View Poll Results: type of Jordan Peterson?

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

    4 4.44%
  • SEI (ISFp)

    0 0%
  • ESE (ESFj)

    2 2.22%
  • LII (INTj)

    20 22.22%
  • SLE (ESTp)

    0 0%
  • IEI (INFp)

    5 5.56%
  • EIE (ENFj)

    25 27.78%
  • LSI (ISTj)

    7 7.78%
  • SEE (ESFp)

    1 1.11%
  • ILI (INTp)

    6 6.67%
  • LIE (ENTj)

    18 20.00%
  • ESI (ISFj)

    4 4.44%
  • IEE (ENFp)

    1 1.11%
  • SLI (ISTp)

    0 0%
  • LSE (ESTj)

    4 4.44%
  • EII (INFj)

    2 2.22%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 27 of 30 FirstFirst ... 172324252627282930 LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,080 of 1166

Thread: Jordan Peterson

  1. #1041

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    221
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A transgender man is always going to be a woman in a nice custome. Its a kind of mental illness, every cell in that body has distinct sex chromosome amoung the other 23.

    Having said that, let em do what they want fuck we are just smart meat bags and if it makes these minds happy, content, stable, whatever, then by all means.

  2. #1042

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    221
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olimpia View Post
    They think LSI for Musk mostly because supposedly Gulenko said so
    I typed Musk a couple years ago as LSI. Still do. Found ILE intriguing.

  3. #1043
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrickyDlck View Post
    The reason he got famous in the first place: claiming that Bill C16 would shut down freedom of speech, even after the Canadian Bar Association (an actual authority on legal matters) came out with a statement explicitly stating the opposite. Either he's knowingly a liar by this point or a complete idiot.
    So it wouldn't have required people to use preferred pronouns? I think that was his reading of it.

    He would have earned my respect if he were opposed to transgenderism as a matter of principle.
    Same

  4. #1044

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EIE-Ni
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olimpia View Post
    He has sparked controversy in a way that is unusual for So/Sp 1.
    Why exactly is it unusual?

    So/Sp 1 is more often found in Law and similar pursuits. They are more stable and less "impassionate" or socially disruptive, due to the desire to be part of the group.
    For most of his life, Peterson has been an academic professor/clinical psychologist, even worked as an advisor in a law firm, relatively unknown to anyone until the YouTube video surfaced.

    He’s taught mythology to physicians, lawyers, and businessmen; worked with Jim Balsillie, former CEO of Blackberry’s Research in Motion, on Resilient People, Resilient Planet, the report of the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability; helped his clinical clients manage the triumphs and catastrophes of life; served as an advisor to senior partners of major Canadian law firms;
    https://jordanbpeterson.com/about/

    Type 1 is inherently "social" in its focus on morality, just like Type 3 is inherently "social" with its obsession of achieving what is deemed as successful in their society. Type 2 is also inherently "social", in the way they are focused on giving to others. All these types will seem more "social" than they really are, even when SO last.
    This is completely arbitrary. You could easily say Type 2 is also inherently "sexual" or Type 3 is inherently "self-preservation" and you couldn't argue otherwise. A Social last 1, 2 or 3 won't care about Social in the way a Social 1, 2, or 3 will.

    Obviously Jordan Peterson is "social" - he's a type 1, plus has a strong social instinct.
    Or he's obviously "social" because he is Social?

    However, how he has sparked controversy and a "movement"/following of some kind, with a fan base, is much more typical of Sx/So than So/Sp.
    Why are movements only the realm of sx/so? So/Sp can spark movements too. Barack Obama was one of them. Who again was a very charismatic figure to a lot of people. Being charismatic doesn't equal Sexual.

    The Social arena seems to be his area of confidence, which is more typical of a good second instinct. (There's always a bit of self-consciousness surrounding the first instinct.)
    I wouldn't be so sure of this. Peterson's main qualm is wanting to prevent a totalitarian state. He has paintings in his house of Communist Russia to remind him of this (go to 4:35). He talks about The Cold War giving him literal nightmares. He always cites the horrors of World War II. He seems quite neurotic about Social and its ramifications to me.



    There are many videos of his on attraction, relationships, and dynamics between the two sexes.
    Ok you may have a point, but in those videos when he does focus on sexuality or intimate relationships, it can often go back to the Social.

    1st 3 minutes is so SOCIAL, while he mentions sx pretty briefly:



    Can you give me an example where you see his sx in him so I know what you mean?

    Also, the focal point of his controversy - genders - ultimately is an SX subject after all.
    That's another reason why I think he's sx-last because he holds such a rigid view on traditional male/female norms. Yes, that can be influenced by being Type 1, but his reasons for doing so again went back to the Social. He thinks preserving this dichotomy of male/female is beneficial for society. He wouldn't use preferred pronouns because to him it is a form of compelled speech which will lead us to a totalitarian state enforced by cultural Marxists.

    By the way, I think you can still make a case for Peterson being a 6. He's a pretty paranoid guy.

    In contrast, So/Sp tends to be more concerned with issues like environmentalism/climate change, having their focus on SP.
    Why? I really don't think that has to be the case in all cases. Some so/sp probably don't care about climate change. They may focus more on money, health and well-being instead. And some sp-last may care about it if that's their chosen cause.

    You need to see it in the context of Type 1 as well.


