# Jordan Peterson's Philosophizing Functions?



## intrasearching (Jul 15, 2011)

Hi all,

As many have, I've become a Jordan Peterson acolyte this or last year sometime... I've been absorbed in his lectures on Jung and the collective unconscious, his perspectives on the current sociopolitical mood and its signaling a more threatening trend or cycle, as well as his (largely Jungian) argument for leaving room for mythologies and the evolutionarily-gleaned and intuitively-preserved learnings that are embedded within them.

As I've been listening to him, I've seen clearly that he uses intuition. I can't say for sure what sort. At this point I could hear or make arguments for a variety of N types. What do you all figure? I want to open the discussion with a quote from his most recent debate with Sam Harris: "What I've been trying to do ... was to ground values in facts." 






Thank you for your thoughts!


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

He's such an obvious Ni/Se & Ti/Fe type to me - *NFJ.

Read this article on how Socionics Beta types see the world, which represents Ni/Se & Ti/Fe - either there's really something to Socionics/MBTI/Cognitive Functions, or he's just straight up cribbing from it:

Socionics - the16types.info - Beta Quadra: The Complex of Subservience by Stratiyevskaya

(For the record, I'm not a fan - I find _him_, and the various reactions to him, way more interesting than anything he has said. He strikes me as very self-important and full of hot air. To me he's no different than any other "common sense" public guru, like Deepak Choprah or Oprah.)



> From the combination of the properties of all predominant quadra traits listed above, *in Beta Quadra society there arises a harsh struggle for power, for the dominant position in the system*. Everyone strives upwards; all fight for the right of personal domination. Nobody wants to be on the margin or "behind" in this race. *Everyone lives by the principle of "push and displace, so as not to get pushed out and displaced by others", which creates a particular kind of tension in the existence within the hierarchy*.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

He is INFJ, quite clearly to me. It even shows in negative ways, like his failing logic in live debates, he's definitely not a T user, it's very obvious when he argues against others who probably are (see Matt Dilahunty & Sam Harris). We have like three threads on him here tho and I've discussed this to death so I prob won't say more.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Just out of curiosity. I've noticed that there are these public figures: Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. And people seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they have to say. I mean ok, you listen to them once and move on, but there are some people who become disciples or something like that... Why do people do that? I mean I listened a few of Jordan Peterson's lectures... It was ok, but I don't see what's so special about him and other public intellectuals. And I don't know what's so controversial about what Peterson is saying.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Strelnikov said:


> Just out of curiosity. I've noticed that there are these public figures: Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. And people seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they have to say. I mean ok, you listen to them once and move on, but there are some people who become disciples or something like that... Why do people do that? I mean I listened a few of Jordan Peterson's lectures... It was ok, but I don't see what's so special about him and other public intellectuals. And I don't know what's so controversial about what Peterson is saying.


IMO. It's because the way social media and today's information is disseminated and accessible to people, there are algorithms dictating what people get to watch / read next which are similar in content to what they just watched/read leading them down a rabbit hole of similar ideas being fed to them (or similar ideas they're feeding themselves) without any exposure to the counter argument. Universities are good with that sort of thing. They'll give you an idea, then the critique of the idea and so on and so forth. YouTube etc simply recommend what you might like to watch based on what you watched and thus it creates a scenario where if you happen to fall for the cult of personality, you can't get out of it unless you actively seek out the counter-argument. 

Some don't even know that a counter-argument exists to the information they have just assimilated. Maybe their brains simply aren't wired to seek counter-arguments, and instead settling on what they've just learnt. You see it in extremist arguments all the time. 

In fact, there's even now an NPC meme based on the way thousands of people online are shouting the same things at each other ...


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Jawz said:


> IMO. It's because the way social media and today's information is disseminated and accessible to people, there are algorithms dictating what people get to watch / read next which are similar in content to what they just watched/read leading them down a rabbit hole of similar ideas being fed to them (or similar ideas they're feeding themselves) without any exposure to the counter argument. Universities are good with that sort of thing. They'll give you an idea, then the critique of the idea and so on and so forth. YouTube etc simply recommend what you might like to watch based on what you watched and thus it creates a scenario where if you happen to fall for the cult of personality, you can't get out of it unless you actively seek out the counter-argument.
> 
> Some don't even know that a counter-argument exists to the information they have just assimilated. Maybe their brains simply aren't wired to seek counter-arguments, and instead settling on what they've just learnt. You see it in extremist arguments all the time.
> 
> In fact, there's even now an NPC meme based on the way thousands of people online are shouting the same things at each other ...


Sounds plausible. Indeed social media does encourage groupthink. I've noticed all the politics groups do this. Everyone thinks/says the same thing.

But I would think it weird to be the disciple/follower of one particular person. I mean Peterson is ok, but honestly, I'm not that impressed. He's too... philosophical/metaphysical/theoretical for my taste. A lot of what he's saying seems to me to be a subjective interpretation without a solid grounding in facts.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Strelnikov said:


> Sounds plausible. Indeed social media does encourage groupthink. I've noticed all the politics groups do this. Everyone thinks/says the same thing.
> 
> But I would think it weird to be the disciple/follower of one particular person. I mean Peterson is ok, but honestly, I'm not that impressed. He's too... philosophical/metaphysical/theoretical for my taste. A lot of what he's saying seems to me to be a subjective interpretation without a solid grounding in facts.


The reason why Peterson seems so philosophical and theoretical is because he's actively using big words and a lot of assertive speaking power in order to fool people into thinking he's said something important and revolutionary. All the while he almost never actually makes a point. The points he does make are built on misinformation and lack of knowledge. Plenty of people have torn his lack of intellect apart now for him to have any real following outside of those who have exposed themselves to Peterson and Peterson alone.

Peterson is a quack.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Isfj


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

ego: Ni/Fe
un: Ne/Fi
sub: Se/Ti
Sego: Si/Te




Strelnikov said:


> Just out of curiosity. I've noticed that there are these public figures: Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. And people seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they have to say. I mean ok, you listen to them once and move on, but there are some people who become disciples or something like that... Why do people do that? I mean I listened a few of Jordan Peterson's lectures... It was ok, but I don't see what's so special about him and other public intellectuals. And I don't know what's so controversial about what Peterson is saying.


pretty simple, cause he's saying something valuable lol
better yet he is doing something valuable and is closer than anyone else in the public sphere to unifying the sciences and religion.
granted there are people closer to this than he is but they don't have the platform yet.

what peterson says is controversial because it upsets the last 50 years of sociopolitical history from feminism to atheism, which pretty much touches on everything in society.
the debates between him and harris are of value cause of the change in conceptualisation on what "god" is, this is only relevant to the career atheists though (anti-theists), and so they set about their ways to dismantle peterson, none of which will work btw cause he's genuinely elucidated a large piece of the puzzle that is us.

frankly i'm baffled that attempts to devalue what he's said have been successful, yet at the same time unsurprised they've been successful for various reasons.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

aiyanah said:


> ego: Ni/Fe
> un: Ne/Fi
> sub: Se/Ti
> Sego: Si/Te
> ...


Just another JP thread and it will always lure skeptics. Some are naturally skeptics, some are only socially/peer-pressured skeptics, some simply do not get him, while some will totally dismissed him as toxic hazardous waste without slightest doubts as it they had known any better or are superior beings with the highest credentials. And some... will simply troll.

While i see JP, as individual, only as symptom, the tip of the iceberg of the collective unconsciousness. That there is something terribly wrong in the society. I believe even without JP this kind of movement will find its own agent(s). JP can even be stopped and be put aside to fade away but nothing can stop this subliminal urges of finding new ways of looking at current sociopolitical problems.

Anyway, just for the fun of it, let's see how many number of posts this thread going to have before it get closed. Again. 



_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

aiyanah said:


> pretty simple, cause he's saying something valuable lol
> better yet he is doing something valuable and is closer than anyone else in the public sphere to unifying the sciences and religion.
> granted there are people closer to this than he is but they don't have the platform yet.
> 
> ...


I don't really see him as having elucidated anything. I mean he does have some interesting philosophical/psychological positions, but his logic seems to be based too much on intuition and subjective interpretations. Also, he seems to not really get to the point. I was watching a lecture of his, and he doesn't really get to the point. He goes on these meandering ideas, he explores them... but I don't really see the finality. A final and definitive conclusion. Also, I disagree with some of his interpretations. I would need more statistics and empirical observations to be convinced.

I'm not denying he has something interesting to say, but I wouldn't say he's right or at least I wouldn't say he's convincing.


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> Just another JP thread and it will always lure skeptics. Some are naturally skeptics, some are only socially/peer-pressured skeptics, some simply do not get him, while some will totally dismissed him as toxic hazardous waste without slightest doubts as it they had known any better or are superior beings with the highest credentials. And some... will simply troll.
> 
> While i see JP, as individual, only as symptom, the tip of the iceberg of the collective unconsciousness. That there is something terribly wrong in the society. I believe even without JP this kind of movement will find its own agent(s). JP can even be stopped and be put aside to fade away but nothing can stop this subliminal urges of finding new ways of looking at current sociopolitical problems.
> 
> ...


surely there are many ways to peel an onion but which way leaves you with as much usable onion as possible?
and yeah most jp threads will inevitably devolve into ideological pandering from both sides, i just find it funny that jp is objectively correct on a number of things yet gets lambasted, but i could say the same for alex jones and david icke and a number of nameless people whose ideas aren't ever evaluated across time yet turn out to be true across time.
regardless, it's just funny to me how things are unfolding, dare i say the peterson harris debates went exactly as i had predicted in my own mind, likewise the reactions to it on both sides and the gnawing obviousness of what peterson is saying in relation to life as we actually know it and not as we dream it would be.




