View Poll Results: type of Jordan Peterson?

Voters
127. You may not vote on this poll
  • ILE (ENTp)

    4 3.15%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    2 1.57%
  • LII (INTj)

    22 17.32%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    9 7.09%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    45 35.43%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    8 6.30%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    1 0.79%
  • ILI (INTp)

    10 7.87%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    21 16.54%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    5 3.94%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    1 0.79%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    1 0.79%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    4 3.15%
  • EII (INFj)

    3 2.36%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 19 of 32 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021222329 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 760 of 1271

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #721
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,806
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    On balance, correct type is LIE . Very entrepeneurial and future-oriented. Uses dramatic language sometimes, particularly to criticize or praise others. Highly individualistic worldview. Simple / casual manner of dress, unkempt hair especially in earlier videos. Prone to hyperbolic language.

    Speaks intelligently. Carries on with a subtle ulterior motive. Overly confident in his assessments. Views his ideas as unassailable even when they are flawed. Remarkable ability to draw ideas from various different sources and present them as a contiguous unit.
    Where´s the Te? His arguments are often either made out of thin air, or they come from his personal feelings about some specific issues. Sometimes I even like his style but it´s quite different from how LIEs usually build their arguments.

    I´m talking about the "public speaker" Peterson here, not the "scientist".
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  2. #722
    divine, too human WVBRY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    TIM
    LSI-C™
    Posts
    6,028
    Mentioned
    237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    ^ Remove literally ONE word and this could be a Jordan Peterson quote. I'll let you figure out the source.
    Rauschning?

  3. #723
    nefnaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    207
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Where´s the Te? His arguments are often either made out of thin air, or they come from his personal feelings about some specific issues. Sometimes I even like his style but it´s quite different from how LIEs usually build their arguments.

    I´m talking about the "public speaker" Peterson here, not the "scientist".
    His style of speaking is based on his experience lecturing undergrad psychology students at his job - university professor. He does go on rants about "data," objectivity, productivity > emotions etc quite often. This is also why he is so enamored of the Big 5 model, since it is basically just a whole jumble of data mashed together with the theory completely subordinated to the data. He also doesn't trust any factual assertions that he has not personally verified himself, for example on climate change.

    Since he is an academic the "data" he works with on a day-to-day basis is really bits and pieces of various theories. That could account for the highly abstracted nature of most of his lectures.

  4. #724
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,142
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jordan Peterson: Decisive Rational [Gamma Rational (Ni-ENTj or ISFj) OR Beta Rational (Ni-ENFj or ISTj)], OR INFj

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRPDGEgaATU

    Jordan Peterson: “I was small and noisy [as a child]. It’s a bad combination.”





    my aunt: "so what? it is easy to come up with a label. does it help cure? do you know anyone, anyone at all, one single human being who was under psychiatric treatment and got better? because I'll soon be 60 and I have known thousands of people and heard hundreds of stories of mental disease, unhappiness, depression, madness but not one single story about somebody who was cured by psychiatry. and what is normal after all? am I normal? do I maybe have obsessive artistic working disorder to avoid contact with other people? who is normal? normal implies the existence of a norm. who can produce or fabricate this norm for human beings?"















    Jordan Peterson.jpg

    JORDAN PETERSON II.jpg

    Jordan Peterson I.jpg
    Last edited by HERO; 06-12-2018 at 05:27 PM.

  5. #725
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,999
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Went to another one of his lectures last night since he was in town. There were protesters there this time, which I thought was odd since you'd figure Chicago would have them more than Louisville would, but maybe that's an effect of the recent hit pieces.

    Anyway, it was good but a rehash of stuff I'd already heard, except for his claims that you didn't know what you thought until you wrote it down because you had a bunch of thoughts spinning but you don't know if you actually believe in them or not until you engage the part of your brain that writing does. That made sense to me, but it's probably not true for most.

