Jordan Peterson

[WVBRY]

Are you suggesting that individuals paying for a service instead of Government funded makes the quality of it better?

No, I am suggesting that competition in the free market makes a product or service better.

What good really is a Government, or a nation for that matter, if not to provide the people living there with Health Care at the very least?

How about a military, a system of law and courts etc? Those things go much further back in history than healthcare does, though if you look at my earlier arguments I'm not saying that government should not provide healthcare, my problem is with coercion such as taxation or keeping people from starting a new business becasue government provides that service already.

You are miss reading me, there is a difference between being offended and being passionate.

Ok, Gotcha.

Squark is trying to offend and you are trying to discredit.

You are misreading me too! I am not trying to discredit, just shed light on some defects that may exist within the current system, I don't think anything is ever perfect enough that we shouldn't consider improving it.

[timber]

Referring to "not a vocab term" comment, so yeah, either you know all about it, or it was never a vocab term . . . so yeah, you're full of shit, trying to talk your way out of the hole you dug and trying to cover up your ignorance. I don't really care. You're unwilling to admit you jumped to conclusions and didn't fully read what I wrote.

lol, this is stupid, just stop.

Did you understand what I said regarding herd immunity? Or was that also not a vocab term? Herd immunity is when the majority of people in a population are immune (and it doesn't really matter how they got that immunity btw) and this sea of immune folks protects those who cannot or choose not to get vaccinated for whatever reason (health, immunodeficiency, age, inability to afford vaccines, etc.) I'd explain more, but I'm sure you'd just claim you know all about this already. Of course, if you actually understood it, you'd know that I was explaining how it is in fact a good idea for most people in a population to get vaccines. . . but it'd be a little dumb for those who already have immunity to get them. And I don't believe that anyone should ever be forced into getting them.

I know all about herd immunity as that is an actual term used. It works MOST effectively when everyone gets the vaccine, not when some people decide to opt out because they are inside the holographic mind of whatever system of thought they ascribe to ie religious beliefs.

Addressing the reason for not getting vaccines specifically you used as example of inability to afford vaccine: that's an American society phenomena, we don't have to pay for the majority of vaccines here through our own pockets, the Government provides funding for this.

Fine, you got lucky and didn't die from your childhood illnesses and for you personally it wouldn't be required to get a vaccine for those specific illnesses. Maybe you get the next ones, maybe you don't. Maybe you die from them, maybe you don't. Congrats your body immune system is strong. I hope that people don't look at you as a shining example of how a person can survive without the vaccine and choose to not do it themselves and then subsequently contract a *vaccinatable* disease, or their children, and loose that child because they held a belief in the power of their own natural immunological abilities to persevere through a contractable disease.

As far as forcing goes, why would a person who appreciates the ability to use effective means of survival at their disposal and the ability to protect their children from dangers not use every tool possible to be healthy and strong? Who in their right mind would decide they are being forced when its just pure common sense to take a vaccine?

Your original comment was that natural immunity is dumb because you didn't know what I was referring to and thought that I meant I had never contracted any of the diseases. Now you're just trying to weasel out of it so you don't look stupid.

No, its dumb because its dumb overall, not because you believe I did not understand it (I do, from your perspective, and I still think its dumb). Now you are just trying to attack me because I don't agree with it at the foundational level.

[timber]

K.

It was still just luck. Don't delude yourself into thinking it was anything other than luck. Maybe it was all a part of the plan for your life though.

[golden]

Right it would have been waaay better to pay 5000 dollars out of my own pocket for the last trip to the Emergency room and if I did not have the money well its my own moral failing for not having saved up for it.

Just to be clear this is more or less exactly the thinking of conservative Middle America re cutting or refusing to admimistrate social services in the U.S., so what timber is describing is not coming out of nowhere

[timber]

Look the bottom line here for me is that you and I do not agree. We are both survivors who have come to different conclusions. I could go into further about where I am coming from personally and why it is I think this way, but I won't.

I came at you in the start with some hostility and you returned in kind.

