Jordan Peterson

He strikes me as being extremely good at connecting the "external" dot's, and strives to be very accurate with those dot's (Ne-Ti?). From what I've seen, he is springboarding from existing ideas, not really going the whole round himself (Ne more than Ni?). And I get the sense that it's more about breaking down understandings, than building new ones with him (Ne-Ti more than Fe-Ni?). And that he feel like he has to replace what he has "destroyed" with something new, but that's where things get a little awkward "How not to be a man child" etc

It also seems to me like he is Fe-conflicted - resisting to people-please, but in the end of the day he needs the love. ENTP/ESTP problem?

He seems to be most comfortable in the debate (Ne/Ti?). It looks to me like he becomes emotionally conflicted when he speaks to an audience without dialogue. His tone of voice and enthusiasm just spirals down when there's no quick shifting dynamic that triggers him - it's like he doesn't believe in what he's saying in the end (Ne?). I don't think it means that he doesn't enjoy doing it, it's just that he seem to be more in his element when debating?

Si? Tadition, experience, history, grounded reality, anything that keeps his Ne from going to space, and the results are creative use of symbolism to reflect different aspects of the world? (I really don't understand Si lol)

I'd say ENFJ before INFJ, but NT before NF, and extrovert before introvert, and Fe before Fi, leaving only ENTP

I really don't know. And I don't have a "feel" for this type yet, so I feel limited :grin:

As much as I'd love to claim him as one of my own, no, Jordan Peterson is all Ni all the way. He has this implicit trust in symbolism. Ne pulls from images in the form of Si, sure, but it doesn't think in symbols. Think of Si as experiences and senses photographed into your brain. You record what happened, and how you felt about what happened. But there is no pattern extraction or symbolism involved. It's just that, a recorded image.

Everyone springboards from existing ideas. It's impossible not to, simply by being exposed to the world at all.

The Fe/Ti conflict happens in everyone on the Fe/Ti axis who wants to convey an idea to an audience. If anything the active resisting to people please points to a slight nudge towards Fe over Ti. (You see this in its most extreme form in ENFJs, wanting to make an idea as accessible as possible while trying not to simplify/distort it too much. You see the complete opposite in INTPs, wanting to keep an idea as truthful as possible, while still trying to get the point across.)

As for what you noticed in his tone of voice and enthusiasm faltering if there is no back and forth.. that too speaks to Fe, rather than Ne. An xNTP will get more and more enthusiastic the longer they ramble about their subjects of knowledge or interest.

His accuracy actually leaves a bit to be desired. Deleted member 16771 summed it up quite nicely:
He's maintaining to this thing that's there's something called 'metaphorical truth' which is just as valid and 'true' as 'brute fact'.
This gives my Ti a nosebleed. In fact, this is the sort of thing that causes your average xNTP to take a step back, shut their mouth, re-evaluate, and possibly even throw out their entire framework.


I'm still voting for ENFJ. He seems to use his Ni as a 'good parent' function, which is how the auxiliary is used; he 'instructs' others in the world of Ni. "This is how you should see it." That is unlike INFJs, who use Ni more as "This is how you can see it." The vision vs My vision.
He even wrote a book called "12 rules for life". Pulling from Berens' Interaction Styles, that's as directing as it gets.
 
This gives my Ti a nosebleed. In fact, this is the sort of thing that causes your average xNTP to take a step back, shut their mouth, re-evaluate, and possibly even throw out their entire framework.

Life is a metaphor :smilingimp:
 
Yeah, he's got a vested interest now, too. He earns a lot from his Patreon and book sales. That's fine, but it means that humility on any subject could be costly and that's a worrying incentive. And to be fair, I've seen the same dynamic on the left.

That's a good point, actually. About Peterson having a vested interest in keeping some of his foundational views intact. However, this suggests that JP might well he aware that his epistemology is false, yet continue to act as if he believes in it. Which would be quite worrying regarding his intellectual integrity.

I actually did consider this initially. Idk, I suppose it's possible still, but after seeing him in more personal, intimate and relaxed environments I feel like inxj is more probable

In some of his videos he seems on the verge of tears speaking about interactions with people telling him his work has given them a reason to live, in a way that seemed pretty heartfelt. I think he is quite empathic, which is not to say an NTJ is not, but I find his empathy to be of an Fe nature, if that makes sense.

As much as I'd love to claim him as one of my own, no, Jordan Peterson is all Ni all the way. He has this implicit trust in symbolism. Ne pulls from images in the form of Si, sure, but it doesn't think in symbols. Think of Si as experiences and senses photographed into your brain. You record what happened, and how you felt about what happened. But there is no pattern extraction or symbolism involved. It's just that, a recorded image.

Everyone springboards from existing ideas. It's impossible not to, simply by being exposed to the world at all.