    The idea of "Sexual" is mostly Sx/Sp 2/3/4, 7, 8, and often Se ego ("sensual", "physical", etc) Very different from Type 1
    That's a fair point that a Type 1 will be less overtly sexual, more repressive of those urges, but then what do you make of someone like Gandhi? Who to my mind is sx/so 1.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...e-1937411.html

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...usoom-vadgama/

    That's what neurotic Sx in the 1 looks like to me.

    Sexual 1 is about "zeal", the passion for your moral causes.
    Why is this only the domain of Sexual 1 again? Any 1, or any type for that matter, can show passion for their cause.

    Jordan Peterson is known for shouting and even crying during his talks or interviews. He loses composure too often for someone who is supposedly So/Sp 1.
    That's Fe.
    Last edited by Blue; 12-13-2018 at 04:46 AM.

  5. #1045
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,586
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    So it wouldn't have required people to use preferred pronouns? I think that was his reading of it.
    Nothing in the text of the bill even mentions pronouns. All C16 does is add "gender expression" to the list of already protected groups, which includes race and religion. It gives to transgender people the exact same protections from hate crimes that other minorities already have.


    Here is the Canadian Bar Association's full statement.

    http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile....a-432eeb762d7f

    On page 3, under C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Speech, the purpose of hate crime legislation is spelled out. Canada has a very high threshold for language to be considered hate speech; e.g. if it's deliberately used to promote violence against a minority.

    There are no restrictions on casual use of "offensive" language. Moreover, any statement questioning the morality of the transgender lifestyle, even the discussion of curtailing their rights as a minority, is fully protected speech.

  6. #1046

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    SLE.Wait...Shit, EII
    Posts
    329
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LSE imo

    I was thinking I would be alone to vote this ^^

  7. #1047
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrickyDlck View Post
    Nothing in the text of the bill even mentions pronouns. All C16 does is add "gender expression" to the list of already protected groups, which includes race and religion.
    Yes I saw that.

    However, there is the problem that "feeling like the opposite gender" is not always verifiable and can actually be indicative of a mental disorder (much like homosexuality).

    Quote Originally Posted by TrickyDlck View Post
    http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile....a-432eeb762d7f

    On page 3, under C-16 Will Not Impede Freedom of Speech, the purpose of hate crime legislation is spelled out. Canada has a very high threshold for language to be considered hate speech; e.g. if it's deliberately used to promote violence against a minority.
    According to the document you linked it is actually somewhat more broad: it says to "wilfully promote hatred against them" (emphasis mine). Nothing about violence is required.

    What "hatred" means here is not clear and could easily be expanded.

    Their explanation that hate speech "opposes the targeted group's ability to find self-fulfillment by articulating their thoughts and ideas" is even more unclear.

    There are no restrictions on casual use of "offensive" language. Moreover, any statement questioning the morality of the transgender lifestyle, even the discussion of curtailing their rights as a minority, is fully protected speech.
    Fair enough, but it leaves the question of what the law is actually meant to address in practice. When they do address this they say "In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression."

    Which actually makes the pronoun thing plausible - if you're working at a publicly funded university, that is.

  8. #1048
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,727
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    However, there is the problem that "feeling like the opposite gender" is not always verifiable and can actually be indicative of a mental disorder (much like homosexuality).
    Except for among fundamentalists, the medical professions in the U.S. have moved on from framing homosexuality as a disorder.

    Generally, a client or patient can have an ego-syntonic or ego-dystonic mental disorder, ie, either their disorder distresses them, or it doesnt. A typical ego-syntonic, non-self-distressing disorder might be narcissistic personality disorder. Pathological narcissists are usually pleased enough with how they are, yet they cause suffering to other people. By contrast, someone with major depressive disorder likely is suffering from it and wants the disorder to be mitigated.

    Homosexuality can cause distress to oneself or others, but that arises largely from social stigma. Take away the stigma, the distress resolves.

    Fair enough, but it leaves the question of what the law is actually meant to address in practice. When they do address this they say "In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression."

    Which actually makes the pronoun thing plausible - if you're working at a publicly funded university, that is.
    Thank you. This is where I think either Peterson himself or his audience get into an area of dishonesty and/or confusion. A law like this would apply only in certain contexts, and it would be a basis for civil action, not criminal.
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  9. #1049
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,586
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Yes I saw that.

    However, there is the problem that "feeling like the opposite gender" is not always verifiable and can actually be indicative of a mental disorder (much like homosexuality).
    This question is above my pay grade, but according to https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...ction-319.html, hate speech does not include truthful statements. If the idea that "gender expression" is fundamentally at odds with our scientific understanding of biological sex, then the matter could (and IMO should) be fought in court.


    According to the document you linked it is actually somewhat more broad: it says to "wilfully promote hatred against them" (emphasis mine). Nothing about violence is required.

    What "hatred" means here is not clear and could easily be expanded.

    Their explanation that hate speech "opposes the targeted group's ability to find self-fulfillment by articulating their thoughts and ideas" is even more unclear.

    Fair enough, but it leaves the question of what the law is actually meant to address in practice. When they do address this they say "In federally regulated workplaces, services, accommodation, and other areas covered by the CHRA, it will constrain unwanted, persistent behaviour (physical or verbal) that offends or humiliates individuals on the basis of their gender identity or expression."

