View Poll Results: type of Jordan Peterson?

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

    4 5.00%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    2 2.50%
  • LII (INTj)

    19 23.75%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    5 6.25%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    18 22.50%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    7 8.75%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    1 1.25%
  • ILI (INTp)

    6 7.50%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    16 20.00%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    4 5.00%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    1 1.25%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    0 0%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    4 5.00%
  • EII (INFj)

    2 2.50%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 441 to 480 of 1140

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #441

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    i think a better way to think about it is: aristocratic notions are just what name we gave to certain social instincts, namely hierarchical ones. in other words, people didn't become aristocrats because they heard about the idea somewhere and adopted it. rather, they were by nature aristocratic and its that pattern of behavior that we ultimately labeled aristocratic, as well as all its attendant abstract justifications and instantiations in literature and philosophy and politics etc. ultimately this must be true because its not like people don't embody concepts until someone tells them the magic words, the magic words had to come from somewhere and they first were lived by an individual and only described, by an individual, later.
    No, because there is a such thing as unanticipated, unforeseen consequences of the emergent phenomena that arise from complex interactions of social behaviors. So what may start out as basic functions of the brain, or the basic "laws", may turn into something complex and unforeseen. It is possible that these ideas are the ideas of certain institutions, or certain groups, that were imposed on the individuals.

    So basically, how does one just "know" how to act in these ways from simplistic and basic functions, when these behaviors are rather complex and require complex understandings of social interactions and knowledge?

  2. #442
    nokomis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's just something off about the guy. He relies too heavily on his role and/or hidden agenda which appears forced and unnatural. It comes across weak.
    ​SLE - Ti

  3. #443
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think he was more in his zone of competence with his early lectures, all this politic stuff while interesting and despite his obvious efforts, are not really his forte. he seems to be imitating something, you're right. I wouldn't be surprised if you're seeing him from his weak side very clearly if SLE-LII is at work. for an LII he's looking powerful, but like you said there's something not quite right about it. at the same time I think its his right to try and he's doing a decent job, its more like a quibble from my point of view, but I definitely acknowledge that being there and see it too to some degree. I think he makes excellent points and is a real genius but I'm not sure if this phase of his life entails some maybe ego inflation. maybe we need this right now, but at the same time he's not a real Hamlet as far as I can tell

  4. #444
    nokomis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think he was more in his zone of competence with his early lectures, all this politic stuff while interesting and despite his obvious efforts, are not really his forte. he seems to be imitating something, you're right. I wouldn't be surprised if you're seeing him from his weak side very clearly if SLE-LII is at work. for an LII he's looking powerful, but like you said there's something not quite right about it. at the same time I think its his right to try and he's doing a decent job, its more like a quibble from my point of view, but I definitely acknowledge that being there and see it too to some degree. I think he makes excellent points and is a real genius but I'm not sure if this phase of his life entails some maybe ego inflation. maybe we need this right now, but at the same time he's not a real Hamlet as far as I can tell
    good point. I could see a supervisory relationship at play. Despite his obvious intelligence and far greater experience in speaking and debating than myself, I have no doubt in my mind I would dominate a conversation with him.

    Despite this I don't inherently dislike him. He has some decent points but is more boring and tryhard than anything and I don't see the immense fascination others have with him. There's far more engaging people discussing similar stuff that have much less of a following.
    ​SLE - Ti

  5. #445
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah that sounds like supervision, his strong points kind of drown in your own so it seems like he's relatively insubstantial. I think in the academic world he sort of kicked the door down in talking about this kind of stuff in a non straightforwardly literary or ideological way. In other words, I think he did a lot to legitimate humanitarian intuition within academia outside the humanities (this is why I think he attacks them for their shortcomings so much, because he sees the divide clearly, although in his own way works to bridge it). In some sense such intuitions were already at work, but they have always been on the periphery acting from behind the scenes in academic culture (which is what he drags out into the light). Its like he laid the groundwork for a theoretical head on analysis of a lot of those ideas, which had really been hitherto constrained to literary style analysis or idealogical debate within political science and sociology/womens studies, etc. This is actually a major weakness from the point of view of gamma which can do something similar but from the point of view of economics, so it tends to disregard a lot of that input. I think a lot of radicalism is in response to being ignored. For Jordan to bring in a legitimate scientific psychological (inasmuch as such a thing exists) ground to the discussion (i.e.: on Solzhenitsyn, Nietzsche, Jung, etc) by connecting it to the existing research, he actually has done something really tremendous. But I think beta's whole way of being takes a lot of that stuff to be self evident, but the point is a major divide has emerged between those who think like that and those who don't. Going back to the economics point, I think people don't fully realize what a substitute for spiritual well being on the level of public policy considerations it is... I think what Jordan stands for in some ways is a counter balance to that approach that was getting progressively more and more marginalized and therefore radicalized, for lack of scientific basis sufficient to stand up to the kind of results economics can measure and produce. I don't think the full force of this has even begun to be felt, but I think something like this is a major cultural moment, although it won't be fully realized for a long time. I think academia really needed someone like Jordan. I think people like Jonathan Haidt are also doing similar work which will be bolstered by his popularity and legitimating influence. The biggest benefit may be the interest generated in this area so the next generation will face less roadblocks to developing these ideas and what they come up with stands to be really exciting. I think for all that people will look back on Jordan as being a major figure. Probably not just a flash in the pan, but I worry if Jordan focuses too much on this book tour, i.e.: this new version of himself, and not on doing more research and continuing to develop new ideas, he might actually fade away, because its not his strong side and I think to fully realize social impact one needs to work from their strong side

