ILE (ENTp)
SEI (ISFp)
ESE (ESFj)
LII (INTj)
SLE (ESTp)
IEI (INFp)
EIE (ENFj)
LSI (ISTj)
SEE (ESFp)
ILI (INTp)
LIE (ENTj)
ESI (ISFj)
IEE (ENFp)
SLI (ISTp)
LSE (ESTj)
EII (INFj)
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.)
No kidding, I had not figured that.PS: I wasn't genuinely sorry about 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.
OK, I see what you mean
Oh, no, I see no real similarity between you and him. Your reasoning style is very different.( 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.)
Well, in return for the invigorating simplicity...?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.
Anyway, no worries, thanks for the discussion.
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
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
Originally Posted by CBAtl;dr version:Originally Posted by CBA
- 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 xerx; 05-25-2018 at 04:27 AM. Reason: slight wording tweak.
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
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 09:52 AM.
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.
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".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.
Maybe he mixes up identity with being trans.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.
good bye
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.
OK so I imagined that right. I can imagine it being very bad, actually. Even without "authenticity" issuesYes, "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".
Maybe he mixes up identity with being trans.
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.
Peterson likes to emphasise his own victimhood in a dramatic (some might say melodramatic) fashion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ-M5MgqVOo
Originally Posted by Peterson
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
Teach the Controversy.
Observations by various people in the thread, things that I think say something, have some truth in them:
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.
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.
EIE's are known rebels.
Puffing up himself.
Makes me actually think that all this counter stuff is something that enables EIE's to transform themselves when something get them going. I'm actually starting to think that Nietzsche among many other stormers are just EIE's with serious need to prove themselves.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
He has Ni but he also has Ne... and it gets to hurt my head nicely when it goes too Ne. Just my own mental experience, sure, but clearly things don't 100% line up.
Actually lots of Logical people are in the field of psychology, especially in the research field like Peterson is. A lot of LIIs and other Logical types do research but they can even try and do therapy etc. I worked with an LII and an ILE consultant for my thesis in cognitive psychology, I worked with an LSI girl too a bit who already wrote hers in the same topic before, and I myself am a Logical type.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
That's actually an LII thing, what you describe: they analyze a lot like that and their Ne creative tries to see what's a good improvement for the external wholeness (Ne), how people should live satisfying such ideas, and their Ti tries to control the chaos with seeing what's right and wrong. It's also the E1 along with it but cognitively it's an LII thing.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...
He has this Ne creative as described by Golihov: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Dmitry-Golihov
The meaninglessness thing made no sense to me personally. I've heard depressed people say it before tho'. Ne also deals with meaning btw, not just Ni.ashlesha's quotes are seriously the stereotyped features of socionics' beta quadra.
Obsession with free discourse is an Alpha thing, not Beta, see quadral complexes and also the difference between Ne and Se besides the Ti ego view.
Freedom to formulate arguments and whatnot: LxI and more Alpha than Beta, see quadral complexes again.
The idea on virtues was some Intuitive thing. I've seen all kinds of Intuitive types bring it up before.
The next quote is on self-control instead of controlling things in the world: LIIs are the most obsessed with that topic.
The idea on relationships being a wrestling match for transformation is an Intuitive pov. It brings up the Ni theme of transformation, but to me personally it was giving nothing. The Se theme of the wrestling match is as much Se valuing as @thehotelambush 's nick (an ambush i.e. attacking something: Se!! right?!?!). He's self-typing LII and he's pretty much LII.
The nonsense of the dead father in the library just hurt my head. It's Ne to me. Could also be some Ni in there too but it to me was not leading anywhere like Ni does, I don't see the same consistent internal thread in the reasoning. The reference to chaos is a Ti-lead thing and especially LII here because it's in an Intuitive context.
The deadwood thing just made no sense so much that I don't care to think about it further. I've seen more than one Intuitive type say this sort of thing though and even non-intuitive types like it sometimes. I personally don't, it's too biased towards negativity. I see zero constructive approach in it. Same as the first quote that I've heard from depressed people.
OK, that was all of ashlesha's Peterson quotes.
I hadn't personally noticed any Ne use in particular, and didn't see anyone else pointing it out either, but yes, I do agree that what you're saying is an accurate representation of him. Iow, Ni/Se rather than Ne/Si values.
As a side note: I know that's Model G's approach, but I think it's kind of weird to look at the demonstrative as the strongest, because you don't actually care about it, so when contrasted with someone who does care about it the usage is very different. It's like a background noise that you don't give much thought to, while they're very tuned-in to it, singing along. It's a little easier to see imo what people consciously focus on.
