Mod note: Thread split from: https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/examples-of-ti-conversations/
The problem with Jordan Peterson is that he is unhealthy and shows up in an offensive way to many women, transgender, minorities populations, enlightened men, etc. Also, he makes up cookie cutter systems, without research, which isn’t a healthy use of psychology.
@cedar in order to get an in depth sense of what you mean and learn more from it. Is there anything unhealthy, cookie cutter, or offensive about this video?
@epicentity we do not agree and that is okay. I do not bring this up lightly and without putting thought into it…I knew you would push back. I do not want to continue this discussion as it is not the point and will go nowhere.
For those who are unaware of Jordan Peterson and wish to learn more, here is an article on him from the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
I don’t quite have enough information to agree or disagree with Cedar. But, she has given some interesting insights. I’m not really sure if having a chill conversation with everybody is possible, but I’d like to keep trying just see if I can. I’d like to come off as someone who’s trying to understand instead of someone who is trying one up, but I have no reason believe that is ever going to happen with everybody. All in all no big deal I won’t stop ‘being me’ around anybody and everybody at all times.
Reading this article has shed light on some interesting things on Jordan I didn’t know about. Although the author Nellie Bowles is a delta who’s observing a beta, which is likely the most ‘knew you’d push back’ kind of thing all day, if anything else. Not to play victim but lot in this read really does seem to me like her Ne is betting up on his Ni. From a Beta stand point the mythologies are workable when you consider applying them to the grand scale of things that happen in life. Although the way the author pointed out the mythologies I see her readers perceiving them as something insane. Jordan also believes in things that I straight up don’t agree with. If I take the good with the bad from ALL the content I’ve seen so far then I can’t rule out JP as a relative net positive for the world in general.
PS: Part 2 addon to the article > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjemMA2K_6A
PPS: Does anyone think Ti deals with things in everyday life in a top down matter as, opposed to bottom up which might be Te?
- Type: FiSe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Unseelie
So I know this is off-topic, but I’ve been meaning to say something about Jordan Peterson for a long time. I can’t claim to know much about him, but I’ve seen quite a few people now around the internet highlight and critique his more antagonistic views toward all sorts of generally welcomed groups and ideas. I personally am quite uncomfortable with a number of the things he says, and though I am not great at it, I’m going to try to articulate why as best I can.
I realize that a few of his ideas are foundational to CT, and that Auburn respects some of his psychological theories. This is certainly evident from the early articles published here, and I understand that it does not mean that Auburn agrees with Peterson’s less popular views. To the contrary, I believe Auburn is a decent and kind man who would welcome anyone to this community, as he seems to value the unique perspectives offered by anyone who would happen to join the discussion.
Peterson doesn’t seem to have the same open-mindedness though. Most of the attention he has garnered has not been for his philosophical or psychological theses, but for speaking out against the Canadian government’s decision to make gender identity and expression a prohibited grounds for discrimination. This personally raises a number of issues for me, for obvious reasons. He cites the same tired reasons that people have used to push against protecting vulnerable classes since the dawn of time, and contends that the law would make the use of correct pronouns for people into compelled speech. I understand the desire to push back against people saying you have to act in any kind of way, but this is certainly a misguided thing to push back against, especially for someone with as much influence as he has.
Beyond my own personal discomfort with Peterson, I also worry about the impact his presence will have in CT when the theory begins reaching a wider audience. It is certainly Auburn’s choice, and I’m sure we can all sperate Peterson’s ideas from his character, but I fear this will have an impact on CT’s growth down the line. This being a Jungian personality theory, I can see that Peterson is the next logical and modern step for influence, but it might not be worth the baggage that his most recognizable views carry. If anyone Googles Jordan Peterson, unfortunately the first things that come up are controversies surrounding him.AuburnKeymaster
- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
So I know this is off-topic
We might as well have a topic. 🙂
Thread split from https://cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/examples-of-ti-conversations/
- Type: FiSe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Unseelie
Thank you Auburn! Sorry I’m always making thread splits happen!!
My Grandpa (likely TeSi unseelie) said things that made me uncomfortable. But he’s been right more then his been wrong. I just might have grown stronger because I had to be uncomfortable first. He might have even been an experience that was healthier than military boot camp.
Question for anybody when Jordan Peterson makes you feel uncomfortable, did you ever stop think if he is right. Did you at least reconcile with yourself enough to feel nothing when you return to what use to make you feel uncomfortable. I say when you either see something painful as right or see something as no longer having the same affect on you than you have progressed.
I looked to what google had to present. Maybe sponsoring the face of JP is not as important as sponsoring his words. If Hitler or Jesus gave words that fit the model of CT then those words must stay until they are no longer valid.