Strelnikov said:


> I don't really see him as having elucidated anything. I mean he does have some interesting philosophical/psychological positions, but his logic seems to be based too much on intuition and subjective interpretations. Also, he seems to not really get to the point. I was watching a lecture of his, and he doesn't really get to the point. He goes on these meandering ideas, he explores them... but I don't really see the finality. A final and definitive conclusion. Also, I disagree with some of his interpretations. I would need more statistics and empirical observations to be convinced.
> 
> I'm not denying he has something interesting to say, but I wouldn't say he's right or at least I wouldn't say he's convincing.


not sure how to say this but he lists out his points in progression, the point is the next thing you hear, and the point of that is what you next hear and so on till the rabbit hole gets closed for being too meandering as all rabbit holes are.
i also find peterson's ideas are readily applicable to all histories and walks of life, i had a lot of fun applying it to sports for instance but it turns out the people following anything being said from jp are seldom into sports to make such a handy cross reference, perhaps fiction but few know the function of fiction.
everyone will apply anything to suit their own agenda for politics so we can ignore that.


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

intrasearching said:


> Hi all,
> 
> As many have, I've become a Jordan Peterson acolyte this or last year sometime... I've been absorbed in his lectures on Jung and the collective unconscious, his perspectives on the current sociopolitical mood and its signaling a more threatening trend or cycle, as well as his (largely Jungian) argument for leaving room for mythologies and the evolutionarily-gleaned and intuitively-preserved learnings that are embedded within them.
> 
> ...




I have 50+ hours of watching/listening to Peterson's stuff, I wouldn't call myself an acolyte or disciple or anything like that, I disagree with quite a bit of what he says and I also agree with a lot of what he says, Peterson is a very fascinating person.

As for his type; With the way he "Sees" abstract and the depth that he goes into abstract, no sensor can do that, so we know that his leading perceiving cognitive function is either Ne or Ni.
His Si is very, very weak and his Se is not bad, Se is on an axis with Ni, so we can easily go with Ni/Se for him. There are other indicators as well for Ni over Ne, but I don't need to get into that for now, Se over Si is good enough.

There are two things about Peterson (cognitive wise) that stand out hardcore about him, the first being that he is an N, and the next one being that his dominant judging function is Te, he oozes Te. One of the funny things about watching him in his lectures or interviews is seeing him struggle constantly with Te data dumping, he wants to do it so bad, but he knows he can't let it loose full bore and yet still has to give enough data to get his point across with sufficient backing.... The forever Te struggle.  If you get a chance, check out the interview in which he talks about his process for writing a book, in doing so, he basically explains the Te thinking process for just about everything, great stuff.. 
Oh, and he is pretty hardcore Fi, his Fe sucks. He is a very moral (Fi) person, but not an ethical (Fe) one, he tries to use Fe as much as he can because he knows he should, but he's not very good at using Fe. Fi and Te are on the same axis.
So, we have Ni/Se and Fi/Te, he is an extrovert and an alpha (his interaction style), which leads us to ENTJ.


Anyways, that's my 2cents on his type.


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

INFJ. You could probably do a pretty solid play-by-play of the type using Peterson.


Strelnikov said:


> Just out of curiosity. I've noticed that there are these public figures: Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. And people seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they have to say. I mean ok, you listen to them once and move on, but there are some people who become disciples or something like that... Why do people do that? I mean I listened a few of Jordan Peterson's lectures... It was ok, but I don't see what's so special about him and other public intellectuals. And I don't know what's so controversial about what Peterson is saying.


Yeah, I have no idea why these people are so determined to get their news from Youtube. It's not a peer reviewed journal, it's not a news source, and it's not educational. It's a website where people film themselves eating tide pods. It is, at best, entertainment.

Jordan Peterson's popularity is especially weird to me. Even if I were to lean that way politically, i'd have no idea what his appeal is. He's not crowd-pleasing like Alex Jones, or charismatic like Ben Shapiro. He's the vanilla ice cream of social media's "intellectual" rejects.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

aiyanah said:


> surely there are many ways to peel an onion but which way leaves you with as much usable onion as possible?
> and yeah most jp threads will inevitably devolve into ideological pandering from both sides, i just find it funny that jp is objectively correct on a number of things yet gets lambasted, but i could say the same for alex jones and david icke and a number of nameless people whose ideas aren't ever evaluated across time yet turn out to be true across time.
> regardless, it's just funny to me how things are unfolding, dare i say the peterson harris debates went exactly as i had predicted in my own mind, likewise the reactions to it on both sides and the gnawing obviousness of what peterson is saying in relation to life as we actually know it and not as we dream it would be.
> 
> ...


Because most of what he said are his own theories, his own analysis of all the phenomenon out there, using his own wordings and logic constructs combined with his indepth knowledege on human psychological 'pathologies'. Phenomenon which are only happen recently (in its current form - in the midst of global interconnected world) although some would draw some similarity to historical past cycle of civilization rise and fall. 

Being theories, they certainly involved lot of abstracts. Being recent, there are no past exact fruit and empirical data to draw comparison to.

So... again, am counting posts now.... :


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

Strelnikov said:


> Just out of curiosity. I've noticed that there are these public figures: Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. And people seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they have to say. I mean ok, you listen to them once and move on, but there are some people who become disciples or something like that... Why do people do that? I mean I listened a few of Jordan Peterson's lectures... It was ok, but I don't see what's so special about him and other public intellectuals. And I don't know what's so controversial about what Peterson is saying.



For Jordan Peterson I would say that there are two reasons for it. First being that he is brilliant, we can agree with him or not, but there is no denying that he is brilliant, a mind like his is very rare and a gem. If Tesla or Einstein were alive today, I would be watching their youtube channels and listening to their podcasts all the time. Finding minds like that, that are willing to share what they think and what they have found/figured out isn't easy, so when they do, like Peterson or Harris, people listen.

The second reason is much deeper and a bit of a sensitive matter... Most information is passed by word of mouth, from generation to generation information is passed, usually by parents to their kids. Unfortunately the last few generations has seen a massive disconnect from fathers to sons and certain information has stopped being passed on because of it, the sons are yearning for that information, but they are not getting it, instead they are getting misinformation from other sources, which is confusing and harmful, but if you don't know what to compare it to, how would you know? a gut feeling that says it's wrong is all they have to go on, but it's not enough to change anything. And then along comes Peterson, with the correct information, the information that they would have gotten from their fathers, and they can't get enough of it, most of them have been without it for their whole lives, 18, 20, 30 years, It's not something that they can fully gather in a 20 minute youtube video, it takes a lot of time to mentally download all that data.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Ridley said:


> For Jordan Peterson I would say that there are two reasons for it. First being that he is brilliant, we can agree with him or not, but there is no denying that he is brilliant, a mind like his is very rare and a gem. If Tesla or Einstein were alive today, I would be watching their youtube channels and listening to their podcasts all the time. Finding minds like that, that are willing to share what they think and what they have found/figured out isn't easy, so when they do, like Peterson or Harris, people listen.
> 
> The second reason is much deeper and a bit of a sensitive matter... Most information is passed by word of mouth, from generation to generation information is passed, usually by parents to their kids. Unfortunately the last few generations has seen a massive disconnect from fathers to sons and certain information has stopped being passed on because of it, the sons are yearning for that information, but they are not getting it, instead they are getting misinformation from other sources, which is confusing and harmful, but if you don't know what to compare it to, how would you know? a gut feeling that says it's wrong is all they have to go on, but it's not enough to change anything. And then along comes Peterson, with the correct information, the information that they would have gotten from their fathers, and they can't get enough of it, most of them have been without it for their whole lives, 18, 20, 30 years, It's not something that they can fully gather in a 20 minute youtube video, it takes a lot of time to mentally download all that data.


He is currently doing what i want to be doing but unable to, for lacking so many things.

Yet somehow i believe i am not alone. Nor him.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Ridley said:


> The second reason is much deeper and a bit of a sensitive matter... Most information is passed by word of mouth, from generation to generation information is passed, usually by parents to their kids. Unfortunately the last few generations has seen a massive disconnect from fathers to sons and certain information has stopped being passed on because of it, the sons are yearning for that information, but they are not getting it, instead they are getting misinformation from other sources, which is confusing and harmful, but if you don't know what to compare it to, how would you know? a gut feeling that says it's wrong is all they have to go on, but it's not enough to change anything. And then along comes Peterson, with the correct information, the information that they would have gotten from their fathers, and they can't get enough of it, most of them have been without it for their whole lives, 18, 20, 30 years, It's not something that they can fully gather in a 20 minute youtube video, it takes a lot of time to mentally download all that data.


I think this gets at a very deep point. The familial transmission of ideas that has undergirded human history, particularly in re morality, has broken down in the past few generations. This result beckoned by the triumph of cultural liberalism has bred anomie for many people. The official doctrine of the human condition that we are trained in is fundamentally incomplete and fails to account for the deep need that humans have for existential meaning, treating every practical motivator of unity between us as reactionism at worst and an afterthought at best. Someone who talks about that drive to find deeper meaning will naturally get attention.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

He's ESTJ.

He has great understanding of everyday sociological facts and concepts and can spin them into a broader scope. (Si/Ne).