Come on! Obviously ESI, even his mimics and facial expressions shout ESI
It's timely because postmodernist ideas are currently leaking into the mainstream political and cultural environment out of academia (to the point where people actually believe the lie that racism means only institutional racism, for example). Even though it is a sham it is currently being aggressively marketed to the public.
dude you totally misssed an opportunity to sell a million copy best seller if you had just written down those thoughts at age 12, is this the amazing commercial productivity of LIEs I've heard so much about
I personally appreciate bluntness. And it's interesting because it suggests that maybe there isn't a "universal appeal" after all. For me, I find his psychology talks informative and educational, but don't get much out of the other stuff. Those however can be interesting in that I will hear things that I have previously said repeated in his words. It's kind of weird, but I don't exactly want to listen to things I already know. I do learn things from the actual psychology lectures however.
Peterson's entire point is not that "clean your room" is a new idea, its that its such an old idea that people have lost sight of why its a good idea. If you take it to be a good idea because you never questioned it in the first place, you're just living in a prior psychological epoch that hasn't even begun to experience the problems he's talking about. To flip that around and say he's the dinosaur is kind of amusing. Now if you operate within a framework the reinserts conventional wisdom into popular and academic discourse by way of a scientific approach, this goes to why you didn't cash in/revolutionize the world sooner. Nested in Peterson is an entire history of philosophy and psychology that you're obviously ignorant to, but take that to be some kind of triumph. In a certain sense it is, but its the triumph of the bush man living a life that precludes the possibility of depression. What I'm saying is you entirely miss the point of Peterson, because your existence is apparently disconnected from the problems facing people today. Not because you're some kind of ubermensch but because you lack the capacity to perceive the difficulties. If you were the ubermensch you'd have the answer, but you don't. If you did, you could have cashed in, but you didn't
I'm aware of functional strength, could have chosen better wording there. And yeah, it's the ideas brought up in niffer's thread that were floating around in my head when I said that, I still need to go back and put my ideas down on that. Until I write out my thoughts on it, it will probably be sitting in the back of my mind.It just seems more or less incidental use to me. It's not where you're focusing, and if you take an ILE and an LIE for example, they would both have Ne and Te as the strongest, and yes they have similarities, but their focus is on different things. The ILE may be an idea-generating machine who knows multiple ways that something could work in a situation, with all kinds of suggestions - while the LIE is projecting the most promising of those ideas as to which ones would be most beneficial long-term, right? So, right there you see that even though the LIE technically has strong Ne, it's Ni where his focus is . . . which is much like your explanation of JP's use of Ne with Ni. It's not the Ne that stands out imo, it's the Ni. IMO.But whether or not the demo is used more than the creative is up for debate. I think that it makes sense that, me as an SLE for example, would end up in situations where I use Te, considering that I'm an extrovert and a thinker. But I personally don't like doing Te, I think it's boring, and yeah maybe I do use Ti more often, but still I end up in situations where there are other ExTx's, so what they do rubs off on me. I've never cared about fixing cars, but I've been around Te people so much that I learned some things anyways. I keep imagining that that's why it's called "demonstrative", because it's something you're exposed to so often that you can demonstrate how you do it. I mean, if I'm extroverted, and I'm focused on some objective situation, I'm gonna need both a rational and an irrational IE to deal with it, right? I feel like I can't do Se things without using Te at the same time
That's just Ti > Fi valuing
And if he argues it's technically true then that's really Ne valuing to me lol
My EIE friend also hates the post modernist stuff along with me but her actual thinking is very different, mine is also different. She thinks it's all confusing bs and I simply think it's all bs. While Peterson sees the idea behind the Ne crap and doesn't find it confusing, and finds it even technically true, he simply argues that logic is needed to filter the interpretations.
PS: My Fe DS also still thinks Peterson is too dry to be emotional enough for EIE.
@Myst
Well I guess each type, each person, deals with their own meanings, but when they take your entire focus that to me is a hint of Ni; I think Fi brings 'meaning' too, expressed by values, whatever they might be, anyway all the functions bring an implicit meaning of what is in their nature; but Ni-essence of time- can just be interpreted like "meaning" in itself, if you consider that 'to asset the quality of time' consists in making the best out of time... the proper time to do something hints at the fact that each time has meaning. Obviously, Ni pairs with Se, Se is action, but even space, and so time-Ni should conclude in an action in time/space.
I'm not an expert of the American contemporary philosophies, but freedom of speech is something that, from my European perspective, is completely integrated in the DNA of most Americans, which is considered like the greatest conquest that North America achieved. Which American would want to get rid of it? It would be like getting rid of a piece of themselves. This is to say that I don't really consider his position about freedom of speech any more Alpha than Beta. The aristocratic tendencies of Beta could explain his sticking with what is the state of things (in this case, of a freedom that not rarely verges on the border of incivility and vulgarity), just because of their sense of superiority, around this matter, with what is the rest of the world.