    He also took the position that the way you approached people plays a large part in what side of themselves they show to you, even to a transformative extent. I wholeheartedly also believe this to be the case, but more long-term versus the short-term he meant. This was after he did a trolly laugh while saying if you find people boring, it's because the way you interact with them is boring. Again, short-term focus.

    He plays intellectual in his lectures and shit-stirrer on Twitter, which seems appropriate, really. Another weird disconnect.

    He didn't hold the crowd nearly as well this time. A few people were scoffing at his ideas.

    Also,
    https://youtu.be/6T47opnLyFw
    Last edited by ouronis; 06-15-2018 at 08:52 PM.

  6. #726
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whatever goodwill I'd built up for JP being a principled defender of free speech is now gone. This man is a hypocrite & the embodiment of a professional victim.



    Quote Originally Posted by article
    "Jordan Peterson... has threatened to sue an American professor over a tweet he deems defamatory."

    ...

    In a May 31 tweet to her nearly 300 Twitter followers, Lee characterized Peterson as a “committed white nationalist” and an “incel misogynist.”
    https://mic.com/articles/189822/free...r-name-calling

    “If some wacko makes a slur about somebody on the internet, it doesn’t have to be taken seriously because it doesn’t have a lot of credibility,” Levitt said. “Dr. Peterson is a best selling author. I take it that [Lee] is not a lunatic. She’s a college professor. She has a Ph.D. She knows what she’s doing. Yet this woman said Dr. Peterson is a white supremacist. If a professor at a university makes such a claim, people might actually believe it. Someone like Dr. Peterson has to make a stand.”

    Notably, Peterson himself tweeted in 2017 that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and “half of [Barack] Obama” are white supremacists.

  7. #727
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    you've spent this entire thread trashing him and is anyone supposed to care that now you like him even less after this

  8. #728
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No; they're supposed to care that you still like him after this.

  9. #729
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

  10. #730
    MrsTortilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ESI 468 sp/sx
    Posts
    456
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So this is just my visual impression but JP looks quite Beta to me. I'm not drawn to him in any way either (and I am usually drawn to LIE's). I heard an argument with Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson where they were just missing each other entirely. They didn't seem like two INTj's talking and I'm pretty sure Sam Harris is INTj.

  11. #731
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sam making essentially the same assumptions people like Dawkins (ILE) do about how people will be good if we eliminate religion, makes it seem unlikely they are from opposed quadra. especially since they both seem think they can solve the problem of evil via a word game. "no religion = no communion means religion causes evil the same way it causes people to eat crackers" is not the argument of a strong thinking type, nor someone who understands Fi. its your standard fare IEI Ti obsessed word play

  12. #732

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Sam making essentially the same assumptions people like Dawkins (ILE) do about how people will be good if we eliminate religion, makes it seem unlikely they are from opposed quadra. especially since they both seem think they can solve the problem of evil via a word game. "no religion = no communion means religion causes evil the same way it causes people to eat crackers" is not the argument of a strong thinking type, nor someone who understands Fi. its your standard fare IEI Ti obsessed word play
    You're only getting the idea of "word play" from "analytic philosophy", which you equate to Ti or something.

  13. #733
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrsTortilla View Post
    So this is just my visual impression but JP looks quite Beta to me. I'm not drawn to him in any way either (and I am usually drawn to LIE's). I heard an argument with Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson where they were just missing each other entirely. They didn't seem like two INTj's talking and I'm pretty sure Sam Harris is INTj.
    Sam Harris is actually likely a Ti-ENTp. He has made statements that fall into the causal-determinist mindset, like not believing in free will (summary) since in CD terms everything falls into a long chains of cause-effect interactions which doesn't leave much room for freedom of choice. Gulenko prescribed CD style of thinking to types like LSI and ILE but not INTjs. Even so that would still put them in same quadrant, so the source of their disconnect is probably not their socionics types. One thing that may be contributing is that they likely have opposite instinct stackings, which could lead to scenarios of people talking past each other and having a difficult time getting a grasp on what the other is saying.