    I was using violence as one example. Because of its origin as an Anglosaxon-ish country, Canadian law often uses precedent (judgments from previous trials) to define multifaceted terms like hatred. The document links to a landmark supreme court ruling R. v. Keegstra, wherein the Supreme Court ruled against an antisemitic teacher who taught his students that Jews were in control of socialism, capitalism, and communism, and intended to destroy the Christian way of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by R v. Keegstra
    The next feature of the provision that must be explored is the phrase "promotes hatred against any identifiable group". Given the purpose of the provision to criminalize the spreading of hatred in society, I find that the word "promotes" indicates active support or instigation. Indeed the French version of the offence uses the verb "fomenter", which in English means to foment or stir up. In "promotes" we thus have a word that indicates more than simple encouragement or advancement. The hate-monger must intend or foresee as substantially certain a direct and active stimulation of hatred against an identifiable group. As for the term "identifiable group", s. 318(4) states that an ""identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin". The act to be targeted is therefore the intentional fostering of hatred against particular members of our society, as opposed to any individual.

    ...

    Hatred is not a word of casual connotation. To promote hatred is to instil detestation, enmity, ill-will and malevolence in another. Clearly an expression must go a long way before it qualifies within the definition in [s. 319(2)].

    ...

    Hatred is predicated on destruction, and hatred against identifiable groups therefore thrives on insensitivity, bigotry and destruction of both the target group and of the values of our society. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.
    There is a stringent requirement that the person initiates hatred (i) very willingly with an objective in mind, (ii) against an entire group as opposed to an individual person, (iii) by provoking intense feelings in order to paint that group as subhuman. (iii) doesn't appear to include raising objections to the protections given to any one group.

    Was the ruling right or wrong, and should speech be policed at all?? I don't know. I can see the argument from both sides. But the law clearly sets out a more nuanced view than "leftists are going to send you to jail for not using a made-up word." This is why I dislike Peterson: his bombastic histrionics, his conspiratorial ramblings that malevolent leftists hold the levers of power, and the chilling way in which he paints people who want equality as genocidal. It isn't because I disagree with his political opinions, some of which are shared by Conservative commentators whose work I enjoy but with whom I can respectfully disagree.


    Which actually makes the pronoun thing plausible - if you're working at a publicly funded university, that is.
    If Universities decide to police pronoun usage, it will probably be on their own initiative as quasi-independent entities, not because of any federal rules.

  10. #1050
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    Except for among fundamentalists, the medical professions in the U.S. have moved on from framing homosexuality as a disorder.
    Doesn't mean it isn't one...

    Generally, a client or patient can have an ego-syntonic or ego-dystonic mental disorder, ie, either their disorder distresses them, or it doesnt. A typical ego-syntonic, non-self-distressing disorder might be narcissistic personality disorder. Pathological narcissists are usually pleased enough with how they are, yet they cause suffering to other people. By contrast, someone with major depressive disorder likely is suffering from it and wants the disorder to be mitigated.
    This goes back to our discussion in the other thread - i.e. psychologists don't yet have a way to actually define normal (or abnormal) psychological functioning. So I think I'll take their conclusions with a grain of salt for now.

  11. #1051
    Desert Financial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI Ti E6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Doesn't mean it isn't one...
    You don't think ADD is real, yet you think homosexuality is "indicative of a mental disorder." Wow. No wonder you're stuck in Socionics voodoo land.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post

    This goes back to our discussion in the other thread - i.e. psychologists don't yet have a way to actually define normal (or abnormal) psychological functioning. So I think I'll take their conclusions with a grain of salt for now.
    Is that so? Well, then you should take all your Jungian criteria for what's "normal" and "abnormal" out back and burn it.
    Last edited by Desert Financial; 12-14-2018 at 02:35 AM.

  12. #1052
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,727
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @thehotelambush, do you actually know any uncloseted homosexual people irl? Since I grew up as a theater nerd and moved to a liberal city after, queer folk have been some of the more important people in my life from an early age, and they have often been the kindest, most tolerant, and, when allowed to be themselves, most functional people I’ve known.

    Psychology and psychiatry start from pretty straightforward, obvious (to me) premises, having to do with whether people are able to function well cognitively and emotionally, and whether they are able to align their perceptions and actions with consensus reality. If they are having problems in these domains, the aim is to help them. Given the extraordinary complexity of the brain and human development and behavior, and social conditioning and expectations, it’s only reasonable that there is no single blanket definition for what is normal or abnormal. For example, normal for a 16-year-old Chinese boy is not normal for an 80-year-old Dutch woman. There will be overlap, but not absolute accord.

    And then there is the tidal wave of information streaming in based on neuro imaging and chemical and genetic and epidemiological studies, so much data it is quite clear there are all kinds of consistent, concrete differences between people who from a clinical and self-assessment pov are struggling with disorders, versus controls. The goal would be to find ways to use that information to create new treatments, but that obviously lags behind the accrual of basic knowledge.
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  13. #1053
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    9,037
    Mentioned
    990 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I actually know both closeted and uncloseted homosexuals, and one of the guys is kind of a jerk. Actually, two of them are jerks. Others are fine. Some are left-handed.

    Gays are probably no different, intrinsically (except for the sexual preference difference), than anyone else.

  14. #1054
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Is that so? Well, then you should take all your Jungian criteria for what's "normal" and "abnormal" out back and burn it.
    I don't recall having proposed any general criteria as yet. But I do think socionics can help answer that question since it's essentially the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning (albeit very schematic in its current form).

    @golden I have known such people in the past. Being "kind" and "tolerant" is fine but it doesn't mean someone isn't psychologically abnormal.