Yes, I await public stoning for that heretic post.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

His _Ni-Fe_ or _Fe-Ni_ are pretty evident to me.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> I can see what you are saying. I'll have to tell you something of how I read him because I'm interested in getting a hold on his personality. I put myself as an INTP. I remain with the theory he's an ENTP but the accuracy of that doesn't matter. It's the relationship. I see him as rank with Ne which is what ENTPs do. He's a surveyor with tentative opinion. I think that was in your link. Don't be misled by what seems as hardened opinions because I say they aren't. If I were to talk to him, I'd have to stop him at some objection point and go into why he is saying it. If I were to object to something (I am Ti primary) he'd have to give more proof. But knowing ENTPs he would quickly move on to something else. My job would be to slow him down.
> 
> You mentioned introversion/ extroversion. I was deliberately quiet about that. It's a tough decision because the personality i/e as a whole need not be the same as the cognitive functions within. According to Myers-Briggs the i/e orientation is determined by the 1st extroverted function in the stack. If you buy that, and you don't have to, JP is extroverted because Ne comes first. One could look at his social life and say he thrives on going Ne all over the place. That makes him extroverted. I know you see him as introverted. Hard to tell. I believe I read once ENTPs are the most introverted of all the extroverts. I dunno. If he's an ENTP, his Ti is introverted and that is what one sees. When he sits in his chair among others he is quiet. That seems introverted. When he lectures he is out there into the whole world. That is extroverted.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about MBTI's E/I, but what Jung named intro/extraversion and took as a basic premise to build his theory (though he didn't manage to do it consistently), which is adaptability. Extraverts adapt themselves to the environment, they retain a positive relation with the object which leads to them adapting themselves with new information/experience/environment, etc. Introverts have a self-protective, non adaptable attitude which guides them to build on what they have and control their environment to prevent the necessity for change. NE and NI are just N with a different adaptability attitude. Introverts have a need to control and filter the information/environment in order to ensure they can go unchanged as long as possible.

Uhhh seems weird you don't take N seriously if you are an N type

JP mentions neomarxist postmodernists every chance he gets how do u not know them xD

I think anyone who wants to marry should be able to, though ultimately I don't see the point besides the practical benefits, like making health decisions or passing inheritance and for that reason it would be good if gay people could marry. There's no rational reason to not allow this, only sentimental political ideas about "traditional modes of being" that JP espouses.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I'm not talking about MBTI's E/I, but what Jung named intro/extraversion and took as a basic premise to build his theory (though he didn't manage to do it consistently), which is adaptability. Extraverts adapt themselves to the environment, they retain a positive relation with the object which leads to them adapting themselves with new information/experience/environment, etc. Introverts have a self-protective, non adaptable attitude which guides them to build on what they have and control their environment to prevent the necessity for change. NE and NI are just N with a different adaptability attitude. Introverts have a need to control and filter the information/environment in order to ensure they can go unchanged as long as possible.
> 
> Uhhh seems weird you don't take N seriously if you are an N type


*Two different* concepts on e/i or E/I: the MBTI and Jung's. Okay. Adaptability as a concept. Then I have a question (to myself and you). If extroverts are more adaptable to the outside world, how are they with their inside person? Maybe they are not so adaptable there. What if I said introverts are more adaptable to their inside world ... what they are to themselves?

I'm an N type? No. I'm a T type I claim. I use N just to get input. I'll take it from Ni or Ne. Don't care.








> JP mentions neomarxist postmodernists every chance he gets how do u not know them xD
> 
> I think anyone who wants to marry should be able to, though ultimately I don't see the point besides the practical benefits, like making health decisions or passing inheritance and for that reason it would be good if gay people could marry. There's no rational reason to not allow this, only sentimental political ideas about "traditional modes of being" that JP espouses.


Neomarxist postmodernists? Because no matter how often he mentions that if I don't have a definition I ignore it. It seems to carry more significance to you than to me. I do recall I googled it once and it washed right over me. If I don't fancy or understand a concept, I won't use it. It's the difference between you and me. 

Do you buy an MBTI type for yourself? Maybe you are the same way with that because you say, "Unknown." That's okay. We are entitled to be different.

Gay marriage? Can we take that to a different thread as this one is about JP?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> *Two different* concepts on e/i or E/I: the MBTI and Jung's. Okay. Adaptability as a concept. Then I have a question (to myself and you). If extroverts are more adaptable to the outside world, how are they with their inside person? Maybe they are not so adaptable there. What if I said introverts are more adaptable to their inside world ... what they are to themselves?
> 
> I'm an N type? No. I'm a T type I claim. I use N just to get input. I'll take it from Ni or Ne. Don't care.


I don't think there is a distinction, because being adaptable means you change _yourself_ more easily. Our person is something in constant communication with the outside world, how we defend or not against it is the matter. 



> Neomarxist postmodernists? Because no matter how often he mentions that if I don't have a definition I ignore it. It seems to carry more significance to you than to me. I do recall I googled it once and it washed right over me. If I don't fancy or understand a concept, I won't use it. It's the difference between you and me.
> 
> Do you buy an MBTI type for yourself? Maybe you are the same way with that because you say, "Unknown." That's okay. We are entitled to be different.
> 
> Gay marriage? Can we take that to a different thread as this one is about JP?


I'm NP
Postmodern neomarxists don't have significance to me, but to JP.
then why ask me about gay marriage? :frustrating:


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> I'm NP


I don't know but throughout my obvservation i suspect even if it's true it'll be very near the 50 % N/S marker. But, up to you.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> I don't know but throughout my obvservation i suspect even if it's true it'll be very near the 50 % N/S marker. But, up to you.


Coz you are about 80% order in the order-chaos scale


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Reeks of Ni, that's for sure. 

Then I'd say auxiliary Te. When he's challenged by interviewers on the basis of his views being controversial, his reaction usually is "it doesn't matter how we feel about it, these are the facts that have been determined".


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I don't think there is a distinction, because being adaptable means you change _yourself_ more easily. Our person is something in constant communication with the outside world, how we defend or not against it is the matter.


The concept of "adaptability" doesn't exist in a vacuum. One must be adaptable about something. Then there is "one." We are not one person in different situations when it comes to detail. That idea is up for grabs. We interact with what we are dealing with making us change in different situations. This is not an idea so easy to grasp.

The different situations we are talking about here is e/i or the world external to us versus our inner world. Do you see those as the same? I don't. 

This is not a great example but the first one coming to my mind. Most of us see the outside world as Newtonian. Einstein at first saw inwardly light does not behave in a Newtonian manner. At first only Einstein saw this. He saw things differently. Eventually through experiment his inner view was proven right. His inner view is now seen as an outer view. Einstein, an introvert, was not "in constant communication with the outside world" but rather with his own inside world.

Need a better example. You see Jordan Peterson one way; I see him another. These are our inner worlds. (Do you admit we are different?) Suppose after a long while of many hours we get to know each other better. Then if we are lucky, I can see your view and you mine. We have adapted our inner view to see the other's view which was initially an outer view to us.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> The concept of "adaptability" doesn't exist in a vacuum. One must be adaptable about something. Then there is "one." We are not one person in different situations when it comes to detail. That idea is up for grabs. We interact with what we are dealing with making us change in different situations. This is not an idea so easy to grasp.
> 
> The different situations we are talking about here is e/i or the world external to us versus our inner world. Do you see those as the same? I don't.
> 
> ...


Isn't this a bit Captain Obvious? If our inner views weren't ultimately derived from the external, then where would they initially come from?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> The concept of "adaptability" doesn't exist in a vacuum. One must be adaptable about something. Then there is "one." We are not one person in different situations when it comes to detail. That idea is up for grabs. We interact with what we are dealing with making us change in different situations. This is not an idea so easy to grasp.
> 
> The different situations we are talking about here is e/i or the world external to us versus our inner world. Do you see those as the same? I don't.
> 
> ...


All that you say is exactly why there is no distinction between inner and outer adaptability. Einstein adapted his views based on the data his intuition picked up they didnt come from within. But thats a bit of a sidenote (also imo he was N dom).


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> Isn't this a bit Captain Obvious? If our inner views weren't ultimately derived from the external, then where would they initially come from?


Good question. How "inner" is inner? Certainly our inner self ultimately came from the outside but its a matter of emphasis. We pull from the outside world, put a shell around it and it transforms into inner.

Everything in an orange came from the outside. But an orange can grow into a fruit with a cover. What is inside that cover is unique to that orange and we call it "inner." There is nothing like the taste of an orange ... unless we like to suck on lemons or maybe a kumquat.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> Reeks of Ni, that's for sure.
> 
> Then I'd say auxiliary Te. When he's challenged by interviewers on the basis of his views being controversial, his reaction usually is "it doesn't matter how we feel about it, these are the facts that have been determined".


An educated Ne/Ti person can use Te/Ni.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> An educated Ne/Ti person can use Te/Ni.


But why argue on the basis of edge cases instead of the central trend?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> All that you say is exactly why there is no distinction between inner and outer adaptability. Einstein adapted his views based on the data his intuition picked up they didnt come from within. But thats a bit of a sidenote (also imo he was N dom).


The far majority opinion out there (Se/Te) was Einstein was an INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe making him a primary Ti not primary Nx. Ne intuition has to have data in it. We could interpret that data as Si. Ne is intuition, which is never certain. He thought about it and came up with a theory. The theory is not certain either which is why we call it "Einstein's Theory."


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> But why argue on the basis of edge cases instead of the central trend?


Another good question. If we are talking Jordan Peterson, what is the edge and what is the central? Do you know the story about the blind men and the elephant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> Another good question. If we are talking Jordan Peterson, what is the edge and what is the central? Do you know the story about the blind men and the elephant?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant



My point isn't specific to Jordan Peterson. 

Here are the parallels I'd draw:
I'm describing an animal. It has 6 legs. Someone declares that it must be a spider with two legs missing. 

We're describing someone who uses Te/Ni. You believe it's an INTP who is able to use those functions despite the scenario not being typical. Which could be justified, but on its own seems to violate the spirit of Occam's razor. That it could possibly be true is not much argument that we should believe it _is._


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> The far majority opinion out there (Se/Te) was Einstein was an INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe making him a primary Ti not primary Nx. Ne intuition has to have data in it. We could interpret that data as Si. Ne is intuition, which is never certain. He thought about it and came up with a theory. The theory is not certain either which is why we call it "Einstein's Theory."


