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.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.
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.
The cure is self acceptance. Which could mean accepting your own delusions.That term implies an illness that needs to be cured.
I do.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.
It is fucked up. That’s Peterson’s entire point.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.
@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.Also, you could even argue he loses composure too often for someone who is supposedly a 1.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.
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.
This is what you had to say about ADD in the thread I made about ADD earlier:
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 Karatos; 12-18-2018 at 11:11 AM.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." - Schopenhauer
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.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.
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.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.
So it concerns me to see you entertaining it as a possible mental illness. I mean I agree it's abnormal, but not all abnormalities are bad or necessarily undesirable or need to be treated.
Evolution/reproduction, for example, is all about mixing genes, genetic mutations, and really just creating something new and different from everything else. Everybody has something different about them from everybody else; it doesn't mean they need to be normalized. Do you get what I mean? And if you don't, then where do you draw the line between mental illness and human variation?
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/sc...plex-evolutionA 2008 study published in the open access journal Genome Biology suggests that during our evolution, we reached a point where our brain met the limit of its cognitive capabilities. To overcome this, the organ evolved rapidly in order to increase the rate at which it performed metabolic processes. Certain psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia, are a byproduct of these dramatic molecular changes, one prominent theory states.
@Dalek, yes right! even major mental illnesses can be just a natural product of evolution... what looks like a disease might actually be a collective boon to the future.
Mediocre lives that end with separations, cheating and divorces, got it. Empty lives revolving around Muffie the Poodle and trips to Ikea for the newest decorative furniture and the empty sterile lives but there are glowing lights in the hot tub and lets do a gay cruise so we can fuck as many men as possible and Bing you have a grindr message for a dick suck 100m away POZ only straight acting bullshit.Two gay people can live together and have a positive partnership
Sure when they do well they contribute big taxes to make sure fellow man can get child day care and Elemtery schools get the support they need even though it will not benefit the gay couple in anyway shape or form. Plus the pretend respect and tolerance by people that behind closed doors think you are a broken degenerate only after one thing: a piece of meat. Hey, we pay taxes so like, don't hate us.that doesn't take away from other people or from coexisting as a member of society.
I have never been one to be willing to overlook difficult answers.So it concerns me to see you entertaining it as a possible mental illness.
I know that already. I never stated it should be treated, only that it sucks and if I could wave a magic wand I would in a heart beat.I mean I agree it's abnormal, but not all abnormalities are bad or necessarily undesirable or need to be treated.
I don't know. I'm sure someone far more educated and knowledgable about what is good for the entire human population to do is out there answering this question right now. Consider human pollution is actually a force of nature we can;t even comprehend and we see the convoluting of the Earth's surface and its temperature changing and mineral extraction as a part of the entire process if you zoon out way far enough. Basically, you can't know what is good for man, or not, people can't even figure what is good for themselves let alone everybody else. And if they can do they follow through on it?Evolution/reproduction, for example, is all about mixing genes, genetic mutations, and really just creating something new and different from everything else. Everybody has something different about them from everybody else; it doesn't mean they need to be normalized. Do you get what I mean? And if you don't, then where do you draw the line between mental illness and human variation?
Taking the worst in promiscuity and freakishness of gay culture doesn't make a case for it as mental illness. There are freaks and promiscuity with straight people too. STDs are common with swingers and there are plenty of straight weird fetishes involving cross-dressing and bdsm with straight non-transgender people. It's an obvious straw man.
And it's senseless to defer the question I asked you to more educated and knowledgeable people when you are the one using mental illness with such broad strokes. No one else has to justify your silly categorizing, but you.
You're being ridiculous.
I don't care I am being ridiculous. Its still true. Society values tolerance atm of minorities and marriages. If you have not had sex with the same sex don't cast your opinion I don;t even care about it.
People feel sorry for trangerdered and gay people which is a long way from true acceptance. The sooner you accept that the more well adjusted to the truth you will be.
Identifying as gay is pretty much just saying hi im such and such and I like dick. Tell me how that's not some kind of mental abbheration?
My step brother is a gay doctor (and happily married) and my friend from college is gay and has a nice marketing job. And no, they don't know what you're really talking about because I asked them. But fine, if this is too personal, whatever then.
Society gave gay men a niche. That's all that happened.
Dude, if that's the way you feel, it's fine, but it isn't all about you.
I mean, you can think what you want. We clearly just disagree, but I don't think I want to say any more at this point. So fine.
Alright look, I am bisexual (or a 2 on the Kinsey scale) and I do know a lot about what you're talking about because I've done some of that as well, though I've always used condoms and try to be safe (no gloryholes or anything too weird like that). And I'm an introvert, so I prefer deep relationships over casual sex. But no I don't at all feel the way you do about it and I don't think my homosexual thoughts were ever any more perverted than my straight ones.
So can we leave it alone? This is annoying. We don't know each other and this has gotten way too personal for an anonymous internet forum on socionics...
