Ummm.. LII certainly is not far off. There is even typicalPoLR compensation going on as he prefers being strong but intellectualizes it.
Factually, I'd say that, he isn't the most precise person. Too much inter and extrapolation is going on.
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)
Ummm.. LII certainly is not far off. There is even typical
Factually, I'd say that, he isn't the most precise person. Too much inter and extrapolation is going on.
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
Great interview. I see eye to eye with him on these issues and he does a good job answering her questions and dealing with her retorts.Originally Posted by ouronis
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Just a good job? Total slaughter!
Lenin also crushed people in debates. I believe the author's chosen word for lenin was polemical.
Show no mercy in debate LII > ILI (maybe it's J > P thing)
She didn't have arguments. She barely did anything except put words in his mouth. Of course he looked good. The interview is basically political pornography.
I liked it when he spontaneously smiled. Genuine.
I think he might be EIE-Ni or LSI/LII
Meh same socionics type as Zap/Noki...
I think then Ne creative, I type him EII but LII could also make sense.
Obvious IJ type from my point of view (he seems to have quite precise ideas in his mind on how the world should be but sometimes struggles to communicated them precisely / step-by-step).
A great guy btw even though a bit prechy for my taste.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
1517155656870.png
sometimes I think IEE, but then this makes me think LII/ESE duality
peterson's look is also textbook demonstrative intuition
this quote of his reads like Ti and Se-Polr: speak your own truth (Ti) and then passively accept the outcome (Se-polr)
another little bit I've noticed reviewing the ESFj typings is that Peterson tends to smile in a very similar manner to them
Hell yeah.
This seems to echo Golihov creative Ne:
https://youtu.be/6T7pUEZfgdI?t=1h59m
I hate to make it such a superficial interpretation here.
Jordan literally says that reality requires analysis all the time, there are different levels of analysis required.
LII - the analyst.
I want it known I have no vested interest in his sociotype.
Yes, it is a statement that devalues. I agree. But I can also see that he doesn't want to use
to manipulate the opinions of other people in his statement.
Do you think there are other types prone to digesting the world via some sort of multi-level analysis, or were you going in a different direction than that?
A number of them. IEE do something similar - which is where Si can help root them. The other intuitives to some degree as well, depending pn where their awareness floats. I think the least prone would be Se types. I just think the the way Peterson does it combined with his psychology training, and you get someone who can really break down moment by moment with great fecundity, plus with objective awareness for interactions, is pretty high level functioning information processing. Imagine a typical LII doing it with some other topic. Its not a stretch to call what he is doing 'the analyst'. I think the human behaviour thing really kinda throws this all off here. Why not a INTj psychologist? He breaks things down minute by minute, thats pretty high level. EIE might be another consideration...... He does have a lot of charisma you got to admit that.
He seems like a textbook LIE-Te. Enneagram 1 also. I will post reasons for this later if I have time, but here's a taste.
Pay attention to his tone of voice (loud and without highs and lows), which signals both an Extroverted and a Logical personality. As others have already pointed out, he also places great emphasis on results and ties productivity to satisfaction in life. This is a recurring theme throughout his lectures, and very typical of Te coupled with Se mentality, as in LIE.
Lol no LIE thinks this way: #post 137. LIEs care about productivity for its own sake, not only through the Ti logical truths. And they care way more about proactively influencing the outcome for actual gains. This guy is Ne valuing af.
Agreed on Enneagram 1.
Peterson is actively against victim attitude.
To compare him to Sam Harris, who seems to be ILI, the difference seems vast.
I think that Jordan Peterson is D-LII (rarest subtype). One way
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
+1 for D-LIII think that Jordan Peterson is D-LII (rarest subtype). One way
its always a good sign when everyone wants you
quadra values mythology
See, it messes typing up.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 02-07-2018 at 08:34 AM.
Peterson probably makes his students take psychopathy/big five quizzes. heh
2 reactionary 4 me.