I dont think Einstein would have reached to such an extraordinairy discovery if he wasnt a N dom. Because judging doms want to reach conclusions relatively faster and miss out on more data. 
NE doesnt need SI to do anything- these two are polar opposites.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Red Panda said:


> I dont think Einstein would have reached to such an extraordinairy discovery if he wasnt a N dom. Because judging doms want to reach conclusions relatively faster and miss out on more data.
> NE doesnt need SI to do anything- these two are polar opposites.


That's not how thinking works. It's an iterative process _(ironically goes on to present a recursive function)_. Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle: each piece you put in is a "conclusion", yet it yields more information which helps you with the other pieces. Inquiry isn't gather data -> conclusion -> done, it's:

inquiry(conclusion)
{
data = investigate(conclusion);
conclusion = process(data);
inquiry(conclusion);
}


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

dizzycactus said:


> That's not how thinking works. It's an iterative process _(ironically goes on to present a recursive function)_. Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle: each piece you put in is a "conclusion", yet it yields more information which helps you with the other pieces. Inquiry isn't gather data -> conclusion -> done, it's:
> 
> inquiry(conclusion)
> {
> ...


Keyword: relatively


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> Coz you are about 80% order in the order-chaos scale


The way you frequently reply with tangents implied my suspicion is true.

Btw if nature and biology can be consider as 'order' than you got my percentage quite accurate.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> The way you frequently reply with tangents implied my suspicion is true.
> 
> Btw if nature and biology can be consider as 'order' than you got my percentage quite accurate.
> 
> _Sent sans PC_


thx 4 confirming ur confirmation bias issue


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

dizzycactus said:


> My point isn't specific to Jordan Peterson.
> 
> Here are the parallels I'd draw:
> I'm describing an animal. It has 6 legs. Someone declares that it must be a spider with two legs missing.
> ...


I'm in favor of what you said. At the same time I personally am not the master of observation. If you see an animal with 6 legs, let's look at it more carefully and see if six legs is its natural state or if it has two legs torn off. Give me Jordan Peterson in his natural state. If you show JP to me under extreme pressure then I won't know what to make of him.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I dont think Einstein would have reached to such an extraordinairy discovery if he wasnt a N dom. Because judging doms want to reach conclusions relatively faster and miss out on more data.
> NE doesnt need SI to do anything- these two are polar opposites.


I'm not in Einstein's mind so I don't know. Surely this guy was more than able in *both* N and T functions. 

As for Ne and Si, they may be opposites but I see them as supplementing each other. If my intuition tells me a black cat crossing my path right in front of me will bring bad luck (Ne) I may have back in my memory some black cat followed by actual bad luck that happened to some body (Si).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not in Einstein's mind so I don't know. Surely this guy was more than able in *both* N and T functions.
> 
> As for Ne and Si, they may be opposites but I see them as supplementing each other. If my intuition tells me a black cat crossing my path right in front of me will bring bad luck (Ne) I may have back in my memory some black cat followed by actual bad luck that happened to some body (Si).


I think NE would get you out of this situation by considering other information and interrelating them, asking questions to find solutions, like what is bad luck and if it truly exists in such a way that a cat would even affect it. Because that's what happens if you have an E attitude vs an I one.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> thx 4 confirming ur confirmation bias issue


Haha. That's not making any sense.

Well, good luck in trying to defy natural and biological 'bias' with sociopolitical beliefs. Looking at every single thing through ideological lens could be very tiring, i may presume. Just look at you, every discussion subject will made you feel compelled to make unsolicited political statements, repeatedly, however irrelevant with the topic in discussion or the audience. And when you don't have good answer you just jump to next irrelevant statements.

Oh, or is this the usual tactic to bring "uncomfortable" thread into wayward debate so later on someone with hierarchical powaahhh can interfere and close the thread?

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> Haha. That's not making any sense.
> 
> Well, good luck in trying to defy natural and biological 'bias' with sociopolitical beliefs. Looking at every single thing through ideological lens could be very tiring, i may presume. Just look at you, every discussion subject will made you feel compelled to make unsolicited political statements, repeatedly, however irrelevant with the topic in discussion or the audience. And when you don't have good answer you just jump to next irrelevant statements.
> 
> ...


I don't think you realise I'm not debating you now at all, and the order/chaos thing was a joke in reference to another member. You're the one derailing this or making it about ideology, hilariously. 

If I wanted someone to interfere, I would have reported your unsolicited typing attempt that is against the rules.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> I don't think you realise I'm not debating you now at all, and the order/chaos thing was a joke in reference to another member. You're the one derailing this or making it about ideology, hilariously.
> 
> If I wanted someone to interfere, I would have reported your unsolicited typing attempt that is against the rules.


You can't do that in front of everybody in a written forum. Your post #28, #36 #41 clearly show your ideological lens at work. #41 you were also questioning someone else's type.

Now i don't really want to prolong this anymore than necessary. Just stick to the subject and leave politically charged statement in other thread/subforum shall we?

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I see Jordan Peterson as having so many expressions in quantity that it is going to be hard to generalize him. Why not pick a single specific utube and judge him on that expression? Then pick another if you wish and give a separate judgment?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> You can't do that in front of everybody in a written forum. Your post #28, #36 #41 clearly show your ideological lens at work. #41 you were also questioning someone else's type.
> 
> Now i don't really want to prolong this anymore than necessary. Just stick to the subject and leave politically charged statement in other thread/subforum shall we?
> 
> _Sent sans PC_


post #28 isn't even mine
post #36 has no political views in and in post #41 I was asked specifically
and as for "questioning his type", I expressed that I found it weird, because I haven't seen anyone express this before, that's all

JP is charged politically himself and whatever political references are in relation to him

so fuck off if you can't handle this


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

I can handle everyone well, thank you.

So back at topic on hand, you think he is an infj. That is not too far off, imho, albeit one need to really consider that matured people had developed more balance in all selected functions, including the shadows. Because preference is developed according situational needs, starting from childhood.

And one need also to consider that mature people may have developed different personnas for public and private. One need to dig beyond the surface to get the oil.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

Duo said:


> A two second google will pull up Jordan's Big Five self-analysis which correlates with ENFJ.




I think you might have miscalculated this.. In his video he says that he is highly extroverted = E, High in Openness = N (Can be Dom or aux), Low in agreeableness = T, High in Conscientiousness = J, And then he says that because of his unhealthy mental state (dealing with depression and stuff) his neuroticism is higher than average, which means that when he is in a healthy state, his neuroticism is average or below average.

So it should be calculated as: ENTJ
If we are just trying to convert the Big Five to MBTI. 

Unless I am missing something?


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Jordan Peterson is a Ti user masquerading as Te. The sooner you realize this, the closer you'll be to finding his correct type. I think he's overrated and gives bad advice, but I guess other people find him helpful.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ridley said:


> I think you might have miscalculated this.. In his video he says that he is highly extroverted = E, High in Openness = N (Can be Dom or aux), Low in agreeableness = T, High in Conscientiousness = J, And then he says that because of his unhealthy mental state (dealing with depression and stuff) his neuroticism is higher than average, which means that when he is in a healthy state, his neuroticism is average or below average.
> 
> So it should be calculated as: ENTJ
> If we are just trying to convert the Big Five to MBTI.
> ...


he doesn't say he's low in agreeableness

in this video he mentions it more clearly (timestamp):


* *


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> he doesn't say he's low in agreeableness
> 
> in this video he mentions it more clearly (timestamp):
> 
> ...


My guess is you'd have to work hard to find the Big Five translates into anything. Go through all sixteen MBTI's and see if *any* Big Five can come out, introversion/ extroversion excepted.

Any MBTI can be open or not open
Any MBTI can be conscientious or not
Any MBTI can be agreeable or not
Any MBTI can be neurotic or healthy

Doesn't JP himself say (in so many words) he is not objective in self-judgment al a the test.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> My guess is you'd have to work hard to find the Big Five translates into anything. Go through all sixteen MBTI's and see if *any* Big Five can come out, introversion/ extroversion excepted.
> 
> Any MBTI can be open or not open
> Any MBTI can be conscientious or not
> ...


no, not any, however yea the correlations are not 1-1, so it's not very reliable to use for mbti typing
example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886996000335


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> I call Peterson an * ENTP* = Ne Ti Fe Si which not many on this thread have proposed. This is only my observation so feel free to dispute it. His Ne which I see as primary is backed up by Ti. His Ne is his position as a teacher, an educator, not as an opinionator. Don't forget this is a mature, highly intelligent man. There is no reason why he hasn't developed the other functions: Te or Ni. His Fi is weak as his internal feelings aren't personal and he doesn't use much Se although he does sometimes. Don't mistake Ne for Te. His is observation of what others have thought about. Feel free to disagree.


I think Jim Jeffries is an ENTP, and he challenges Peterson on his logic, especially at 4:35. Peterson makes value judgments about it being right/wrong throughout. 






Peterson's arguments always seem to rest on determining if something is good/right as opposed to true/false (See his discussion with Harris about "truth" where he couldn't even _agree_ to a definition of objective truth), which suggests that he's more of a Feeling type, imo. I really don't see Peterson being a strong Logical type, even though he tries to act like it by citing his studies/"facts", which many have claimed he misrepresents too. I'll grant that he thinks a lot about what it all "means" (To _him_, which he then thinks you should know and live by too), but I don't get the sense that he really logically scrutinizes his positions (not that he never does this, but it's a matter of priority), indicating to me his Ti is lower. It's more about the (Fe) message for him, I think.

I'm not listening to this, but there you go.






I mean, here's how a Thinking type views Peterson's worldview (because that's all he really espouses is a worldview, heavily biased by him too, which he tries to pass off as objectively true and in line with the "data"):






And to the people who think he's Te-dom, would Te users really make these ludicrous of claims based on absolutely no evidence? Skip to 4:50. 