PS: I did not get the impression that JP was entirely speaking out against the Canadian government’s decision to make gender identity and expression a prohibited grounds for discrimination. I got the impression that JP was speaking out against certain aspects of the Canadian government’s decision to make gender identity and expression a prohibited grounds for discrimination.
PPS: Thanks everyone for speaking your minds. It really makes me think deeper and deeper.
Question for anybody when Jordan Peterson makes you feel uncomfortable, did you ever stop think if he is right.
I read 10 chapters of his book – 12 Rules for Life and I agreed with everything he said there. There is not one thing that I thought was wrong. In my opinion he simply is right. He doesn’t even try to say anything that he is not sure of, which is rare and admirable. There is no lie. No inconsistency. No preaching of a possibility presented as the absolute truth. He turns back to his values over and over again…and it all makes sense and it is NOT false. To me this means a lot.
Now, there is one particularly important rule in his book, that I would like to bring up here because it made a strong impression on me and I believe it can help people understand his point of view better.
It is rule no. 8 – Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie.
In any situation it is crucial to tell the truth. You must avoid lying to others, as well as lying to yourself. Tolerating unacceptable behavior without pointing it out is a lie and can lead to the rise of a tyrant/a totalitarian regime. No lie is acceptable. If I lie to my boss that it is ok for me to stay at the office till 10 p.m. when in fact it is not, I facilitate a dangerous power imbalance at work. If I encourage my friend to waste his life with drugs and women, not doing anything for his self growth, by not telling him what is wrong about it and that his behavior directly impacts him and others, I am enabling his downfall.
I did not realize this before reading this chapter. I am pretty 9-ish “live and let live” and conflict avoidant. But I immediately saw he is right.
Jordan Peterson believes that there are only 2 genders. I don’t want to debate if this is true or not, because frankly I don’t have enough knowledge to provide useful information that people here don’t already know, nor is this relevant in demonstrating his intentions. I am just trying to explain his point of view. He believes there are 2 genders – male and female. Being forced to call a person by a different pronoun than the ones associated to these genders – like “them” or “zir” is a form of being forced to change your speech, hence it is the same as being forced to tell a lie.
And Jordan Peterson believes that lies lead to the rise of authoritarian regimes. So of course he would oppose being legally forced to use different pronouns than the ones that describe what he sees. This is perfectly consistent with his values and is not meant to be offensive, it is meant to prevent a future regime in which other words are changed too. Because changing words for other words was and is used by extremist political parties and by cult leaders to brainwash people. In Romania during the communist regime “friend” and “citizen” were replaced by “comrade”. “Santa Claus” was replaced by “Father Frost”. And this can seem harmless, what if from now on we call each other comrades? I mean why not if we want to? You can in the end define our relationship as camaraderie. Maybe this is a more accurate word than friendship or than citizenship, it is for sure debatable. But this was in fact a method used with the specific purpose to determine people to make certain political choices. It was presented as a freedom but in fact it became a limit, a chain, when people were only allowed to call themselves comrades.
The idea that certain aspects of reality can be renamed based on what we feel or identify with is a bit risky. But the idea that these aspects of reality MUST be renamed according to what we feel or identify with is already extremely dangerous, because it opens up the door for the State to switch words with other words that fit a specific political agenda better.
Anyway, to conclude, Jordan Peterson has very good reasons for presenting these opinions. For sure there are counterarguments, as this is a tricky and highly debated topic. But I don’t think these opinions show a flaw in his character or a rejection of trans or non binary people.
This is certainly evident from the early articles published here, and I understand that it does not mean that Auburn agrees with Peterson’s less popular views.
Yes ! I totally agree. I want to add there are a lot of conductors who were active in the field of psychology. As jelle says, a lot of conductors in academia in general. And conductors tend to also have strong political opinions that tend to reflect the time in which they lived. Quoting them or referencing them doesn’t mean you agree with all their views. But you can’t reject all their work just for these views.
I found myself in this dilemma when I was younger and in love with the works of a Romanian author and historian of religions – Mircea Eliade. We believe he might have been FeNi, there are not very good videos of him. Anyway, Eliade was a right wing extremist in his youth. He wrote antisemitic articles. He would have most probably not supported rights of sexual minorities. He has put the reputation of a former lover in danger by writing a novel where erotic scenes were included that highly suggested she – an Indian woman of high reputation – was not a virgin anymore when she got married. He was an anti natalist and determined 2 women to have abortions of his unborn children in a time span of less than a couple of months. I was shocked when I found out all these things about him, I was pretty young and there are so few people you can admire :(… but after pondering for some days, I decided it does not matter, I will still include some of his ideas in my views about the world and about spirituality. He – the person – was flawed, like everyone else. But his ideas were awesome and I could keep them and still respect him for having them. Despite all the mistakes he made and all the points we disagreed upon.