I explored him further, watched dozens of videos and several of his 2 hour+ lectures.
The guy is a genius with blending symbols and common sense psychology. He can talk on any number of topics and tons of his stuf are things I've thought about myself over the years.
His religious/popular culture stuff regarding symbolism is outstanding. Its actually far beyond academia. In another time he would have been a Priest, missionary, or Bishop or something.
Plus all the mythos and meanings that tag along through out history.
He definitely seems to have an Se valuing philosophy - he hates any kind of weakness. He somehow twisted Jung's concept of persona to support this:
"Most people who are cowards disguise their cowardice as morality"
While this may be true, he somehow he neglected to mention the type of persona where someone thinks they're a badass and bullies others to make themselves feel strong. Textbook Se values.
My tentative guess is that he is a Beta introvert but I only watched a few videos.
At the end of the day: he is a meaning maker.
Se as bullies... neat never heard that one before
I dunno I feel like he's doing exactly what you're asking him to do, and criticizing him for failing to do, in the video k4m linked on this very page. it sounds to me like he's directly addressing Se dominant style tactics there, people who take openings for the fact they perceive them, and justify it on the grounds if you didn't deserve whatever exploitation you're about to receive, then you shouldn't have allowed yourself to be vulnerable. and he's saying this is a repugnant thing, not in any way sanctioning it. weak = good/bad can go as many ways as there are definitions for weakness. what's weak to one person is not weak to another, peterson seems to have a nuanced understanding of weakness so when he calls something weak I don't feel like he's praising Se, so much as invoking notions of Te as a kind of better/worse dichotomy from the point of view of usefulness (weakness would be "betrayals of your own ideal"--i.e.: something by your own standards that works against you, admittedly there is a Se element to this if you equate Se with a "strong will" but its the best aspects of Se not a wholesale endorsement, it makes me think of the creative Se of ESI, who says he's going to quit smoking--and does--this is sort of at odds with a lot of the merely "declarative" moralizing of beta quadra. "weakness" then becomes your own willingness to self sabotage essentially, he's not endorsing becoming a tyrant, but rather, to "sort oneself out" which entails a degree of the heretofore mentioned Se, as in mobilizing oneself to do so, but not toward dominating others--to me this actually represents a form of Si unconsciously realizing Se, but it could easily flow in the opposite direction just as easily depending on who's doing the sorting). you will see him often refer to weakness as qualities that are useless or counter productive. I actually think peterson is a good example of a well integrated person, so the flipside of being wanted by everyone is to be criticized by everyone (because something is inevitably going to rub someone the wrong way if you "do it all"). in other words, a person of his caliber likely exudes a degree of Se whether or not it is a "true" value of their type simply because his entire message seems to be one in keeping with Jung's which is to integrate one's shadow aspects not reject them. inasmuch as he's achevied such a thing, he exudes values that aren't native to his type which I think of as a kind of psychological triumph and to be admired. I do think in the final analysis EIE is a plausible typing however, he very much is the textbook definition of someone who is on the intersection between the humanitarian and research clubs
I think a better way to put it is "cowardice has a tendency to justify itself" and certain strains of morality can be reduced almost entirely to this impulse. certainly not all morality is cowardice. but precisely because there are good and true aspects to morality, people tend to drape their cowardice in that language, a "whitewashed sepulcher" so to speak, in order to conceal their shame, even to themselves. in other words, all morality is not cowardice which is precisely why using morality to justify cowardice is so effective and so common place. people tend to think if they can file away their actions under some abstract scheme they concocted it does away with whatever ethical failure was at the heart of it all. a way to be ethically "technically correct", to me it is a betrayal of Fi by Ti, maybe in a Se context, maybe not. But it can flow the other way. People can break rules they know they shouldn't have and simply rationalize it on Fi grounds. I think the idea here is just to describe the human "weakness" in general, which is a kind of a lack of integrity however you come by it. you could slice it as a failure of intuition, I or E, on those grounds, or even Si or Se for other reasons. I do think what they're getting at is a general perception of the human condition, which is the tendency of rationality to dominate perception in a way that ultimately is insufficient"Most people who are cowards disguise their cowardice as morality"
