Jordan Peterson

Stoic philosophy covers much of the territory that underpins Peterson's more salient points and it does so without the drawback of being abysmally incorrect or intellectually dishonest about other ideas.
Peterson's initial B.A. in political science is likely telling of his strongest motivations. He wants to preach. He wants to instruct. He's a politician who had the idea to give his approach some niche value by gaining credentials and experience in a field that is well suited to support the idea that his "ought" statements should be taken seriously.

Beyond playing a power game with regard to his public identity, wherein he enlists beta males and people who don't read challenging material as his demographic of choice to serve as his core constituency; there is little proof that Peterson is a profound intellectual.
 
It would seem like Peterson is either:

A. Taking liberty with popular misconceptions about things like postmodernism because its an efficient means of reaching his policy goals and he has the lazy constituency to support it.
or
B. Woefully inadequate as an intellectual such that he doesn't actually understand the material at all.
[source]

Perhaps another option is that he outsourced his information gathering to another unscrupulous academic and called it a day.
Either way, Zzzzz.
 
Ever since I made my video on Peterson's type (in which I lean towards ENFJ) people on Youtube have been mentioning to me this video by C.S. Joseph, who types JP as INTP.


Apparently many people who watched the video were convinced by the method, so I thought I'd share the link here. I think I might watch it this evening :)
 
So I hear so much crap about this guy, and how he's a bad person. Even on youtube there are these clickbait videos about how he's "DESTROYING FEMINISTS" in arguments.
I watched a few of his videos, and I don't see anything wrong with his perspectives. I came to the conclusions that people against him, don't know anything about him. And they're just riding some social media bandwagon. The two extremes who are against each other use Jordan Peterson as a tool for their narrative. They really don't know why they're using his name. He's become a meme at this point.
 
ruji said:
So I hear so much crap about this guy, and how he's a bad person. Even on youtube there are these clickbait videos about how he's "DESTROYING FEMINISTS" in arguments.
I watched a few of his videos, and I don't see anything wrong with his perspectives. I came to the conclusions that people against him, don't know anything about him. And they're just riding some social media bandwagon. The two extremes who are against each other use Jordan Peterson as a tool for their narrative. They really don't know why they're using his name. He's become a meme at this point.
Click to expand...
Accurate estimation, I watched some videos countering his points and... yeah... these people don't get him. I don't even think he's particularly amazing or on the cutting edge of anti-feminist content.
 
bonfire said:
Do you guys think he's an INFJ? :m083:

I strongly resonate with him for some reasons.
Click to expand...
I HAVE NO IDEA IF HES INFJ BUT I RLY LIKE HIM TOOO. i even have his book 12 rules for life
EDIT: heyy i c u 5w4. wassup im ur wingril (lame jk ik heh)
 
Thought I'd chime in. The dude is completely flawed and irrational exactly the same as my brother (Who's INTJ) but more outgoing so I'm taking my bet on ENTJ. No way is he INFJ or I'd dislike him even more than I already do.
 
My best guess is he is ENTJ.. Personally, I like his writing and a lot of his words resonate with me.

I could say that he’s good at structuring and communicating his thoughts even during live shows, something that us INFJ often struggle with. He also doesn’t show any sign of discomfort when giving opinion about controversial topics. Based on my limited observation, I don’t think that he’s INFJ.. :m083:
 
April said:
View attachment 70689

So what's mine mean lol. Too lazy to find out what it says about me :p
Click to expand...
Yours means you're an INFJ with highly developed Fe.

Agreeableness roughly maps to F, Conscientiousness roughly maps to J, and Imagination/Openness to Experience roughly maps to N. Extroversion is obviously what it says on the box. Emotional stability has no MBTI equivalent.
 
Lady Jolanda said:
Yours means you're an INFJ with highly developed Fe.

Agreeableness roughly maps to F, Conscientiousness roughly maps to J, and Imagination/Openness to Experience roughly maps to N. Extroversion is obviously what it says on the box. Emotional stability has no MBTI equivalent.
Click to expand...
Well at least it sort of tests on the same things. Hmm.

@Ren look lol:)
 
Pin said:
Not that I was much of one, but I am no longer a fan.
Click to expand...

I would like to hear your reasoning as well. Primarily because:

1) You seem to have had a reversal of opinion after being neutral or slightly positive for an extended period of time
2) The little bit that I've gleaned from your posts leads me to believe you hold values similar to the ones encouraged by Jordan Peterson - self reliance, development of character, "carrying your own cross", valuing family, etc.
3) You aren't stupid and your reasoning probably has some depth and nuance to it

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.


As for myself, I like Jordan Peterson's practical advice and have seen him speak live, but his inability to state his arguments without relying on mythology and archetypes drives me insane. It's too esoteric, too vulnerable to conjecture -- anything can be read into it. People seem to forget that mythology existed as a way to communicate ideas in pre-literate societies. It was merely functional. Mythology doesn't have some inestimable wisdom in it that is so great, so supernatural that it defies expression via regular, written / spoken language. You know why there are flood myths? Because floods happened. That's it. My point is that it's not necessary.

Sam Harris has an outstanding example of how messy this kind of thinking can get:



Also, as Deleted member 16771 pointed out, his refusal to acknowledge his clear agnosticism is frustrating. I saw that debate when it was first published and I think somewhere in there Sam asks him directly: "do you or do you not believe in the literal resurrection of Christ" and Peterson comes back with "well, it's not so simple..." *eyeroll*

I lost a lot of respect for that "answer". It felt weasely and disingenuous. Hos is right: just say you're agnostic as it's obvious to everyone that you are. Stop bullshittin', Jordan.
 
Last edited:
Regarding Jordan Peterson, the man says some awesome things and has an awesome overall perspective. I don't mind if every single thing he says is consistent or whatever lol. I personally relate to the fact that he cannot (or refuses) to answer something he isn't completely sure about or is way complicated because sometimes you cannot give just a straightforward answer. Maybe he doesn't like the labels and doesn't want to admit he's agnostic because he wants to believe in the resurrection, or he doesn't believe in the same way as everyone else and doesn't want to spend time explaining or confusing people lol.

I am sure I could find some things that I definitely don't agree with if I search all his videos, but that to me is inevitable with anyone, especially someone who is in the spotlight with all his views and opinions. Everyone will have things I disagree with. It doesn't mean I dislike them at all, though. I may even lose respect for them in that specific area, but it doesn't mean overall respect unless there are just so many things that go against everything I believe. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top