Jordan Peterson
- Thread starter bonfire
- Start date
John K
Donor
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5W4 549
Do you think that political orientation and type are as closely correlated as that? I agree that JP isn't INFJ, but because of the way he presents himself rather than for his particular views. There have been some notable INFJ political leaders in the past from both the extreme left and the extreme right - both Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler are both seen to have been INFJs for example.
Fair point. I believe bin Laden is also an INFJ. Being guided by core beliefs without adhering to societal checks can be dangerous. I just do not see JP this way. Perhaps I do not know his life sufficiently to see asll I need to see for that determination, quite possible.
I will add this however, Jordan Peterson and his thrust towards male rights is both fair and wrong-headed, depending on the depth of analysis. At first blush, JP appears reasonable and assertive in a healthy way. Men ought to have equal rights, full stop. However, deregulation, his sense of meritocracy, while glossing over egalitarianism is insane. An equal starting line for all has never been, but ought to be. One cannot assert meritocratic victory dancing without an equal starting line for all via health care, education, nutrition, and basic security. So, I do stand by my criticism of JP. I cannot see him fitting into this personality type, even when other depraved zealots do. Idealism has historically been a motivator for greater good AND greater evil.
philostam
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 6w5
Yeah, and how are we gonna achieve that? How are we gonna control for natural talents/defects, family environment and countless other factors? One idea might be to get rid of the whole "having parents" thingy as in Huxley's Brave New World, but I would prefer to avoid that.
The faster men accept that there is no equality in this world, the better. Claiming there is and can be is a much more dangerous ideology than anything Peterson believes in.
Also, I wish we would stop judging people on what they "believe in". Out in the real world what matters much more is what kind of person you are, how reliable, generous, brave, interesting, intelligent etc. By all accounts JP was and is a good husband to his wife, never cheated and stood by her during her cancer diagnosis. The same with his daughter. He also showed bravery and integrity during 2016 or so when the Canadian woke was trying to make it illegal to call someone with the wrong pronoun or whatever were the details of that particular insanity. Out in the real world, actions matter more than beliefs.
As for his type, I agree with the forum user Ren that he is most likely an ENFJ that uses Fe not to accommodate others but to enforce his values onto the world.
Last edited:
Your argument is based upon the flawed argument of abandoning perfectionism for anarchy. I prefer the continuous improvement model. The manifestation of the flawed approach you favor can be found with the evangelical movement.
John K
Donor
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5W4 549
I've never really understood what equality means in secular terms to be honest. It's like one of those presents that you see in stores in the run up to Christmas, all wrapped up in fine, pretty paper and ribbons, but it's all for show and there's nothing inside.
(Except that we are all equal in the eyes of God, for anyone who believes in him. That means that whatever happens here in this world that we have no personal control over is irrelevant to our ultimate destiny - but this means nothing to anyone who does not know God.)
This is an example of what I mean when I say I do not understand what it means .....
We could talk about equality of opportunity and maybe Western free democracies deliver this better than other societies (as any woman in Afghanistan or Iran would tell us) but our ability to take opportunities depends on contingencies such as the parents we are born to and their state in life. There's such a load of paradox in all this. For example, it's no secret that opportunity is better for kids who are raised in stable family homes by their natural parents, yet we also are happy to live in a society that supports and condones the break-up of families and treats it as the right of people to live this way. Perhaps one of the greatest evils of our times is the breakup of families because of the damage it does to the parents' kids - and no-one can tell me that it does no damage because I have spent my life salvaging the fallout from such an event. But hardly anyone calls this out when we discuss life opportunities and happiness and disadvantage. It's right to focus on other things, such as access to education, a fair salary for fair work, the right to a home to live in, a right to access to medical services, freedom from arbitrary laws and their enforcement, etc. But quite honestly, I think these all pale into insignificance compared with the right of small children to be raised in a stable home by their natural parents whenever this is physically possible. Small children cannot articulate this, so the rights of articulate parents to be selfish in their personal lives takes precedence in all too many cases. This is one of the greatest causes of inequality imho.
We CANNOT STOP making the world a less unfair place. THAT is not fair, full stop.
Sidis Coruscatis
Community Member
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 964
Where are you getting these imperatives from? What is your religious worldview?
HeavyNeuralPayload
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ
I just wanted to thank you for including the word 'stable' twice (bolded above for emphasis). From the perspective of a foster caregiver who has seen some things, I'm strongly inclined to agree with your sentiment.
Re: JP for whatever my opinion may be worth - I read Twelve Rules for Life a few years back and found it insightful enough to have taken away some nuggets of wisdom. I've observed him on a small handful of podcasts and he seems to be a deeply caring but strongly opinionated individual. I feel a nagging sense of suspicion for anyone that becomes too declarative about how the world is or should be, and he kind of ticks that box for me.
LOL. You are seriously asking an INFJ this question. A dot connecting composition, coupled with my own ideas to try to thwart hate, even in the smallest of ways. All the while, trying very hard to maintain an energy level with which to function day to day.
Religion, literature, cultural norms and departures from norms, mythology, of course history, and personal experience. The idea of bullies, greed, dominant consolidated power are all offensive contributors to the world plight of a 5 year old starving to death somewhere in the world. So, whenever I hear God has a plan for me, I ask simply: Was that truly the plan of God for that 5 year old child? I believe in an after- life per se, just not in the conventional paradigm.