    Functioning (Te) is dependent on purpose (Ni). For example we'd say an oven is malfunctioning if it's unable to heat food, or if it causes harmful side effects to the user. Its purpose differs from that of a knife, which is to cut food, etc. So, what's the purpose of a human being? If you think that it's to do something vaguely cognitive/emotional and to "align their perceptions and actions with consensus reality" then fine. But it goes quite a bit deeper than that.

    "normal for a 16-year-old Chinese boy is not normal for an 80-year-old Dutch woman"

    "it is quite clear there are all kinds of consistent, concrete differences between people who from a clinical and self-assessment pov are struggling with disorders, versus controls"

    ok, now you're just contradicting yourself. If these consistent differences can be objectively measured, then what makes them normal in one culture and not another? If you relied on self-assessment to decide whether someone was sick physically ("I feel bad so I must be sick") you'd get absurd results - hypochondriacs are now the sickest people in the world. Which is essentially what this transgender nonsense is about in the first place.

  15. #1055
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,727
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I don't recall having proposed any general criteria as yet. But I do think socionics can help answer that question since it's essentially the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning (albeit very schematic in its current form).

    @golden I have known such people in the past. Being "kind" and "tolerant" is fine but it doesn't mean someone isn't psychologically abnormal.

    Functioning (Te) is dependent on purpose (Ni). For example we'd say an oven is malfunctioning if it's unable to heat food, or if it causes harmful side effects to the user. Its purpose differs from that of a knife, which is to cut food, etc. So, what's the purpose of a human being? If you think that it's to do something vaguely cognitive/emotional and to "align their perceptions and actions with consensus reality" then fine. But it goes quite a bit deeper than that.

    "normal for a 16-year-old Chinese boy is not normal for an 80-year-old Dutch woman"

    "it is quite clear there are all kinds of consistent, concrete differences between people who from a clinical and self-assessment pov are struggling with disorders, versus controls"

    ok, now you're just contradicting yourself. If these consistent differences can be objectively measured, then what makes them normal in one culture and not another? If you relied on self-assessment to decide whether someone was sick physically ("I feel bad so I must be sick") you'd get absurd results - hypochondriacs are now the sickest people in the world. Which is essentially what this transgender nonsense is about in the first place.
    It sounds like we are pretty far apart and won’t come to much agreement on these topics. Patients in traditional medicine most often actually do say, “I feel bad, I am sick,” and go to the doctor and describe the symptoms, are asked to rate their pain, and their descriptions may be imperfect and the diagnosis and treatment complicated and likewise imperfect. Particularly when someone is suffering from a complex illness or syndrome that manifests in many different ways.

    Within psychiatry and psychology themselves, there is no real contradiction in what I said. People at different stages of life have different kinds of problems ... the issues of geriatric and adolescent patients are quite different, and medications even affect their bodies differently. And cultural differences are a factor in when someone does or doesn’t feel psychosocial distress. And despite these differences, there are a lot of commonalities that increasingly can be measured in increasingly objective ways.

    Human beings are complicated and contextualized.

    I find that something like socioncs is far too simple to account for most of what makes people tick. For me, it is only a set of ideas that can add another strand or layer to my views on how people behave. Perhaps you see it differently than that.

    ETA: Linking to an article I just happened to read today on research re genetic development and the timing of onset of certain psychiatric disorders: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...rs-start-brain

    You can gain a sense of the broad, long-term scope of just this one limited area of research.
    Last edited by golden; 12-15-2018 at 07:49 PM.
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  16. #1056
    Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    1,418
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I don't recall having proposed any general criteria as yet. But I do think socionics can help answer that question since it's essentially the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning (albeit very schematic in its current form).

    @golden I have known such people in the past. Being "kind" and "tolerant" is fine but it doesn't mean someone isn't psychologically abnormal.

    Functioning (Te) is dependent on purpose (Ni). For example we'd say an oven is malfunctioning if it's unable to heat food, or if it causes harmful side effects to the user. Its purpose differs from that of a knife, which is to cut food, etc. So, what's the purpose of a human being? If you think that it's to do something vaguely cognitive/emotional and to "align their perceptions and actions with consensus reality" then fine. But it goes quite a bit deeper than that.

    "normal for a 16-year-old Chinese boy is not normal for an 80-year-old Dutch woman"

    "it is quite clear there are all kinds of consistent, concrete differences between people who from a clinical and self-assessment pov are struggling with disorders, versus controls"

    ok, now you're just contradicting yourself. If these consistent differences can be objectively measured, then what makes them normal in one culture and not another? If you relied on self-assessment to decide whether someone was sick physically ("I feel bad so I must be sick") you'd get absurd results - hypochondriacs are now the sickest people in the world. Which is essentially what this transgender nonsense is about in the first place.
    Yikes.

    This is extremely disappointing to read. Of all the possible positive things you can take from personality theories you chose to be close minded.