  14. #734

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    On balance, correct type is LIE . Very entrepeneurial and future-oriented. Uses dramatic language sometimes, particularly to criticize or praise others. Highly individualistic worldview. Simple / casual manner of dress, unkempt hair especially in earlier videos. Prone to hyperbolic language.

    Speaks intelligently. Carries on with a subtle ulterior motive. Overly confident in his assessments. Views his ideas as unassailable even when they are flawed. Remarkable ability to draw ideas from various different sources and present them as a contiguous unit.
    The first bolded part made me laugh. He couldn't be further from having the entrepreneurial mindset. I don't mean him earning money from his stuff, I mean the mindset that LIE has... He doesn't have that.

    The second bolded part... Ti > Te. Unhealthy Ti, mind you lol.

    The third bolded part... if it is done via logical thinking it's Ti > Te (otherwise could be some Intuition thing too, it's only Ti if it's specifically about logically systematizing by comparing various systems and sources).

    Oh and unkempt hair, I hope you are not serious that only LIE can have that. Or even that LIEs must have that.


    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    His style of speaking is based on his experience lecturing undergrad psychology students at his job - university professor. He does go on rants about "data," objectivity, productivity > emotions etc quite often. This is also why he is so enamored of the Big 5 model, since it is basically just a whole jumble of data mashed together with the theory completely subordinated to the data. He also doesn't trust any factual assertions that he has not personally verified himself, for example on climate change.

    Since he is an academic the "data" he works with on a day-to-day basis is really bits and pieces of various theories. That could account for the highly abstracted nature of most of his lectures.
    With Big 5, I've seen LII buy into such broadly intuitive (Ne??) theories where they have some basic logical principles for it I guess. And the bolded is Ti > Te.

    All in all, yeah, nothing is LIE about this guy, way too theoretical for an LIE.
    Last edited by Myst; 06-16-2018 at 10:33 AM.

  15. #735
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nefnaf View Post
    On balance, correct type is LIE . Very entrepeneurial and future-oriented. ...
    gotta agree with @Myst here, Peterson has stated multiple times that he is very afraid of making a mistake, and that he prefers to "carefully choose his words" - that doesn't sound entrepreneurial but rather cautious of him - both LIEs and their positivist-result cousins ESEs usually have a lot more resilience than this and don't preoccupy with making potential mistakes, as any enterprise involves a significant dose of risk taking and possibility of failure

    if you're trying to type him as Te then you could possibly draft an argument for an ILI-Te, there's too little that would support a LIE typing for him

  16. #736

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Sam making essentially the same assumptions people like Dawkins (ILE) do about how people will be good if we eliminate religion, makes it seem unlikely they are from opposed quadra. especially since they both seem think they can solve the problem of evil via a word game. "no religion = no communion means religion causes evil the same way it causes people to eat crackers" is not the argument of a strong thinking type, nor someone who understands Fi. its your standard fare IEI Ti obsessed word play
    Ah seriously, the bolded? I guess I didn't miss much about Harris then lol. I can buy ILE for him with that...


    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    his claims that you didn't know what you thought until you wrote it down because you had a bunch of thoughts spinning but you don't know if you actually believe in them or not until you engage the part of your brain that writing does. That made sense to me, but it's probably not true for most.
    What part of the brain is it supposed to engage? I definitely don't relate to this btw, but writing personally helps me with making myself keep fleshing out some things. It's not really that important though for many things, to flesh out all that much beyond a point. Overall though... it results in deeper digging in yourself overall, which sometimes can help you get somewhere. It's just going to be a very indirect method to get somewhere. This is my experience. I never got it anyway when he claimed in his authoring program (for sale too) that you can just write down answers to questions to think over your past issues and future goals and whatnot. I can try but it will not give me anything new so quickly... my Intuition is slower than that, way way slower. I'm baffled that he wouldn't notice that this method takes a very long time for some people. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this issue heh. I think anyone who's not very intuitive in the way needed (idk how much of it is jungian/Socionics Intuition btw but some of it is I think) and never dealt with such questions before much, will take a long time.