  6. #446
    nokomis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yeah that sounds like supervision, his strong points kind of drown in your own so it seems like he's relatively insubstantial. I think in the academic world he sort of kicked the door down in talking about this kind of stuff in a non straightforwardly literary or ideological way. In other words, I think he did a lot to legitimate humanitarian intuition within academia outside the humanities (this is why I think he attacks them for their shortcomings so much, because he sees the divide clearly, although in his own way works to bridge it). In some sense such intuitions were already at work, but they have always been on the periphery acting from behind the scenes in academic culture (which is what he drags out into the light). Its like he laid the groundwork for a theoretical head on analysis of a lot of those ideas, which had really been hitherto constrained to literary style analysis or idealogical debate within political science and sociology/womens studies, etc. This is actually a major weakness from the point of view of gamma which can do something similar but from the point of view of economics, so it tends to disregard a lot of that input. I think a lot of radicalism is in response to being ignored. For Jordan to bring in a legitimate scientific psychological (inasmuch as such a thing exists) ground to the discussion (i.e.: on Solzhenitsyn, Nietzsche, Jung, etc) by connecting it to the existing research, he actually has done something really tremendous. But I think beta's whole way of being takes a lot of that stuff to be self evident, but the point is a major divide has emerged between those who think like that and those who don't. Going back to the economics point, I think people don't fully realize what a substitute for spiritual well being on the level of public policy considerations it is... I think what Jordan stands for in some ways is a counter balance to that approach that was getting progressively more and more marginalized and therefore radicalized, for lack of scientific basis sufficient to stand up to the kind of results economics can measure and produce. I don't think the full force of this has even begun to be felt, but I think something like this is a major cultural moment, although it won't be fully realized for a long time. I think academia really needed someone like Jordan. I think people like Jonathan Haidt are also doing similar work which will be bolstered by his popularity and legitimating influence. The biggest benefit may be the interest generated in this area so the next generation will face less roadblocks to developing these ideas and what they come up with stands to be really exciting. I think for all that people will look back on Jordan as being a major figure. Probably not just a flash in the pan, but I worry if Jordan focuses too much on this book tour, i.e.: this new version of himself, and not on doing more research and continuing to develop new ideas, he might actually fade away, because its not his strong side and I think to fully realize social impact one needs to work from their strong side
    Good shit
    ​SLE - Ti

  7. #447
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,891
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    Woah, never really heard of this dude or know much about him, but this showed up on my youtube feed and I was curious. He basically says something I would think, but not really want to say. Spooky.

    I think he's Ni creative. Maybe EIE because he's such a good orator. But I don't know. LIE could fit too I guess. Yeah, that's what I "think".
    good bye

  8. #448
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangeling View Post


    Woah, never really heard of this dude or know much about him, but this showed up on my youtube feed and I was curious. He basically says something I would think, but not really want to say. Spooky
    .

    I think he's Ni creative. Maybe EIE because he's such a good orator. But I don't know. LIE could fit too I guess. Yeah, that's what I "think".
    uh-oh, you got PETTERSONED.

    don't worry man it happens to everyone.

  9. #449

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    uh-oh, you got PETTERSONED.

    don't worry man it happens to everyone.
    Didn't happen to me.

  10. #450
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Didn't happen to me.
    Bravo you escaped. I think its because you are still to young and inexperienced in life to really understand his messages yet. I already viewed your thoughts about his personality and his style and mannerisms though, so its cool if you wanted to discuss those you don't need to. I was talking about his message more specifically in my post to strangeling.

  11. #451

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Bravo you escaped. I think its because you are still to young and inexperienced in life to really understand his messages yet. I already viewed your thoughts about his personality and his style and mannerisms though, so its cool if you wanted to discuss those you don't need to. I was talking about his message more specifically in my post to strangeling.
    Unfortunately I'm not young and have had way too much experience. I understand his ideas but I see nothing that's a big deal about it like that. Why not say it if you want to say it, anyway, why wait for him to say it.

  12. #452
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Unfortunately I'm not young and have had way too much experience. I understand his ideas but I see nothing that's a big deal about it like that. Why not say it if you want to say it, anyway, why wait for him to say it.
    I think I remember seeing you say young as in under 28. not minimizing the life path her, just framing this as in: how much have you personally experienced? Loss of love? Separation? Disillusionment? Regret yet? Disenfranchisement? Loss? Failure? Ruination and destruction? Apathy? The list of things a person needs to know, on and on before you can understand a message is required. Even the logical reasonings trying to find the root causes with religion and psychology..those are not just a simple rationalization process. Intellect can't just wrap up neatly everything and then toss it aside once it has some comprehension factors.

    It's just interesting to me that you say I can't see the big deal about the ideas themselves, as though the big deal is found in the vacuum of the ideas exsisting as they are. It's not about that, about the ideas for the ideas sake, which is why you probs are missing the entire point of the movement, why there even is a movement, and where the broad appeal is coming from.

    You probs would make this a socionics matter, saying he's probs just your kindred so his bouncy conclusions are just colour ful Ne blocked with Ti, so you brush them off as being to much disjointed for the sake of an argument.

    These are the factors that make me state you might not be *understanding* him, beyond some surface concpetualization.

    As far as waiting for him to say it..not everyone has the rigour and capacity to do so. That's like saying if you can youtube a video about how to fix your car's carburator why not just do it yourself, its like erm, okay, ya I probs could, in a perfect world, but why bother if I can just bring it to a mechanic?

  13. #453

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    I think I remember seeing you say young as in under 28. not minimizing the life path her, just framing this as in: how much have you personally experienced? Loss of love? Separation? Disillusionment? Regret yet? Disenfranchisement? Loss? Failure? Ruination and destruction? Apathy? The list of things a person needs to know, on and on before you can understand a message is required. Even the logical reasonings trying to find the root causes with religion and psychology..those are not just a simple rationalization process. Intellect can't just wrap up neatly everything and then toss it aside once it has some comprehension factors.

    It's just interesting to me that you say I can't see the big deal about the ideas themselves, as though the big deal is found in the vacuum of the ideas exsisting as they are. It's not about that, about the ideas for the ideas sake, which is why you probs are missing the entire point of the movement, why there even is a movement, and where the broad appeal is coming from.

    You probs would make this a socionics matter, saying he's probs just your kindred so his bouncy conclusions are just colour ful Ne blocked with Ti, so you brush them off as being to much disjointed for the sake of an argument.

    These are the factors that make me state you might not be *understanding* him, beyond some surface concpetualization.

    As far as waiting for him to say it..not everyone has the rigour and capacity to do so. That's like saying if you can youtube a video about how to fix your car's carburator why not just do it yourself, its like erm, okay, ya I probs could, in a perfect world, but why bother if I can just bring it to a mechanic?
    Look my life is not a typical life path. It's pointless to make assumptions about it based purely on age, that's too little info.