He told that his mathematical skills are not particularly good compared to others. I don't think this aligns particularly well with EIE as they tend to even obsess with it. Maybe IEE?
Measuring you right now
Man speaking with him seems XSI. Ni HA.
Damn. I was reading his guide on how to write essays, and the guy loves rules. And "thinking clearly". I'm starting to move somewhat back towards Beta for him. Not Ti ignoring. ILI if Gamma.
I like the general ideas at the beginning, however his actual technique and structure for writing is incredibly stifling and not much different from the essay writing in middle school that made me hate writing. (I do love writing, but not this kind of uninspired boilerplate stuff.)
back to EIE. Restrict me more baby and I restrict you. Together we can become true dungeon masters and inmates. We can switch the roles daily... only and only if the rule is set. Sounds bit like LSI/EIE duality.
Measuring you right now
just watched this video
he's definitely Se valuing. his obsession with hierachies, "alpha" and "beta" traits etc. personally leave me shacking my head.
@3:45: he compares "diversifying your hierachy of plans" to investing into the stock market. he's very interested in mysterious phenomens, religion, carl jung, symbolism etc. he's extremly pragmatic in most of his convictions. I think LIE creative subtype makes the most sense.
he had a debate with Slavoj Žižek (EIE) a while ago (Beta vs. Gamma)
he interacts too directly with the real world to be an ILI.
interesting how bad he looked 1 1/2 years ago. Golihov mentioned that types with Ni as creative function (EIE, LIE) benefit from fame. it helps them realising their personality in the world.
(scroll down to the end)
Last edited by soundofconfusion; 09-02-2019 at 05:56 AM.
in this video, he pretty much talks about the dominant subtype. he also makes predictions for the future (Ni). he does that very often, predicting how things will develop
The Zizek debate was ok, he may just be a strongly contra-flow E1 EIE (I previously typed him ILI). Zizek had the upper hand, and it didn't seem like it was due to supervision—I would expect an ILI debating an EIE like that to be more passive or defensive in their maneuvers, staying within their own 'logic' more rather than going tit for tat. It seemed like they were playing the same game in a slightly different way.
Measuring you right now
Watched a video. First thought; sensor. Second thought; dialectic-algorithmic cognition. I think he is probably SEI-Si 1w2 so/sp.
it's interesting that he thinks bjørn lomborg (who is also an LIE imo) is a genius.
I think this a very good example of an ENTj-Te who is not in a pure business career. ENTj-Te’s can be emotional speakers and are very good story tellers. If you look at his ideas, he tries his hardest to make sure his ideas are in logical order (his ideas aren’t always logical, but even that is a trait described by Meged) and they are pragmatic with his constant references to neuropsychology and statistical results. An ENFj would make much more of an appeal to pathos, while Jordan gives practical advice which really hits home (literally, “Clean your room”). People mistake his active following for a Beta quadra rallying (i.e MLK revolution), but it is merely the product of the fact that the ideas he touches upon are very controversial in our modern day.
He reminds me of my ENTj-Te philosophy teacher; he was very stoic and even when he made jokes he barely cracked a smile. However, when it came to a topic that he had a deep down emotional connection towards, he shed tears while keeping a constant pace with relaying his message. This was the only time I saw any of my teachers cry.
It is also very interesting to note how he very easily monetized fame, seeing the opportunity for profit straight away. I know this is a weak point, but it is a point nonetheless.
P.S: I am not in agreement with most of his teachings. Just in case you got that impression.
Last edited by Investigator; 09-18-2019 at 06:04 AM.
Let's start with what he isn't:
He does not have dominant Te or Ti.
First Te, He uses many examples of studies and research, but he's an academic he should be doing that. Compare him to someone who really has ego Te like Ben Shapiro.
Now Ti, he has a very hard time making his point in a clear and concise manner, he circles around the topic slowly getting to the point. His point I think is as clear to him as it is to us, its as if he's uncovering what he really wants to say the longer he talks.
He is not a dominant Sensor.
He works himself sick and he frequently showers meatheads like Joe Rogan with adulation for being so intimidating and strong and awesome. Last time I checked his diet consists of all meat, he has little to no variation of what he eats.
What is he then?
He exaggerates emotions to an excessively dramatic level, every time you hear him speak its as if he's preaching of fire and brimstone. Everything is magnified to the nth degree of emotion.
He frequently makes himself out to be a victim, to be victimized by a group, calls people out for being aggressive to him. Whether its actually happening or not he feels comfortable to portray himself to be on the defense. This to me seems like victim behavior.
I think he's an IEI or EIE.
Growing up where he grew up, in rural Canada, I think will hammer out that NF-ness pretty hard. Beta NFs are beaten down in working-class cultures that are concerned with mainly making a simple practical living for themselves. What do you get when this happens? A man preaching traditional working-class values ie be practical, be hardworking, don't live in your head. He preaches this as a revolutionary movement as if he's upturning the current system. He preaches what seem like delta/gamma values like a beta would.