The Fe/Ti conflict happens in everyone on the Fe/Ti axis who wants to convey an idea to an audience. If anything the active resisting to people please points to a slight nudge towards Fe over Ti. (You see this in its most extreme form in ENFJs, wanting to make an idea as accessible as possible while trying not to simplify/distort it too much. You see the complete opposite in INTPs, wanting to keep an idea as truthful as possible, while still trying to get the point across.)

As for what you noticed in his tone of voice and enthusiasm faltering if there is no back and forth.. that too speaks to Fe, rather than Ne. An xNTP will get more and more enthusiastic the longer they ramble about their subjects of knowledge or interest.

His accuracy actually leaves a bit to be desired. Deleted member 16771 summed it up quite nicely:

This gives my Ti a nosebleed. In fact, this is the sort of thing that causes your average xNTP to take a step back, shut their mouth, re-evaluate, and possibly even throw out their entire framework.


I'm still voting for ENFJ. He seems to use his Ni as a 'good parent' function, which is how the auxiliary is used; he 'instructs' others in the world of Ni. "This is how you should see it." That is unlike INFJs, who use Ni more as "This is how you can see it." The vision vs My vision.
He even wrote a book called "12 rules for life". Pulling from Berens' Interaction Styles, that's as directing as it gets.

Great post! I think you nailed it re Ni and Fe. As for Ti... your reaction to the idea of metaphorical truth makes me feel sooooo Ti-tertiary. I haven't explored it yet in Peterson's videos, but God do I love the idea :p
 
In some of his videos he seems on the verge of tears speaking about interactions with people telling him his work has given them a reason to live, in a way that seemed pretty heartfelt. I think he is quite empathic, which is not to say an NTJ is not, but I find his empathy to be of an Fe nature, if that makes sense.

I actually meant to put the x in a different place xnfj. Oopsie :sweatsmile:
 
 
Right, here's one. We were discussing before about how Peterson's epistemology breaks down when he's confronted with the 'truth' of his own Christian belief.

In this debate between Peterson and Sam Harris, chaired by Bret Weinstein, from 36:20, Weinstein asks Peterson a clarifying question about the Bible: is there anything unambiguously unethical, from a modern point of view, said in the bible, which starts Peterson off on his epistemological rabbit hole. He's even forced to draw on the hermeneutics of post-modernism to defend his position. Quite fascinating to watch his worldview in crisis in real time, and to witness how he attempts to reintegrate his own cognitive dissonance.


P.S. Sorry about not putting a time link there, I'm on my phone and haven't figured out how to do it.

P.P.S. The distinction between literal and metaphorical truth from about 1:02:00
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P.S. Sorry about not putting a time link there, I'm on my phone and haven't figured out how to do it.

Don't worry, I've never figured out how to do that either :grin:

Right, here's one. We were discussing before about how Peterson's epistemology breaks down when he's confronted with the 'truth' of his own Christian belief.

In this debate between Peterson and Sam Harris, chaired by Bret Weinstein, from 36:20, Weinstein asks Peterson a clarifying question about the Bible: is there anything unambiguously unethical, from a modern point of view, said in the bible, which starts Peterson off on his epistemological rabbit hole. He's even forced to draw on the hermeneutics of post-modernism to defend his position. Quite fascinating to watch his worldview in crisis in real time, and to witness how he attempts to reintegrate his own cognitive dissonance.


P.S. Sorry about not putting a time link there, I'm on my phone and haven't figured out how to do it.

P.P.S. The distinction between literal and metaphorical truth from about 1:02:00

Exciting stuff, I'll be watching that later, for sure. I am always hunting for live breakdowns of epistemologies.
 
It's clear to me that Harris won that one and Peterson came across as a sophist.

I just don't understand why Peterson can't just acknowledge his cognitive dissonances and say that he's an agnostic, which is clearly what he is.
 
I am always hunting for live breakdowns of epistemologies.

Weirdo

I just don't understand why Peterson can't just acknowledge his cognitive dissonances and say that he's an agnostic, which is clearly what he is.

Because Christianity by nature requires faith and you can't use faith as a valid argument for anything really.
Everyone is actually an agnostic because the answer is not provable, which is the point/catch22.
I think they are both men of deep faith (or desperately want it), fighting for their lives in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
 
from 36:20, Weinstein asks Peterson a clarifying question about the Bible: is there anything unambiguously unethical, from a modern point of view, said in the bible, which starts Peterson off on his epistemological rabbit hole

Peterson: fucking Sensors ruined everything fam
 
As I said to myself just now while pushing through a parade of utter twats at 10pm in my university town.

Also me: Stop hating these kids, you dick, they're just having fun.

Other Me: Er, that lad just kicked a football at a 400 year-old window... What's your point?

roberkids.png
 
Back
Top