this is actually a concept coined by Nietzsche which Jung frequently repeated so I think you're wrong about peterson on multiple levels here, 1) because it didn't start with him and 2) precisely for that reason he hasn't "twisted" Jung. Jung would agree with that idea because the "usefulness" of morality for many people is not a standard they aspire to but a means of bringing the bar down to their level. this is not particularly a value of any function as far as I can tell so much as a general commentary on the human proclivity to ethically distort reality to better suit themselves. I guess in some sense you could call it a failure of accurate extroverted perception but it has implications for all functions really, I can think of it being a failure of Ne Se ("stop doing what makes you weak") Fe and Te as well as Ti and Fi Ni (incongruence) even Si ("stop doing what makes you sick") etc. He actually takes a pretty cool trip through a lot of recent psychologists in his personality lectures and you can see how a lot of these figures represented these different accents but how they all flow from a similar idea. which is to say Jung differentiated the aspects and the aspects all have their different take on what amounts to the same perception, so in a lot of ways it all goes back to Jung
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-09-2018 at 03:18 AM.
more like a common myth, I don't tend to relate to IEI at all
but a highly unified person I can admire quite a bit, but it would be to the degree they diverged from your "standard IEI" that I would like them
Jordan Peterson..is that you?
This video series was enjoyable.
Can anyone actually give a reason why he is not supposed to be a rational?
His so called shit is so tightly packaged that I seriously doubt that any irrational person could pull it off.
If not LII then LSI.
The motivation for life giving up drama is Fe+ Ni+ anyways. Also his tendency to not follow systems but to generate categories momentarily is Ti-. Sight for longer outcomes in terms of chains of events is diminished which I think points towards valuing holographic panoramic thinking only preferring to paint general overwiev without links.
Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 02-09-2018 at 04:32 AM.
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
Yeah I was thinking the same. Even his outside examples he quickly pulls inward again and remains on track. And he seems to have a lot of stamina, if he also has a private clinical practise on the side.
Personally I find his symbolism refreshing, not saying you don't though, just commenting. The world is basically this giant mirror and it's unique to hear someone so articulate and well read to illuminate those signs, stories, histories. Plus he is also clearly kind hearted, so his analysis has extra punch.
I like him a lot
I don't think he hates weakness in the volitional sense. that quote is a common theme in his lectures, rephrased in multiple ways, which I always took to mean that passive goodness ("good" by simple virtue of not being "bad" because you lack the necessary means to be "bad", which isn't "good"; you're just a naive doormat) isn't on par with active goodness ("good" because you have the necessary means to be "bad", but you choose to be "good" instead; it's similar to carrying a deadly weapon but choosing not to use it) which he explains here: "If you're harmless, you're not virtuous. You're just harmless. You're like a rabbit. A rabbit isn't virtuous, it just can't do anything except get eaten. If you're a monster and you don't act monstrously, then you're virtuous, but you also have to be a monster." [x] on the topic of weakness, here's how peterson measures weakness: "What I learned to do is to stop saying things which made me weak. I always feel when I talk, whether or not the words that I'm saying are making me align or making me come apart, but I think if you say things as true as you can say them, then they come out of the depths inside of you, speaking from the core of your being." [x]
that's weakness of character, his conceptualization of weakness is more in line with not being true to yourself, which may come in the form of sticking to your guns, or it may come in the form of bowing out early because it's not worth the effort ("don't cast your pearls before swine" has come up multiple times in his lectures). I know the distinction has already been clarified, but I think reference points might help those who aren't as familiar with him.