  17. #1057
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I'd have to hear the quote to see what you mean, it doesn't sound congruent with what I know about him.
    I didn't really quote anything, but I looked back to see what he said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NieOvfs1lu0) and it was that he thought the patriarchy wasn't really a thing because people keep jobs based on if they are competent or not. But he uses a doctor as an example of competence, saying you seek out the most competence doctor. But doctors are highly trained phsyicians with many years of school and experience, so naturally a doctor should be competent. Things get fuzzy when you talk about corporate culture and production; a company could say create a very cheap product that has poor quality and still makes money because people like cheap stuff, but at the same time introduces crappy products into the market that are hard to fix, costly to constantly replace, and don't last long (sometimes this is intentional). So essentially competence becomes what makes money, which is more about economic power, which makes his doctor argument now a bit fuzzy in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    The problem is that most of the initial goals of feminism have already been met (voting rights, equal pay for equal work), yet there is a growing faction whose complaints only increase in loudness as they get more of what they want. Moreover this has come at the expense of traditional values which IMO has hurt both men and women alike. (Not to mention the disadvantages that men have which aren't even allowed to enter the conversation.) It's a bit funny to see how Peterson has become popular for the most part for not being a crazy extremist, and yet also having some interesting things to say about the world. It just goes to show how low the bar for public discourse is right now - most people only get heard if they shout something incendiary at the top of their lungs.
    Yeah, there's a lot of social justice stuff now. And Donald Trump getting elected and all the political commentators on youtube are basically talking about all the social justice stuff. I find it a little strange when there's kind of an economic trade war going on with China and the US government is so out of control, we borrow money to keep it functioning, though admittedly most of that is military spending and really that's Bush got us in this mess to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Olimpia View Post
    They think LSI for Musk mostly because supposedly Gulenko said so
    It does kind of seem like that influenced people's perception of him.

    Quote Originally Posted by waddup View Post
    A transgender man is always going to be a woman in a nice custome. Its a kind of mental illness, every cell in that body has distinct sex chromosome amoung the other 23.

    Having said that, let em do what they want fuck we are just smart meat bags and if it makes these minds happy, content, stable, whatever, then by all means.
    It really depends on how you define mental illness. I was reading an article on genome mapping and how there are certain genes that attribute more to feminine qualities that block certain masculine traits and I thought that was interesting because somebody could have all these traits that compile against their chromosomes and make living as their gender seem at odds with themselves. It's also believed that testosterone/estrogen effect gender characteristics of the brain in certain stages of a baby's development, so any genes or anything that effects that can theoretically change the brain. There's also testosterone insensitivity (which might be genetic), where an XY male develops as an XX female, except for not having ovaries, which is incredibly interesting to me. Or intersex people with XXY chromosomes that grow up and choose what gender they may identify with or simply not identify at all.

    It's just kind of stupid to call it a mental illness just because it's abnormal.

  18. #1058
    Desert Financial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI Ti E6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I don't recall having proposed any general criteria as yet. But I do think socionics can help answer that question since it's essentially the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning (albeit very schematic in its current form).
    Socionics was developed by psychologists. Augustina was a psychologist, Kepinski had a background in psychology, and Jung was essentially a psychologist. Gannushkin, Leonhard, and Lichko all had backgrounds in psychology as well.

    It's inconsistent of you to claim that modern research developed by psychologists should be taken with a grain of salt, while claiming the dated research done by these people who were also psychologists should practically amount to the gospel truth. Your viewpoint on the matter amounts to a rigid kind of fundamentalism that disregards empirical evidence and substantiated explanations for cognition and behavior. Even your definitions for functions amount to some of the most crude, reductionist, simple, and inaccurate shit I've ever seen uttered in typology circles. Functioning is not "Te." Purpose is not "Ni." That's fucking ludicrous.

  19. #1059
    Desert Financial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI Ti E6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by COOL AND MANLY View Post
    Yikes.

    This is extremely disappointing to read. Of all the possible positive things you can take from personality theories you chose to be close minded.
    It's pretty ironic, isn't it?

    I'm not a psychologist and this shit isn't even my strong suit. But if I took Socionics as seriously as hotelambush does, then I would aggregate as much updated psychological research as possible, because if you lack a broad variety of explanations for why events occur (whether the events involves human behavior, or otherwise), then you will lack a basis to parse out irrelevant data. And if you lack a basis to parse out irrelevant data, then your conclusions have a higher likelihood of being inaccurate.

  20. #1060
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh...BTW, JP does mention how he sees himself in BIG 5. I forgot about it, but here it is
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jCv9A3AuA, which roughly and simply comes out to

    JP seeing himself as
    *high in extroversion
    *higher in neuroticism
    *relates a lot more to agreeable
    *conscientious
    *higher in openness

    And um, I recall a thread on typology central discussing what each MBTI dimension would correlate to for BIG 5. Being that - https://personalityjunkie.com/08/per...iggs-big-five/


    So roughly, that would make him out as ENFJ in MBTI. And I know there is disagreement about how Socionics and MBTI differ or are similar, but I'm from the point of view that the extroverted types correlate fairly well compared to the introverted types, mainly because of how MBTI describes the J/P dimension.

    So just an "analysis" or whatever, but I find that kind of interesting, given the argument that 4 out of the 5 dimensions of BIG 5 are actually Jungian dimensions, whether we are talking about Socionics or MBTI.

  21. #1061
    Desert Financial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI Ti E6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, Socionics has some detrimental ramifications when you use it to explain all facets of human consciousness because you then run the risk of masking mental conditions. And if you mask your mental conditions with this shit, your chances of seeking legitimate treatment are slim-to-none, because as the adage goes "the first step is admitting you have a problem", and you can't admit you have a problem if you chalk it up to information elements that are considered a normal part of the Model A program. For example, if you think that your "Fi" accounts for chronic depression, then you'll essentially assume your "Fi is working just fine" and neglect to seek help for the underlying issue. If you think your intuition accounts for schizophrenia, etc....

  22. #1062
    Desert Financial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI Ti E6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Dude, it's cool. I'm not having a manic episode, it's just Fe."
    Last edited by Desert Financial; 12-15-2018 at 09:13 AM.