    What do you mean by disenfranchisement here?

    No, I had no such Socionics argument in mind about him lol. Nice of you trying to predict my answer but it's not as simple as that

    Where I said why not say it yourself, I meant it in the sense that the original comment was about how the person didn't *want to* say it. Why not. What kind of capacity is missing for that?

    Really I just don't get the hype is all I'm saying. I'm happy to hear from others about why there is such a hype about this stuff tho'

  14. #454
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Look my life is not a typical life path. It's pointless to make assumptions about it based purely on age, that's too little info.
    True, it can be to little, yet unless you have exp all those things I;ve mentioned and perhaps several others I can;t think up off the top of my head, then yes, you expo might be to limited, or your exposure in real life to people who have gone through these things and have shared such insights with you, might be to limited. It's just a little strange that you have felt no affect by listening to Petterson..? Is he so much intuitive in the wrong way for you to feel anything?

    What do you mean by disenfranchisement here?
    From family, job, society. ect.

    No, I had no such Socionics argument in mind about him lol. Nice of you trying to predict my answer but it's not as simple as that
    Was I to far off though myst? Be a little honest.

    Where I said why not say it yourself, I meant it in the sense that the original comment was about how the person didn't *want to* say it. Why not. What kind of capacity is missing for that?
    Okay. Well obv its socionics. hah.

    Really I just don't get the hype is all I'm saying. I'm happy to hear from others about why there is such a hype about this stuff tho'
    I don;t get it fully either, but getting it and noticing it don;t need to go hand in hand.

  15. #455

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    True, it can be to little, yet unless you have exp all those things I;ve mentioned and perhaps several others I can;t think up off the top of my head, then yes, you expo might be to limited, or your exposure in real life to people who have gone through these things and have shared such insights with you, might be to limited. It's just a little strange that you have felt no affect by listening to Petterson..? Is he so much intuitive in the wrong way for you to feel anything?
    I get what Peterson means in the videos I watched, I just either find it trivial or I have a different take in some of the things.

    Btw the negative feelings you listed, I have a simple opinion on all of it: don't let them overcome you. You overcome them. That simple.


    From family, job, society. ect.
    You mean isolation from society etc?


    Was I to far off though myst? Be a little honest.
    Very far off yes, I don't like to try and explain everything with Socionics when it'd be too ambiguous an explanation for it.


    Okay. Well obv its socionics. hah.
    Let's not make everything Socionics

  16. #456
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I get what Peterson means in the videos I watched, I just either find it trivial or I have a different take in some of the things.

    Btw the negative feelings you listed, I have a simple opinion on all of it: don't let them overcome you. You overcome them. That simple.




    You mean isolation from society etc?




    Very far off yes, I don't like to try and explain everything with Socionics when it'd be too ambiguous an explanation for it.




    Let's not make everything Socionics

  17. #457

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Sorry lol, for not making everything Socionics

  18. #458
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Sorry lol, for not making everything Socionics
    I don't really care about that and it wasn't the main drift of the original line of thought.

    PS you should be sorry, everything under the sun earth and moon is about socionics.

  19. #459

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    I don't really care about that and it wasn't the main drift of the original line of thought.

    PS you should be sorry, everything under the sun earth and moon is about socionics.
    OK then I don't know what you were reacting to with the shrug emoticon.

    PS: I wasn't genuinely sorry about that

  20. #460
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    OK then I don't know what you were reacting to with the shrug emoticon.
    Just not much more to say to what you said. You find it trivial and then it probably is, to you. I'm not here to convince so shrug. AS far as negative things go, not letting them overcome you is the way to go, still there is a complex thing in place that makes people stuck and its not so simple. Simple for you, maybe because of your make-up and up bringing so congrats on that without any sarcasm. Still this plays back into my original thought process about you not being able to fully appreciate/understand the challenges that people like Petterson are trying to help people overcome. I admire your simplicity though, it is invigorating to me.


    ( Lol btw at people thinking I'm literally like Jordan, him and I are nothing alike, hes a book worm dork and I like spending my time outside in the sun.)

    PS: I wasn't genuinely sorry about that
    No kidding, I had not figured that.

    So I shrugged. It's basically like I feel around people like yourself, trying to educate is a kinda long process that takes months and months of separate micro-conversations and scenarios to get onto the same page. Not that its negative to begin with, just the groundfloor isn't built.

  21. #461

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    Just not much more to say to what you said. You find it trivial and then it probably is, to you. I'm not here to convince so shrug. AS far as negative things go, not letting them overcome you is the way to go, still there is a complex thing in place that makes people stuck and its not so simple. Simple for you, maybe because of your make-up and up bringing so congrats on that without any sarcasm. Still this plays back into my original thought process about you not being able to fully appreciate/understand the challenges that people like Petterson are trying to help people overcome. I admire your simplicity though, it is invigorating to me.
    OK, I see what you mean


    ( Lol btw at people thinking I'm literally like Jordan, him and I are nothing alike, hes a book worm dork and I like spending my time outside in the sun.)
    Oh, no, I see no real similarity between you and him. Your reasoning style is very different.


    No kidding, I had not figured that.

    So I shrugged. It's basically like I feel around people like yourself, trying to educate is a kinda long process that takes months and months of separate micro-conversations and scenarios to get onto the same page. Not that its negative to begin with, just the groundfloor isn't built.
    Well, in return for the invigorating simplicity...?

    Anyway, no worries, thanks for the discussion.

  22. #462
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post




    Well, in return for the invigorating simplicity...?
    Sure, fair trade then

  23. #463
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,891
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    uh-oh, you got PETTERSONED.

    don't worry man it happens to everyone.
    yeah, he seems pretty intelligent. I've been watching some other videos and he's really good at extemporaneously explaining issues in great detail and with very vivid imagery. I'm kind of jealous how easy it seems for him to articulate big issues without getting his words mixed up. I have a harder time saying what I'm seeing/thinking and keeping my thoughts so collected. He's like a fuckin' Jedi master, lol.
    good bye

  24. #464
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He's completely misrepresented bill C-16. The Canadian Bar Association (an actual authority on legal matters, unlike Peterson) has come out with a strongly worded statement RE: why C-16 does NOT legislate compelled speech.

    https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/...n-on-Bill-C-16

    Quote Originally Posted by CBA
    Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation.
    Quote Originally Posted by CBA
    The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech prohibitions. Hate speech legislation is not aimed at discouraging repugnant or offensive ideas. It does not, for example, prohibit expression which debates the merits of reducing the rights of vulnerable groups in society. It only restricts the use of expression exposing them to hatred as a part of that debate. It does not target the ideas, but their mode of expression in public and the effect that this mode of expression may have.
    tl;dr version:

    - nobody is going to force you to use pronouns you don't approve of.