Jung on Ti. That's Peterson.



> Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. *Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern.* It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. *Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. *Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision.* Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfill, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity. *
> 
> But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. *For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom.* In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. *Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth.* Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I think Jim Jeffries is an ENTP, and he challenges Peterson on his logic, especially at 4:35. Peterson makes value judgments about it being right/wrong throughout.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like you've done some work. Before I even play your four utubes, let me say this. (1) I'm not good at judging types and (2) JP is not a simple man. Calling him any type gives credence to Myers-Briggs and also doesn't take into account we are not reading developed shadow functions for what they are. There is a theory (mine I think) that one type tends to see compatibles as like themselves. I met a strong ENTP irl and when I posed JP was an INTJ he said "ENTP" and he is a very smart ENTP. We are both viewing JPs lectures, so when I play your utubes, we'll see how direct and representative they are ... not that I can very well tell. <-- disclaimers.

I played the top one. JP does show feeling but he is taken out of detailed context. He isn't shown with explanations which I personally think I know what they are. His feeling is about thinking. This is still consistent with ENTP. I know I'm generalizing here but that is what everyone is doing. We'd have to get real specific to analyze this further. I see you are INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se. Are you ready to get real specific? On to the 2nd utube.

I played 7m of 30m because I've heard it before. That is pure Ne IMO. Don't agree? Don't forget ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si. JP is allowed to feel (Fe) about this stuff with an unconscious Fi. On to #3.

#3. At 1:15 is displayed JP writing. The commentator faults him for misstating the age of lobsters. I say so what? JP is after social hierarchies which is his main point. Therefore I dismiss this commentator. If you want me to play more you'll have to ask me. On to #4.

#4. I went to 4:50 as you said. No. No. No. That is not Te thinking even though he says "think." That is Ne. Ne means intuition about externalities. I see him as *observing* the DNA and symbolic connections. Pure B.S. to say that is Te. JP would have better said "Those symbols are *analogous* to DNA. I think that's a nice surprise." If JP makes a mistake like that, he is allowed. (I was not around to question his language.) Intuition, be it Ne or Ni is notorious for making technical mistakes. That is what intuition is for: possibilities, theories. I admit I have defended JP here. So what if he goofed. He's not omniscient. 

I believe (my own Ne) I've pointed out a common misjudgment about JP. One cannot nitpick and say "I found a JP error" and say that is the whole person. I could reword what I said about JP and say JP didn't even make an error (overall). The viewer has been misled in reading his words as interpreting them literally when he meant something else. He isn't stupid enough to call those snakes DNA literally. Even if he was wrong and I questioned him I believe he would immediately reverse himself. <-- my opinion.

I failed to study your Jung quote cuz it requires a lot of my thinking. Want me to or have I said enough?


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> #4. I went to 4:50 as you said. No. No. No. That is not Te thinking even though he says "think." That is Ne. Ne means intuition about externalities. I see him as *observing* the DNA and symbolic connections. Pure B.S. to say that is Te. JP would have better said "Those symbols are *analogous* to DNA. I think that's a nice surprise." If JP makes a mistake like that, he is allowed. (I was not around to question his language.) Intuition, be it Ne or Ni is notorious for making technical mistakes. That is what intuition is for: possibilities, theories. I admit I have defended JP here. So what if he goofed. He's not omniscient.
> 
> I believe (my own Ne) I've pointed out a common misjudgment about JP. One cannot nitpick and say "I found a JP error" and say that is the whole person. I could reword what I said about JP and say JP didn't even make an error (overall). The viewer has been misled in reading his words as interpreting them literally when he meant something else. He isn't stupid enough to call those snakes DNA literally. Even if he was wrong and I questioned him I believe he would immediately reverse himself. <-- my opinion.


Which is precisely how I can differentiate N vs S people. Ne/Ni or simply N is imagining function both work in extrapolating modes, fulfilling the missing links and making the leap of faith (big or small, relative) to arrive at future conclusion. Ne works inductively, Ni works deductively.

They are allowable to work in abstract manner, logos, symbolics, not in literal or text book meaning, for science and knowledge require those 'leaps" to advance the empirical data. Many of the empirical data to proof many theories came much later. History told us that many of the said theorists pay the price of their intuitive leaps with their own life, only to be proven right later on, years, decades, even centuries later.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@mistakenforstranger I agree with the gist what you're saying but not quite following your typology. Do you not think that he fits Jung's Ti type above others? I think he's more like a Jungian Ti type that happens to fit ENTJ or something similar by letters (see Big 5 results).

But it seems like it's a common practice in the sort of mainstream CFs to split apart the subjective factor and label it as Ni and the rest of the Jungian Ti and label it as tert-Ti, with a low bar of Fe easily cleared by stuff that doesn't much fit Jung's Fe at all. I don't really see the point of this typology system but I sort of have a handle on how it works and can see how someone could arrive at him being INFJ from within it.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

BigApplePi said:


> I believe (my own Ne) I've pointed out a common misjudgment about JP. One cannot nitpick and say "I found a JP error" and say that is the whole person. I could reword what I said about JP and say JP didn't even make an error (overall). The viewer has been misled in reading his words as interpreting them literally when he meant something else. He isn't stupid enough to call those snakes DNA literally. Even if he was wrong and I questioned him I believe he would immediately reverse himself. <-- my opinion.


He backtracked on his original statement in the lecture (after getting some backlash) in which he expressed certainty about believing this to be true, now he says he is speculating that it's true. He has a habit of making strong statements in small crowds and then if confronted in front of a larger audience takes a more skeptical demeanor, and asks questions in an attempt (unconscious?) to shift responsibility to the audience.


* *












So yes, he does call them representations of DNA and no one misunderstood that. 

But this isn't about him making mistakes, but how his perception works, since we are talking about his type and I think it fits NI better. He wants to believe that these people really represented the DNA after seeing something resembling the double helix in hallucinatory visions... is it possible? yea I think it is, our conscious perceptions may be limited to interpreting sensory data in a macro scale but that could be after integrating micro data and consolidating it into what we perceive in the final form. The material-sensory the way we experience it doesn't correspond to the whole picture, matter is not matter but clouds of probabilities of energy interacting. But anyway, his demeanor express investment in believing this even if he says he's speculating (if you check his body language), when there could be other reasons these civilisations placed a significance on snakes (mating).


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

contradictionary said:


> Which is precisely how I can differentiate N vs S people. Ne/Ni or simply N is imagining function both work in extrapolating modes, fulfilling the missing links and making the leap of faith (big or small, relative) to arrive at future conclusion. Ne works inductively, Ni works deductively.
> 
> They are allowable to work in abstract manner, logos, symbolics, not in literal or text book meaning, for science and knowledge require those 'leaps" to advance the empirical data. Many of the empirical data to proof many theories came much later. History told us that many of the said theorists pay the price of their intuitive leaps with their own life, only to be proven right later on, years, decades, even centuries later.


I'm not sure what you said or are implying. Can you elaborate in relation to whether or not JP is an ENTP or not or is that irrelevant or undecidable?

Comments: 

1. What does N vs S people have to do with Ne/Ni? Nothing?
2. Yes. N is observation making leaps of faith. 
3. Here is something subtle. N doesn't "work" at all. It is pure observation. It is thinking or feeling judgment that does the induction or deduction. It just so happens observation and judgment work together.
4. They together can work any way they want: abstract, general, or literal.
5. Yes. Outside opinions can prove things right or wrong and or kill or enfame the originator.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

nablur said:


> hes definitely an INTP
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what is this lingo even


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> what is this lingo even


Which part? i just noticed a mistake too... i meant to say hero Ti, parent Ne (as in Ti, Ne, Si, Fe - the cognitive function stacking for INTP)


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

nablur said:


> Which part? i just noticed a mistake too... i meant to say hero Ti, parent Ne (as in Ti, Ne, Si, Fe - the cognitive function stacking for INTP)


yea I meant the "hero" and "parent"


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> yea I meant the "hero" and "parent"


yeah, just a terminology difference... 

1st, primary, hero 
2nd, secondary, parent
3rd, tertiary, child
4th, inferior, aspirational, infant 

5-8 have terms too for the shadow functions but i forget most

5th - something
6th something
7th trickster
8th demon 

a bit off topic but yeah... jordan is an INTP/1, maybe SX, maybe SO.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

nablur said:


> yeah, just a terminology difference...
> 
> 1st, primary, hero
> 2nd, secondary, parent
> ...


ah yea Beebe's theory I think, unfortunately another one that misunderstands the role of adaptability and builds a pyramid of cards

anyway, I disagree with INTP as I've already described above, he is way too forceful, preachy and subjective to fit mbti INTP imo


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

BigApplePi said:


> A fair Q. He (1) speaks Haidt, (2) JS Mill, (3) Marx, (4) Piaget, (5) He tries to quote these guys from his memory (Ne & Si). Then he says something about Marx which seems Ni. Then quotes Jesus. Ne is external observation. The Ni is his personal selection. I don't think I can go any better at answering. Not my skill. To separate Ne and Ni is asking to get inside a JP we do not know well.


I don't know, as I think it's just Intuition in connecting all those ideas as he does, and he's merely paraphrasing Haidt and others, but why I have a hard time buying Peterson as a ENTP is he _always_ has to make his *value judgments* (See 3:20 in original video we were discussing where he says this after he mentions Haidt, Mill, Marx): 

"*And I think that's wrong*, because as Alexander Solzhenitzyn said..."The line between good and evil runs down every human's heart", so the *real battle as far as I'm concerned*...to overcome tyranny and malevolence and chaos and nihilism and the desire to bring everything to a halt *you have to repair the fissures and the rift that is in your own soul*, and *you have to confront the evil that is in your own heart*." 