I was living in my truck last fall and my entire life has been one struggle after the next for legit reasons. Some reasons were because of forces outside my control and some where my own choices of which I take responsibility for. For a person who understands the prodigious efforts involved first hand to over come challenges, some health wise, I am firmly rooted in a foundation at this point that truly believes in the value of socialized health care and also of the miracle of modern vaccine programs. That is my programming and I can respect that you have yours. It's really that simple. I'm not the boogyman I come across as, and I'm also not a weasel. And yes, I was a great biology student at one point.

[sbbds]

He just initially got triggered by the idea of someone seeming badass survivory obviously.

[timber]

@timber:
Well, while I don't think anyone should be forced to be vaccinated, from my very first post re. vaccines I talked about the benefits of being vaccinated not just for oneself, but in how it protects the vulnerable populations who aren't.

My post:

And I feel like that first sentence was the only thing that you paid any attention to whatsoever. So, unless you're suggesting forced vaccinations, I don't see where the problem is, and it's why I said you weren't reading and were jumping to conclusions. I never once said, "Hey guys, don't get vaccinated, because I didn't and I'm still alive!!" or anything remotely like that. I answered a question re. why I don't see the need to get vaccines for myself, but it wasn't some kind of sweeping statement meant to apply to everyone else.

For sure. You are so right. Wow..and your parents as well. So wise to avoid it for their child as their ideologies said. The risk was so low, truly. And it wasn't luck for you, it was meant to be.

And those ideas for the people that choose to avoid vaccination: so implementable and absolutely people will follow it and will be so easy to enforce and realistic.

[timber]

I've been right and by myself my whole life and apparently that passes over onto the forum as well.

[squark]

I've been right and by myself my whole life and apparently that passes over onto the forum as well.

When you refuse to listen to what others are saying and assume they're saying something completely different that sort of thing tends to happen.

[timber]

You are being dishonest with yourself, but I am not fooled.

[squark]

You are being dishonest with yourself, but I am not fooled.

Considering that you believe I've said something I never did, I understand why you have that impression.

Apart from that, I regret that I was as rude to you as I was and if I had understood from the beginning what was happening in the discussion I probably would have acted differently, so I apologize for that.

[timber]

Apology accepted for that.

[ouronis]

Dis boi LII.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

@Singu

Yeah I agree with you on this one. I like much of what Jordan said, but he's being an ass on the Trans thing. He doesn't get some universal free pass with everything just cuz he was a momentary fresh breath of air.

It's all about basic respect and calling people by what they prefer to be called as, if your real name was Bob but I called you John instead at first you might laugh but if I kept doing it, and doing it in a serious/condescending way not even as a joke, you would get pissed off and want me to stop doing that, of course you would. Now apply that to how trans people feel when you don't call them by their preferred gender pro-noun. The more you knoooow!

Though... it needs to be about the specific individuals, something like this is still too petty for me to think it needs to be some objective overly serious Te law that everybody fights over or sth. Like trans people calling non trans people 'cis gendered' is also stupid as there's no self-reference to it. Also objectively acting like we should all use 'Zir' everywhere is of course ridiculous lol, but if a trans person simply wants you to refer to him as a 'her' when that's how they see themselves... I don't see why it's so hard not to just command to their wishes. You are even allowed to think it's silly/ridiculous/delusional, but it's about basic respect and professionalism. We used to have a really cool Fi valuing trans member on here wonder what happened to her...

Many gay men go back and forth between calling each other 'she' or 'he' because we're two-spirits/feel both like a guy and girl at the same time anyway. We usually don't call very masculine gay men a 'she' because that would be logically stupid, but any one that does obviously have some 'girl power' in them is fair game. Which is not surprisingly, most ******s. Stereotypes are based on truth.

[Samson]

@Singu

Yeah I agree with you on this one. I like much of what Jordan said, but he's being an ass on the Trans thing. He doesn't get some universal free pass with everything just cuz he was a momentary fresh breath of air.

It's all about basic respect and calling people by what they prefer to be called as, if your real name was Bob but I called you John instead at first you might laugh but if I kept doing it, and doing it in a serious/condescending way not even as a joke, you would get pissed off and want me to stop doing that, of course you would. Now apply that to how trans people feel when you don't call them by their preferred gender pro-noun. The more you knoooow!