    - nobody cares if you publicly call into question the use of pronouns or the morality of being transgender. Those are ideas, and ideas aren't affected by the legislation.


    The only way to get charged under C-16 is to wilfully promote hatred with the likelihood of breaching the peace (e.g. promoting genocide and/or ethnic cleansing). Having a bigoted opinion doesn't necessarily make it hate speech. Hate speech in Canada is defined by the manner in which it is articulated, not the ideas it attempts to convey, and is reserved solely for expressions of the utmost opprobrium (CBA's choice of word).


    All C-16 does is give transgender people the exact same protections other minorities already have under the criminal code. Hate crimes against race are already legislated against in the same way-- they have been for decades-- and no one goes to jail just for using racial slurs or refusing to use politically correct designations. Moreover, laws very similar to C-16 already exist on the provincial level, including Peterson's home province, and he hasn't been shipped off to the Feminist Gulag yet.


    But hyperbole sells books, I guess.
    Last edited by xerxe; 05-25-2018 at 05:27 AM. Reason: slight wording tweak.

  25. #465
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,891
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh, I just looked up his thoughts on gender.

    He seems to think gender is a social contract, more akin to a performance that people agree on. He focuses on gender expression and temperament to explain gender differences. And thinks you can have feminine men and masculine women and that gender is created and molded on a social level. So he uses that reasoning to imply gender dysphoria and gender identity don't really exist. It just sounds like another person that doesn't understand the severe dysphoria trans people feel. And yeah, that sounds very "Fe".

    And I honestly don't get it. Why do people like him feel so offended by other people wanting to live authentically? I mean, they will go through each and every way to reason against gender dysphoria being a real thing. I mean wow; it's so bizarre. I guess that's how homosexuals must have felt in like the 60s or something.
    good bye

  26. #466

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangeling View Post
    Oh, I just looked up his thoughts on gender.

    He seems to think gender is a social contract, more akin to a performance that people agree on. He focuses on gender expression and temperament to explain gender differences. And thinks you can have feminine men and masculine women and that gender is created and molded on a social level. So he uses that reasoning to imply gender dysphoria and gender identity don't really exist. It just sounds like another person that doesn't understand the severe dysphoria trans people feel. And yeah, that sounds very "Fe".

    And I honestly don't get it. Why do people like him feel so offended by other people wanting to live authentically? I mean, they will go through each and every way to reason against gender dysphoria being a real thing. I mean wow; it's so bizarre. I guess that's how homosexuals must have felt in like the 60s or something.
    I don't know what exactly gender dysphoria feels like... but I'm also not seeing why gender being a social construct (a social construct does exist for it beyond the biology) would preclude gender dysphoria from existing.

    I do think gender identity exists with several components to it. The abstract feeling (emotionally, sortof... Fe?) of being one gender isn't the same as the sensation of one's own body (including its sex), let alone the same as the body image one has of one's own body (including its sex). I can imagine how that can create distress if there is mismatch between any of those components. I can imagine it being upsetting, not feeling good in one's own body. Maybe this isn't what gender dysphoria is about though, I don't know about its exact mechanisms.

    Now if the dysphoria is simply about feeling like one isn't treated "well" according to their real gender identity that has no physical proof, I will be just as non-understanding of it as Peterson lol sorry I just do find it stupid. If one does care to the point of getting their body changed, okay, then fine, they'll be easily treated accordingly to the new physical appearance, but if they don't bother doing that, then shut up and don't cry. It just seems like roleplaying to me at that point. Can't expect others to accommodate that if the person isn't bothered to do anything themselves to change their appearance accordingly. Feel free to correct me on any of the concepts though, like I said, I have not read up enough on the topic.
    Last edited by Myst; 05-02-2018 at 10:52 AM.

  27. #467
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,891
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I don't know what exactly gender dysphoria feels like... but I'm also not seeing why gender being a social construct (which it is) would preclude gender dysphoria from existing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1bgcK1UK38&t=1s

    "the idea that gender identity is independent of biological sex is insane" - Jordan Peterson
    And he talks about gender being a social construct of roles and little more than a "performance".

    So I don't know. But that's what he thinks.


    I do think gender identity exists with several components to it. The abstract feeling (emotionally, sortof... Fe?) of being one gender isn't the same as the sensation of one's own body (including its sex), let alone the same as the body image one has of one's own body (including its sex). I can imagine how that can create distress if there is mismatch between any of those components. Maybe this isn't what gender dysphoria is about though, I don't know about its exact mechanisms.
    Yes, "mismatch" - emotionally, physically, and sexually. It doesn't ever go away, until transition. Actually I wouldn't even say it's even about identity really. That's a misleading term because anyone can "identify" as anything, but it's much more about wanting to be "authentic".

    Now if the dysphoria is simply about feeling like one isn't treated "well" according to their real gender identity that has no physical proof, I will be just as non-understanding of it as Peterson lol sorry I just do find it stupid. If one does care to the point of getting their body changed, okay, then fine, they'll be easily treated accordingly to the new physical appearance, but if they don't bother doing that, then shut up and don't cry. It just seems like roleplaying to me at that point. Can't expect others to accommodate that if the person isn't bothered to do anything themselves to change their appearance accordingly. Feel free to correct me on any of the concepts though, like I said, I have not read up enough on the topic.
    Maybe he mixes up identity with being trans.
    good bye

  28. #468

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strangeling View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1bgcK1UK38&t=1s

    "the idea that gender identity is independent of biological sex is insane" - Jordan Peterson
    And he talks about gender being a social construct of roles and little more than a "performance".