I equated Jordan Peterson to evangelicalism in it's fruitless resignation, or perhaps embracing of hate for this reason. After the schism of protestants @ the Civil War era, some southern sects abandoned perfectionism, or trying to be perfect, or continuous improvement, Southern Baptists for one, so there was a split. Essentially the flaw of character was okay, and the Earth is awful anyway, and as long as we get a nice word into to God real quick before it all ends apocalyptically, we will be redeemed, and no one else will go to heaven. The abandonment of humanity for oneself is abhorrent to me. The primary reason the USA is in strigfe now is this "I've got my share and I want my share....at your expense" mentality.
Sidis Coruscatis
Community Member
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 964
Dunking on evangelicals is easy. They are the lowest common denominator of Christian thought. The current disintegration of society has nothing to do with contemporary left-wing/right-wing schism, but with liberalism itself, spearheaded by elites and luciferian secret societies for centuries. This isn't a conspiracy theory; the members of these upper crusts like Bertrand Russell and Huxley have been basically giving out their manifestos about social engineering, but it's passed over as fiction. The destruction of the masculine spirit, pharmaceutical control, eugenics, etc., it's all there. The former has been already done to a large extent, the latter is being implemented in some countries by the continual blurring of necessary preconditions for euthanasia.
I don't know where you see hate in Peterson's approach; the rebuilding of masculinity is foundational to any flourishing society. If anything, the one thing that annoys me about him is his bloviating and skirting around giving a definitive statement on some topics. I don't think he can justify his positions until he commits to a more solid religious view than Jungian psychologization of everything.
That's what I'm really asking, going off of John's comment. How do you justify your imperatives metaphysically and epistemically? Just rehashing the problem of evil for the millionth time is not an answer. You are constantly using moral language, so I want to know how can morality even exist in your paradigm.
I am gravely concerned with concentrated, legacy wealth. That said, I have a more balanced perspective, in that without meritocracy, humans do not seem inclined to be as productive or quality conscious. Absolutism, Feudalism, Autocracy and wealth imbalance erodes qulity of life for all. The further removed from the urgency and reward of merit, legacy folks often seek to control further and perpetuate further self-interest. Exacerbating this has been the unification that wealth has an ethos of goodness, e.g. "if you are working, you are not sinning" mentality. Look no further the the US court system for how blue collar crime is treated versus white collar crime. If you steal a car, it is grand larceny. If you steal 5 times that amount with an accounting breach, well, you will not see prison time, or minimally so, comparatively speaking. Even Napolean knew this was wrong headed.
I am seeking to get to the heart of the matter, not evade your inquiry on religious foundation. I will share some of the influences on my thinking, though it is likely apparent from my writings thus far. There is no order of magnitude here.
Zorastrianism from the perspective of good vs. evil. Judaism from the perspective of seeking wisdom and an alignment with a greater good. Jesus, more so than Christianity, as I believe Jesus's views were largely eclipsed by Paul with Christianity, Islam and the obligation of hospitality and aid, Buddhism on balance and removal of extraneousness within, Hinduism on cycles and Jainism on living beings and oneness. Forgive me if my spelling is off a bit, I can no longer see sufficiently to proficiently edit in a timely way. No disrespect is intended.
Sidis Coruscatis
Community Member
- MBTI
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 964
But you know that all of these views have wildly different claims, right? It's not a buffet where you can just pick and choose what you like while staying consistent. You have to ignore that Christ said he is the fullness of truth and the one way. You have to assert that the early ecumenical councils with apostolic succession that established the canon were wrong, in which case there's no reason to believe anything about Jesus, since you have to use the same scriptures whose integrity you're doubting now.
Much of the eastern religion is monistic, some of them even denying the possibility of having access to the "true" reality, which makes them self-refuting. Both unitarian monotheistic and polytheistic schemas fail to answer the basic problem of the One and the Many. So you do need a specific god for specific metaphysics that can account for this specific universe.
It isn't clear whether you are actually a theist, or if you just adopt moral systems as presuppositions. In the case of the latter, it's begging the question to just give examples of moral or immoral actions because you haven't proven that stable transcendental categories like the self, logic, knowledge, ethics, meaning, identity over time, or teleology can even exist in a random chaotic universe. But even if you accept theism, you still have to avoid the nominal fallacy of sticking any kind of god as the starting point because a specific nature is required.
John K
Donor
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5W4 549
It's really at the heart of the paradox I was exploring, because I don't really see what this means in practice.
The example I used is that of broken families - being more fair to parents by social condoning of split-ups is less fair to their kids compared with those of other, intact families. I'm talking in general terms of course, because there is infinite variety in all our families, broken or intact and things can be very different in specific cases.
So what do we do to make things fairer to the kids? Stop their parents from breaking up? Or maybe we insist that all kids are forced to be raised away from their natural parents so that everyone is equally disadvantaged? I don't have a secular answer to this because there isn't one that is less unfair that doesn't lead to a worse situation than the status quo. We could maybe do more to keep families intact by giving tax breaks and grants, and child care provision, but these come with their own problems, inequalities and enormous taxation costs. There are more spiritual approaches to the problem that can help, but these depend on belief in the faith systems that they are related to, and that too brings with it yet more social paradoxes.
Trying to engineer change politically in this sort of issue is fraught with unforeseen consequences. China is now reaping the unexpected results of its historical one child per couple policy because many of the children raised that way either don't want children themselves or want only one now they are adult themselves, and they have a looming population crisis.
I'd love if we could do what you say and make the world a fairer place, but when I look at what that means in practice, it starts to look to me like a game of whack-a-mole on a grand scale.