The more you know... indeed.

Peterson has been beyond clear that he specifically opposes using-the-wrong-pronoun as a legally (be it by state/nation law or by school policy) punishable act. This is a separate issue from basic respect. Peterson opposes the 'wrong-pronoun is violence' outcry and the policing of speech, which is a far greater threat to 'basic respect' than the issue that you brought up.

[Adam Strange]

Fair enough. Out of curiousity, which Ti type do you think I am?

Your shoe size indicates LII. I think I mentioned that already.

[Adam Strange]

And your dick size indicates S vs N, amirite?

No, I think both are statistically orthogonal.

*EDIT*

Hey, @FarDraft. I wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything. Sorry if it came off that way. My apologies.

[FDG]

I see some similarity between myself and Jordan, honestly.

Not saying this to be abrasive or anything but for example I see zero similarity between myself and Jordan Peterson, especially his latest form. It's like he comes from a different dimension of life. There is a distinct removal from practical life in him, which I rarely see in Te dom types.

[FDG]

Really? I can agree with that statement for some of his opinions, notably his opinions about religion, but for many of his political arguments, it seems like he's a breath of fresh air in a PC, ideological society. But I do live in Canada, so that could be a part of it. It's insane here, especially on university campuses.

Where I live PC isn´t especially a thing, but I am mostly referring to his life outloook, it seems to me that he is really dectached from day-to-day workings of people. Some other people on this forum disagree completely with my outlook on him anyway, so it´s just my 2c.
Another member simply said that I live in a more backward society and thus don´t see what Peterson is talking about.

[Breather]

Honestly I'd say
LIE-Ni so/sx
Enneagram difficult imo , 9?

[Breather]

9w8 so/sx for enneagram but I don't know much about him

[Dalek Caan]

I think it would be weird to say Peterson is a Te/Fi valuer when he's made a name for himself by dramatizing and playing to the current political landscape. He seems to put a lot of value in how he logically concludes things, whether it's how to structure your life, social contracts/structures, or worrying that people might force him to call them a certain name, as if that would be as bad as someone coming into your home, raping your family and emptying your bank account or something.

He seems to really value his Ti and I think it has made him a lot of fame and money, so good for him I guess.

But then again some people on here truly think Donald Trump is Fi valuer, so lol, why not.

[Raver]

[Dalek Caan]

Okay, so honest question,

Do most people really fall into camps of thinking men are responsible for all the wrongs in the world or that feminists want to dominate and put down men or that men just need to stand up for themselves and be men or something?
I guess I forget that I'm not really normal and don't relate with the average person. I'm probably SO last enneagram and Fe-PoLR, for what that's worth, but I just don't understand how at the end of the day people really take these ideas with such veracity. I grew up liking Daria and feeling like society is pretty dysfunctional to begin with and find it a little strange how people get so riled up over what seems like really nothing to me. Or maybe it's just that the normals feel like they have lost the Marxist idea of agency they grew up believing they had and want to lash out at everyone and everything because of it. They are afraid of becoming Daria.

[Exodus]

I think it would be weird to say Peterson is a Te/Fi valuer when he's made a name for himself by dramatizing and playing to the current political landscape. He seems to put a lot of value in how he logically concludes things, whether it's how to structure your life, social contracts/structures, or worrying that people might force him to call them a certain name, as if that would be as bad as someone coming into your home, raping your family and emptying your bank account or something.

He seems to really value his Ti and I think it has made him a lot of fame and money, so good for him I guess.

But then again some people on here truly think Donald Trump is Fi valuer, so lol, why not.

I don't think he "dramatizes" the political landscape. It makes sense for Gammas to be concerned about the real-world consequences of ideas.

Actually, you could say his main thesis is that ideology (principles) are what lead people to do unspeakably horrible things as in Nazism and Communism. There's an interview where he's being interviewed by an apparent LII or Ti valuer and she comments that it's not easy to categorize what he believes - it's sort of a piecemeal taken from different sources. He replies that following a (consistent) ideology is "predictable".