  23. #1063
    a two horned unicorn renegade Comatose Lamiac 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    tickling your PoLR
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF 7 so/sx
    Posts
    5,751
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    EIE creative with serious normalizing drive. Does not give off that real calmness of normalizing. Hard to say though as depression runs rampant in him. He has his very deep concentration moments which is indicative of creative.

    https://socioniks.net/article/?id=223
    Creative subtype - Mentor playing
    Prone to reincarnations in different images. Demonstrative, can submit himself. His mood is changeable. In a good mood, courteous, animated, joking, writing aphorisms.In a bad mood, gloomy and irritable, breaks down on loved ones. It involves the synthesis of opposites, transitions from a positive to a negative image and vice versa.
    Achieves freedom of expression, from clothing to lifestyle.
    A detailed review of subtypes of quadra beta in publications:

    Subtype LSI Inspector , Subtypes EI Marshal , Subtypes IES Lirik .
    Normalizing Subtype - Educating Mentor
    Intelligent and prudent person, self-righteous. Critical and caustic in dealing with opponents. He prefers to distance himself, as loud sounds, sudden movements or unpleasant smells irritate and exhaust him.
    Proud and touchy. Painfully tolerates criticism of one’s appearance or habits. Hesitates in the choice between the senses and the mind. An assessment of general patterns in the development of any area.Synthesizes his ideas with other sources, thus building his theory or teaching.
    Last edited by Comatose Lamiac 007; 12-15-2018 at 09:10 AM.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  24. #1064
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,727
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Dude, it's cool. I'm not having a manic episode, it's just Fe.
    Quittalkingaboutme
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  25. #1065
    Desert Financial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI Ti E6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    Quittalkingaboutme
    Go to sleep.

  26. #1066
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,727
    Mentioned
    247 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Go to sleep.
    I am asleep
    LSI: I still cant figure out Pinterest.

    Me: Its just, like, idea boards.

    LSI: I dont have ideas.

  27. #1067

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Yeah, Socionics has some detrimental ramifications when you use it to explain all facets of human consciousness because you then run the risk of masking mental conditions. And if you mask your mental conditions with this shit, your chances of seeking legitimate treatment are slim-to-none, because as the adage goes "the first step is admitting you have a problem", and you can't admit you have a problem if you chalk it up to information elements that are considered a normal part of the Model A program. For example, if you think that your "Fi" accounts for chronic depression, then you'll essentially assume your "Fi is working just fine" and neglect to seek help for the underlying issue. If you think your intuition accounts for schizophrenia, etc....
    Yeah, I usually have 5 different theories in mind, involving many that are not personality type related, but maladaptive mechanisms, illnesses, current life situations, etc. that I think it becomes really hard to find "A Source" for all the behavioral factors, like Socionics for example.

    Not just that, but the whole chicken vs egg thing breaks my mind. You might see correlation, but not causality.

    I think it was an Enneagram 6 description that to me seemed more like a great thread about unsafe attachment patterns, rather than a "oh, tee hee, that's just who I am".

    I agree with @golden and you - it can add a layer and more questions - also it can be fun to explain everything within this model, but more like a mental game or exploration, not as a mask for something you'd need help with. And even if it would explain something, the bigger problem is using it as a proof that these things shouldn't change. We can explain many health and mental health issues by different factors, and yes, some of their development can be understandable if you look about one's history and circumstances. It doesn't mean it's good for you now, doesn't mean your life wouldn't be better by changing it, or that you don't need treatment and support.

    Not sure why I wrote this, I basically just rewrote everything you did before me in 2 sentences.

  28. #1068
    Heaven and Hell Samson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kara View Post
    I think it was an Enneagram 6 description that to me seemed more like a great thread about unsafe attachment patterns, rather than a "oh, tee hee, that's just who I am".
    Exactly. Enneagram is very specific about this too: personality type is ego-attachment. It is NOT the self.


  29. #1069

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    221
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    I didn't really quote anything, but I looked back to see what he said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NieOvfs1lu0) and it was that he thought the patriarchy wasn't really a thing because people keep jobs based on if they are competent or not. But he uses a doctor as an example of competence, saying you seek out the most competence doctor. But doctors are highly trained phsyicians with many years of school and experience, so naturally a doctor should be competent. Things get fuzzy when you talk about corporate culture and production; a company could say create a very cheap product that has poor quality and still makes money because people like cheap stuff, but at the same time introduces crappy products into the market that are hard to fix, costly to constantly replace, and don't last long (sometimes this is intentional). So essentially competence becomes what makes money, which is more about economic power, which makes his doctor argument now a bit fuzzy in my opinion.



    Yeah, there's a lot of social justice stuff now. And Donald Trump getting elected and all the political commentators on youtube are basically talking about all the social justice stuff. I find it a little strange when there's kind of an economic trade war going on with China and the US government is so out of control, we borrow money to keep it functioning, though admittedly most of that is military spending and really that's Bush got us in this mess to begin with.



    It does kind of seem like that influenced people's perception of him.



    It really depends on how you define mental illness. I was reading an article on genome mapping and how there are certain genes that attribute more to feminine qualities that block certain masculine traits and I thought that was interesting because somebody could have all these traits that compile against their chromosomes and make living as their gender seem at odds with themselves. It's also believed that testosterone/estrogen effect gender characteristics of the brain in certain stages of a baby's development, so any genes or anything that effects that can theoretically change the brain. There's also testosterone insensitivity (which might be genetic), where an XY male develops as an XX female, except for not having ovaries, which is incredibly interesting to me. Or intersex people with XXY chromosomes that grow up and choose what gender they may identify with or simply not identify at all.