This doesn’t really apply to me now with Jordan Peterson but I think it could apply to you.
Later edit : I have to also say this is all based on what I know about Jordan Peterson. So, I haven’t watched all his videos on this issue. I don’t know everything he said. I will read the article posted above and come with more opinions later.
Ok, in my opinion this article does not accurately portray Jordan Peterson’s views. But there are so many issues mentioned here that I don’t know where to start. If you guys want, we could debate different points after discussing the pronouns issue. I can see the following ideas :
– Chaos and Order being connected to femininity and masculinity ;
– Monogamy as a solution to certain psychological problems and consequently to aggressive reactions of men who don’t manage to find a partner;
– Women’s roles in society and what roles they would actually prefer;
– The relevance of myths and fairy tales for the present;
– Hierarchies as the natural order of the world vs. the opposite view (no natural order? another natural order?);
– Making a statement about values by personal style.
I think these could all be discussed but it would take me a lot to get into each of them. In my opinion, there is a lot of nuance to all.
@bera You have a lot here and it will take a while to unpack.
I came to JP with a very open mind. I had no idea who he was until reading through support of him on CT forums and Wiki. As I dug, I initially thought he might be on to something. I can’t help but dig into things that interest me, so I kept researching, listening to his debate with Sam Harris and others. The more I read and listened, the more I heard him say either nothing or stuff that has been said for centuries. He makes black and white recommendations when life is rarely that way. Additionally, he speaks in absolutes and then becomes vague and elusive so it seems profound while actually meaningless.
I will do my best with this part, but I have to admit that I find it strange that I need to present reasonable arguments that are out there and easy to find. Also, as I am privileged to be considered the gender “norm” for female and don’t feel like I can give it justice, like someone who has lived outside this “standard.” God..such clunky wording. It shouldn’t be up to just marginalized groups to speak up either…my intentions are good, expect imperfections 😉
His stance on the Canadian human right’s bill was either reactionary/impulsive and not thought through or disingenuous. Here’s a very fair BBC report on it https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 He misrepresented what the bill actually said.
I identify as cis female, which means that my birth genitalia (sex) matches how I express myself (gender). If we strictly look at the population of people born intersex, we know that 1-2% are born with one of the many conditions that cause this. They may then perform gender however they were taught to by parents, doctors or rarely themselves. But if they don’t clearly develop into the binary genders male/female, he would not be acknowledging this group.
As for only acknowledging two genders, that is called genderism. We do know that gender disenfranchisement does have negative impacts on those marginalized populations. How is a slight discomfort of using preferred pronouns (in very narrow ways legally) a hardship? Don’t we hope to improve the world by using respectful, kind and compassionate words to others even if we do not yet understand? https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/144/5/e20191183
Another troubling issue is that the alt-right loves him and everything he stands for. So do incels and the MGTOW movement. There is a lot of misogyny that these people are picking up on. There aren’t big moderate or progressive groups adopting his “teachings” for a this reason. Though he claims he doesn’t agree with them, they agree with him, which is concerning.
There are many fair critiques from people far more learned and eloquent than me regarding JP. Can you communicate how you can inform yourself on other perspectives and not be open to reevaluating your stance?
More info at:
(Please note that I use proper sources and stay away from opinion pieces.)
@Cedar – Thank you for the links, I will read what I can find and come back later.
Now, I never heard JBP say that there are no intersex people and in fact yesterday I started listening to Chapter 11 of his book that actually deals with this issue. I listen to it on audio books so it will take me another 40 minutes to finish it. 🙂 Until now he has not suggested that. What he did say is that he strongly opposes Derrida’s ideology and opinions based on it, including the statement that gender is a socially created construct pushed by patriarchy to exclude women and keep power/authority to men. That the categorization of men-women is not reflective of a biological reality, but socially constructed as consequence of an exertion of power.
He says categorizations are simply a necessity to understand each other better and not an artificial construct specifically created by people in power in order to maintain power. I frankly did not know much about the philosophy he opposes and the way he puts it, I do agree with him. But have I read Derrida? No, I haven’t. I see JBP’s point of view on Derrida without having studied Derrida first, hence I will take JBP’s opinions about what Derrida meant with a grain of salt until I read an objective summary of Derrida’s philosophy. Or ask jelle. 🙂
Still, by holding this opinion, JBP does not say there are no intersex people. He just says- There are men. There are women. This is a biological reality, not a social construct created by men to oppress women.
