Jordan Peterson

[squark]

He links articles from the Daily Mail and blog posts from A Voice For Men on his social media. Not very fitting for a distinguished academic if you ask me.

lol, and not very Te.

I haven't decided yet if he's LII or LSI. A friend of mine was watching a lot of his videos and he wanted me to watch them. First, he'd ask me my thoughts on an issue, and then he'd laugh and say, "Yeah, that's what Jordan said too" and we'd watch it, and he was saying what I had said. For multiple issues. For that reason, I don't find the issue related videos all that interesting - though the way people react to him is - as people react irl to me the same way, and it's interesting to see it from an outside perspective. (Edit to add: I don't think a person's stance on any issue says what their type is, as even conflictors can agree on some issues and points. It's more with the approach someone takes to it, how they go about explaining their pov and why they came to the conclusions they did that speaks to type)

I do find some of the ones about meaning and so on interesting, but I don't like watching videos in general so I haven't seen many of those.

[Bertrand]

I think he knows he needs to be able to put things into Ti terms, especially as an academic, to effectively get his message across

but like I said, his near universal appeal and promotion of what I see as gamma values, is the most important thing, not in typing, but in general

his Ti is a real testament to his ability to "reach across the aisle" and I really respect that, whether he's gamma reaching beta or beta reaching gamma, etc. Its cool

[Jeremy8419]

Dude talks like every stereotypical professor and catholic priest I've ever known. Voice patterns really don't ever shift at all, which is inert Fe. Content of his speaking is inconsequential, as an EIE can speak regularly and be employed on any subject. I said he puts me to sleep for a reason. Extinguishment. Dudes EIE, and the "LIE" is mistake of Business.

[Tigerfadder]

Dude talks like every stereotypical professor and catholic priest I've ever known. Voice patterns really don't ever shift at all, which is inert Fe. Content of his speaking is inconsequential, as an EIE can speak regularly and be employed on any subject. I said he puts me to sleep for a reason. Extinguishment. Dudes EIE, and the "LIE" is mistake of Business.

He could be EIE. The logic comes from an active suggestive and many in depth discussions with people.

[xerx]

A good summing up of one of the most intellectually vapid and laughable figures in recent history:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...ual-we-deserve

Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.

[Singu]

Jesus, this guy's 15 minutes of fame still isn't over?

The only people that care about him are a small group of angry incels on the internet.

A good summing up of one of the most intellectually vapid and laughable figures in recent history:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...ual-we-deserve

That sounds like Bertrand. Lol.

It also sounds like much of Jung's work and Socionics. No surprise there, since he was highly influenced by Jung.

(Does this not look like some random crappy diagram that you find on Socionics?)



So there's sort of a contradiction in people who are highly against him, and yet at the same time accept Jung's work as something valid and/or profound.

But we'd have to accept that Jung's vapid pseudo-intellectualism and generally vague and incomprehensible nonsense is what created figures like Jordan Peterson. Things like Jung and the French Postmodernism are what created these vague and incomprehensible monstrosities that people could interpret them in any way they want, and people continuously argue over "what they really meant". Which is to say that they're not actually really saying anything.

[xerx]

(Does this not look like some random crappy diagram that you find on Socionics?)

Haha, yes! Armchair Internet "intellectual" is legitimately one of the better descriptions of Peterson. He's so badly-informed on his lecture topics, especially philosophy, history and economics, that he looks like a complete clown to anyone with a passing familiarity. For anyone coming up against these topics for the first time, Peterson is a really bad source.

Things like Jung and the French Postmodernism are what created these vague and incomprehensible monstrosities that people could interpret them in any way they want, and people continuously argue over "what they really meant". Which is to say that they're not actually really saying anything.

He is everything he claims to be against. The most charitable interpretation of Peterson is that he's a liar and obscurantist with a political agenda. The less charitable (and IMO increasingly likely) interpretation is that he may be genuinely stupid such that his vagueness sn't altogether deliberate.

[xerx]

It's funny that people see him as some magnet for the right wing. Jordan Peterson's weird pseudoscience and conspiracy theorising is responsible for moving me further away from right wing ideas.

The irony is that there are fantastically witty and intelligent Conservative commentators, who outclass Peterson in every way imaginable, who don't get a modicum of the attention he's stolen. It's always a pleasure to read well-articulated opinions that clash completely with my own, whereas Peterson's stuff never fails to provoke the opposite reaction.

[xerx]

I've tried to listen to his podcast in the past, because he invites very interesting guests, and because I like giving everyone a fair shake in spite of whatever political differences we may have.

I really tried giving this guy a fair hearing, but I couldn't finish a single episode. He talks over his guests and constantly redirects the conversation towards his own psychoanalytic theories (which are bizarre, make questionable scientific claims, and are based more often than not on his personal idiosyncrasies).

He's like the Borg: He has so many videos, spanning every topical subject, that his presence on the Internet is unavoidable, and he assimilates every subject he comes across by mixing in his own eccentricities.

[Sol]

It was interesting to know about his sedatives hard usage. Such meds reduce emotionality and emotional expressions to look closer to T types.
I'm inclined to think F in him and the situation ads an argument.

Checked his channel, - 7 mil subs, >100k up to millions of views per a clip. The real reason of attention to his public talking and a wish to censorship him, as media activity is huge. He's by modern terms - "influencer", alike popular TV shows have.
More to say, his channel in recent materials has not much about psychology. By surface look, some of his clips remind speculative mess for rural settlers, alike UFO shows.

[Kill4Me]

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)

[xerx]

God he's such a clown.

Here are a few excerpts from a 2014 trial where JP was brought in to provide expert testimony [full link]:

[35] Dr. Peterson’s opinion was that people with an agreeable personality trait like the appellant are susceptible to being manipulated during questioning.

