedy.
• Life is suffering, and suffering can make you resentful, murderous, and then genocidal if you take it far enough

He's very nihilistic and speaks a lot about suffering, pain, tragedy, hurt, and I as primary Ne, I am opposite of such thinking. I always thought that this kind of thinking is for people with low intuition and introversion, which are LSIs and ESIs.

I for one, I would deny pain. I lived long life and it was completely painless from the start until now. I think the pain is something we do to ourselves and we don't need to do so, or maybe some people have such tendencies like masochism.

[ashlesha]

I see those quotes as hopeful, not wallowing.

[Myst]

Let me bring some of his quotes:

• Pain is the only thing that people will never deny.
• Everybody acts out a myth,
  but very few people know what their myth is.
  And you should know what your myth is,
  because it might be a tragedy.
  And maybe you don't want it to be.
• Weak and miserable as I am, I can still stand up to the terrible tragedy of life and prevail!
• The truth is something that burns, it burns off deadwood and people don't like having their deadwood burnt off often because they're 95% deadwood
• Love is something like the notion that despite its suffering Being is good and you should serve Being.
• There is nothing more useful in combating the tragedy of life than to struggle with all your soul on behalf of the good.
• The human capacity for eternal transformation is the antidote to unbearable suffering and tragedy.
• Life is suffering, and suffering can make you resentful, murderous, and then genocidal if you take it far enough

He's very nihilistic and speaks a lot about suffering, pain, tragedy, hurt, and I as primary Ne, I am opposite of such thinking. I always thought that this kind of thinking is for people with low intuition and introversion, which are LSIs and ESIs.

I for one, I would deny pain. I lived long life and it was completely painless from the start until now. I think the pain is something we do to ourselves and we don't need to do so, or maybe some people have such tendencies like masochism.

The parts I bolded are something that the Ne PoLR of an xSI won't typically, if ever, say lol... It's high N stuff. The stuff on transformation is interesting actually even if I don't view the world from this N pov, but the "myth" part really makes no sense and makes me go really ewww. Sounds the kind of bs that a lot of psychoanalytic stuff is about, to me.

Btw, I can't relate to the rest either. Sounds a very negative outlook on things and on his self-image (weak and miserable), though it does have some positive approach with choosing to go forward anyway and that's the only part I can relate to.

[Olimpia]

The parts I bolded are something that the Ne PoLR of an xSI won't typically, if ever, say lol... It's high N stuff. The stuff on transformation is interesting actually even if I don't view the world from this N pov, but the "myth" part really makes no sense and makes me go really ewww. Sounds the kind of bs that a lot of psychoanalytic stuff is about, to me.

Btw, I can't relate to the rest either. Sounds a very negative outlook on things and on his self-image (weak and miserable), though it does have some positive approach with choosing to go forward anyway and that's the only part I can relate to.

Ha, I find the myth stuff actually quite .

[Kill4Me]

Peterson is not a nihilist. He's all about living at optimal capacity. Also as an so/sp, certain things and issues that draw his eye more than others.

The quotes are also not provided in context. But since his ultimate aim is optimal health, any quote has to be reconciled with that (I note there's no attempt). Obviously not every quote which comes out of a person's mouth speaks directly to their dominant function. More importantly, nobody is arguing him as Ne primary, so it's a moot issue.

But let's even assume that he's a 100 hundred percent nihilist and you are even more right than you think. It still wouldn't matter. Any socionics type can be nihilistic. Just like any socionics type could be a Christian or a muslim. that's not going deep enough into cognition to say "hey, he's a nihilistic, therefore, he can only be these few types, but he's a Christian, so he can be any type." If it doesn't matter for one, it doesn't matter for the other. Nothing is excluded for any one particular type when it comes to a belief system. any socionics type can be a nihilist, but the information they perceive as expressing nihilism will vary.

And finally, the quotes do speak to Ti/Ne because he's drawing those conclusions from an abundance of studying and research that he's done. He's also expressing the quotes as conclusions that follow logically from the information he's mastered. Just posting his quotes about myths doesn't take into account the thousands of hours he's put into studying the subject through magazines, books and patients. Maybe if he grew up in a black and white virtual reality where life around him ran as perfect as a 1950s Donna Reed sitcom, his outlook would be super pollyannish...being a psychologist can't be all that different from being a doctor, in that you are constantly exposed to the misery side of life and people's problems. No NT is going to be content to settle for illusions or just a rosy-colored picture of the world. Yet all his experience has reinforced his hope in goodness...so that's not even an accurate interpretation to call it "very nihilistic" or counter to the alpha values mythology.