I want to note that the reasons he gives for excusing freedom of speech, in that quote, are non-sequiturs, not really logical. He says "we need to say a lot of bullshit to create a worthy statement!" (lol), and this doesn't look logical to me, nor a complex of open mouth, where open mouth would want to say things as a democratic right, but in Peterson's case it looks like a simple excuse to explain a right already established and working better than everywhere else= aristocratic right. And both quadras are said to be revolutionary.
(Anyway this goes hand in hand with the fact that he's a psychologist, that you've pointed out: being a psychologist doesn't imply that one's an NF, as freedom of speech doesn't imply that one belongs to Alpha quadra.)
The quote about "no virtue in being harmless" is the only thing I had in mind when I made my first comment, lol sorry. I think this really gives it away in Se terms. "If you're a monster and don't act monstrously, then you're virtuous" is the further establishing of Fe values (all these labellings are just established inside of a group that cares of these power dynamics), therefore Se+ Fe = Beta quadra.
The quote of the city is ok, I mean, true, although in the same quote he gives hints of the Beta attitude that we should work on, and in the same tone of the quote it might make sense to think that those attitudes are actually features of Peterson's persona he wants to get better in, lol.
The quote about how relationships are wrestling matches seems a further stereotyped Beta quadra thing. But sure, everyone could think similarly, I don't disagree either. Violence is a fundamental component of life.
etc etc. I'm getting a headache too.
Ultimately I don't want to advocate for Peterson as Beta, but since squark brought that up I can definitely see a sense in it... he always stroke me as Ni over Ti, which would be structured, as you do with Ti, rather than spiralling in long... talks.
(omg i made too many typos )
Last edited by ooo; 05-06-2018 at 03:38 PM.
I see, I just think Peterson's version of meaning is Ne>Ni. There IS some Ni, I'm not debating that. But overall it seems a bit too out of sync with Se from my pov if that makes sense. For example his approach to Big 5 is really LII over any kind of Beta NF.
Sure freedom of speech is important but he's obsessed about this topic.I'm not an expert of the American contemporary philosophies, but freedom of speech is something that, from my European perspective, is completely integrated in the DNA of most Americans, which is considered like the greatest conquest that North America achieved. Which American would want to get rid of it? It would be like getting rid of a piece of themselves. This is to say that I don't really consider his position about freedom of speech any more Alpha than Beta. The aristocratic tendencies of Beta could explain his sticking with what is the state of things (in this case, of a freedom that not rarely verges on the border of incivility and vulgarity), just because of their sense of superiority, around this matter, with what is the rest of the world.
I want to note that the reasons he gives for excusing freedom of speech, in that quote, are non-sequiturs, not really logical. He says "we need to say a lot of bullshit to create a worthy statement!" (lol), and this doesn't look logical to me, nor a complex of open mouth, where open mouth would want to say things as a democratic right, but in Peterson's case it looks like a simple excuse to explain a right already established and working better than everywhere else= aristocratic right. And both quadras are said to be revolutionary.
(Anyway this goes hand in hand with the fact that he's a psychologist, that you've pointed out: being a psychologist doesn't imply that one's an NF, as freedom of speech doesn't imply that one belongs to Alpha quadra.)
Where he says "we need to say a lot of bullshit to create a worthy statement!" it was logical to me if it's about having consider things and finding all the errors before getting to a good conclusion. Though his approach is foreign to me, maybe that's again the Ne. I'm way more a convergent thinker than to use his more divergent approach of trying out options.
I see his brand of revolutionary approach as revolution in the sphere of ideas so it's again very Ne to me.
All that to me is just Intuitive, operating with N concepts and it's all really so abstract I really can't see it as any kind of Se.The quote about "no virtue in being harmless" is the only thing I had in mind when I made my first comment, lol sorry. I think this really gives it away in Se terms. "If you're a monster and don't act monstrously, then you're virtuous" is the further establishing of Fe values (all these labellings are just established inside of a group that cares of these power dynamics), therefore Se+ Fe = Beta quadra.
Ok lol, I'm getting one tooThe quote of the city is ok, I mean, true, although in the same quote he gives hints of the Beta attitude that we should work on, and in the same tone of the quote it might make sense to think that those attitudes are actually features of Peterson's persona he wants to get better in, lol.
The quote about how relationships are wrestling matches seems a further stereotyped Beta quadra thing. But sure, everyone could think similarly, I don't disagree either. Violence is a fundamental component of life.
etc etc. I'm getting a headache too.
I see the Ti actually but it's so wrapped in a lot of N that it just... gives me even more headache Though I can agree with some of the logic, the rest is just too abstract to me.Ultimately I don't want to advocate for Peterson as Beta, but since squark brought that up I can definitely see a sense in it... he always stroke me as Ni over Ti, which would be structured, as you do with Ti, rather than spiralling in long... talks.
Kings are not merely typefied.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM