Jordan Peterson

[perpetuus]

He is brilliant and no I'm not calling him my dual. This goes beyond socionics. He will def be one of the greats from history and his words are going to be derivatives for decades. I'm going to be 70 and still hearing Jordan in the ether. He just has that much influence.

I was initially skeptical of him, assuming he was another pseudo intellectual right winger. However, his adoption by the right as their latest darling seems coincidental due to shared interests that are superficial, when you consider the timing.

His opposition to C-16, for instance, if one listens to his words rather than his critics on the left, is a decision he has made for completely different reasons than those one might hear from the alt-right and their ilk.

Fundamentally, he is just a much an enemy of the alt right and right wingers as he is of the radical left.

[whodat]

I was initially skeptical of him, assuming he was another pseudo intellectual right winger. However, his adoption by the right as their latest darling seems coincidental due to shared interests that are superficial, when you consider the timing.

Berty pointed out something similar.

Some of his lectures are next level, way past anyone else is doing on youtube. Its postreligion for the reductionists. I'm actually impressed I said he reminds me of a new world priest. I find his stuff really fascinating and he is obviously grounded in real experience so its not an issue anything he says. It jives with my own understanding, that everything is derivative of something else and every single solitary thing in the human world had been thought before by someone else: from the shape of the concrete pads on the side walk, the every single weld of a steel tower, to the stories we share in media, and all of that is an expression of the inner psyche, which is itself derivitive of the human past, which is the story of the human animal. The guy is a genius, waaaay past hitchens and his co.

--> this is the reason I love nature so much...nothing in it has been touched by man, at all, its an intelligence outside of intelligence, and yet it takes human intelligence to map it, and its so intricate, that ancient stories attempted and those evolved and kept evolving to something more closely resembling a coherent reality to explain the unexplainables..oh god now im hearing him in my head, i must be one of the converted!

Plus he opened up Jung and the collective for me which I wasnt so much aware of. I think his Fathering is exactly what the world needs right now because the substance-less void in current culture masquerading as style in todays age is borderline a collective psychosis imo. Not that Petterson has said that, just he's pointing to it.

I don't care he isn't detail orientated, I like the way his legends unfold and how he comes back to the through line narrative. Its all about the macro by way of the micro. Pluss Pluss. Not just a right wing nutter.

LII, IEE, ILI, EIE. That's what people say and I can conceivable see them all based on what others have said.

[perpetuus]

Berty pointed out something similar.

Some of his lectures are next level, way past anyone else is doing on youtube. Its postreligion for the reductionists. I'm actually impressed I said he reminds me of a new world priest. I find his stuff really fascinating and he is obviously grounded in real experience so its not an issue anything he says. It jives with my own understanding, that everything is derivative of something else and every single solitary thing in the human world had been thought before by someone else: from the shape of the concrete pads on the side walk, the every single weld of a steel tower, to the stories we share in media, and all of that is an expression of the inner psyche, which is itself derivitive of the human past, which is the story of the human animal. The guy is a genius, waaaay past hitchens and his co.

--> this is the reason I love nature so much...nothing in it has been touched by man, at all, its an intelligence outside of intelligence, and yet it takes human intelligence to map it, and its so intricate, that ancient stories attempted and those evolved and kept evolving to something more closely resembling a coherent reality to explain the unexplainables..oh god now im hearing him in my head, i must be one of the converted!

Plus he opened up Jung and the collective for me which I wasnt so much aware of. I think his Fathering is exactly what the world needs right now because the substance-less void in current culture masquerading as style in todays age is borderline a collective psychosis imo. Not that Petterson has said that, just he's pointing to it.

I don't care he isn't detail orientated, I like the way his legends unfold and how he comes back to the through line narrative. Its all about the macro by way of the micro. Pluss Pluss. Not just a right wing nutter.

LII, IEE, ILI, EIE. That's what people say and I can conceivable see them all based on what others have said.

Very well written and I agree.


He transcends distinctions such as “right” and “left” and although much of what he says seems fairly obvious to me, I’m baffled and dismayed by the hate he’s received.

His views on religious truth are next level yet he has more or less stated what I’ve tried to say for years. He just does it more eloquently than I ever could. He is living proof that spirituality and a scientific mind are not mutually exclusive, do not have to be at odds.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yeah, it seems that there is very little systemization from. Very little new logica conceptualitions but lots of meaning generation with some sort of inventiveness.

Looks like Nietzsche and some type him as EIE. Lot's of ramblings without logical coherence.