[Myst]

Ha, I find the myth stuff actually quite .

Sure maybe it's Ni but it's definitely not 2D Ni...

But to me it just seems unfounded vague bs.

Some Ni ideas can be translated to some actual thing, I like those.

But this idea that everyone has some predefined story, that's made more mysterious by calling it a myth, without even showing how that's the case that it's there... and what it exactly is... that's just vague and not founded in anything, to me.

[Olimpia]

Sure maybe it's Ni but it's definitely not 2D Ni...

But to me it just seems unfounded vague bs.

Some Ni ideas can be translated to some actual thing, I like those.

But this idea that everyone has some predefined story, that's made more mysterious by calling it a myth, without even showing how that's the case that it's there... and what it exactly is... that's just vague and not founded in anything, to me.

Yeah, I think it is Ni lead stuff.

Ideas of myths and so forth are usually rather vague or convoluted coming from Ni leads (especially IEI-Ni like Jung).

I relate a lot to Jordan's take on myths or life stories. If you never look back and analyze your patterns in life and your psyche, you'll forever walk in a dream, or as if everything happened to randomly. But in actuality, most if not all things in life follow a certain pattern, theme, what have you. You run into the same kinds of people, the same kinds of problems and struggles, over and over again, until you have learned your lesson and gained awareness of the issue, and tackled the beast.

There are many personal myths out there. A common one, is "I am unloveable". You'll run into situations and people who confirm that story about you. They'll treat you like dirt. They'll confirm your myth, your false core belief. Unless you stepped back, and saw the myth for the ghost that it is, the ghost that has been haunting you up until this point, you'll never be able to write your own history/future/etc.

If you never see the ghost for the mirage that it is, it will keep bringing you nightmares in your waken life.

So the first step is to see the ghost and look it in the eye.
The next step is to never look at it ever again until it disappears from your life.

Anyway, yeah I think Jordan is 4D Ni.

[The Reality Denialist]

What Jung and Peterson (LII's) are doing is decoding the BS what base (more like IEI's) has put out there so their duals wouldn't be so confused about it. The universe has a plan!

[Kill4Me]

Peterson is a trained psychoanalyst. That's what treating people in psychoanalysis entails -- analyzing patterns in their psyche and making them aware of it. It's by definition what psychoanalysts are trained to do and not an idea that originates from Peterson. Freud's theory was that self-awareness of one's deeper patterns ("the ghosts") leads to liberation. Jung emphasizes myths in the unconscious. Peterson is schooled in both and its his area of competency. That doesn't mean every Freudian/Jungian psychoanalyst is an Ni-dom because they happen to be competent at the field they practice in.

Furthermore, the idea that ownership and self-direction comes through self-awareness is too general to thumb-tack onto any one function. It's standard advice/meme from mental professionals on how to live a more optimal life. A lot of people make the same mistakes over and over again. It's what the unconscious mind does and since everybody has an unconscious mind, well, they are subject to repeating certain dramas/mistakes/etc.

[Olimpia]

Why have people from different cultures and eras formulated myths and stories with similar structures? What does this similarity tell us about the mind, morality, and structure of the world itself? Jordan Peterson offers a provocative new hypothesis that explores the connection between what modern neuropsychology tells us about the brain and what rituals, myths, and religious stories have long narrated. A cutting-edge work that brings together neuropsychology, cognitive science, and Freudian and Jungian approaches to mythology and narrative, Maps of Meaning presents a rich theory that makes the wisdom and meaning of myth accessible to the critical modern mind.

If that is not classic ILI-Te, I don't know what is.

He cares way too much about morality to be non-Fi-valuing, btw.

"The book reflects its author's profound moral sense [Fi valuing/HA] and vast erudition [Te creative] in areas ranging from clinical psychology to scripture and a good deal of personal soul-searching [Ni lead] and experience...with patients who include prisoners, alcoholics and the mentally ill."
-Montreal Gazette

[The Reality Denialist]

If that is not classic ILI-Te, I don't know what is.

He cares way too much about morality to be non-Fi-valuing, btw.

He is not using predictive analysis based on data (). If you want to understand ILI take a brief look into stochastics. That stuff is quite strictly IEI-LII psychotic ring relation vagueness stuff.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Stochastic

[Kill4Me]

The Montreal Gazette is hyping a book.

