Jordan Peterson

[FDG]

tim ferriss says to make your bed every day, its not that weird, advice is usually offered to help people not condescend them, condescension is almost always a projection. naturally, people are always scheming all sorts of evil

Just the focus (make your bed every day) seems to be on something different than thinking and intuition in extroverted form.

I understand the abstract point of "starting from the small things".

[The Reality Denialist]

I can support EIE typing but not LIE.

His talk about dominance hierarchy stuff being part of society and establishing place in society sounds like seeking. I just don't see how he is the powerful figure. Tries to puff it up for sure but certainly looks more like a messenger while not going prophetical.

Anyways, he is not an entrepriser but you should look at his work and some inventiveness he has put out.

[Bertrand]

Just the focus (make your bed every day) seems to be on something different than thinking and intuition in extroverted form.

I understand the abstract point of "starting from the small things".

right, to be clear, I think JP is more EIE than LIE, but I think the kind of primitive advice as to bed making and room cleaning is because you have basically the rest of your day to do thinking/feeling and intuition. what they seem to be emphasizing is the importance of having a base in order to do that, considering these are the Si polr types, its a kind of progressive message in their mouths. at the same time, from the perspective of a person with strong Si, it seems condescending. it would be like someone telling me to use my imagination for once, or something

[FDG]

right, to be clear, I think JP is more EIE than LIE, but I think the kind of primitive advice as to bed making and room cleaning is because you have basically the rest of your day to do thinking/feeling and intuition. what they seem to be emphasizing is the importance of having a base in order to do that, considering these are the Si polr types, its a kind of progressive message in their mouths. at the same time, from the perspective of a person with strong Si, it seems condescending. it would be like someone telling me to use my imagination for once, or something

Allright, so you kind of think they´re giving this advice to themselves, or in socionics speak their own identicals.

[Bertrand]

I think they're speaking to the world, but from their personality, and what that looks like in Ni creatives is a unique take on meanings, because polr is sort of rebuilt in a unique way. so every type via their creative has a way of breathing new life into a polr. for example Te polrs can actually model in their behavior a new form of logic of action. Se polrs can influence their surroundings in a Se way that Se itself cannot, etc. the "clean your room" stuff is metaphor intended to breathe new life into crusty old rules. the Ni creative types are "new people" so they live in a future world, so to speak, where the old needs to be brought up to speed or is left behind. thus what gets brought in is a progressive move, because excluded is a ton of dead weight. its like if I said "we're tossing out x y and z, but keeping a and b." its not a step backward but forward. its precisely this kind of advice that becomes meaningful again because people are overloaded with rules that don't really do much work, so the tendency is just to explode all of them. when you live in a nihilistic world the value of cleaning room is a step forward. now people that are living in a prior epoch can't see this, because they haven't even faced the nihilism. it would be like if someone from the 18th century heard someone from the 21st talking about the value of organic food or something, they might well assume that person is just an idiot or something, but they don't understand the complexity of the problem it solves and only see it as self evident but in an unsophisticated way. in short they lay the philosophical and technological reasons for making bed/cleaning room, which is something new, and not your same old Si. I think you see ESE and LSE do the same thing with Ni polr which is they point to certain almost undebatable Ni conclusions without using Ni at all

[AndyW]

Conscientiousness is more like rationality than like logic. Many a Ti-EP would score fairly low in that. The more I watch him, the less logic I see. I currently think EIE fits best and still think the spoilered content of THIS post is a good summary and characterization of him.

My understanding of Socionics rationality is that rational types focus on consistent methodology and accept variable results, while irrationals focus on consistent results and vary the methodology to suit. In other words, Socionics rationality is to do with approach/methodology and has little to do with conscientiousness. Both rational and irrational types can be highly conscientious. Big 5 breaks down conscientiousness into 6 sub-categories: Achievement-Striving, Boldness, Dutifulness, Orderliness, Self-Discipline, and Self-Assuredness. Based on that, I would associate high conscientiousness with strong Se/Te (drive, efficiency, accomplishment) and a lack of conscientiousness with strong Si/Fe (contentment, passivity, submissiveness).

I take back what I said about EIE being a possibility: I refuse to believe that Peterson is ever Fe-dominant. The C16 bill that brought him to Internet fame, forcing people to use gendered pronouns, is a perfect example of Fe gone pathological by forcing inclusiveness and protecting hurt feelings at the cost of individual liberty. Peterson's opposition to that bill is based on free-speech principles along Fi lines, and has nothing to do with Fe-style inclusiveness. In fact, the entire anti-SJW movement is built by ethically principled (Fi) & data-driven (Te) Gammas and Deltas on fierce opposition to the SJW's form of hyper-authoritarian, collectivist Fe.