That just doesn't sound like an NTP to me at all, I guess, like for him, it's not wrong for logical reasons, but moral reasons with no attempt to proving _why_ it is true. He just states it _as if_ it is true. That's Peterson in a nutshell. That's what he did with Dostoevsky/atheism argument and left it at that, or with the interview I posted earlier with Jim Jeffries (who I think is an ENTP and actually challenged him on his logic instead of accepting his value judgment of it being wrong). He doesn't prove a lot of what he says in a logical way. That above quote almost sounds Fi actually, but I think Peterson still is a Fe/Ti user.

Take these quotes from his book too:

"We must then rediscover the values of our culture--veiled from us by our ignorance, hidden in the dustry treasure-trove of the past--rescue them, and integrate them into our own lives. This is what gives existence its full and necessary meaning."

"Was it really such a good thing, for example, to so dramatically liberalize the divorce laws in the 1960s? It's not clear to me that the children destabilized by the hypothetical freedom this attempt at liberation would say so. Horror and terror lurk behind the walls provided so wisely by our ancestors. *We tear them down at our peril. We skate, unconsciously, on thin ice, with deep, cold waters below, where unimaginable monsters lurk.*"

That actually sounds more like _inferior_ Ne!

Jung describing it in Si-doms:



> His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which consequently acquires an extraverted and archaic character. *Whereas true extraverted intuition is possessed of a singular resourcefulness, a "good nose" for objectively real possibilities, this archaicized intuition has an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background. *


In the chaos/order dichotomy, Peterson is order, and I don't know if I could see NTPs advocating for such a position.



> Okay. I must have thought you were pushing Te. He is not a Te dom.


Yeah, glad we agree on that.



> Yes. A better articulation would be as you say. Maybe the word "analogous" isn't in JPs vocabulary. Saying "I *really do* *believe* that is a representation of DNA..." What's wrong with saying "representation"? He didn't say identical. Are we talking semantics here? After all JP talks a mile a minute. It's the spirit of the thing that counts. We are asked to judge the spirit


I suppose so, but it wouldn't surprise me if Peterson actually believed that they "knew" about DNA by their "representation" of it, in some part of their unconscious, as he would be likely to say. It's more to say that his Te is really out the window with that observation. 



> JP doesn't lead with Ti. I see his Ti as supporting Ne which he* loves*. (That's my Ne speaking. All my pushing ENTP is from my own Ne which could be faulty.) As for INTJ, that would make him an introvert. I read him as an extrovert. Why?Because he loves to be out there teaching. He gains energy from it.


Well, I certainly think the idea of him being an Extrovert is fair, as he really does give long-winded speeches/lectures in front of big crowds/classrooms, and talks a mile a minute as you say. He really doesn't slow down, thinks aloud, or seem to have any problem in that domain, which is pretty unlike an INxJ (See Sam Harris try to do the same lol). Behaviorally, and by his own admission in the Big 5 video, he is more on the Extroverted side. Though, I think you could argue that he is a Introvert in a Jungian sense, as how Jung defines Extroversion/Introversion here in these excerpts, and in terms of how he reacted to the whole gender-pronoun debate and would not budge for a second on it, and with how much he stresses the importance of the individual.

Extroversion:



> The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective fact. *Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. *When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, *as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims*, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted.





> *The moral laws which govern his action coincide with the corresponding claims of society, i.e. with the generally valid moral view-point. If the generally valid view were different, the subjective moral guiding line would also be different, without the general psychological habitus being in any way changed.* It might almost seem, although it, is by no means the case, that this rigid determination by objective factors would involve an altogether ideal and complete adaptation to general conditions of life. An accommodation to objective data, such as we have described, must, of course, seem a complete adaptation to the extraverted view, since from this standpoint no other criterion exists.


Introversion:



> Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, *which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject.* Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.





> It corresponds with the normal bias of the extraverted attitude against the nature of the introvert. We must not forget-although extraverted opinion is only too prone to do so-that all perception and cognition is not purely objective: it is also subjectively conditioned. *The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me.*


This part is in the Introversion section, regardless of function:

*



The archetype is a symbolical formula, which always begins to function whenever there are no conscious ideas present, or when such as are present are impossible upon intrinsic or extrinsic grounds.

Click to expand...

*


> The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object-incorrectly, at bottom-since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object. *These subjective tendencies and ideas are stronger than the objective influence; because their psychic value is higher, they are superimposed upon all impressions. Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation.*


Doesn't Peterson clearly value the subjective standpoint, his view of things and how the world should be (according to him) trumps all? And good luck trying to convince him otherwise lol. 

"Subjective experience--that includes familiar objects such as trees and clouds, primarily objective in their existence, but also (and more importantly) such things as emotions and dreams as well as hunger, thirst, and pain. It is such things experienced personally, that are the most fundamental elements of human life, from the archaic, dramatic perspective, and they are not easily reducible to the detached and objective--even by the modern reductionist, materialist mind."

Now you could say that he's just describing how humans in the past interpreted the world, laying out the big picture in a Ne way, but I really think Peterson values this way of looking at the world. I mean, what do you make of..."They are not easily reducible to the detached and objective--even by the modern, reductionist, materialist mind"?

Or take this continuing later in same chapter from above:

"Many things begin to fall into place when begin to consciously understand the world in this manner. It's as if the knowledge of your body and soul falls into alignment with the knowledge of your intellect. And there's more: such knowledge is proscriptive, as well as descriptive. This is the kind of knowing _what_ that helps you know _how_. This is the kind of _is_ from which you can derive an _ought_."

At this point, I am open to considering Extroverted types for him based on his behavior only, but it's hard to deny how completely embedded he is in his own subjective viewpoint, to the point where he isn't aware that he's projecting his biases onto others a lot of the time. He tends to only present the side (or data) that is in alignment with his view in order to validate it. 



> This may be an aside but when I played the JP-Sam Harris debate and JP was forced to use Ti, he got tired if I recall. Ti is an introverted function and if forced into it too much one gets tired. I do.


I don't remember, but he did use Ti wholly in that ridiculous debate lol.



> Your quote of JP I find a challange and would like to translate it in my own way. (I'm forgoing type judgments.)
> 
> Religions begin with axioms. They build on the values of those axioms so that people can makbe them their own. As they practice them, they grow from children to adults. We all remain partly children as it is hard to see the overall value of these axioms. Use Christ a a role model.
> 
> ...


Not really a stretch, as I could see Peterson saying that like he does here in clip. I can't find the original clip, but see 3:30 for that same type of translation:


* *


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> ah yea Beebe's theory I think, unfortunately another one that misunderstands the role of adaptability and builds a pyramid of cards
> 
> anyway, I disagree with INTP as I've already described above, he is way too forceful, preachy and subjective to fit mbti INTP imo


this is only him when he's lecturing, interviewing, now in his later life. and hes fighting for his beliefs, so hes extra passionate about it - hes found his purpose. hes getting highs off of this... as a type 1 it comes across as him being slightly angry or 'frustrated'. hes using frustrated energy to write books, give speeches... reform society through his 'teachings'. remember, hes a college professor - a professional nerd. read books his whole childhood. 

check this out: The Enneagram of Life Paths - Enneagram Monthly 
read the whole thing, its unrelated to peterson but good... anyway, check out the 2nd to last box chart at the bottom, read all the stuff for type 1 archetypes

all of these would seem to be 'preachy': 
evangelist 
missionary
feiry advocate 
ranting reformer
judge (think judge judy) 
priest
pope
law maker
testament prophet
rule maker 
social reformer

PS - all of psychology is just 'theory' , there isnt much way to prove anything or be exact.. its a very 'N' sort of topic i'd say... like a framework type thing... not written in stone... i find, it is adaptable


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

nablur said:


> this is only him when he's lecturing, interviewing, now in his later life. and hes fighting for his beliefs, so hes extra passionate about it - hes found his purpose. hes getting highs off of this... as a type 1 it comes across as him being slightly angry or 'frustrated'. hes using frustrated energy to write books, give speeches... reform society through his 'teachings'. remember, hes a college professor - a professional nerd. read books his whole childhood.
> 
> check this out: The Enneagram of Life Paths - Enneagram Monthly
> read the whole thing, its unrelated to peterson but good... anyway, check out the 2nd to last box chart at the bottom, read all the stuff for type 1 archetypes
> ...



I think the enneagram is bullshit, it was literally made up by some mystical symbol this dude decided was noteworthy, and arbitrarily separated people based on Christian ethics, without any observations. It is is based on wishful thinking, not something more biological like adaptability, which Jung used to develop his theory. JP is angry and frustrated and tries to reform society, many times by projecting his own biases into others (see @mistakenforstranger 's post above) because he's a Jungian Introvert and mbti J type. Even from a technical perspective, I don't think he would pick the P answers over the J ones in MBTI, to an overwhelming degree. But sure, we can't know that exactly.


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> I think the enneagram is bullshit, it was literally made up by some mystical symbol this dude decided was noteworthy, and arbitrarily separated people based on Christian ethics, without any observations. It is is based on wishful thinking, not something more biological like adaptability, which Jung used to develop his theory. JP is angry and frustrated and tries to reform society, many times by projecting his own biases into others (see @mistakenforstranger 's post above) because he's a Jungian Introvert and mbti J type. Even from a technical perspective, I don't think he would pick the P answers over the J ones in MBTI, to an overwhelming degree. But sure, we can't know that exactly.


you think one thing, i think another. thats ok. *shrug*


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

All this typology stuff is likely bullshit and I agree that Peterson would be a Enneagram 1. But I'm not sure how why that would be relevant to an MBTI discussion.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

mistakenforstranger said:


> I don't know, as I think it's just Intuition in connecting all those ideas as he does, and he's merely paraphrasing Haidt and others, but why I have a hard time buying Peterson as a ENTP is he _always_ has to make his *value judgments* (See 3:20 in original video we were discussing where he says this after he mentions Haidt, Mill, Marx):
> 
> "*And I think that's wrong*, because as Alexander Solzhenitzyn said..."The line between good and evil runs down every human's heart", so the *real battle as far as I'm concerned*...to overcome tyranny and malevolence and chaos and nihilism and the desire to bring everything to a halt *you have to repair the fissures and the rift that is in your own soul*, and *you have to confront the evil that is in your own heart*."
> 
> That just doesn't sound like an NTP to me at all, I guess, like for him, it's not wrong for logical reasons, but moral reasons with no attempt to proving _why_ it is true. He just states it _as if_ it is true. That's Peterson in a nutshell. That's what he did with Dostoevsky/atheism argument and left it at that, or with the interview I posted earlier with Jim Jeffries (who I think is an ENTP and actually challenged him on his logic instead of accepting his value judgment of it being wrong). He doesn't prove a lot of what he says in a logical way. That above quote almost sounds Fi actually, but I think Peterson still is a Fe/Ti user.