    So I don't know. But that's what he thinks.
    Lol why is it insane. (Rhetorical question. If I have time I'll watch the video later.) I can see them being fully independent just fine... that is, at least certain components of gender identity can be fully independent which is the same result. To me actually the insane idea is to assume that they must always go together since it's not the exact same brain areas that account for each.


    Yes, "mismatch" - emotionally, physically, and sexually. It doesn't ever go away, until transition. Actually I wouldn't even say it's even about identity really. That's a misleading term because anyone can "identify" as anything, but it's much more about wanting to be "authentic".
    OK so I imagined that right. I can imagine it being very bad, actually. Even without "authenticity" issues


    Maybe he mixes up identity with being trans.

  29. #469
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He has good and bad ideas. Not everything he says is gospel and some I categorically disagree with. But Im not American so Im not brainwashed into thinking like a polarized zombie.

  30. #470
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,030
    Mentioned
    257 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timber View Post
    He has good and bad ideas. Not everything he says is gospel and some I categorically disagree with. But Im not American so Im not brainwashed into thinking like a polarized zombie.
    Yeah, it's totally not polarized to believe all Americans think like that.

  31. #471
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Peterson likes to emphasise his own victimhood in a dramatic (some might say melodramatic) fashion.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ-M5MgqVOo

    Quote Originally Posted by Peterson
    I think the Ontario human rights tribunal is obligated to bring me in front of it. If they fine me, I won't pay it. If they put me in jail, I'll go on a hunger strike.

    It's not the straightforward victim-ness of SJWs, but it is very much the martyr-complex of a lone man standing up against a powerful & terrible adversary-- the old David vs. Goliath trope. I like the guy's input on Jungian psychology, but I do wish he took the time to be less hyperbolic & more factual when representing the views he doesn't like.

  32. #472
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    818
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Yeah, it's totally not polarized to believe all Americans think like that.
    Simmer down. Lol. Its not what you think its how and that wouldn’t be a stretch to say at all, even if its not universally true all the time everywhere.

    Ps its a joke ermmmm

  33. #473
    bye now
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1,891
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    You sound Mystified.
    good bye

  34. #474
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm very ambivalent about Jordan Peterson.

    On the one hand, he's correct that liberal parties have abandoned the traditional working class across the developed world. His psychological insights are also certainly worthwhile and interesting.

    On the other hand, while dishing out extreme vitriol against the left's identity politics, he'll often pass over the identity politics of the right. I don't think he's a racist or anything, and he'll pay lip service to problems with the right-wing, but the vitriol of his rhetoric is reserved for the left and is clearly supportive of conservative (centre-right) political parties while he attempts to give the impression of a neutral arbiter.

    On a segment with Bill Maher, he suggested that the left should try to give more respect to Trump voters instead of constantly slandering them as idiots. I actually agree with that, seeing that many probably voted for Trump out of economic desperation and don't appear to be racist. But then again, why isn't he advocating equal respect for SJWs and the so-called "postmodernists"-- why does respect only run in one direction?

  35. #475
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    in peterson's eyes the post modernists are special because their approach is fundamentally different than the trump supporters. trump supporters may be dumb but they're not advancing a radical epistemological ideology, their position is more one of ignorance. peterson would say post modernists aren't the same as trump supporters just on the other side of the political divide, he would say they occupy a special position of ideological possession that rises above the merely political left/right but functions as a threat to discourse itself, which is necessary for the left/right to work out their differences. in other words left/right is dichotomy that can be dialectically mediated but the post modern position is not "left" within that dichotomy but rather a new dimension that threatens to subsume the left/right dichotomy in a flood of nihilistic totalitarianism.. in other words, it is a mistake to consider post-modernism left, rather what post modernism stands for is a threat to that which the left and right work out solutions to their problems, which is rational discourse, which post-modernism would explode (in peterson's eyes) in favor of pure power dynamics

  36. #476
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If grownup Trump supporters can be ignorant, then college-aged SJWs can be ignorant.

    Moreover, the idea that the left is somehow unique in monopolising discourse is ridiculous. If leftist faculties act in a reactionary manner towards right-wing ideas, what are we to make of right-wing faculties that don't have the time for left-wing ideas. Should economics departments give equal time to Marxist economics now? And what about business schools, which are some of the largest faculties and arguably even more influential on society.

    I'm not saying that SJWs are right, but why does the left always have to be the one to bend over.

  37. #477
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    if you think peterson is attacking college aged SJWs when he criticizes post modernism you've got him wrong. he thinks of college students as at best the marionettes of the intellectuals who run the universities. you could say its out of concern for those kids hes going after the post modernists; think of them as unfortunate collateral damage like civilians caught up in the matrix, when they conflict with peterson

  38. #478

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,518
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Peterson attacks the post-modernists, because he's stuck in the past and a little late. Post-modernism is an intellectual movement that arose in the 60's and 70's, and culminated in the 80's and 90's which ended up with the "Science Wars", which I think pretty much settled that post-modernism is a sham and has no substance.

    I guess it's only timely with the rise of Trump and things like "fake news", but that could also be because Trump is also a guy who's stuck in the 80's and 90's.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Should economics departments give equal time to Marxist economics now? And what about business schools, which are some of the largest faculties and arguably even more influential on society.
    Teach the Controversy.

  39. #479
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,030
    Mentioned
    257 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Observations by various people in the thread, things that I think say something, have some truth in them:


    Quote Originally Posted by April
    His lectures focus a large deal on archetypal ideas or symbols (e.g., feminine and masculine) that are prevalent throughout history, literature, politics, religion, and art, and his understanding of these archetypes serve as the framework for his course material. The forms are incredibly well-embodied to him: "People don't have ideas. Ideas have people."

    . . .

    Moreover, the conclusions he draws are often cynical or dark, focused on nihilism, genocidal ideologies, totalitarianism, or the idea that "there's a monster in everyone" or "if you're not a monster, it's pretty hard to stay alive."
    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha
    I'm developing sort of a fascination with this guy and I haven't had time to watch any of his lectures for more than five minutes, so I'm scrolling through quotes.

    I think that people come to the conclusion that life is meaningless because thatís a better conclusion to come to than the reverse. Because if life is meaningless, well then, who cares what you do. But if life is meaningful, if what you do really matters, everything you do matters. And that puts a terrible responsibility on people. And I think that people are generally unwilling to bear that.