On top of this, his message is one of self-responsibility (clean your room!), not submission to a collective authority. There was a great Munk Debate involving Peterson/Stephen Fry vs. Michael Dyson/Michelle Goldberg that demonstrates an EIE (Dyson) in full swing. Look this one up on YouTube; it's really worth a watch for the EIE-LIE dichotomy alone.

[FDG]

I think they're speaking to the world, but from their personality, and what that looks like in Ni creatives is a unique take on meanings, because polr is sort of rebuilt in a unique way. so every type via their creative has a way of breathing new life into a polr. for example Te polrs can actually model in their behavior a new form of logic of action. Se polrs can influence their surroundings in a Se way that Se itself cannot, etc. the "clean your room" stuff is metaphor intended to breathe new life into crusty old rules. the Ni creative types are "new people" so they live in a future world, so to speak, where the old needs to be brought up to speed or is left behind. thus what gets brought in is a progressive move, because excluded is a ton of dead weight. its like if I said "we're tossing out x y and z, but keeping a and b." its not a step backward but forward. its precisely this kind of advice that becomes meaningful again because people are overloaded with rules that don't really do much work, so the tendency is just to explode all of them. when you live in a nihilistic world the value of cleaning room is a step forward. now people that are living in a prior epoch can't see this, because they haven't even faced the nihilism. it would be like if someone from the 18th century heard someone from the 21st talking about the value of organic food or something, they might well assume that person is just an idiot or something, but they don't understand the complexity of the problem it solves and only see it as self evident but in an unsophisticated way. in short they lay the philosophical and technological reasons for making bed/cleaning room, which is something new, and not your same old Si. I think you see ESE and LSE do the same thing with Ni polr which is they point to certain almost undebatable Ni conclusions without using Ni at all

Okay. I find it hard to find common ground with what Peterson lectures about, but I understand there could be a variety of reasons:

- I live in an "ancient world" (in one of the most advanced areas in the world)
- I am a Si creative type
- I am just too dumb

and so on...

Anyway, what strikes me as not Te in his approach is his strong reliance on specific anedoctal experience in an academic setting. It seems this is an evolution of the later Jordan Peterson, whereas previously he was more rigorous in his approach. VI- and vibewise, he reminds me of this italian journalist, marco travaglio:

trava_400x400.jpg

which I used to type as LII or LSI. One of the greatest enemies of Berlusconi.

[Tigerfadder]

He is the obvious case of negative spin type in model G.

[Bertrand]

nothing says you have to agree with peterson. also hamlet is evolutionary but also revolutionary, which is probably why he looks like an involutionary type, if thats what you're saying tiger

[Tigerfadder]

nothing says you have to agree with peterson. also hamlet is evolutionary but also revolutionary, which is probably why he looks like an involutionary type, if thats what you're saying tiger

I mean, he is intelligent and bring up ideas and stuff. He focus a lot on heavy and normally perceived negative areas like suicide and gender differences, not much political correct so to speak which would be a negative spin.

[Tigerfadder]

Dude talks like every stereotypical professor and catholic priest I've ever known. Voice patterns really don't ever shift at all, which is inert Fe. Content of his speaking is inconsequential, as an EIE can speak regularly and be employed on any subject. I said he puts me to sleep for a reason. Extinguishment. Dudes EIE, and the "LIE" is mistake of Business.

He could be EIE. The logic comes from an active suggestive and many in depth discussions with people.

[Tigerfadder]

I can support EIE typing but not LIE.

His talk about dominance hierarchy stuff being part of society and establishing place in society sounds like seeking. I just don't see how he is the powerful figure. Tries to puff it up for sure but certainly looks more like a messenger while not going prophetical.

Anyways, he is not an entrepriser but you should look at his work and some inventiveness he has put out.

EIE would be Se+ which is less about the hierarchy than what is the Se- I would say. At one point I thought him to be perhaps Se PoLR...

[The Reality Denialist]

EIE would be Se+ which is less about the hierarchy than what is the Se- I would say. At one point I thought him to be perhaps Se PoLR...

It is raising against opposition/challenge by setting bar higher not raising on top of something by putting people under submissive position. I think that is still more aligned with process

[WinnieW]

At one point I thought him to be perhaps Se PoLR...

Honestly, I don't see -PoLR for JP, Tigerfadder. I don't see -HA for him, either.
Also, LII don't fit his Big 5 results.

[WinnieW]

I can't tell for sure, but -PoLR seems likely for me.
I've excluded all extraverted functions as PoLR for him, means he has to be a cognitive extravert.

[Ryan]

I think anybody who identifies themselves as not being ideologically-motivated is inviting the fruits of hubris. I don't like the claim to neutrality, it's extremely disingenuous, so I tend to agree with criticisms of him from this end.