But hype aside, Peterson's hyphothesizing a correlation/connection between five or six different disciplines is exactly what tangential, synthesizing Ti/Ne does with all the data/research/observations it obsessively collects. lol

[Myst]

Yeah, I think it is Ni lead stuff.

Ideas of myths and so forth are usually rather vague or convoluted coming from Ni leads (especially IEI-Ni like Jung).

I relate a lot to Jordan's take on myths or life stories. If you never look back and analyze your patterns in life and your psyche, you'll forever walk in a dream, or as if everything happened to randomly. But in actuality, most if not all things in life follow a certain pattern, theme, what have you. You run into the same kinds of people, the same kinds of problems and struggles, over and over again, until you have learned your lesson and gained awareness of the issue, and tackled the beast.

There are many personal myths out there. A common one, is "I am unloveable". You'll run into situations and people who confirm that story about you. They'll treat you like dirt. They'll confirm your myth, your false core belief. Unless you stepped back, and saw the myth for the ghost that it is, the ghost that has been haunting you up until this point, you'll never be able to write your own history/future/etc.

If you never see the ghost for the mirage that it is, it will keep bringing you nightmares in your waken life.

So the first step is to see the ghost and look it in the eye.
The next step is to never look at it ever again until it disappears from your life.

Anyway, yeah I think Jordan is 4D Ni.

I don't really see everything in this non-varying pre-determined way. I think there is more variation in experiences than just wherever this myth thingy leads you to. Some experiences would make up a pattern and then those can together be seen as a specific narrative, sure, but it's not all that overarching stuff... there'll be some other narratives too and then some experiences will have nothing of do with any narrative. Just not all of it is all that meaningful.

And the dream part completely doesn't make sense to me heh, if I feel alert and present then I'm not walking in a dream even if I'm not aware of how to see a certain pattern and make sense of it. And stuff doesn't have to feel random, no, you can often set goals and go for them without really having to analyze all those patterns of things.

The specific example of a myth you gave, I can't really look at it like that. I prefer the framework in which you focus on previously ingrained emotional reactions to certain specific types of situations and on how evaluations from these add to your processing of the situation and to your decisions and hence to your actions. Then when you notice these reactions, you can rework these evaluations and other information processing and decisions/actions resulting. No myth idea is needed for this view. I find it way more concrete and practical. Concrete because you work with things you can actually point at (at least for yourself), including the emotional reactions that you can clearly notice and identify with some work. Practical because you can use sensible reasoning to sort things out.

Oh and it would be nice if all you had to do is look at the "ghost" (let's call a set of ingrained emotional reactions or one particularly bad type of reaction as that, ok, that's a "Ni translation" I've made here if you notice), and then never looking at it again... No, I don't find that workable, it's way too vague to be usable and so it's not practical at all. It doesn't tell you what evaluations to focus on and how to rework them and why and what decisions and actions to take then based on that etc.

PS: I agree that your take on this is specifically Ni and that Peterson is 4D Ni.

[Myst]

If that is not classic ILI-Te, I don't know what is.

He cares way too much about morality to be non-Fi-valuing, btw.

ILI-Te is kind of more down to earth practical gamma lol

And Kant cared about morality a lot and was an LII. With a Ti version of ethical framework.

It's a bit... black and white to think that only people who value Fi care about morality.

[yeves]

Ha, I find the myth stuff actually quite .

LIIs and EIIs have 4D don't they

[WinnieW]

Yes, according to Socionics theory, they have, but is in the ID-Block and therefore unconscious.

I wondered myself to what extend an unconscious function has an influence of a person. It is like processing something without being aware doing it.

[Aylen]

Jordan Peterson strikes me as a man who has felt powerless for most of his life in relation to others and is working on regaining his sense of personal power. This video specifically changed my perception of him and I kept thinking what a victimy guy (not romance style victim).