Here's the thing. There are two judging sides. One is to judge JP. The other is to judge who is doing the judging: us. How do we know if you, an intuitive person, doesn't see intuition and me a Ti person doesn't see Ti?
Also JP is talking about Solzhenitzyn. What type is Solzhenitzyn? 

Solzhenitzyn happens to be a JP specialty. He supposedly knows him. In that quote he is saying everyone has good and evil in them so we have to look at ourselves first. Do you want to call that intuition? I say it could be is the outcome of JP's Ti. He is just repeating what Solzhenitzyn said which is what a psychologist would do. 

You yourself say, "it's not wrong for logical reasons." JP doesn't have to prove what he says if you trust him. That trust is in us ... what we see or don't see.





> Take these quotes from his book too:
> 
> "We must then rediscover the values of our culture--veiled from us by our ignorance, hidden in the dustry treasure-trove of the past--rescue them, and integrate them into our own lives. This is what gives existence its full and necessary meaning."
> 
> ...


Suppose I rephrase succinctly: Liberalizing divorce laws weaken marriage. JP just got overly dramatic.




> In the chaos/order dichotomy, Peterson is order, and I don't know if I could see NTPs advocating for such a position.


I am NTP and I like to find order. It's about Ni versus Ti. What are we looking at? Are we looking at pure Ni or are we looking at the results of Ti? It's hard to tell. Do you agree?





> I suppose so, but it wouldn't surprise me if Peterson actually believed that they "knew" about DNA by their "representation" of it, in some part of their unconscious, as he would be likely to say. It's more to say that his Te is really out the window with that observation.


Not DNA molecules that they knew but the idea of DNA being a pair created by twisting different sources. I hate to push this too hard, but I see it as Ti over Te. They knew they were doing a subtle combination, not the actual DNA chemicals.



> Extroversion:
> Introversion:


If Jung wants to say it a little differently than the MBTI, that is too much for me to handle.





> This part is in the Introversion section, regardless of function:
> 
> *Doesn't Peterson clearly value the subjective standpoint, his view of things and how the world should be (according to him) trumps all? And good luck trying to convince him otherwise lol.
> 
> ...


*
I can't unravel this. I keep thinking JP is a psychologist. He is therefore entitled to be both subjective and objective. 






Not really a stretch, as I could see Peterson saying that like he does here in clip. I can't find the original clip, but see 3:30 for that same type of translation:


 













Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you want to make here. I see Peterson as using a very broad definition of religion. But it's not really a hard definition of religion. He is making a stretch saying we can see religion in everything we do or act. I can speak like that also. I could say that we can find religion in everything. That doesn't mean I see 100 percent hard cultural religion but a very loose meaning.*


----------



## Frisky (Dec 5, 2018)

Strelnikov said:


> Just out of curiosity. I've noticed that there are these public figures: Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, etc. And people seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to what they have to say. I mean ok, you listen to them once and move on, but there are some people who become disciples or something like that... Why do people do that? I mean I listened a few of Jordan Peterson's lectures... It was ok, but I don't see what's so special about him and other public intellectuals. And I don't know what's so controversial about what Peterson is saying.


Out of curiosity and this is not a trap of any kind but have you experienced any great struggles in you life? I'm speaking of make or break you experiences where you went through everything on you own. No family by your side, few or no friends. I myself have gone through an extraordinarily negative experience the last 8 years after I broke my back and was left in chronic pain. My life fell apart and my family lived thousands of miles away and was not supportive beyond thoughts and prayers. My father was also not a mentor growing up. I'm not a follower of Peterson but I have found valuable guidance that has with a lot of self reflection allowed me to become a stronger and more self aware individual. I've also noticed in younger generations young men are extremely confused by the women's equality movement that is calling masculinity an attack on women. My 18 year old brother who is in college is already struggling with these concepts which are being taught at his school. There are much higher expectations placed on men than women as well and when society is telling men their manhood is violent toward women it is confusing.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Frisky said:


> Out of curiosity and this is not a trap of any kind but have you experienced any great struggles in you life? I'm speaking of make or break you experiences where you went through everything on you own. No family by your side, few or no friends. I myself have gone through an extraordinarily negative experience the last 8 years after I broke my back and was left in chronic pain. My life fell apart and my family lived thousands of miles away and was not supportive beyond thoughts and prayers. My father was also not a mentor growing up. I'm not a follower of Peterson but I have found valuable guidance that has with a lot of self reflection allowed me to become a stronger and more self aware individual. I've also noticed in younger generations young men are extremely confused by the women's equality movement that is calling masculinity an attack on women. My 18 year old brother who is in college is already struggling with these concepts which are being taught at his school. There are much higher expectations placed on men than women as well and when society is telling men their manhood is violent toward women it is confusing.


I understand what you're saying. The Western emphasis on identity (racial, gender, sexual orientation) is a mystery to me. For this reason, I am a Millennial (according to my age), but I don't identify with the values of the generation as it is in the West. I have a very different experience, both in terms of culture and values.

Well... to answer your question: I'm not sure... The thing is, I have endured hardships, but I'm not sure exactly how much of going through it was done on my own. I was born in a poor working class family, under a totalitarian government (which thankfully did collapse when I was 3 years old, but its consequences last to this day) I've been through illness, including a coma in an illness which according to the doctors had about 70% chance of killing me (there are strains of Ebola with lower mortality rates) and the other 30% didn't look bright either (paresis, heavy brain damage and stuff like that being a real possibility) which actually did kill me for about a minute (doctors managed to resuscitate me). In hospital, I saw things... beside children I befriended dying of brain tumours, I still remember there was this person... I honestly hadn't seen anything like this ever before, I didn't even knew such a thing existed... it's called hydrocephalus, I saw what it does... there was this person... I'm not even sure how old he/she was, young though, or what the sex of the person was, it's not that I don't remember, it's just that you couldn't really tell. This person was short, but the size of his/her head was visibly larger and it was misshapen, much larger than the normal size for an adult, he/she could barely hold... the neck could barely hold the weight of the head. When he/she walked he/she had problems balancing the weight of the head. And because of my illness I was forbidden to do just about everything which makes childhood enjoyable. I had to sit at home, not go out into the sun, not play any sports and a lot of other restrictions. I had to just sit at home and do nothing basically. Even watching TV was forbidden. Again, I'm not sure how much of this was on my own... There were excellent doctors and an entire hospital to help me, but even they were reserved in their forecast during my illness. One of the doctors was sure I would die or so he told my mother. The thing is initially another group of doctors had pumped the wrong stuff in me and transferred me to another hospital with the wrong diagnosis. On the way to the new hospital the ambulance had an accident... and yet here I stand, despite it all  But yes, I can't really say how much of this was me and how much was due to the support I received.


----------



## Frisky (Dec 5, 2018)

BigApplePi said:


> Here's the thing. There are two judging sides. One is to judge JP. The other is to judge who is doing the judging: us. How do we know if you, an intuitive person, doesn't see intuition and me a Ti person doesn't see Ti?
> Also JP is talking about Solzhenitzyn. What type is Solzhenitzyn?
> 
> Solzhenitzyn happens to be a JP specialty. He supposedly knows him. In that quote he is saying everyone has good and evil in them so we have to look at ourselves first. Do you want to call that intuition? I say it could be is the outcome of JP's Ti. He is just repeating what Solzhenitzyn said which is what a psychologist would do.
> ...


In regard to JP discussing religion in a generalized way I believe he's referring to the basic values most organized religions hold such as; don't kill, don't steal, don't screw your neighbors wife. These are all subjective values but also commonly shared by most humans. Even atheists appreciate these values however religion for what it's worth helps to better cement these principles in both tradition and teachings. I agree that a good portion of JP's discussions have to do with subjective values but I don't think they should be dismissed simply because they are subjective because these values clearly play a significant role in society. There is currently a distinct correlation between people becoming less religious and the deterioration of values in western culture. Not saying that is the cause simply very much entangled. Humans are a strange creature and the reality is people often choose the selfish path over the righteous path. The values and consequences for violating such values instills incentive for people to behave as in you sin you go to hell...It's easy and in my opinion lazy for anyone to dismiss JP's points because that are subjective, it's very difficult to prove with fact people's behavior in regard to how they feel and there are no scientific studies on the topics in question. Even quantum mechanics is a science of theory. Particles are so small they cannot be measured so scientists have to calculate and predict what the results will be. If the results coincide with the hypothesis then scientists come to the conclusion they are correct by probability. I see many of JP's subjective arguments a similar way.