Anyways, big picture:

I suffer therefore I live my life – that it is the meaning. The whole world is my stage. That is like EIE in it's purest form.

[Myst]

It seems quite clear to me. My first impression was SLI, then it was ILI.

I watched more videos, particularly the one linked where he broke down in tears. Then it started to seem obvious

This man exudes Ni and Fe.

Fe? LOL. Please point out where he uses Fe in a way that's usable in real life and isn't just theorizing about people etc.

thats actually Te with Fe devaluing (bitter hard truth over caring of others emotions)

No, it's Ti because it's a focus on thinking for yourself, not a focus on the most efficient action.

what about the necessity of suffering? or the maps of meaning? or do what you should be doing? and the focus on morality, and yet the aim to achieve what you want out of life? ILI seems to nail it all

Maps of meaning is too analytical to be simply Ni. And it's the sort of stuff that makes me go "I can't use this for anything and it kills my brain". Ne alert.

Jordan has stated that he scores high in extroversion on the big five test.

IEI-Fe friend also scored high in it. I would think some ambiverts can achieve this.

I changed my mind, I think he is EIE now. He actually is very open-minded and an "idea guy", yet displays clear Se values IMO.

(...)

And this very much does support Ni/Fe ego.

Not worldly enough to be EIE. Too much "idea guy". And he doesn't really value Se, I don't see him liking Se in reality. Don't confuse Rational will with Se energy momentum. He only has the former.

Yes, he does seem to have a lot of ambiguity between Ni and Ne (as well as Ne and Se). Nothing like the other intellectual LSIs I've typed (e.g. Christopher Langan or Leslie Lamport).

Yeah, Christopher Langan could actually be LSI. Anyone who types Peterson LSI is... actually, no comment.

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.

Nietzsche is most definitely not the same type as Jung lol. Jung was way more analytical than Nietzsche, and Peterson as well.

Some of his lectures are next level, way past anyone else is doing on youtube. Its postreligion for the reductionists. I'm actually impressed I said he reminds me of a new world priest. I find his stuff really fascinating and he is obviously grounded in real experience so its not an issue anything he says. It jives with my own understanding, that everything is derivative of something else and every single solitary thing in the human world had been thought before by someone else: from the shape of the concrete pads on the side walk, the every single weld of a steel tower, to the stories we share in media, and all of that is an expression of the inner psyche, which is itself derivitive of the human past, which is the story of the human animal. The guy is a genius, waaaay past hitchens and his co.

Too. much. Ne. Ni at least links things better together more closely than this.

LOLZ

Demonstration of his failure in logic.

Something that I have also detected in him. Jumps to conclusions.

I just see crazy strawmans in this argument. Putting words/reasonings into Peterson's mouth that he never actually said. And the conclusion that Peterson is lying is absolutely ridiculous and overly subjective, too. I do agree with him btw on how hierarchies aren't just sociological constructs.

Yeah, it seems that there is very little systemization from. Very little new logica conceptualitions but lots of meaning generation with some sort of inventiveness.

Looks like Nietzsche and some type him as EIE. Lot's of ramblings without logical coherence.

He's got a lot of logical coherence just fine, that's where he comes from, I just don't like it/find it hard to follow when he gets too Ne.

Also, "lots of rambling" on its own isn't type related. It's way too generic an observation to be type related.

Anyways, big picture:

I suffer therefore I live my life – that it is the meaning. The whole world is my stage. That is like EIE in it's purest form.

Maybe he says things like this sometimes along with many other things but he does not embody this.

[The Reality Denialist]

I just see crazy strawmans in this argument. Putting words/reasonings into Peterson's mouth that he never actually said. And the conclusion that Peterson is lying is absolutely ridiculous and overly subjective, too. I do agree with him btw on how hierarchies aren't just sociological constructs.

I see how it goes to trivialities too deeply.
It just demonstrates how Peterson is irrationally looking for reasons for his vision (Yeah, I'm never guilty of this ). It is fairly easy to look for plot holes in his message just by doing some research. Wild speculation when little bit more cross referencing shows other kinds of results. It appears stronger than it really is.

[Myst]

I see how it goes to trivialities too deeply.
It just demonstrates how Peterson is irrationally looking for reasons for his vision (Yeah, I'm never guilty of this ). It is fairly easy to look for plot holes in his message just by doing some research. Wild speculation when little bit more cross referencing shows other kinds of results. It appears stronger than it really is.

It's not even just that it was trivialities. He actually did not reason the way the argument claimed him to. I see no plot holes in the quoted bits of Peterson's argument there.