    He also took the position that the way you approached people plays a large part in what side of themselves they show to you, even to a transformative extent. I wholeheartedly also believe this to be the case, but more long-term versus the short-term he meant. This was after he did a trolly laugh while saying if you find people boring, it's because the way you interact with them is boring. Again, short-term focus.
    Man, too much N for me there.


    He plays intellectual in his lectures and shit-stirrer on Twitter, which seems appropriate, really. Another weird disconnect.
    LII version of trolling?

  17. #737
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,999
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Ah seriously, the bolded? I guess I didn't miss much about Harris then lol. I can buy ILE for him with that...




    What part of the brain is it supposed to engage? I definitely don't relate to this btw, but writing personally helps me with making myself keep fleshing out some things. It's not really that important though for many things, to flesh out all that much beyond a point. Overall though... it results in deeper digging in yourself overall, which sometimes can help you get somewhere. It's just going to be a very indirect method to get somewhere. This is my experience. I never got it anyway when he claimed in his authoring program (for sale too) that you can just write down answers to questions to think over your past issues and future goals and whatnot. I can try but it will not give me anything new so quickly... my Intuition is slower than that, way way slower. I'm baffled that he wouldn't notice that this method takes a very long time for some people. I'm sure I'm not the only one with this issue heh. I think anyone who's not very intuitive in the way needed (idk how much of it is jungian/Socionics Intuition btw but some of it is I think) and never dealt with such questions before much, will take a long time.




    Man, too much N for me there.




    LII version of trolling?
    Here is some of what he was saying, though this is slightly different.

    https://youtu.be/bfDOoADCfkg

    I can't remember if he specified a part of the brain or this is just my paraphrasing, but it makes sense to me because the way to frame things tends to come into much sharper focus for me if I write, I'm not someone who believes in an absolute perspective, so getting the frame helps me avoid wishy washy well it could be like this or this. Usually by finding more efficient ways of encapsulating the wishywashiness. So I suppose it's a good way to simplify and compress for me, to the extent that it does actually help me "know what I think" in the sense that I learn to understand the perspective to relate it to common language and thus the stream of ideas already going about. Assuming I do like he recommended and go over drafts of what I'm writing several times.

    Also, socially, framing of your ideas and statements is everything.

  18. #738
    nickelslick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Myst :

    “The most fundamental principle of the organized mind, the one most critical to keeping us from forgetting or losing things, is to shift the burden of organizing from our brains to the external world.”
    ― Daniel J. Levitin

    I'd say one of the major benefits of writing is the fact that a page of bullet points can hold more information than I can be conscious of at any one time, and that frees up mental resources for the processing of the relationships between all of it, so that I can more easily identify contradictions and integrate new facts without making a mess. Sort of like having a windows pagefile for when my brain doesn't have enough ram to process a very large/complex file...

    @ouronis Your explanation is more complete than mine but I think we're expressing the same idea? I think Myst, being LSI, would not find this as useful because Se isn't as much of a moving target that needs to be pinned down. Agree with the perspectives thing.

  19. #739
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,999
    Mentioned
    130 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickelslick View Post
    @Myst :

    “The most fundamental principle of the organized mind, the one most critical to keeping us from forgetting or losing things, is to shift the burden of organizing from our brains to the external world.”
    ― Daniel J. Levitin

    I'd say one of the major benefits of writing is the fact that a page of bullet points can hold more information than I can be conscious of at any one time, and that frees up mental resources for the processing of the relationships between all of it, so that I can more easily identify contradictions and integrate new facts without making a mess. Sort of like having a windows pagefile for when my brain doesn't have enough ram to process a very large/complex file...