----------



## Frisky (Dec 5, 2018)

Strelnikov said:


> I understand what you're saying. The Western emphasis on identity (racial, gender, sexual orientation) is a mystery to me. For this reason, I am a Millennial (according to my age), but I don't identify with the values of the generation as it is in the West. I have a very different experience, both in terms of culture and values.
> 
> Well... to answer your question: I'm not sure... The thing is, I have endured hardships, but I'm not sure exactly how much of going through it was done on my own. I was born in a poor working class family, under a totalitarian government (which thankfully did collapse when I was 3 years old, but its consequences last to this day) I've been through illness, including a coma in an illness which according to the doctors had about 70% chance of killing me (there are strains of Ebola with lower mortality rates) and the other 30% didn't look bright either (paresis, heavy brain damage and stuff like that being a real possibility) which actually did kill me for about a minute (doctors managed to resuscitate me). In hospital, I saw things... beside children I befriended dying of brain tumours, I still remember there was this person... I honestly hadn't seen anything like this ever before, I didn't even knew such a thing existed... it's called hydrocephalus, I saw what it does... there was this person... I'm not even sure how old he/she was, young though, or what the sex of the person was, it's not that I don't remember, it's just that you couldn't really tell. This person was short, but the size of his/her head was visibly larger and it was misshapen, much larger than the normal size for an adult, he/she could barely hold... the neck could barely hold the weight of the head. When he/she walked he/she had problems balancing the weight of the head. And because of my illness I was forbidden to do just about everything which makes childhood enjoyable. I had to sit at home, not go out into the sun, not play any sports and a lot of other restrictions. I had to just sit at home and do nothing basically. Even watching TV was forbidden. Again, I'm not sure how much of this was on my own... There were excellent doctors and an entire hospital to help me, but even they were reserved in their forecast during my illness. One of the doctors was sure I would die or so he told my mother. The thing is initially another group of doctors had pumped the wrong stuff in me and transferred me to another hospital with the wrong diagnosis. On the way to the new hospital the ambulance had an accident... and yet here I stand, despite it all  But yes, I can't really say how much of this was me and how much was due to the support I received.


I will say if you are not familiar/ raised in a western culture you are probably going to have trouble grasping JP's points if you aren't making a lot of effort to or can't relate to other cultures. The cultural norms and expectations of men and women vary from place to place and culture to culture. If you can't imaging yourself in any other culture but your own you're going to have trouble computing information from those places and things will not make sense to you. In addition that being said it's difficult to present concrete information when as an educator you have to break down a societies social construct which has no definite lines. For example, what does it mean to be a manor a woman in America? in Russia? In Nigeria, In South Africa, In Brazil? If you are expecting only clear cut statistical concrete objective evidence in psychology you have the wrong expectations of the science.


----------



## Frisky (Dec 5, 2018)

It sounds like you went through an ordeal as a child which is unfortunate. Good you pulled through. Sounds like though you went through a rough time you had a lot of support and some stability but I wasn't there so I'm just guessing....


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Frisky said:


> I will say if you are not familiar/ raised in a western culture you are probably going to have trouble grasping JP's points if you aren't making a lot of effort to or can't relate to other cultures. The cultural norms and expectations of men and women vary from place to place and culture to culture. If you can't imaging yourself in any other culture but your own you're going to have trouble computing information from those places and things will not make sense to you. In addition that being said it's difficult to present concrete information when as an educator you have to break down a societies social construct which has no definite lines. For example, what does it mean to be a manor a woman in America? in Russia? In Nigeria, In South Africa, In Brazil? If you are expecting only clear cut statistical concrete objective evidence in psychology you have the wrong expectations of the science.


You do make a good point... I think I get why to me his basic message is nothing out of the ordinary.

I am very familiar with the West (even when I'm writing this post I'm using a Western language and not my own, at work I also use English and communicate and work with with people from the Western world, every film I see is usually from the US, the news I watch are generally from Western sources, I know quite a lot about Western history and/or geography... I even had Americans compliment me on knowing the geography or history of the US... yes I know the flags of all 50 states... too much blue, but I really like the flags of Maryland and Hawaii... New Mexico is also up there... good design), but there are some things which do elude me. Political correctness and concepts like white privilege, cultural appropriation, mansplaining, the obsession with deconstructing "social constructs", identity and individuality, although I know what these things mean they are strange. I get the basic idea, I know why they exist, but what I don't understand is why society pays so much attention to these things? Did you do all your economy homework? Defence? What about education or healthcare? Is everything running perfectly that there are no other problems to solve except these ones? SJWs are extremely rare here. I only know 1 person who believes in these ideas. She's a close friend of mine, but people look weird at her when she starts talking about feminism. It's like: "What are you talking about?" We don't care about these things. Abortion, for example, is never a matter of public discourse. It's legal and that's it! There's nothing to discuss! Next topic!

I guess, a number of things Peterson is saying seem... obvious to me and to the culture I come from. I think it's sad if a society needs to be reminded of such basic things (yes, his analysis goes beyond the basic, but it's not revealing anything major in my view) There is no such thing as a participation trophy and children aren't as coddled in general. Maybe this will change in the future, but nobody tells you you're special (except your mum, but I never believed her). Definitely not your teachers, unless you actually have some real achievements. Being told to "man up" isn't something controversial or unusual here. Nobody bats an eye if you say that.

Also, as far as universities are concerned, students aren't as political here. I studied Political Science (much more useful than people give it credit) and we weren't as political. Our professors never had this activist thing going on like they do in the West. Yes, they were active in a political sense, but never in the classroom. I remember when one professor told us: "We're not here to say democracy is good, we're just describing how it works!" There was never any "X is good, Y is bad" narrative. I never got any sense that they were pushing any agenda or ideology on me. Even classes on the Holocaust were more like: "This is what happened! These are the numbers! This is how they did it! This is why they did it! That's it!" And there were no trigger warnings needed. For my admission, among other things, I did a book review on "Mein Kampf" (you had to choose 2 books to review, any books you wanted about politics), and no one was shocked or horrified. It was treated in a purely technical manner. I spoke about Hitler's propaganda techniques and how he emphasised the psychological effect of propaganda, they asked me a few questions at the interview and that was it.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Strelnikov said:


> You do make a good point... I think I get why to me his basic message is nothing out of the ordinary.
> 
> I am very familiar with the West (even when I'm writing this post I'm using a Western language and not my own, at work I also use English and communicate and work with with people from the Western world, every film I see is usually from the US, the news I watch are generally from Western sources, I know quite a lot about Western history and/or geography... I even had Americans compliment me on knowing the geography or history of the US... yes I know the flags of all 50 states... too much blue, but I really like the flags of Maryland and Hawaii... New Mexico is also up there... good design), but there are some things which do elude me. Political correctness and concepts like white privilege, cultural appropriation, mansplaining, the obsession with deconstructing "social constructs", identity and individuality, although I know what these things mean they are strange. I get the basic idea, I know why they exist, but what I don't understand is why society pays so much attention to these things? Did you do all your economy homework? Defence? What about education or healthcare? Is everything running perfectly that there are no other problems to solve except these ones? SJWs are extremely rare here. I only know 1 person who believes in these ideas. She's a close friend of mine, but people look weird at her when she starts talking about feminism. It's like: "What are you talking about?" We don't care about these things. Abortion, for example, is never a matter of public discourse. It's legal and that's it! There's nothing to discuss! Next topic!
> 
> ...


LMAO. Now you get it.

Some would go as far to say it's the first world problem but surprise, surprise, we have some of those symptoms already imported here. This identititarian deconstructivist leftist dogma is already going global. I was an activist and i already saw my old friends going that route where they become so hostile when i question their warped logic. This is a very divisive view on society and dare i say, toxic.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*Objectivity/ Subjectivity*



Frisky said:


> In regard to JP discussing religion in a generalized way I believe he's referring to the basic values most organized religions hold such as; don't kill, don't steal, don't screw your neighbors wife. These are all subjective values but also commonly shared by most humans. Even atheists appreciate these values however religion for what it's worth helps to better cement these principles in both tradition and teachings. I agree that a good portion of JP's discussions have to do with subjective values but I don't think they should be dismissed simply because they are subjective because these values clearly play a significant role in society. There is currently a distinct correlation between people becoming less religious and the deterioration of values in western culture. Not saying that is the cause simply very much entangled. Humans are a strange creature and the reality is people often choose the selfish path over the righteous path. The values and consequences for violating such values instills incentive for people to behave as in you sin you go to hell...It's easy and in my opinion lazy for anyone to dismiss JP's points because that are subjective, it's very difficult to prove with fact people's behavior in regard to how they feel and there are no scientific studies on the topics in question. Even quantum mechanics is a science of theory. Particles are so small they cannot be measured so scientists have to calculate and predict what the results will be. If the results coincide with the hypothesis then scientists come to the conclusion they are correct by probability. I see many of JP's subjective arguments a similar way.


You raise a few issues here but I just want to address one of them. It's about objectivity/ subjectivity. I don't even know what objectivity means. Do we want all statements to be subjective not allowing anything to be objective?

Let's take "don't kill" and you want that to be subjective. I say it is objective to say killing centers around something bad: it destroys life. That seems bad for the living and sends bad vibes to those who do it. Murder seems objectively bad if we qualify it with the victim being innocent. Self-defense? Usually that's a bad situation. Isn't it objective that we'd like to avoid situations where we have to kill? "Don't kill" is short for saying "Avoid situations where you need to kill." 

Let's take a weak example of killing. When I walk down the street I can't avoid stepping on an innocent ant. Don't kill means don't deliberately add side activity killing to your deliberately walking down the street. 

What about killing mosquitoes? That is self-defense. One could then say "don't kill" means try to prevent mosquitoes from breeding so you don't have to kill them. Same thing with wars. Try to stop them before they start.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Imho, objectivity has a large correlation value with utility, i.e: as long as there are large enough commonality in subjectivity then it COULD be called objectivity.

But remember, correlation do not always imply causation. And remember too that people in mass do not always morally objective however large their commonalities.

Read this classic for we need to learn from our history:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518















_Sent sans PC_


----------