    It's just kind of stupid to call it a mental illness just because it's abnormal.
    IMO it’s tantamount to the same thing. Dont read a value statement into this. Mental illness is what it is. The mechanisms as to the why and how are redundant at this level of discussion. I dont judge mental illness like others do and I cast a wide net with the term. I see most of humanity as afflicted by some level of mental Dis-ease.

    The question at this level is shoukd society cater and chnage to better accommodate a transgender person or should the transgender person accept their place as it stands.

    Petterson plays around at this level and you watch him avoiding giving direct answers which is supremely canadian of him.

  30. #1070

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    221
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson View Post
    Exactly. Enneagram is very specific about this too: personality type is ego-attachment. It is NOT the self.
    The term fixations is a clue. Its built right in.

  31. #1071
    Haikus silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,052
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Samson View Post
    Exactly. Enneagram is very specific about this too: personality type is ego-attachment. It is NOT the self.
    How is "Ego-attachment" "NOT the self"?

    If you didn't have an individuated, self-specialized ego, how do you get to be a person? And why are you negating that part of yourself?

  32. #1072
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waddup View Post
    IMO its tantamount to the same thing. Dont read a value statement into this. Mental illness is what it is. The mechanisms as to the why and how are redundant at this level of discussion. I dont judge mental illness like others do and I cast a wide net with the term. I see most of humanity as afflicted by some level of mental Dis-ease.
    It's still stupid to call human differences mental illness. That term implies an illness that needs to be cured. It leads to all kinds of fallacious thinking, such as reparative therapy. I don't think you even really know or have an idea what mental illness is, if you're using the term so broadly.

    The question at this level is shoukd society cater and chnage to better accommodate a transgender person or should the transgender person accept their place as it stands.
    Is that the question? Identity is both individual and influenced by society. It isn't about choosing one over the other. If this is the kind of question that Peterson gets people to ask, then society is fubar.

  33. #1073
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    196
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Yeah, Socionics has some detrimental ramifications when you use it to explain all facets of human consciousness because you then run the risk of masking mental conditions. And if you mask your mental conditions with this shit, your chances of seeking legitimate treatment are slim-to-none, because as the adage goes "the first step is admitting you have a problem", and you can't admit you have a problem if you chalk it up to information elements that are considered a normal part of the Model A program. For example, if you think that your "Fi" accounts for chronic depression, then you'll essentially assume your "Fi is working just fine" and neglect to seek help for the underlying issue. If you think your intuition accounts for schizophrenia, etc....
    Personally speaking, when I had depression, it destroyed my sense of identity and it was a lot harder to identify with the things I did before it, let alone a personality type. So I guess it could go to the other extreme too.

  34. #1074
    Heaven and Hell Samson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    441
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke View Post
    How is "Ego-attachment" "NOT the self"?

    If you didn't have an individuated, self-specialized ego, how do you get to be a person? And why are you negating that part of yourself?
    Because it is a world-view, a belief, a modus operandi, that the ego attaches itself to. A fixation, as @waddup mentioned. It is not the ego. And in turn, the ego is not the self, though we like to tell ourselves otherwise. So already, once's E-type is at least twice removed from our essence.


  35. #1075

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    221
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    It's still stupid to call human differences mental illness.
    I stated that transgenderism is a kind of mental illness, not human differences. What those people who are, choose to do with it, is up to them. As a gay man myself, I have had to reconcile that my own homosexuality might be a type kf mental illness and / or a kind of genetic fuck up. What I choose to believe about it is a form of mental health. I dont kid myself into thinking its normal though. It has become normalized thanks to media, public opinion swaying, still doesnt make it any less abnormal. Besides I dont see it as an equivalent problem to transgenderism. Humanity is going to start playing with the human genome its already happened in China recently. Look out for the free for all. Chicks with dicks is going to look mild in a hundred years.

    That term implies an illness that needs to be cured.
    The cure is self acceptance. Which could mean accepting your own delusions.

    It leads to all kinds of fallacious thinking, such as reparative therapy. I don't think you even really know or have an idea what mental illness is, if you're using the term so broadly.
    I do.


    Is that the question? Identity is both individual and influenced by society. It isn't about choosing one over the other. If this is the kind of question that Peterson gets people to ask, then society is fubar.
    It is fucked up. That’s Peterson’s entire point.

  36. #1076

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EIE-Ni
    Posts
    137
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Olimpia did you have anything else to say about Peterson as sx/so and in regard to my points from before? I do think you can still make a case for him being sx/so, but I still question this idea you stated earlier about the stacking.

    He has sparked controversy in a way that is unusual for So/Sp 1. So/Sp 1 is more often found in Law and similar pursuits. They are more stable and less "impassionate" or socially disruptive, due to the desire to be part of the group.
    However, how he has sparked controversy and a "movement"/following of some kind, with a fan base, is much more typical of Sx/So than So/Sp.
    Also, you could even argue he loses composure too often for someone who is supposedly a 1.

    Jordan Peterson is known for shouting and even crying during his talks or interviews. He loses composure too often for someone who is supposedly So/Sp 1.

  37. #1077
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    Socionics was developed by psychologists. Augustina was a psychologist, Kepinski had a background in psychology, and Jung was essentially a psychologist. Gannushkin, Leonhard, and Lichko all had backgrounds in psychology as well.