[The Reality Denialist]

I think Peterson is searching possibilities in meanings. ()

Like ILI produces using systems. ()

(facts sparks my interest to systematize stuff)

[Kill4Me]

I'm sick of seeing socionic functions conflated to belief systems. Morality is a value judgment. Socionic functions are information processors. Fi is an information processor. Information processing is value-neutral. Fi may have been conflated with morality to the extent that the perception of Fi has been calibrated around Ones and One wingers but this is one more of the stereotypes that needs to be tossed out. Much like somebody else's idea that alpha types are immune from embracing nihilism (which Peterson doesn't, but the argument nonetheless being made)

You also have to remember that morality is a gigantic persuasion meme. So many people today use the language of morality in everything it's insane; sales, politics, advertisement, business, warfare, social movements, startup companies, on and on. To use a few catchphrases from a Ne/Fi sounding book review as a basis for typing somebody misses the probable reality-based tactical angle. Keep in mind the Henry Ford school of persuasion which says framing information in moral terms resonates more strongly with people. Researchers in the area of persuasion have done studies on this. Giving it a higher purpose or as "the right thing to do" is one of the top ways to hook/motivate people to whatever the "cause" happens to be. Regular folks won't go out and buy a book if you just explain it as a scientifically oriented book, but if you frame it in terms of appealing to a higher purpose, you can drastically expand the size of the target audience. I see it all the time now from various types not particularly adept at Fi.

[Myst]

Jordan Peterson strikes me as a man who has felt powerless for most of his life in relation to others and is working on regaining his sense of personal power. This video specifically changed my perception of him and I kept thinking what a victimy guy (not romance style victim).

Yeah, he has some video explaining how he gained confidence by stopping to see himself negatively, as powerless or something like that.

[Myst]

He cares way too much about morality to be non-Fi-valuing, btw.

"On the right to offend, Peterson was on stronger ground. “In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive,” he said. “I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth … And that is what you should do … More power to you, as far as I concerned.”"

Very Ti with Fi devaluing heh.

With some idealism added... So totally LII.

[Bertrand]

all I see are a bunch of alphas and betas being triggered by peterson

[Myst]

all I see are a bunch of alphas and betas being triggered by peterson

Triggered in what way?

[Bertrand]

i feel like a pattern of disruption is emerging among certain camps when confronted with him, whereas others seem relatively unaffected

[ashlesha]

"On the right to offend, Peterson was on stronger ground. “In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive,” he said. “I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth … And that is what you should do … More power to you, as far as I concerned.”"

Very Ti with Fi devaluing heh.

With some idealism added... So totally LII.

How is this Ti over Fi? Which types sugarcoat the truth the most? Which are the most blunt at the expense of feelings? If you asked me I'd say Fe and Te, respectively.

[silke]

all I see are a bunch of alphas and betas being triggered by peterson

oh, shucks, you must have missed how much us IEIs happen to relate to him

and how much his Ti is flowing through us

I know I've already posted this but for those who think he is LII what do you make of this video?



“Life without depth is by definition shallow and meaningless”.
I don’t know any Alpha who would honestly care about their life being shallow. Sometimes I feel like they almost prefer it that way because they want everything light and positive and carefree. They just want to relax with some good food and make jokes and pleasant conversation.

“Life is not that simple, life is complex and tragic and difficult” <— this is the antithesis of everything Alpha

Things he is emphasizing in the video:
The quality of your life depends on how meaningful it is (Ni)
You need to have a wide range of emotions to deal with life, not just happiness (Fe, the Beta kind)
He dislikes the fact that people don’t feel comfortable expressing their true feelings of suffering because of the demands for a happy atmosphere all the time. (Betas value real/ intense emotional expression over constant positivity which is Alpha)
All of this is clear valuing of Ni/Fe over Si/Fe

I have an LII brother and there’s only so long I can talk to him about heavy serious topics like this before he will get uncomfortable and drained or try to make a joke out of it. And ESEs (the LII’s dual) would haaate hearing something like this. This is pure Ni. There are no open possibilities (Ne) in anything he is saying. Go to a group of Alphas and say something like this and I guarantee you wouldn’t be invited back lol.

[Bertrand]

How is this Ti over Fi? Which types sugarcoat the truth the most? Which are the most blunt at the expense of feelings? If you asked me I'd say Fe and Te, respectively.