Ok, this is from wikipedia :
Deconstruction is an approach to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. It was originated by the philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), who defined the term variously throughout his career. In its simplest form it can be regarded as a criticism of Platonism and the idea of true forms, or essences, which take precedence over appearances. Deconstruction instead places the emphasis on appearance, or suggests, at least, that essence is to be found in appearance. Derrida would say that the difference is “undecidable”, in that it cannot be discerned in everyday experiences.
I actually don’t need much more context to say that it appears that JBP did not misrepresent Derrida in his book – this indeed is what he opposes. And from some discord conversations, I think it is typical for Se-Ni people to believe that true forms or essences are real. So I am not surprised JBP, a high Ni, Se conscious person, would read this and say …what? No. 🙂
Now…from the video Epic posted, I understood he was against being forced to use different pronouns like “they/them” and “zir” for non binary people. He admitted he would call a trans person by the preferred pronoun, though indeed did not appear sure of that statement. I did see that, by the way, I did see the retreat and uncertainty. I think he would actually call a trans person by the pronoun that matched the general appearance, so he would call Blaire White she/her not he/him but this solution indeed does not cover all cases and leaves a gap, where the person identifies as a sex and is not called by that pronoun. I can see how this could be hurtful.
I will read more about that human right’s bill. He could have misunderstood it and I could have misunderstood it too, as my only access to it was his opinion about it.
Another point you mention is :
The more I read and listened, the more I heard him say either nothing or stuff that has been said for centuries. He makes black and white recommendations when life is rarely that way. Additionally, he speaks in absolutes and then becomes vague and elusive so it seems profound while actually meaningless.
There are some issues here. One is that saying stuff that was said for centuries is not necessarily not valuable if said in a new way, that brings clarity.
So, his rule about saying the truth was indeed said for centuries and more. Despite it being said many times by many different people, in many different ways, I personally never saw it as compelling enough in order to question my own conflict avoidance and to embrace Truth as a more important value than Peace. Because I never analysed deeply why it is important to only say the truth.
The same with hierarchical structures. This has been said again and again throughout history, but I don’t think this makes his lobster comparison irrelevant. As it is indeed relevant to someone’s everyday life to work within hierarchies. I never read someone who said it that clearly, who explained all the whys till the end in a way that is helpful for me and my life situation.
So, I think this is not as much about what he says as it is about how he says it, how he organizes his thoughts, how his theory is put together.
And I can see very well why it would appeal to incels, of course, as incels are incels because they have not found their place in the current hierarchies. And their aim is to find that place. Since there are not many theories that would actually be helpful for this endeavor, they would naturally listen to him. And I actually think they are one of the targets of his speeches. But they have not become incels because of his advice; they are incels because they lost many lobster battles. Hence the need to recover, boost serotonin and get back on their (many) feet. 🙂
But I will read the resources and try to see the different view points about him. I believe anything can be seen from more than one point of view. I honestly found his speeches useful and so did some friends. Many seem to be as if he was directly speaking to me, addressing my struggles. And giving possible solutions that I have not thought about. He does mention parables from the Bible in doing so, but if I just go and read those parables, they will not help me adopt useful habits that will actually make a difference in my quality of life. If I view them from his lens though, the story changes.
I have seen on discord the critique that he has turned into a self help guru. And I don’t necessarily disagree, but I also don’t mind. since indeed he does help.
Is this the study he bases his idea of hierarchy on? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20885/ Have you read the study?
I just spent the last several hours listening to some of his international interviews and I do not see why he is fundamental to CT. If this is a libertarian or alt-right site, then it makes sense. Why is he given this level of respect when he offers little to nothing to the concepts presented here? He is so divisive. Is it worth it?IvoryParticipant
- Type: TiSe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Adaptive
I don’t see why it matters that a person can be considered divisive. Many of Peterson’s ideas are solid as hell and stand on their own. The media drama is just that, drama. What does it matter?
And no, he’s not “alt right.” Far from it.
@ivory I didn’t say he was alt-right. Many associated with that identity do passionately endorse JP. One can’t just say that the media has created drama around him. He is polarizing and is not merely a victim of unwarranted attack. Please present real information that shows Jordan is uniquely qualified to add to CT. Just saying an opinion doesn’t make it fact. I have shown respected examples as a way of representing my argument.
What does he offer that other experts don’t? He does not focus on the topics presented here. You are not prevented from following him elsewhere, but what value does he bring that can’t be found in less alienating academics/scientists? There are so many amazingly well written and researched people that add to the conversation without detracting from it by their persona.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.