There is some truth to it. Se-polr would say that they are devoid of aggression in some way, and they are definitely not, but in an ideal world surely you understand why they would theoretically be the least of any type to employ it negatively and consciously. Similarly a Ni-polr would think of themselves as not being ideologically-motivated, which is bullshit, but it's not hard to see why they would think of themselves as incapable of using ideology (their polr) to hurt others.

That is just a simplification of how I see it. Don't ask me to explain why I think ideology falls under the domain of Ni, as I've had so many debates on this forum, and I cant remember one instance where I actually gained anything out of it. I just accept that my understanding of the theory isn't shared by most.

I type him as ESE.

If I ever regain an interest in debates within socionics circles I would explain further, but alas, I can't be bothered.

[Bertrand]

ESE would be the type to claim impartiality ideologically because they have no real concept of what it is (and be somewhat correct, but only inasmuch as they aren't ideologically minded,not that they aren't personally loyal to people or causes or rules). JP has spent his life studying ideology, he knows what it is. I don't think he claims neutrality in the way people attribute to him, its more that rather than being "possessed" hes self aware. he exceeds norms doesn't fall below them, but he's not neutral in some sort of 2d sense. its more like hes a purveyor of a new ideology in the same way a Se creative could be against non violence and leverage power toward that end. in a way he's deeply post modern in a philosophical sense, but not a political one. that's the deal with JP, is he bumps up against socials as a humanitarian as I see it, and there's this misunderstanding between the camps as to what each is saying and trying to accomplish. post modernism and ideology exist as political (social) movements and philosophical ones, and they get conflated and that is what leads to a lot of this conflict. JP distances himself from both the prevailing social version of post modernism and ideology but he is nevertheless, still, in some sense trafficking in them. if you flatten it all out into a social picture its hard to tell the two apart, likewise if you look at it purely as a logico-verbal set of constructions its hard to tell them apart. basically JP is in a territory that is hard for people to discern hence he has a lot of enemies because they dont see the value in what he's saying. just look at some of his more controversial interviews and debates, theyre always either trying to attribute stuff to him, or totally confused as to why hes doing what he's doing. its because they don't see what he's really after and are either projecting or worried that the level he's not on, the one they personally care about, willbe disrupted by him

[Tigerfadder]

I still think he is all about the communication with peers and that is how he got this views. EIE can have depressing worldviews coz of the negative spin on the Fe.

[Bertrand]

I mean he does think canada is spiraling into totalitarianism

[Eos]

I mean he does think canada is spiraling into totalitarianism

LOL.

ya no, not even close. nice try, American.

Jordan is so pro-typically the other half of Canada the world never gets to notice: the ultra pragmatic, very Canadian at its core, in the same way Australians have pragmatism.

Totataralism, lmfao, the Governments in the individual Provinces when you get right down to it have very little "total" power. Think about it: 30 million people in the largest, or second largest land mass on the planet.

I guess we have Hate speech laws and socialized health care and gun control so to American eyes that sounds pretty big brother and nobody aint takin our guns 'way

On our news cycles we debate wheather or not its ethical to turn down job applications from Christians, or some other human interest story, like this stuff is normal here. Jordan's whole speil with the Language Crusade is not even close to anything you would be familiar with over there. It's a very normal discussion here, yawn while I have my morning McDonalds coffee. At its heart Canadians are just nicer than you guys, sorry.

[Eos]

right, to be clear, I think JP is more EIE than LIE, but I think the kind of primitive advice as to bed making and room cleaning is because you have basically the rest of your day to do thinking/feeling and intuition. what they seem to be emphasizing is the importance of having a base in order to do that, considering these are the Si polr types, its a kind of progressive message in their mouths. at the same time, from the perspective of a person with strong Si, it seems condescending. it would be like someone telling me to use my imagination for once, or something

ha good point.

[Eos]

He's Canadian, even their extreme extroverts are reserved. =P

Mike Myers comes to mind, and Jim Carry.

[Bertrand]

yeah I know canada is far from soviet russia, that's what makes JP -Fe, a kind of "dramatic" emotion

he views canada's relatively mild authoritarian foray into language police as the first step on the road to xxx.. etc, not really the mindset of an ESE from my point of view. I mean ESEs will say literally anything on occassion, but JP developed the whole thing as a professor of psychology, not as some guy with a radio show like alex jones. although humorously enough he's sort of getting into that sphere now

[squark]

@Eos They also don't get jokes. Those Canadians man. =P



(btw the =P is a face that indicates this is a joke)

[Tigerfadder]

I guess a difference between between Se is that Se+ is competition and such and Se- is hierarchy where they focus on being above. And I guess Peterson enjoy being in the heat and actually raise above with being mobilized from being challenged.