Some consistent threads to what he believes are 1) you have to take personal responsibility for what happens to you and 2) hierarchies should be based on competence rather than mere power-seeking. Even his attitude towards religion is pragmatic. These things weren't apparent when I looked at him initially but they do point to Gamma. I'm not sure whether LIE or ILI but I think he is one of the two.

You have a good point about his interest in breaking down belief structures (and other things like analytic psychology / the humanities which are culturally more Beta) - I'd say it's unusual for Ti ignoring and less so Ti demonstrative.

[Dalek Caan]

I don't think he "dramatizes" the political landscape. It makes sense for Gammas to be concerned about the real-world consequences of ideas.

Perhaps. But I just get a strange sense that social issues are super important to him and that he really values his interpretation of them and seems to think it's super important to influence them as well. Is it normal for Gamma to put so much effort into doing that, investing their lives into interpreting and manipulating the social sphere?

Actually, you could say his main thesis is that ideology (principles) are what lead people to do unspeakably horrible things as in Nazism and Communism. There's an interview where he's being interviewed by an apparent LII or Ti valuer and she comments that it's not easy to categorize what he believes - it's sort of a piecemeal taken from different sources. He replies that following a (consistent) ideology is "predictable".

Well I'd agree that he does try to take the social critic approach. But he does often make arguments where he does stand for something, such as there being natural hierarchies that form in society or his belief in social contracts and such. A lot of his conclusions about his social critiques are in response to liberal ideas that he doesn't like or agree with.

I mean didn't he become well-known because he didn't like the possibility of having to call transgenders by certain pronouns? Because he believes it goes against his idea of society or something... He very much seems to value this idea of a social organism over an individual one. It's probably a central theme to all his arguments. It seems like that is Fi devaluing or at least Gamma-Fi devaluing.

Some consistent threads to what he believes are 1) you have to take personal responsibility for what happens to you and 2) hierarchies should be based on competence rather than mere power-seeking. Even his attitude towards religion is pragmatic. These things weren't apparent when I looked at him initially but they do point to Gamma. I'm not sure whether LIE or ILI but I think he is one of the two.

I guess I just don't see how this couldn't apply to all the quadras though. Taking personal responsibility for the things that happen to you is part of growing up and being mature and responsible. Having hierarchies based on power-seeking would just lead to all sorts of problems. I don't actually believe betas, for example, are against those ideas.

Actually I usually hear from LIEs that they have no problem taking a job they might not be competent in because it's a way to learn and grow from mistakes or become competent at it over time. Most companies operate this way where once you become competent in a job, you move on to something else you aren't good at and have to become competent at it. It requires a lot of extemporaneous thinking. And it's not uncommon for old problems to resurface when somebody takes a new job then. But now that I recall I think Peterson said he was against that because it's a bit dysfunctional or something (I could be wrong though, I only followed him for a little while out of curiosity). And he's right then, but part of growing and learning is being incompetent and making mistakes and fixing them and doing better on the next try. I think some LIEs might not appreciate the whole competence thing keeping them from getting and succeeding in more rewarding or lucrative jobs (or even being able to try for that matter).

[Dalek Caan]

Just putting this out there, some people care about Reinin and others don't, but as I read over Reinin's aristocrat/democrat dichotomy, it becomes immediately obvious that Peterson falls into Aristocratic at the very least.

Aristocrats

1. Inclined to perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, by means of groupings and categories that they see these people belonging to; these groupings may be created and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, rather than be already existing and socially defined ones.
2. Their initial attitude towards another person is influenced by their attitude towards the grouping they see this person belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of same groupings, and define such groupings by these same qualities.
4. Inclined to refer to others using expressions that mention generalized features of their groupings.

Democrats

1. Perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, primarily describing individual, personal qualities: frank, trustworthy, generous, unimaginative, lighthearted, good-looking, etc. which are generally not in connection to any grouping to which they might belong.
2. Form their relationships and attitudes toward other persons based on their own individual characteristics, rather than taking into account which grouping these persons fall into or their own relationships with the members of these circles and groupings.
3. Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain grouping that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people who comprise it.
4. When referring to others, not inclined to use expressions that mention the generalized features of the grouping or categories that these people belong to.