the interesting thing to me is how all the functions can be "offensive" from the lens of a different function. I have an LII friend and he always goes on about how he's worried about offending people (which to me he's saying "when I start Ti'ing I stop watching what I'm saying for politeness"), but the funny thing is, whenever we're with Fe types they always like his Ti and further any Fe razzing is always super lightweight and only meant to bring him "into the (Fe) fold" of the group. Its like super mild course correction, even if its like relatively "loud" Fe style tactics. But when he, or anyone really, starts going full Ti autism mode when there's a genuine discussion of (Fi) values, he can't tell the difference and that is when he offends people. In the same vein, Te statements of fact, usually about what has already happened or what needs to happen in a logistical sense, are super blunt and Fi just absorbs it and is like "...yeah (feels intensely internally)". whereas the same person says the same thing in a group of Fe valuers and its like he just shit on the floor, and the Fe types think they're going to "correct" it by getting progressively more and more emotive. From the outside, for those unaware of typology, like my LII friend its almost interchangeable but you can discern the difference once you've become aware of how the functions operate differently. In a certain sense, the "harmonious" functions can also still conflict, and I mean both Fi and Fe and Ti and Te and Fe and Ti and Te and Fi, but they're at least partially balanced. Like already pointed out, most the time Fe/Ti and Te/Fi "understand" eachother, but they do "toss the ball back and forth" in a way that could get out of hand but mainly because of perceptual differences (someone escalates with a non valued function, Se, being a likely culprit). In this way duals regulate eachother because situations don't escalate in this way. And when between like ethical or logical functions people can disagree and escalate based on different perceptions as well.

In any case, Myst is assuming the premise in question, namely that peterson is talking about Ti when talking about willing to be offensive because it presupposes the entire context, that if you presuppose essentially begs the question on the conclusion as well. By this I mean peterson could be referring to anything when he says "risk being offensive" in fact I believe that's his point, which is to say while you can "be offensive" as "Fe" even (or Te or Ti or Fi, etc) the point is to be in pursuit of the truth, which you almost can't not be, if what you're doing is genuine, and Fe can be genuine. What he really seems to be saying is that everyone has a right to be themselves and "think" what they want, and let the chips fall where they may, because as soon as you concern yourself with how it will be recieved vs what is true, you've censored yourself in a way that for all you know is worse for everyone involved than the feelings you tried to spare, including your own. In the end the principle is something like mere risk of being offensive is something everyone runs the risk of, because it is a condition of being (16 types). living in fear is the only "wrong answer" so to speak, because you're not really living because you're not really being yourself, which he calls "speaking the truth" and its true people "speak the truth" across every functional axis

postscript: introverted judging functions come across more as rationalizing. when Ti goes into analysis they tend to start to go into the weeds on the mechanics of any given phenomenon and Fi once it gets going verbally does the same thing, it has its own tone, where its like you can tell the person has thought about it a lot (at least when blocked with intuition). when my LII friend does this in a social setting you can tell he's doing it especially if girls are around because he gets visibly sheepish when trying to verbalize his explanations, almost like he's apologizing for even bringing it up, ILE does the same thing but its more peppered with 2d Fe, but its got this weird need to ingratiate itself like it knows everyone hates it but its gotta try. Fe types usually are very patient with this sort of sheepish "begging" for a little space. they probably find it cute or something. Whereas Te especially in sensing types it feels like they just drop a brick on the floor, and its like the Fi types will just sit there and listen to it echo for a while. If Te does that to Fe it stops it cold. If Fi starts rationalizing to Te they take on a certain soft tone with intution or more of an aggressive tone with sensing, where its a similar form of rational "pleading." its interesting because this when the Fe bleeds off the Fi "rant" and you can have everyone stop and listen to the Fi type if they're sufficiently passionate about whatever theyre saying. anyway its really easy to spot Ti and Fi especially with intuition because they all take on a characteristic "talking to myself talking to you" kind of vibe where they look about 5 ft out and slightly down and know the stuff they're saying might be hard to accept but they're really trying to make it palatable the best way they know how

[Aylen]

all I see are a bunch of alphas and betas being triggered by peterson

Is it really him that is triggering people? I have not read the whole thread. What I am seeing is people who resonate with his message and those who don't but not just here. He is even popping up on my fb feed. His stuff comes off pretty simple in his videos. I started reading this book after a forum member had linked me to some of his stuff. I also have a copy of his other book that is now on amazon's bestseller list. I have other things to read that have priority but I will probably read the one I linked. The other one doesn't seem as interesting.

If you see people triggered on this forum, specifically, it is mostly due to people not agreeing on what cognitive processes they are seeing rather than his message. If fb is a good gauge of social trends then I am seeing way more people who like him than those who don't. The appeal is not quadra related. He is appealing to the masses. No surprise there considering Trump is president. Seems humanity is desperately seeking change and/or something to fill their empty spaces ... to find some meaning in their lives.
Looks like you are just pot stirring as usual.

[ashlesha]

Thank you @Bertrand, I wanted to say more about "offensiveness" wrt IEs but I'm bad at finding words for these things.