[Bertrand]

well the problem is gulenko and reinin use different signs which is another can of worms

Se+ in gulenko is resisting power and Si- is subjugating people. this seems odd because you'd think subjugating people would come as a positive form of power projection, but its about psychological charge and not positive power expression in of itself. undermining people, forcing them to rely on you, this sort of thing is all negatively charged psychological aspects of power, whereas fighting head on is positively charged.. remember Se- can operate in the positive. So EIE in gulenko is Se+, doesn't want to subvert people in an underhanded way, would rather rally an army so to speak. Incompetence in the - for EIE also means not competent in being subverted in that way, can't appreciate "being under someone's wing", this is the hierarchical element of resistance

[Tigerfadder]

I guess when Se+ is in mobilizing they want people to challange them and take that energy into the highter teer of functions. But its just a side theory.

[The Reality Denialist]

I guess when Se+ is in mobilizing they want people to challange them and take that energy into the highter teer of functions. But its just a side theory.

Yep, sounds good. I can find this process in me to some extent. It seems much harder to put people under submission although I must say that better part seems quite lacking.

[Bertrand]

to me a lot of "game playing" can be traced to Se- too, like classic victim/aggressor dynamics are usually understood in the Se- sense. I think Se+ looks a little different and its for that reason victim/aggressor is somewhat misunderstood. Se- in non Se valuing people is extra weird, and is about controlling the other person through their weaknesses, as far as I can tell. it always struck me as really "off", but now I just think its something in the domain of my painful function and area of incompetence, so I can't see whatever virtue it has

[Tigerfadder]

Ya. To connect this Se stuff with Ni is that Ni control itself and stuff while Se challenges and enforce that control. Ni- can be like silent for days if needed and Ni+ will spin around all sort of things. Ni I see as control and discipline for now...

[FDG]

Did Gulenko change his + and - signs?

[Ave]

The + and - signs are just (imo) about whether one seeks to avoid problems related to a function (-) or tries to maximize the positive aspects of a function (+).

So + focuses on gaining new power, whereas - creates a focus on not losing power. But they can appear the same, because in order to maintain power you need gain new power, so - can appear like + which is why these signs should not be used in typing people.

[Ave]

Peterson is probably EIE, with LSI is a second option.

He's an effective public speaker, which indicates EIE, and as @Bertrand said, he views Canada's slip into authoritarianism with its speech code laws as announcing a catastrophe, and I think he's right in the sense it is a step in the direction of the Orwellian. But Canada is not "there" yet in terms of being an authoritarian regime, and I think Peterson is aware of that, he's simply seeing trends that others might not be seeing because they agree with the speech code laws, since they are presented under the veneer of tolerance, so ironically people might not see where these trends are headed in the long run...

So he foresees catastrophes, which is a sign of ego negativism. Ofc, he could be LSI like F.A. Hayek, who wrote a brilliant book (The Road to Serfdom) about how mild authoritarian tendencies in pre-nazi Germany had slowly led to totalitarianism, and though it didn't concern free speech, Road to Serfdom was Orwell's inspiration for 1984.

[Tigerfadder]

Did Gulenko change his + and - signs?

I usually reference to model G, see description https://www.facebook.com/groups/ModelViktor/

[Ave]

That said, if you look at each country's hate speech laws, Canada's seems to punish mainly incitement to genocide, and focuses less on potentially offensive speech. In that sense, Canada is way ahead of most other countries, which consider offensive or degrading speech, (and not just incitement to violence) to be punishable by law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_s...aws_by_country

[Guillaine]

I think he could be IEE.

He seems to really not value/not see the Fe side of the story

Even aside from the content of what he says, he is very into his message (C type, 478 the messanger?) and not overly concerned with how he is presenting to his interlocutor or their feelings moment by moment, he kind of blocks that out, his vocal control is weak, he gushes a little, he looks away to gather his thought/intuitions, yet he isn't EII because his movements are more EP.

[Blue]

Jordan Peterson is the same type as Carl Jung and Friedrich Nietzsche (both of whose theories he pulls from the most). They are all often mistyped as introverted NTs because of their seemingly strong logic but they are all actually IEI-Ni.

Peterson is IEI. If anyone thinks he's EIE, look at Maps for Meaning. That isn't the work of someone with Ti as their suggestive function.

[jessica129]

Why does Peterson refuse to discuss women in any of his studies?

[Desert Financial]

On the other hand he seems stereotypically EIE-like, giving fiery speeches about potential, morality, and meaning.

Agreed.

[Samson]

Even aside from the content of what he says, he is very into his message (C type, 478 the messanger?)

Nononono. Rules, boundaries, ethics, epics, law of reason and 'common sense,' the binding of the self in order to create a just and safe world, good versus evil, 'truth,' 'clean your room,' obsessed with lies and lying to yourself, being humble, order, hard work, self-sabotage, discipline.

So heavy on the Super-ego. This is 136 tritype with either 1 or 6 leading. He presents absolutely nothing of the 478 archetype.