[Desert Financial]

Jordan Peterson is a cult.

[Blue]

Just putting this out there, some people care about Reinin and others don't, but as I read over Reinin's aristocrat/democrat dichotomy, it becomes immediately obvious that Peterson falls into Aristocratic at the very least.

Aristocrats

1. Inclined to perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, by means of groupings and categories that they see these people belonging to; these groupings may be created and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, rather than be already existing and socially defined ones.
2. Their initial attitude towards another person is influenced by their attitude towards the grouping they see this person belonging to.
3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of same groupings, and define such groupings by these same qualities.
4. Inclined to refer to others using expressions that mention generalized features of their groupings.

Democrats

1. Perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, primarily describing individual, personal qualities: frank, trustworthy, generous, unimaginative, lighthearted, good-looking, etc. which are generally not in connection to any grouping to which they might belong.
2. Form their relationships and attitudes toward other persons based on their own individual characteristics, rather than taking into account which grouping these persons fall into or their own relationships with the members of these circles and groupings.
3. Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain grouping that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people who comprise it.
4. When referring to others, not inclined to use expressions that mention the generalized features of the grouping or categories that these people belong to.

He's also a clear Negativist. He's such a glass half-empty person.

Positivists

1. More inclined to optimize already functional systems of things and processes.
2. "This glass is half-full"; "We have already collected $438,000 for that project."
3. Usually more complimenting than reprimanding
4. Socially and intellectually more trusting.
5. Explains what things are (irrationals) or should be (rationals).

Negativists

1. More inclined to solve problems in systems of things and processes.
2. "This glass is half-empty"; "We need $62,000 for that project."
3. Usually more reprimanding than complimenting.
4. Socially and intellectually more mistrusting.
5. Explains what things are not (irrationals) or should not be (rationals).

Negativist Types: LII (INTj) SEI (ISFp) SLE (ESTp) EIE (ENFj) ESI (ISFj) ILI (INTp) IEE (ENFp) LSE (ESTj)

Positivist Types: ILE (ENTp) ESE (ESFj) LSI (ISTj) IEI (INFp) SEE (ESFp) LIE (ENTj) EII (INFj) SLI (ISTp)

[FDG]

Actually I usually hear from LIEs that they have no problem taking a job they might not be competent in because it's a way to learn and grow from mistakes or become competent at it over time. Most companies operate this way where once you become competent in a job, you move on to something else you aren't good at and have to become competent at it. It requires a lot of extemporaneous thinking. And it's not uncommon for old problems to resurface when somebody takes a new job then. But now that I recall I think Peterson said he was against that because it's a bit dysfunctional or something (I could be wrong though, I only followed him for a little while out of curiosity). And he's right then, but part of growing and learning is being incompetent and making mistakes and fixing them and doing better on the next try. I think some LIEs might not appreciate the whole competence thing keeping them from getting and succeeding in more rewarding or lucrative jobs (or even being able to try for that matter).

Yeah...I feel like the guy is some nitty-gritty critical perfectionist. He even said that about himself. My approach is exactly like the one you mention.

[Adam Strange]

Yeah...I feel like the guy is some nitty-gritty critical perfectionist. He even said that about himself. My approach is exactly like the one you mention.

My approach is the same as FDG's. Claim you can do something new, then figure out how to do it well or expect to get fired.

[FarDraft]

Actually I usually hear from LIEs that they have no problem taking a job they might not be competent in because it's a way to learn and grow from mistakes or become competent at it over time. Most companies operate this way where once you become competent in a job, you move on to something else you aren't good at and have to become competent at it. It requires a lot of extemporaneous thinking. And it's not uncommon for old problems to resurface when somebody takes a new job then. But now that I recall I think Peterson said he was against that because it's a bit dysfunctional or something (I could be wrong though, I only followed him for a little while out of curiosity). And he's right then, but part of growing and learning is being incompetent and making mistakes and fixing them and doing better on the next try. I think some LIEs might not appreciate the whole competence thing keeping them from getting and succeeding in more rewarding or lucrative jobs (or even being able to try for that matter).