...

[88] The situation here is even more remote. It is difficult to see how Dr. Peterson’s technique of assessing the personality of a person for his private consulting business satisfies the Daubert factors to make it admissible for a forensic purpose. Dr. Peterson provided no evidence that his technique of personality assessment has been properly tested for the purpose it is being used for here, detecting when an agreeable person may falsely confess to the police. All Dr. Peterson could say is he hired university students to try and fake the personality assessment and they couldn’t do it. That is not scientific validation. There has been no peer review of the technique of the Unfakeable Big Five. Dr. Peterson provided no rate of error or accepted deviations. In fact, he claimed, without any proof, that his assessment tool cannot be deceived while other personality assessment techniques can be. Finally, there is no evidence that the Unfakeable Big Five is generally accepted as a forensic tool. It was designed and is used for Dr. Peterson’s private consulting clients to hire employees.

^ He tried to show that the accused person had an overly agreeable personality (Big Five agreeableness) and was manipulated under police interrogation into giving a false murder confession.

Whether or not this was case (if it is, then fuck ), he used his own invention he called the "Unfakeable Big Five" to perform a personality assessment on the accused. His "evidence" RE. its unfakeability is that some university students he hired couldn't game the test. Seriously.

[90] While not necessary to decide this appeal, I would close discussion of the judge’s ruling on Dr. Peterson’s proposed expert evidence by expressing concern about the decision to attempt to proffer Dr. Peterson as an expert witness on areas that he was clearly not qualified as he had no background whatsoever regarding police interrogations. This decision unnecessarily complicated and delayed this trial and is proof positive of the concern expressed in D.D. (at para. 56) of the detrimental impact on the justice system of attempting to use dubious expert opinion.

^ The judge flat out accused Peterson of incompetence.

I can't tell whether or not this is fair criticism from the judge. Peterson's experience is in the area of something like job interviews, not so much in the area of Police interrogations. But how sufficient is the overlap between the two? I don't know how it is in other countries, but many Canadian universities have dedicated criminology departments where I'd assume that the specifics of police interrogation are studied in more detail. Is a generalist like Peterson really so out of his depth here?

[timber]

God he's such a clown.

Here are a few excerpts from a 2014 trial where JP was brought in to provide expert testimony [full link]:



^ He tried to show that the accused person had an overly agreeable personality (Big Five agreeableness) and was manipulated under police interrogation into giving a false murder confession.

Whether or not this was case (if it is, then fuck ), he used his own invention he called the "Unfakeable Big Five" to perform a personality assessment on the accused. His "evidence" RE. its unfakeability is that some university students he hired couldn't game the test. Seriously.




^ The judge flat out accused Peterson of incompetence.

I can't tell whether or not this is fair criticism from the judge. Peterson's experience is in the area of something like job interviews, not so much in the area of Police interrogations. But how sufficient is the overlap between the two? I don't know how it is in other countries, but many Canadian universities have dedicated criminology departments where I'd assume that the specifics of police interrogation are studied in more detail. Is a generalist like Peterson really so out of his depth here?

Its funny cause Peterson gets remembered and none of these people do. Haha Peterson, even in this youtube 8 min clip circuit has done more for his profession and probably the entire endeavouring society then any of these guys have so its a real laugh. Nobody cares about all the nit picky details anyway at the end of the day.

[Milo]

He links articles from the Daily Mail and blog posts from A Voice For Men on his social media. Not very fitting for a distinguished academic if you ask me.

lol, and not very Te.

I haven't decided yet if he's LII or LSI. A friend of mine was watching a lot of his videos and he wanted me to watch them. First, he'd ask me my thoughts on an issue, and then he'd laugh and say, "Yeah, that's what Jordan said too" and we'd watch it, and he was saying what I had said. For multiple issues. For that reason, I don't find the issue related videos all that interesting - though the way people react to him is - as people react irl to me the same way, and it's interesting to see it from an outside perspective. (Edit to add: I don't think a person's stance on any issue says what their type is, as even conflictors can agree on some issues and points. It's more with the approach someone takes to it, how they go about explaining their pov and why they came to the conclusions they did that speaks to type)

I do find some of the ones about meaning and so on interesting, but I don't like watching videos in general so I haven't seen many of those.

Good points It's interesting that you relate to him so much and self-type as LSI. I've listened to one of his lectures on Big 5 after which Youtube flipped to this video, the topic of which sounded resoundingly similar to Beta quadra values in socionics.

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."

this is not like any LIE description ...

[Myst]

Good points It's interesting that you relate to him so much and self-type as LSI. I've listened to one of his lectures on Big 5 after which Youtube flipped to this video, the topic of which sounded resoundingly similar to Beta quadra values in socionics.

I self-type as LSI too and I partially relate to him but probably more due to Enneagram than just sociotype. In terms of sociotype, there are quite some differences, his Ne/Ni is might stronger than mine so that throws me off but I find some of his stuff interesting - then some of it is just "bleh".

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."

This is really abstract to me. I half relate and half don't. It just seems very very internally focused, like, with high Ni I guess. It does remind me of how @ouronis (LII) is, though, lol, yes.

How I would put it for myself, is, I always feel whether what I'm saying is put distinctly and precisely enough or if I could elaborate on it more to make it as unambiguous as possible, with as clear delineations of things as possible. (This is when I do actually talk longer. In many everyday situations, I keep things short and simply to the point.)

LII vs LSI, maybe.

I do relate quite a bit to the knowing if whatever you're saying makes sense or where it has room for doubt via the feeling of alignment. I thought it might be more of a introverted judgement lead thing. But possibly more common than that.

Yeah I don't look for doubt like you do. Alignment itself makes sense in terms of what I said about precision, lack of ambiguity, distinctness.