I agree he does speculate a lot though about some things. But I've never seen a problem with his logic per se on its own.

[The Reality Denialist]

It's not even just that it was trivialities. He actually did not reason the way the argument claimed him to. I see no plot holes in the quoted bits of Peterson's argument there.

I agree he does speculate a lot though about some things. But I've never seen a problem with his logic per se on its own.

Yeah, yeah if you mean by staiyng on its course, clearly not.
His agenda is not being factually correct, clearly. It is about generation of meaning.

For example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMUIbQH-Id8
There are lots of autistics who are not bad at those things he mentions (contrary).

[whodat]

Too. much. Ne. Ni at least links things better together more closely than this.

yes could be.Strong Ni and Ne. So intuitve.

[Number 9 large]

@Myst no its Te valuing because it disregards the impact it could have on the emotional atmosphere in favour of talking hard facts (te), hence serious quadra, not merry

[perpetuus]

Fe? LOL. Please point out where he uses Fe in a way that's usable in real life and isn't just theorizing about people etc

A good example: listen to episode 38 of his podcast, particularly when he offers his analysis of the Cathy Newman interview

[Bertrand]

Gulenko theorizes that when people involve themselves in an "installation" (i.e.: one of the four: humanities, social, research, pragmatics) adjacent to their base type, they shift to either their mirage, semi (by this they take it on as a kind of shell). If we apply that I feel like he most closely resembles an LII shifted to humanities therefore resembling an EIE. I think his holographic thinking and humanistic bent is what made me think IEE for a bit, but on the whole I think I like the LII->EIE take on things. I've been watching older videos of him and I think this shift becomes more obvious as he became more in the public eye and took on more of a directly humanitarian role. He really oozes LII a lot more in his old (and by old I mean 10+ years) vids. When Aylen talks about seeing a man trying to reclaim his Se so to speak I think she's noticing this same trend

[perpetuus]

I don’t know, maybe he does value Fi.

[perpetuus]

I can still see either IEI or ILI as strong possibilities

[Myst]

Yeah, yeah if you mean by staiyng on its course, clearly not.
His agenda is not being factually correct, clearly. It is about generation of meaning.

Agreed, not a Te ego.

@Myst no its Te valuing because it disregards the impact it could have on the emotional atmosphere in favour of talking hard facts (te), hence serious quadra, not merry

It was not about hard facts however, like I already pointed out twice.

A good example: listen to episode 38 of his podcast, particularly when he offers his analysis of the Cathy Newman interview

And that's Fe base how?

How do you guys see Ne as a valued function in JP? Can you give some examples?

He doesn't care about the win like you said.

Edit: though you deleted that post I see lol

[perpetuus]

And that's Fe base how?

He seems to be motivated by a desire to build/restore a sense of community in society.

[Myst]

He seems to be motivated by a desire to build/restore a sense of community in society.

Then I'll type as Fe base too I care about society too.

Seriously though, this is too generic the way it's put.

How does he reason for it, that's more relevant to type cognition.

[perpetuus]

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.

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

[Myst]

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.

Exactly. And as long as he doesn't get too Ne, I have an easy time following the logic, I find it's really logical overall. Too much Ne and I'm out - so periodically I pay attention and periodically I tune out. Same with Jung or most other LIIs.

I sometimes try to follow the Ne too but usually it's too annoying.

With Jung's writing on personality types for example, I did have the motivation to try and follow it all. Hard work over time.

With his other writings, I'm not even going near them...

[perpetuus]

He tends to rely on both deductive and inductive reasoning, however, the former slightly more so.

[Bertrand]

sometimes listening to him talk is really unbearable because its like his tone gets really weird

https://youtu.be/yOP4a7-EJPU?list=PL...AGJ7_G5e&t=467

[perpetuus]

https://youtu.be/PESYQ6TGwhQ

[perpetuus]

sometimes listening to him talk is really unbearable because its like his tone gets really weird

https://youtu.be/yOP4a7-EJPU?list=PL...AGJ7_G5e&t=467

Sounds like someone squeezed his nutsack

[The Reality Denialist]

https://youtu.be/PESYQ6TGwhQ

He really should use Kermit hand puppet in his lectures.

[bgbg]

[at sirac son of sirac]

Good video @bgdjf, it's making me think now of EIE, 2nd choice for me was IEE, I just can't bear myself to watch him lol (not him in particular, I just find a lot of these types of videos is some guy talking about himself, and I don't know him or if i'll be interested, and celebs don't really interest me, no offence to him or them), so that video was good for me, to show him in an informal situation, and something unusual was happening so it made me more inclined to watch.