    It's inconsistent of you to claim that modern research developed by psychologists should be taken with a grain of salt, while claiming the dated research done by these people who were also psychologists should practically amount to the gospel truth. Your viewpoint on the matter amounts to a rigid kind of fundamentalism that disregards empirical evidence and substantiated explanations for cognition and behavior. Even your definitions for functions amount to some of the most crude, reductionist, simple, and inaccurate shit I've ever seen uttered in typology circles. Functioning is not "Te." Purpose is not "Ni." That's fucking ludicrous.
    I never said Jung or Augusta should be taken as gospel truth, and in fact I've directly critiqued both Jung and Augusta on my website and blog, not to mention presented an interpretation of socionics that goes beyond what they imagined. The others you mentioned aren't directly relevant to my research. I am familiar with and to some extent find value in other psychological research - taking it with a grain of salt means just that. The difference with socionics is that I can (and have) directly verified it through my own research and personal experience. If you disagree with my conclusions (which are elaborated on my website) then there's not much more else to say. However, your knowledge of socionics seems limited at best so I don't take these kinds of objections very seriously.

  38. #1078
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    I didn't really quote anything, but I looked back to see what he said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NieOvfs1lu0) and it was that he thought the patriarchy wasn't really a thing because people keep jobs based on if they are competent or not. But he uses a doctor as an example of competence, saying you seek out the most competence doctor. But doctors are highly trained phsyicians with many years of school and experience, so naturally a doctor should be competent. Things get fuzzy when you talk about corporate culture and production; a company could say create a very cheap product that has poor quality and still makes money because people like cheap stuff, but at the same time introduces crappy products into the market that are hard to fix, costly to constantly replace, and don't last long (sometimes this is intentional). So essentially competence becomes what makes money, which is more about economic power, which makes his doctor argument now a bit fuzzy in my opinion.
    Yeah there is a bit of that "being successful economically means you're competent by definition" which is a typical Gamma fallacy IME.

  39. #1079
    Desert Financial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    TIM
    LSI Ti E6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,834
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I never said Jung or Augusta should be taken as gospel truth,
    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    But I do think socionics can help answer that question since it's essentially the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning (albeit very schematic in its current form).
    You said "it's the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning." Ie. that it's the sole, valid interpretation of how a normal psyche functions. Therefore, your viewpoint amounts to a claim that it's the absolute truth, or the "gospel truth." What about the DSM-5 alternative model of personality, or Kernsberg's model of personality organization, or Big 5, HEXACO, MBTI, WHODAS, or any model that could be synthesized from these systems? You've obviously disregarded them in favor of Socionics, once again dovetailing with the fact that you take Socionics as the gospel truth.

    This is what you had to say about ADD in the thread I made about ADD earlier:

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Ne is real, ADD is a fictional disorder used to drug up young children.
    That's not taking the criteria for ADD with a "grain of salt." Your viewpoint on the matter amounts to conspiracy theory.

    If you think that functioning is "Te", then you confuse objective reality with subjective reality in that you think that objective phenomena literally amount to information elements. Ie. you're tacitly roping people into your worldview about what reality even is with the theories posted on your website. So I'm not interested in reading your website.
    Last edited by Desert Financial; 12-18-2018 at 11:11 AM.

  40. #1080
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,154
    Mentioned
    292 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
    You said "it's the only general model we have for normal psychological functioning." Ie. that it's the sole, valid interpretation of how a normal psyche functions. Therefore, your viewpoint amounts to a claim that it's the absolute truth, or the "gospel truth." What about the DSM-5 alternative model of personality, or Kernsberg's model of personality organization, or Big 5, HEXACO, MBTI, WHODAS, or any model that could be synthesized from these systems? You've obviously disregarded them in favor of Socionics, once again dovetailing with the fact that you take Socionics as the gospel truth.
    The key words here are general functioning. Socionics is more than just a personality type model. It attempts to describe all of human consciousness as information processing by eight interacting functions. MBTI does break things down similarly but I haven't found it to be very accurate or coherent. Big 5 makes no such attempt, it's just a collection of binary traits. If these other viewpoints can be related to socionics in some way then I'd be more confident in them due to my familiarity with socionics, but I wouldn't reject them by default, that's completely absurd. I welcome any and all insight into human psychology.

    This is what you had to say about ADD in the thread I made about ADD earlier:

    "Ne is real, ADD is a fictional disorder used to drug up young children."

    That's not taking the criteria for ADD with a "grain of salt." Your viewpoint on the matter amounts to conspiracy theory.
    I was exaggerating, but that assessment is based on the demonstrable fact that Big Pharma is the source of much of drug research funding (in itself a huge conflict of interest), as well as the reproducibility crisis in the humanities, plus the other ontological issues I've mentioned above. The idea that these "disorders" require being given drugs that may not actually solve the problem (or have side effects that are even worse) tends to amplify the issues with the underlying science many times over. But I'm open to being convinced that these things are really disorders and the supposed cures do help.

    If you think that functioning is "Te", then you confuse objective reality with subjective reality in that you think that objective phenomena literally amount to information elements. Ie. you're tacitly roping people into your worldview about what reality even is with the theories posted on your website. So I'm not interested in reading your website.
    In socionics information aspects are categories of objective information - this is due to Augusta, not me. If you don't like it or can't understand it I suggest finding another forum. Maybe MBTI or Big 5 would be easier for you to understand.

Posting Permissions

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