I think this could be more of an enneagram thing. Type 5s would be less likely to do something they feel less competent at since their fear is to be incompetent. So they would learn as much as they can about the job prior to engaging with it. LIEs tend to be 8s, 3s, or 7s, which don't have this fear and are often motivated by exactly the opposite. A 3 would want to prove that they can do something with minimal training, a 7 would be be very open to try new things and develop multiple strengths, and an 8 would want to take on a challenge. A developed 5 would be more like an 8 in this sense.

[Raver]

I am starting to realize why Peterson is so divisive: causing either hate or admiration. Partly because he does it intentionally to provoke drama (Fe?) and partly because he delves into a particular kind of thinking that can be refuted (Ti?).

So I lean towards Fe/Ti valuing for that reason, but I cannot pinpoint his type yet. As for his political views, they are deliberately obfuscated by him by calling himself a classical liberal. It is such an outdated term that could apply to centrism or center-right conservatism.

So due to this obfuscation, you get people dead certain he is a centrist or a center-right conservative because his views do oscillate a bit. I don't really care what his political stance is anymore, I think he makes a lot of good points, but flubs on other points, which is inevitable with his style of thinking and speaking.

My thoughts with him are to take him with a grain of salt, but don't throw the baby out of the bathwater either. Unfortunately, people either idolize him and put him on a pedestal or they demonize him and look at him as worse than trash. Which are extreme and arbirtrary ways of looking at him.

[Olimpia]

I am starting to realize why Peterson is so divisive: causing either hate or admiration.

SX problems

[xerx]

He's such a lying, piece of shit grifter that I don't even give a fuck about his type anymore.

[Olimpia]

I find he's a classic Sx/So Type 1.

SO first individuals (especially So/Sx, because Synflow) almost never cause as much diversion as SX first (especially Sx/So, because Contraflow) individuals naturally do.

(The exception being certain So/Sp 8s.)

[Bastard]

Ah, good ol' Jordie P. Paragon of Gamma NTs internet-wide.

[Blue]

Peterson is so incredibly Social. I'd even argue that he's last in Sexual. If one thinks that Peterson is a revolutionary for his cause in the sx/so sense, then that isn't the case. Yes he's leading the group who identifies with him, as a Social would be want to do, but Peterson actually wants to preserve the status quo, not tear it down or bring forth a new way of thinking. He's divisive because he chose to stand in the way of progress (not that he didn't have a point too in some respects). He is explicitly against radical revolutionary movements and sees this as dangerous for the well-being of society. This is far more consistent with so/sp, not sx/so, if you believe him to be contraflow, which I agree he is. His fears and neurosis, as well as his gifts and strengths in another sense, all revolve around Social, while devaluing changing norms, or showing no nuance, in the Sexual realm.

[Olimpia]

Peterson is so incredibly Social. I'd even argue that he's last in Sexual. If one thinks that Peterson is a revolutionary for his cause in the sx/so sense, then that isn't the case. Yes he's leading the group who identifies with him, as a Social would be want to do, but Peterson actually wants to preserve the status quo, not tear it down or bring forth a new way of thinking. He's divisive because he chose to stand in the way of progress (not that he didn't have a point too in some respects). He is explicitly against radical revolutionary movements and sees this as dangerous for the well-being of society. This is far more consistent with so/sp, not sx/so, if you believe him to be contraflow, which I agree he is. His fears and neurosis, as well as his gifts and strengths in another sense, all revolve around Social, while devaluing changing norms, or showing no nuance, in the Sexual realm.

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.

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.

Obviously Jordan Peterson is "social" - he's a type 1, plus has a strong social instinct. 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. 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.)

There are many videos of his on attraction, relationships, and dynamics between the two sexes. Also, the focal point of his controversy - genders - ultimately is an SX subject after all. In contrast, So/Sp tends to be more concerned with issues like environmentalism/climate change, having their focus on SP.

[sbbds]

There is nothing sexual about Jordan Peterson.