Still don't really know about the guy regards his type, maybe i'll just stick with my initial IEE and leave it at that

[bgbg]

Good video @bgdjf, it's making me think now of EIE, 2nd choice for me IEE, I just can't bear myself to watch him lol, so that video was good, to show him in an informal situation, and something unusual was happening so it made me more inclined to watch.

his h3h3 podcasts are kind of interesting. he's still him and talking about the standard jp stuff (the controversies he's been in, and psychology stuff) but he's a tad looser and in a lighter atmosphere than his interviews and videos usually have him in. for typing purposes, he doesn't seem put off at all by ethan and hila, and has talked fondly of them when he's brought them up (and has gone back onto their podcast).

also, he tells ghost stories

[Bertrand]

Sounds like someone squeezed his nutsack

yeah I don't mean to make fun of him, I just mean Fe dominance seems unlikely, although Gulenko would say demonstrative intuition can sometimes create these effects. I guess the question is is it intuition on a backdrop of logic or ethics

[azbestos]

If you don't see the "Hamlet" in here, then I am sorry for your typing skills...

[perpetuus]

He really should use Kermit hand puppet in his lectures.

https://youtu.be/mUfBUOflTtg

[perpetuus]

yeah I don't mean to make fun of him, I just mean Fe dominance seems unlikely, although Gulenko would say demonstrative intuition can sometimes create these effects. I guess the question is is it intuition on a backdrop of logic or ethics

I mean to make fun of him, but it’s in good fun. I have a lot of respect for him.

I think we should be able to laugh at everyone, maybe Peterson would consider me a trickster because of this.


to his credit, he seems to be a good sport about the memes people make. It’s going to be expected when one becomes a prominent public figure.

The main reason I don't trust Trump? It doesn't have much to do with his political positions. It's the fact that he doesn't seem to handle teasing well. He should know by now that if one is in a position where they have a lot of adoration and fans, there is probably going to be an equal amount of teasing and ribbing. Particularly when he isn't one to shy away from teasing and making fun of others in the public spheres.

[Myst]

He tends to rely on both deductive and inductive reasoning

Everyone does

[Adam Strange]

The main reason I don't trust Trump? It doesn't have much to do with his political positions. It's the fact that he doesn't seem to handle teasing well. He should know by now that if one is in a position where they have a lot of adoration and fans, there is probably going to be an equal amount of teasing and ribbing. Particularly when he isn't one to shy away from teasing and making fun of others in the public spheres.

That's a good reason for not trusting Trump. Another is that 99% of the things he says fact check to be full or partial lies. Another is that he is a thoroughly despicable person.

But everyone has their own standards.

[perpetuus]

Everyone does

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.

[perpetuus]

That's a good reason for not trusting Trump. Another is that 99% of the things he says fact check to be full or partial lies. Another is that he is a thoroughly despicable person.

But everyone has their own standards.

I find your complaints are true in the case of many politicians. We notice it more in Trump because he also happens to be a brute and a narcissistic tool.

[perpetuus]

He looks like a cross between Jerry Seinfeld and Keith Carradine.

[The Reality Denialist]

I don't usually give a crap about non-quantitative or non-phonetic symbols. Apparently many people do. You are not going to discover something indisputable by doing it. One thing I'm sure of: This just shows how self centered we are.
Well, life is something you live, which seems incomprehensible thing for me as I'm sure that all the pieces form the whole but of course our capacity is limited to go and form deepest truth or parse it completely. In a way J. Peterson accepts that fault as default. On top of that symbolism thing: it assumes higher power and also that we should bow to it. Why? Why should we live? He never touches that the most fundamental question by dismantling it.

Ummm... LII's... I suppose.

[perpetuus]

I'm listening to one of his appearances on H3 Podcast. He's so baked.

[whodat]

I don't usually give a crap about non-quantitative or non-phonetic symbols. Apparently many people do. You are not going to discover something indisputable by doing it. One thing I'm sure of: This just shows how self centered we are.
Well, life is something you live, which seems incomprehensible thing for me as I'm sure that all the pieces form the whole but of course our capacity is limited to go and form deepest truth or parse it completely. In a way J. Peterson accepts that fault as default. On top of that symbolism thing: it assumes higher power and also that we should bow to it. Why? Why should we live? He never touches that the most fundamental question by dismantling it.

Ummm... LII's... I suppose.

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.

[perpetuus]