    The central reason society has to protect free discourse is because it is the fundamental problem-solving mechanism. A by-product [of free discourse] is the necessity to allow people to say offensive things, stupid things, foolish things. Partly because theyíre malevolent at times, but also because itís very frequently the case that when you initially attempt to formulate an argument, you do a very bad job of it. [This is because] you havenít formulated the argument yet. You have to be allowed to stumble around like a moron, because itís the only way youíre going to trip over the truth.

    If youíre harmless youíre not virtuous, youíre just harmless, youíre like a rabbit; a rabbit isnít virtuous, it just canít do anything except get eaten! Thatís not virtuous. If youíre a monster, and you donít act monstrously, then youíre virtuous.

    It is said, it is more difficult to rule oneself, than a city Ė and this is no metaphor. This is truth, as literal as it can be made. It is precisely for this reason that we are always trying to rule the city. It is a perversion of pride to cease praying in public, and to clean up the dust under our feet, instead; seems too mundane to treat those we actually face with respect and dignity, when we could be active, against, in the street. Maybe it is more important to strengthen our characters, than to repair the world. So much of that reparation seems selfish, anyway; is selfishness and intellectual pride masquerading as love, creating a world polluted with good works, that donít work.

    A real relationship is a wrestling match - itís a grappling - itís a grappling phenomena that you both emerge transformed from, and thatís what people want.

    Nietzsche was certainly very useful to me, and I know that he was extraordinarily useful to Carl Jung, who was a real student of Nietzsche and was really devoting himself to solving the problem that Nietzsche posed, which is, ĎWhat do we do in the aftermath of the death of God?í And Jungís answer was, ĎWe rescue our father from the depths.í And thatís the right answer. Thatís what the university should be doing with young people. Itís like, your dead father is in the library, go out there and ferret him out and unite with him and become the thing that keeps chaos at bay.

    The truth is something that burns. It burns off deadwood, and people donít like having their deadwood burnt off; often because theyíre like 95% deadwood. Believe me, Iím not being snide about that. Itís no joke. When you start to realize how much of what youíve constructed of yourself is based on deception and lies, that is a horrifying realization, and it can easily be 95% of you.
    Quote Originally Posted by ouronis
    ust wanted to post some more impressions...

    His professed hate for postmodernism seems to ironically be quite clearly the rejection of the same shadow he advocates others to know. His views are practically all postmodern except for in name.

    He works like a dog. He advocates basically that people live up to the self-actualization that lives up to their core (big 5) personality traits. Someone like him that's conscientious should work work work and that'll make them happy. Someone who's egocentric should delight in fighting. Someone who's extraverted can't live in an introvert's world, etc.

    While working like a dog, he almost (not quite) presents himself as the soft sciences' Elon Musk. He wants to singlehandedly change education and the way people think about myths. He wants to elevate rationality (in the form of studies) to a highest good. He is leading a witchhunt against accused postmodernists to erase their wishy-washiness from the discourse.
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    He seems genuinely upset at being misunderstood and mischaracterized. Misunderstanding and mischaracterizing is the kind of a thing that people typing someone else tend to do. The majority don't double check their typings, don't try to prove it wrong, don't expand their understanding of the person, and often only use minimal information for typing them. They also rarely, if ever, check with the person they are typing to see how well that person identifies with the typing, and what the typer could have done for better accuracy. Basically, the only feedback usually sought is how much group consensus there might be, regardless of the actual accuracy of the group's members.

    It's also possible that I completely misread his body language and some of his voice tones.
    But even then, his letters showed a persistence in something...maybe making a point, maybe clearing up the mischaracterization, maybe genuine astonishment that he could ever have been considered as part of the alt-right, or other possibilities.

    . . .
    One thing I've noticed about him is that there's a clear differences between when he's reading from his papers vs when he's in a more natural element. He's quite animated when he's in a more relaxed setting, but then, most people are.

    . . .
    The jumping between A to E thing is a sign of an Xe base type. Xe isn't social extroversion, it's object oriented. It's easier to think of it as nodes vs connections between nodes. An Xe type's thoughts jump around between the nodes, while an Xi's thoughts attend more to how those nodes are connected.

    The video I just posted also shows, however, that he does have an awareness of his audience and ways of making them laugh and feel comfortable in these types of classes he provides. And that that comes easily enough to him that he stutters and pauses less often while grouping his thoughts.
    . . .
    Firstly, many people have some weird interpretations of what socionics' Fe means. I've also noticed that when it comes to typing or interacting with high intelligence F types, that the high intelligence can often seem to mask the F, and people interpret the info as coming from T. This man is highly intelligent. He's also highly conscientious (of the hardworking, dedicated sort rather than the orderly sort) and an e1 to boot. That tells us that he was driven to get his understandings of what he's talking about near perfect (as he could at the time). We're not seeing him as he's learning the axioms, nor as he's synthesizing his axioms. We're seeing him after years of discussing, describing, and using his lens and refining his presentations of them. We don't know which information elements were utilized during all that, and which, if any, difficulties he had during the process. That kind of info would give us a far clearer demonstration of his ego elements than his presentations could.

    HP cogstyle is the easiest for me to recognize, probably because it's my style as well. It makes it easier for me to follow along what a person's saying, or at least feel more assured that the jumps between lenses will eventually more fully describe the idea/phenomena that they are describing.

    And on that last note, something else came to mind. Static types focus on the "What" pathway. What something is, what are it's attributes, etc. Dynamic types focus on "Where/How" pathway. The direction something's going in, how to best utilize the levers for changing the system, etc. In every single video I've seen of this guy, his focus is like, 75%, or more, on the where/how pathway and definitely not on the what pathway.

    So again, another thing that drops LII lower on the possibility scale, imo.


    I think my own posts show a clear HP cogstyle. I use a variety of lenses to observe this guy, and from the observations and interpretations through each of these lenses I create a clearer understanding of the guy (assuming my lenses, observations, and interpretations are somewhat accurate, and that he's not wearing masks). Through some lenses I can see LII, LSI, EIE, ILI, and LIE as maybe describing what I've seen of him. But when the hologram is put together, the type that seems to fit the most, imo, is EIE, followed by ILI.