In the end the principle is something like mere risk of being offensive is something everyone runs the risk of, because it is a condition of being (16 types). living in fear is the only "wrong answer" so to speak, because you're not really living because you're not really being yourself, which he calls "speaking the truth" and its true people "speak the truth" across every functional axis

Yeah.

I think part of the reason his type isn't conclusively agreed on (and he's so popular) is that a lot of what he says is pretty universal...people just interpret it through their own filters

[Bertrand]

yup

I think a lot of it is a need to assign him to a heirarchy which is a way to defend one's own territory if he's seen as encroaching on it. an encroachment is when he makes claims that would settle that issue and not leave you in a position to determine it for others, rather peterson has determined it for everyone. I feel like this bothers Ti/Fe types a lot and so assigning him a position becomes a sideways way to cope with that by relegating him into a position that allows him to be safely "cordoned." In other words, I think peterson bothers socionics "subjectivists." I see a lot of jockeying and uncertainty over his type by this group as a confluence of being uncertain of his message and also trying to cope with how to safely "handle" him and at the same time give up the least. its interesting because you see different takes on how to do this, because ultimately beta/alpha will be opposed to one another in how to apportion his "fault" (which is a step forward because it used to be around here alpha just took it lying down)

[at sirac son of sirac]

No one seems to want him in their quadra, so, the prickly people take it personally when he's typed 'in' their quadra, which seems to be mainly Fe - beta types. The Deltas just don't care.

[WinnieW]

I don't mind if he is LII. One thing does confuse me though. He is quite emotional expressive in front of his class. LII types don't have strong extroverted judgement functions and are usually not that expressive. Or is this a stereotype?

My impression from his lectures is -ego and -mobilizing... but that doesn't seem to fit some of his statements... hmm.

[Myst]

How is this Ti over Fi? Which types sugarcoat the truth the most? Which are the most blunt at the expense of feelings? If you asked me I'd say Fe and Te, respectively.

It's Ti instead of Te because of how it says the purpose is to just think for the truth. (Especially LII idealistic variant of Ti, ofc.)

Fi is more conflict avoidant than Fe.

In any case, Myst is assuming the premise in question, namely that peterson is talking about Ti when talking about willing to be offensive because it presupposes the entire context, that if you presuppose essentially begs the question on the conclusion as well. By this I mean peterson could be referring to anything when he says "risk being offensive" in fact I believe that's his point, which is to say while you can "be offensive" as "Fe" even (or Te or Ti or Fi, etc) the point is to be in pursuit of the truth, which you almost can't not be, if what you're doing is genuine, and Fe can be genuine. What he really seems to be saying is that everyone has a right to be themselves and "think" what they want, and let the chips fall where they may, because as soon as you concern yourself with how it will be recieved vs what is true, you've censored yourself in a way that for all you know is worse for everyone involved than the feelings you tried to spare, including your own. In the end the principle is something like mere risk of being offensive is something everyone runs the risk of, because it is a condition of being (16 types). living in fear is the only "wrong answer" so to speak, because you're not really living because you're not really being yourself, which he calls "speaking the truth" and its true people "speak the truth" across every functional axis

I'm not assuming anything in that fashion, and now you stop assuming things about what I think, thank-you.

[Olimpia]

I don't mind if he is LII. One thing does confuse me though. He is quite emotional expressive in front of his class. LII types don't have strong extroverted judgement functions and are usually not that expressive. Or is this a stereotype?

My impression from his lectures is -ego and -mobilizing... but that doesn't seem to fit some of his statements... hmm.

I think it has to do with the fact he is Sx/So.

Sx/So is quite intense, the most intense in social situations, and one of the most "extroverted" stackings.

It colors the way he interacts with his audience, but he doesn't truly have stronger Fe.
And what is significant, is that he is using primarily -Fe, if he ever does.

An LIE has +Fe Role, and especially the Ni subtype (which Jordan would have to be) would seem quite friendly and use their facial muscles much more when communicating.
Jordan's face remains mostly still, only his voice transmits some intensity. It's difficult to see +Fe in Jordan.

Compare him to Musk who has boosted +Fe Role.

[Olimpia]

Video shows + Ego

He mentions his future authoring program sometimes in the video. The program is Ni valuing af.

His attachment to morality is Fi valuing (and Type 1), which rules out IEI.

Combining the Ni with the Fi, I can now see why some people type him as EII.
However, Jordan's logic (Ti and Te) is way too good for EII. Nor does Jordan value Si or exhibit Ne Creative.

So, ILI makes the most sense, imo.