Jordan Peterson

John K said:
I don't think Jordan Peterson is an INFJ. There's just too much Fi dominating the way he presents himself in public - it has a very strong undercurrent of ought-ness about it. It's curious, but although I agree with a quite a lot of what he says, and although I admire his mental agility and quality of articulation in responding to debate, I find him too manic in the way he presents himself and that puts me off what he is saying. It's as though emotionally he protests too much - it's like a knife screeching on glass!
Click to expand...
What type do you think Jordan Peterson is, ENTJ or ENFP?
 
Who to my mind has the fairest analysis and best critique of Peterson's view as presented in Peterson's work Maps of Meaning is John David Ebert. He has a series of lectures on his YouTube channel that I'm not going to bother to post, because I haven't the time to summarize them all, but if you're a fan of intellectual discourse, then you should definitely check them out, if you have the time as each video is about 30 minutes long, but they are worth the listen because Ebert is a man with comparable knowledge and intellect who tries to be sympathetic and objective to Peterson's ideas.

Go To YouTube and Search John David Ebert Maps of Meaning.
 
Last edited:
Also, Peterson speaks to the audience of people who are high in the personality dimension ideation or intellectualism an aspect of trait openness that are not particularly intellectually gifted, serving them as an authority and filter for ideas in a time of an excess of information that even the most intellectually capable can't completely sift through and fairly analyze. Peterson's channel is a hubbub of experts on topics that are circulated most in popular discourse. To add, Peterson being more conservative in emotion also serves an intellectual faction of people who are interested in ideas, but who are not liberal and also those who may not be able to afford to attend college. Also, given western universities are dwindling in male attendees, Peterson's channel along with many others serve as a center of education for males who probably would have attended college in the past who in modernity are not. These realities cannot be underestimated in the analysis of why Jordan Peterson is popular.

Furthermore, Jordan Peterson represents a change and improvement in modern self-help. Those interested in the Self-Help industry which are many entrepreneurial, academic, and working-class persons are again serviced by Peterson, so he has his hands in many different pies.
 
Last edited:
Also, it's no secret that Jordan Peterson wants to slay multiculturalism, cultural Marxism, and Wokeism in terms of what he believes is wrong with our social order, so he's a hero again to people with more moderate and right-wing beliefs and sensibility. This is where a large amount of his appeal derives from.
 
Last edited:
Jordan Peterson also is an intellectual and honestly one of the first who openly supported and defended Christianity in popular discourse and this turn of events coming after the wave of popular thinkers like Hitchen, Harris, Dennet, Krauss, and Dawkins the era of the rise of the new Atheist is something that really spring boarder Peterson's notoriety in popular media. He's pretty famous for his debate with Sam Harris and Slavo Zizeke, two popular secular and leftwing thinkers, though Slavoj calls himself a Christian Atheist.
 
The fact that Jordan Peterson, an intellectual, came to some modicum of popular appeal in a rabidly anti-intellectual culture is certainly of note.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Anyway I'm still curious what kinds of whackadoodles might surround Ebert
 
Yoh Asakura said:
Okay, I was wrong.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, someone admitted they were wrong on the internet!

Floyd, fetch me the stone tablet, this here’s an important moment.

Floyd! Schnell!

Whoa, Lulz,
Ian
 
Yoh Asakura said:
Why are you calling them Whackadoodles?
Click to expand...

I am using a comical term for pseudo-intellectuals and otherwise unstable folks that might use him and his ideologies as a weapon
 
Wyote said:
I am using a comical term for pseudo-intellectuals and otherwise unstable folks that might use him and his ideologies as a weapon
Click to expand...

How familiar are you with John David Eberts work? Have you read any of his books? Well, people use and have used Christianity, Feminism, Critical Theory, Marx, and Buddhism as weapons; I don't see how a modern creative thinker is any more dangerous than innovative thinkers of the past. A thinker is not responsible with what people do with their ideas. Nietzsche hated antisemitism but the Nazis used his philosophy as support for their ideology though Nietzsche's philosophy was written for creative individuals.
 
Yoh Asakura said:
A thinker is not responsible with what people do with their ideas. Nietzsche hated antisemitism but the Nazis used his philosophy as support for their ideology though Nietzsche's philosophy was written for creative individuals.
Click to expand...

You make my point here, it happens regardless.
As has happened with JP. Though he embraced his popularity which one could argue has made him in some way culpable.
It's possible Ebert could end up in a similar circumstance, though less likely.
Still he has some level of notoriety and therefore followers. Followers are generally misguided in many ways.
I was making a somewhat humorous comparison between JP and Ebert, but it is kinda valid too.
Anyway, I don't care that much. It's just something to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top