    @ouronis Your explanation is more complete than mine but I think we're expressing the same idea? I think Myst, being LSI, would not find this as useful because Se isn't as much of a moving target that needs to be pinned down. Agree with the perspectives thing.
    I think that's what's going on, but that's not what it feels like, it doesn't feel as simple as freeing up ram. It feels like clarity because the dripping sticky links get pulled out straight and become observable. But it does make sense that this "functionality" is enabled by freeing up headspace via the more efficient recollection of something by just looking at it on paper. So maybe it's that as you develop your organizational skills for writing, you're also learning how to create more efficient representations of something, which also lines up with the "writing teaches you to think."
    Last edited by ouronis; 06-16-2018 at 06:16 PM. Reason: Spelling

  20. #740
    nickelslick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I get you. This:

    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis View Post
    in the sense that I learn to understand the perspective to relate it to common language and thus the stream of ideas already going about.
    was perfect.

  21. #741

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    What @nickelslick said is pretty much what it is to me / with me not needing to chase perspectives with Intuition etc. I don't follow you two beyond a point lol, you crazy LIIs

  22. #742
    MrsTortilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ESI 468 sp/sx
    Posts
    456
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Ah seriously, the bolded? I guess I didn't miss much about Harris then lol. I can buy ILE for him with that...
    Actually I think Sam Harris has said a few times that his deep criticisms of religion notwithstanding he recognizes that religious traditions themselves (such as funeral practices) can be really important and without them certain life events become shallow and empty. I haven't heard alternate solutions from him though for exactly what you do instead when religion is taken away in order to fill in those gaps. Richard Dawkins is even more dismissive of religion than Sam if that's possible.

  23. #743
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sam isn't really thinking if religious funeral rites have significance but violence in the name of religion doesn't. they're two sides of the same coin in that for one to have meaning it requires, at least in principle, willingness to act in its negative capacity. to kill is to pay homage to the fact that things even unto death and beyond have meaning, and besides all that, you get rid of one pretense (a certain religious dogma) another will simply take its place with only the names having changed. this is not to excuse violence but only to say its here to stay and Sam does not seem particularly serious about reckoning with that and devising his "solutions" to the problem

  24. #744
    MrsTortilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ESI 468 sp/sx
    Posts
    456
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    Sam isn't really thinking if religious funeral rites have significance but violence in the name of religion doesn't. they're two sides of the same coin in that for one to have meaning it requires, at least in principle, willingness to act in its negative capacity. to kill is to pay homage to the fact that things even unto death and beyond have meaning, and besides all that, you get rid of one pretense (a certain religious dogma) another will simply take its place with only the names having changed. this is not to excuse violence but only to say its here to stay and Sam does not seem particularly serious about reckoning with that and devising his "solutions" to the problem
    Yeah, I have not heard him recommend suggestions for what to do about the problem of religion except that he has said he supports reforming more extreme ideologies so they don't inspire violence in their practitioners.

  25. #745

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The only bad thing about religion is that it doesn't allow criticisms, so this allows for "absolute knowledge" that will lead to dogmas and fanaticisms.

    Even religions like Buddhism, even though it's peaceful, are based on absolute and eternal truths. But there's no such thing, as far as human knowledge is concerned.

  26. #746
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sam's whole thing is he likes to try and "trap" people by getting them to say "yes I agree we should support reforming religion to be less violent" and then dropping some stupid logical construction on them that frames religion as being inherently and inextricably violent and thus in need of elimination, hoping that the person having made a precommitment to the merits of non violence is now obligated to go along with tossing out religion. I get the feeling he's trying to play off the pride and ego of SLE who can't admit to being outmaneuvered and, in any case, would be onboard with such things, because they're inherently nonreligious to the core anyway and therefore if deciding between their ego and religious significance they don't comprehend or possess anyway: religion has to go. The irony is Sam props up violence against religion in principle on the same grounds, saying "some beliefs may be so dangerous as to justify killing people who hold them." In the final analysis Sam is neither against religion or violence, because he advocates violence against "classic religions" except this time in the name of what is essentially his "new" religion: scientism. Its all just an irrational attempt to leverage the environment in the weirdest possible way masquerading as reasonable and at the expense of meaning itself, all toward some utopian ideal that exists only in his head, which is inherently unreachable because it doesn't properly recognize how the world is in fact, thus has no hope of getting there because of what essentially amounts to a false premise. its a kind of garbage in garbage out shell game laundered through some fancy word play, in a word: yesenin. there's a kind of underground bloodlust to the whole thing I'm sure SLE can't wait to facilitate. a way to kill but stay clean. at least dreiser knows its filthy work and in that sense is far more holy even down in it