I remember him explaining in one of his lectures [x] that the origin of his fixation on hierarchies stems from old studies related to lobster neurochemistry, wherein he makes a distinction between how lobsters and humans determine placement on hierarchies: "Well it's predicated on the idea that you climb up the human hierarchy as a consequence of the expression of power, that's wrong, you climb up valid hierarchies as the expression of competence, and that's technically right." [x] whether or not that still points to beta, I don't know yet, but I don't think that's how beta stereotypically views hierarchies, but if we're trying to correlate his fixation on hierarchies with socionics, then I feel like that's slightly more in line with delta's attitude toward hierarchies.
I never thought peterson had a dark, pessimistic outlook on life. I think he just acknowledges that life isn't all sunshine and rainbows, but his acknowledgement of the dark side of life is usually tempered by thoughtful advice to his readership on how not to fall prey to unfortunate life circumstances, cognitive distortions, and other people. I do think he tries to be realistic about how the world works, but when he relays these findings to his readership, I think his primary motivation is to equip them with the necessary tools for self-preservation, concurrently self-actualization, which he won't accomplish by filling their minds with beautiful lies. I feel like he's constantly trying to bridge the gap between various demographics by pointing out their differences before doing the same with their similarities, there's one specific video where he finds correlations between big 5 results and political ideologies (republican vs democratic) [x] then another video where he tries to find similarities between himself and prison inmates, like he's searching for a common thread between them, before he spends a week mulling over the question: "which exact circumstances would need to be in place in order for me to commit the same crime?" [x] (on a related note, I feel like you can hear implicit judgments in how he speaks about the inmates and carl panzram)
I've watched some of his lectures but I don't think I can type him until I've actually read one of his books, but if I had to take a shot in the dark, then I'd place him somewhere in gamma or delta, but even if he's largely concerned with humanity's capacity for evil and destruction, which kinda does seem intrinsically gamma, I feel like the fact that he's constantly trying to understand and reform and then eventually bridge the gap between [x] and [y] puts him closer to delta in my mind. I think a big aspect of Se-valuing is maximalism, like drawing a line in the sand between your something and opposing somethings, which I don't see in peterson. I might change my mind later because I'm curious why so many people are correlating his books and lectures on symbolism with Ni-valuing, which I always attributed to his field of work (psychology) and his religious affiliations, but I will agree that he's ethical.
Last edited by wasp; 02-09-2018 at 05:18 AM.
gulenko associates meritocracy with delta, whereas authoritarianism is beta and democracy is gamma. the distinction between the three is both beta and gamma privilege structure (this may be a misnomer, I mean to say a somewhat artificial "political process") to some degree whereas delta recognizes a kind of unequal yet naturally emergent "aristocracy" based on individual talent. gamma tends to resort more to "wisdom of crowds" and using the process to derive that, whereas beta says "wisdom of select individuals" and enforces it directly, rather than letting it emerge via a natural process, i.e.: the meritocracy. alpha is considered "familial" or tribal in the sense that its essentially anarchistic and idiosyncratic in what emerges (probably why beta reacts so strongly--you can see a dialectic back and forth of progressively narrowing swings between chaos and order: alpha-beta-gamma-delta), so to bring together troll's, I think accurate, perspective on Ne- Ti- Ni- Fe+, and wasp's comments on meritocracy all points to IEE to me. but again I think he's so versatile its hard to separate shadow from substance. I do think he exhibits a certain kind of normative logic but it strings together such long series of ethical claims in novel (Ne) ways that it looks like complex logic, but its more like it could be the logic is relatively straightforward its the ethical picture that is complex. anyway I go back and forth on him, its also the case that the humanitarians tend to be the "new" people, especially the extroverts, so that is consistent with his uniqueness. anyway I'm really glad someone like him came around because he seems like the direct successor in the line of mediators between science and religion we very much need. we have too many wedge-drivers in the vein of like the "new atheists" etc who just want to abandon mythological and religious claims entirely not to mention all the varying strains of religious fundamentalism
Last edited by Bertrand; 02-09-2018 at 05:46 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