    Can I give you a CD cogstyle answer/reasoning? No. And I don't feel a need to, though I can understand that CD types might feel inclined to dismiss the HP approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by Milo
    This quote in particular reads a lot like Ti (coherence, consistency, sense of structure) and introversion:

    J.Peterson.
    "I always feel when I talk whether or not the words I'm saying are either making me aligned or making me come apart. I really do think alignment - I think alignment is the right way of coceptualizing it, if you say things as true as you can say them - then they come up, they come out of the depths inside of you."
    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
    If I go by cognition style it is dialectical-algorithmic. Strong . ILI vs EIE...
    I think he makeshift some errors regarding source material.
    For example
    https://youtu.be/hDmPZj6ym9U
    If you search material when it comes to this then you will notice lack of cross referencing regarding certain kinds of information (as it is now reduced to trash bin diagnosis where there is a lot wiggle room ie opposite cases. For example too abstract and unable to be abstract).
    Quote Originally Posted by silke
    SX-1 is a very fitting enneagram approximation for this guy. He exemplifies Naranjo's description of SX-1s as having "zeal". There is just so much zeal infusing everything Peterson has to say, or as Naranjo puts it: "The intensity of the desire itself makes rationalization almost imperative."

    In Jordan Peterson's own words, he has fully rejected the social realm at a very early age in favor of individual and personal approach, much like C. G. Jung whose works he commonly references, and who is also typed as SX/SP in the enneagram communities.

    Jordan Peterson: "You know Iíve thought for a long time about a political career, really forever, since I was like twelve, really for a long time. And Iíve always decided against it because it seemed to me that the proper level of analysis, with regards to the solution of the problem that weíre facing, isnít political. And thatís why I think itís a mistake when what Iím doing gets politicized, even by me or other. I think that the way that you deal with this is to put yourself together, I really believe that, because I think that individual people are far more powerful, theyíre certainly far more evil than their willing to consider. Thatís also a sign of their unbelievable power. So, I think what you do is, aim high and put yourself together and stay the hell away from the ideologues. Because theyíre hiding behind a wall and not able to come out and fight on their own behalf. And so, the way forward through the ideological mess, and thatís the lesson of Western culture, is place the individual at the place of paramount importance and to make the group identity emergent only when necessary, and secondarily if ever."
    Quote Originally Posted by wacey
    Hmm see I get a opposite impression. His voice is so squeezed so that tells me his nerves are closing his voicebox frequently, which says he is nervous - maybe even out of touch with the physical manifestations of his nerves. He makes no attempt to correct his voice by relaxing, as though he in unaware of how it feels.

    His physical body looks slightly emaciated. Not to say that you cant look this way as a thin, older gentleman, still impression wise he seems out of touch with his body, or at the very least unconcerned with it to be in ego block. Does he bother feeding himself? Sorry im not being insulting when I say that.

    His eyes look very tired most of the time, which is fine dont we all look a bit bagged from life. Still, some sensing disconnect there. He has pale skin, and doesnt appear to me to be a man who bothers worry about sensing concerns himself - although I am speculating.

    Overall I see a man who is constantly in his head thinking about life, appearing to lack that kind of physical rootedness I associate with sensing in ego.

    That he gesticulates is not a factor in this equation. That could simply be he is a hand talker. I'm a little bit dismayed that alpha NTs are not given due credit for how fervent and passionately they can discuss ideas on any number of topics. They are extremely idealistic and diplomatic, far more than gammas who focus on personal convictions (Fi) as juxtaposed to universal diplomatics ( for lack of a better term) in alpha, which is the inclusiveness of Fe with system thinking.

    For instance, "why should some people need billions of dollars if they cannot possibly spend that entire amount in a single lifetime" -ESE

    Further, is anyone aware of who Robespierre was? LIIs namesake? One of the leaders of the french "Reign of Terror", whose ideas was responsible for the motivation to behead thousands of people.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrossRoads
    I think he resonates with a lot of people because the subjects he brings to light are universal in the sense that they touch upon terrifying existential aspects of the human condition that manifest in everyone's life in some form or other. This is why modern counselling and psychotherapy incorporate central ideas taken from the humanist and existential psychotherapy schools (i.e. finding meaning in a "meaningless world", confronting existential anxiety, living congruently and strengthening the internal locus of control). For this reason, I don't see why his ideas would be more or less relevant to certain types/quadras.

    Now, with regard typing him....I have no clue where to start! Although, I am very interested in this question. My husband, whose type I have not confidently determined (other than he is most certainly some kind of logical intuitive type), finds his lectures and talks to be overly emotional, and I think this puts him off somewhat. The subject interests him, but there is something in the delivery that sits uncomfortably with him. Whether this is related to Sociotype or not is not clear, but it's something I was thinking about recently.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph
    I've been watching his lectures for over a year and all I see is IEI. He has Beta values with very strong Ni and fairly good Ti. I'm currently reading his book and it's the most Beta thing I've ever read. The focus is symbolism, hierarchy, social order and human nature. He is really big on hierarchy being a good thing and he wrote an entire chapter about it. He has a dark, pessimistic view that "life is suffering", far from the rosy, carefree Alpha life outlook. He says in his book and many videos that according to him living a meaningful life is far better than trying to live a happy life.

    . . .
    In his quote I don't think he meant be passive. I think he meant speak truth to power and accept the consequences honorably.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph
    But volitional strength is about having strength of character not just physical strength. Being strong enough to withstand the blows of life is how he describes strength in his book. Sounds pretty Se to me.
    I think Se and Beta values in general are misunderstood and viewed so negatively to the point that people have a hard time seeing a good person or whatever as a Beta. Beta doesnít always mean tyrannical fascist. (Not saying you said that though.)
    Also, harmlessness = virtuousness is something that Deltas tend to believe. I always felt like he was talking directly to the Delta rationals with that quote.

    I donít think that simply being concerned with humanityís capacity for evil/ destruction is inherently a gamma thing. It depends what exactly a personís views are on that topic. JP believes that we all have the capacity for evil within us. This is different than Fi which makes a clear distinction between ďgood peopleĒ and ďbad peopleĒ and seeks to condemn and punish the ďbad peopleĒ. He is concerned with a universal human nature which in my experience gammaís donít really believe in. They see each person as an individual with their own individual nature. When JP talks about moral behaviour itís always qualified by itís external validity ie. how it affects society/ humanity, not how he feels about it as an individual. This is how Fe types conceptualise morality. When he talks about speaking the truth (logic) itís always in terms of itís internal validity ie. what aligns with your soul, something that comes from within. This seems clearly to be objective ethics and subjective logic.

    He is going over history and mapping the patterns throughout time into archetypal overarching concepts. If thatís not Ni I donít know what is. Neither psychology nor religion requires doing that. What heís doing is actually quite atypical for traditional psychology and is something closer to philosophy.

    When Ni perceives the physical world they donít see the objective sensory aspects, they see things as physical representations of a static concept. (Ne sees the dynamic associations and possibilities for what things could be.) If the person also values Ti they will be attuned to metaphor/ analogy because Ti notes logical consistency between things and makes analogies. How seemingly unrelated things work the same way and follow the same underlying logic. This is how symbols and metaphors work. Hence why IEIs (as well as EIE and to some extent LSI) pay attention to symbolism.

    Feeling disgusted by mass murderers and psychopaths is a common reaction and not indicative of Fi. Simply having ethical standards in general is not Fi. What matters is whether those standards are internally or externally derived. The Fe types usually dislike antisocial behaviour (lack of empathy, disregard for others, especially those within the same group as you).
    Anyways whenever he mentions these people itís so that he can analyze them and understand why they did what they did (Ni/Ti), not to condemn or judge them in a moral way (Fi).
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    kip to around 3:00, it's entirely about Se (the concept of play fighting).
    It would contradict the idea that he is unaware of real-world political relations, he spends quite a bit of time dissecting them.


    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha[/quote
    would an si valuer talk about this in a different way, or would they avoid this altogether?
    An Se Vulnerable type would probably not be comfortable talking about an Se topic directly for so long.
    But most Si valuers would tend to find the kind of information he is presenting to be a somewhat distasteful subject, at least not one they would bring up themselves.


    This: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1251624
    "You don't know what you want" and "accept the outcome" doesn't imply passivity at all to me (in fact it sounds rather forceful). I'd like to see the quote in context.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraph
    ďLife without depth is by definition shallow and meaninglessĒ.
    I donít 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.

    ďLife is not that simple, life is complex and tragic and difficultĒ <ó 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 donít 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

    . . .
    The possibilities themselves donít always have to be positive but there does need to be open possibilities. An ILE who doesnít create open discussions with room for various possibilities or who doesn't want to explore different ideas at all isnít an ILE.

    In this video Peterson makes closed off, single line of thinking statements. Itís like heís saying this is how it is and this is the only way it is. He doesnít leave room for discussion or any other options. It's very Ne ignoring.

    . . .
    @ 3:00: "Your pointing your eyes at it, your pointing your whole damn soul at it. Your aiming at something and you're trying to get your behaviours and perceptions in line and organized so that you can attain that aim. That's what people do: we throw rocks at things, we fire arrows at things, we shoot guns at things. We AIM at things. Our whole body is that platform for for aiming." <-- doesn't get anymore Ni/Se than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by 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).
    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    And this very much does support Ni/Fe ego.
    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gjjbftufufufjj
    edit: logic trumps facts for him, I suspect. Notice his ďgotchaĒ moment with Cathy Newman. A statement is laid out where the logic is very hard to refute. It is put forth in a ďfuck your feelingsĒ manner, though his intent doesnít 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. Itís 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Viktor
    although he has a very crirical mind, I think he is more focused on having an emotional impact on people, rather than just making logical statements. Because he is very logical, he has an image of being a spokesperson of reason and truth, but often he makes statements that are more dramatic than true, which isn't necessarily bad, he has a positive effect on people, but sometimes he sacrifices simplicity for the sake of making a point or to make an impact on people.

    . . .
    I'm rambling, but hopefully you get the point, he's dramatic, talks about the world as if it's a magical heroes journey etc etc, it's -Fe, ladies and gentlemen.

    . . .
    Another interesting point is that EIE has -Ni, which is to be oriented go the past. And what does he keep talkibg about? He keeps talking about western culture, and how we need to stay in touch with it, and that we need to "rescue our father from the whale" or something.

    . . .
    Also, he's Ti seeking, he wants to bring order back to the world, but jordan is not the order, jordan is a poetic mess that rambles about frogs and lobsters for hours

    . . .
    Ti+ is about keeping the existing system instead of making new ones, and that's jordan, he has his lectures on the psychological significance of the bible so he can bribg fresh air ibto christianity, he's trying to make it meaningful again. And sometimes it feels like he's really stretching to justify christianity, imo he twists the bible to make it more digestible for young people, he gives meaning to things that may or may not have been originally intended, but he defends the existing system nontheless, it's Ti+ seeking


    Overall, it's pretty clear that Te is nowhere to be found, but that doesn't mean that he won't appeal to many people in Te quadras as well, as some people pointed out that he speaks of things that are often universally relatable. The Ni/Se discussion was interesting, especially in that the assumption that alphas would support his perspective was shown to be false by alphas who did not at all agree with his perspective, and who thought it was Ni/Se as well, rather than Ne/Si in any way. And no good demonstration of any kind of Ne/Si was shown, even though he "comes across" like an LII in many ways. I do wonder whether sometimes an se vs si comparison is actually an sx vs sp comparison. . . but Ni was shown repeatedly, and no Ne, so I think that probably settles it in this case. I think those making the case for beta NF actually had the best points with the most realistic picture of him overall.

  40. #480
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,609
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    great work@squark, thanks for the sum up

    I agree with the tons of Ni which I think are the most obvious things popping out just everywhere from his works, probably true that his focus is definitely more the one of a F over T, after all he works in the fields of psychology... hmm

    I grew up a sort of gut disgust for this guy, I mean he talks too much and I can't follow most of his reasonings, as if they're going in circles just to make himself talk and talk, and I don't understand the need to make himself such an authority of everything, as if he knows better than anyone how people gotta live, what's right what's wrong and whatever...

    ashlesha's quotes are seriously the stereotyped features of socionics' beta quadra.

Posting Permissions

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