  27. #747
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jordan Peterson is officially a thin-skinned piece of shit who gets triggered by some academics calling him names, whereas he has no problems boldly and clumsily imputing the most vile and disgusting motivations to Leftists in general (including other academics). He is a professional victim and a hypocrite who demands free speech for himself while attempting to use government courts to censor the free speech of others.

    He wants to take the faculty of Wilfred Laurier University to court for slandering him:

    “The defamatory statements were … designed specifically to damage his personal and professional character as a professor, author, lecturer and public intellectual,” Peterson’s unproven statement of claim alleges.

    The suit alleges professors Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott, and Laurier Equity Office staffer Adria Joel compared Peterson to Adolf ****** and accused him of being a “charlatan,” among other things, during a private meeting with teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd, who showed a video of Peterson discussing gender-neutral pronouns to her class.
    ^ the university staff expressed their opinions about JP in a completely private meeting that wasn't even intended to be shown to the public. Moreover, the act of criticising public figures is in and of itself completely within the bounds of free speech and a pillar of any system of democracy worth a damn. This is Peterson's brave new world, where even private opinions are punishable by law (so long as they come from the Left).


    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...g-meeting.html

  28. #748
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    defamation is just about saying untrue things to 3rd parties that damage their reputation: if peterson can show being called a "charlatan" and being "compared to ******" by these people to shepard, harmed his reputation in some way, he probably has a case. the issue would be damages, since it seems to me in many ways peterson has benefitted not been harmed by the publicity (but it may not be about the resulting publicity but the initial harm of the statements in a vacuum). defamation has always been a limitation on "free speech" mainly because free speech is a protection guaranteed by one against the government. in other words free speech has never meant one can simply say whatever they want in a private capacity: it means the government cannot inhibit freedom of speech (with certain qualifications), and this suit is between two private parties, despite taking place in a courtroom there is no government actor in terms of the litigants. this depends on the law of canada but it will be interesting to see what happens: my guess is they'll just retract their statements as part of a settlement and say something like "it was wrong of us to compare peterson to ****** (since their views are not at all alike--this could be a factual dispute for a jury to decide on) and we may not like what peterson is saying but it doesn't make him a charlatan in terms of his credentials" and so forth

  29. #749
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    defamation is just about saying untrue things to 3rd parties that damage their reputation: if peterson can show being called a "charlatan" and being "compared to ******" by these people to shepard, harmed his reputation in some way, he probably has a case.
    Do SJWs have a case for being called genocidal Maoists by Peterson? (hint: the question is rhetorical)

  30. #750
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Do SJWs have a case for being called genocidal Maoists by Peterson? The question is rhetorical.
    maybe but its on them to sue, in all likelihood peterson never called anyone specifically out and was relating the philosophies of "SJWs" in general to Maoism and its crimes, but if he did and that person could demonstrate damages they could have a case

  31. #751
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    8,044
    Mentioned
    217 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    maybe but its on them to sue, in all likelihood peterson never called anyone specifically out and was relating the philosophies of "SJWs" in general to Maoism and its crimes, but if he did and that person could demonstrate damages they could have a case
    Umm... this is the same guy who said that people have a right to offend (during the Cathy Newman interview). It is quite possibly the only stance of his that I agree with. I only wish he believed it himself.

    Just one example of his numerous attacks on public figures: he has stated that the women appointed by Justin Trudeau to lead his cabinet were chosen to fill a gender-based quota without being screened for competence. Ascribing incompetence to government ministers is as equally "slanderous" as what what Wilfred Laurier's faculty said about him-- the only difference is that he says it publicly, where it is intended to defame and slander.

    This man has no problem with attacks on people using the most outrageous invidious characterisations, but only when it suits him. He is not an advocate for freedom of speech.
    Last edited by xerx; 06-23-2018 at 08:28 PM.

  32. #752

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,026
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Classic case of dish it but cant take it. Lots if people in this site also suffer from this.

  33. #753
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Umm... this is the same guy who said that people have a right to offend (during the Cathy Newman interview). It is quite possibly the only stance of his that I agree with. I only wish he believed it himself.

    Just one example of his numerous attacks on public figures: he has stated that the women appointed by Justin Trudeau to lead his cabinet were chosen to fill a gender-based quota without being screened for competence. Ascribing incompetence to government ministers is as equally "slanderous" as what what Wilfred Laurier's faculty said about him-- the only difference is that he says it publicly, where it is intended to defame and slander.

    This man has no problem attacking people using the most outrageous invidious characterisations, but only when it suits him. He is not an advocate for freedom of speech.
    they should teach peterson a lesson and sue obviously.. its not inconsistent for peterson to say the "right to offend" ought to preclude compelled speech but does not protect defamation, since defamation is by definition something more than offensive speech

  34. #754
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,372
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would assume LII. He responds really warmly to Fe, even if its poked at him.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  35. #755
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    I would assume LII. He responds really warmly to Fe, even if its poked at him.
    Who responds negatively to positive emotions, besides people with mental disorders?
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  36. #756
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,372
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Who responds negatively to positive emotions, besides people with mental disorders?
    ILI alot. But you did say besides people with mental disorders....
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  37. #757
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,808
    Mentioned
    283 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    ILI alot. But you did say besides people with mental disorders....
    SEEs are positivists who have Fe demonstrative though. It’s more complex than that.
    [Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.

    It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.

  38. #758
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,896
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    SEEs do this thing where they play on the difference in value between people's desires, kind of like a LIE does with real money, keeping the "energetic economy" running to their benefit, "brokering" keeping the difference for themselves. ILI is just an economic manipulator in this sense, a lot their reactions to emotion is a kind of victim/aggressor "game" then where they're both trying to get the upper hand on one another via this kind of self interested game of values. the problem is most people aren't in this headspace so ILI comes off as insane in kind of the same way SEE does too to "normal" people (they really don't give a fuck about maximizing positive emotion which is sort of considered a baseline ethical imperative for most people to some extent or at least in principle a sound idea). sort of a spaz and anti spaz that are both weirdly calibrated in relation to the rest of the world, but also pretty insightful and powerful at the same time

  39. #759

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    Who responds negatively to positive emotions, besides people with mental disorders?
    The question I guess is how exactly Peterson responds to them, the Fe DS way or some other way.

  40. #760
    Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,497
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    SEEs do this thing where they play on the difference in value between people's desires, kind of like a LIE does with real money, keeping the "energetic economy" running to their benefit, "brokering" keeping the difference for themselves. ILI is just an economic manipulator in this sense, a lot their reactions to emotion is a kind of victim/aggressor "game" then where they're both trying to get the upper hand on one another via this kind of self interested game of values. the problem is most people aren't in this headspace so ILI comes off as insane in kind of the same way SEE does too to "normal" people (they really don't give a fuck about maximizing positive emotion which is sort of considered a baseline ethical imperative for most people to some extent or at least in principle a sound idea). sort of a spaz and anti spaz that are both weirdly calibrated in relation to the rest of the world, but also pretty insightful and powerful at the same time
    Can you expand on this if you have a free moment? It sounds very interesting and i've never seen Fi creative in SEE described this way before. And how about IEE, is the same thing true?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •