Where in the interviews is the gaslighting? Please be specific. You posted more than 3 hours of non-specific footage. Please show us the evidence. Timestamps would be helpful.
As for personal, Cedar, you accuse this man of GASLIGHTING and now you ask me to show you a video where he DOESN’T do it? Are you being serious here? Do you not comprehend the weight of your words? And you think this is me being petty?
Your view of the man is the very basis of this argument and you can’t even provide proper evidence of this SERIOUS accusation. So in response to being challenged, you evade the matter at hand and turn this on me? Asking me if this is personal and involving my wife in this?
How dare you.ElsieParticipant
- Type: SeFi
- Development: ll-l
- Attitude: Unseelie
accusations are still serious even if no one involved ever hears about them
dividing people is great for talking-points, and making-and-breaking things
if you want people to pursue value and enrichment for themselves, let @auburn have value and enrichment for his CT project with jordan peterson and his ideas too
Potential gas lighting
b Using a mask of confidence, assertiveness, and/or fake compassion to make you believe that you “have it all wrong.”
c Changing the subject; divert the topic by asking another question, or making a statement usually directed at your thoughts
e Denial and avoidance
f Twisting and reframing
SJW: 0:14 b, 0:18 f, 1:10 e, 2:10 f, 2:18 d,……………………..
JP: 0:18 c, 0:21 d, 0:32 a, 1:55 a, 2:27 abde (it’s like whatever)……………
JP Followers: 1:40
Gaslighting maybe better left to an overall pattern of behavior or a brainscan. Instead surface instances. I suspect that an unhealthy Je lead is the embodiment of a gaslighter. As healthier ones do it in the most lightest, accidental, and non-harmful ways.
- This reply was modified 4 months ago by EpicEntity.
You are right: one instance does not prove a pattern of gaslighting. That video especially doesn’t show any party in a good light. Bad setting, worse tension. That wasn’t a debate, that was a (verbal) fight.
I am especially curious to hear from @cedar about the gaslighting that, she said, repeatedly happened in all those interviews that she posted.
I just want to throw in some thoughts about whether the controversy around Jordan Peterson matters. Does it matter in terms of whether some particular thing he says is true? No, of course not. Does it matter in terms of deciding whether or not to present CT as having a connection to Jordan Peterson? Yes, potentially. I imagine Auburn would hesitate before writing an article connecting the ideas of CT to the ideas of Hitler, even if the connection were perfectly legitimate, because he would recognize that people coming to the website would be turned off by this connection. Please note that I am not equating Jordan Peterson to Hitler. I’m simply using Hitler as a tool to demonstrate that a person’s public image does matter when you are deciding whether or not to connect your work to theirs if you have a goal of drawing more people to your work, which I believe CT does.
The issue I have with this comparison is that there is a big difference between the historical fact of massacring people, and mere public perception. To say that Hitler has a negative image, while correct in essence, is of an entirely different order (based on historical facts) compared the the divisive image of Peterson.
Hitler is not a “divisive” figure. Society at large has decided Hitler is bad. Those who are Hitler “fans” are outcasted by anyone reasonable in society.
Jordan Peterson is divisive and controversial – but he is only considered a “condemnable” by extremist fringe groups such as the far left. There is no real condemnation of him, or social expectation to condemn him, except among these fringe groups. Because he hasn’t massacred anyone, hasn’t been a violent dictator, hasn’t thrown people in gas chambers. So, this comparison between him and Hitler doesn’t make sense.
No one reasonably respectable in society would tout Hitler’s ideas without expecting to be looked upon as an extremist by average people, but associating oneself with Peterson is not ‘condemnable’ except by extremists.
To compare Peterson to Hitler is making a mockery of the Holocaust and the people whose families died in gas chambers, or who have survived these horrible conditions.
- Type: FiNe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Unseelie
@ivory @animal, I tried to make it clear that I was not trying to suggest that Hitler and Jordan Peterson are similar figures. Of course they are totally different and are viewed very differently by society. My point was just to demonstrate the general principle that what the general public thinks about a person is worth considering when deciding whether or not to make a connection between your work and theirs. If Auburn thinks that Peterson is not divisive enough to warrant removing the article about him, I think that is fine, and I wouldn’t argue about it. The only reason I made the post was because some people were questioning why the fact that there are controversies surrounding Peterson matters, and I was pointing out that if you are trying to draw more people to your work, then it does make sense to consider your public image, which is affected by the public image of the people you associate yourself with.
- Type: SeFi
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
@cedar – thank you for pointing this out. I forgot this article !
Then we actually have relevant information about why Jordan Peterson’s ideas are relevant to us.
These are the main points :
- The belief in anciently encoded memory – that has a visual imprint and which is represented through symbolism (i.e. fear of snakes and snake symbolism associated with evil, male & female symbolism and duality, the cuteness of babies with a care-taking response, the color red and ripe fruit and desire, etc)
- The belief in innate male and female differences – as proven by studies conducted in the Scandinavian countries, as well as the objective validity of ‘gender roles’ from a biological perspective. (this is a point we discussed previously by the way)
- The belief (increasingly supported by neuroscientists) that we are a collection of loosely connected sub-personalities. It seems obvious to anyone who has ever struggled with self control, but we are conscious only of a tiny fraction of the processing that goes in our minds, and we control only a small fraction of our thoughts. The vast majority of our thinking happens on a subconscious level and involves a diversity of motivational systems each fighting for their drive to take the wheel. Our conscious self is like the chauffeur of a car full of other characters which are other sides of us. These “characters” (“my dark side”, “my angry side”, “my moody side”, “my silly side”) coexist in a regulated tension, but can sometimes get out of balance. An understanding of what is happening within us is addressed using a psychoanalysis of the relationship between these different motivational vectors, which can often be unconscious.
- The belief in Type – although his preferred instrument is the Big Five, it’s essentially the same system as was first sketched by C.G. Jung through his definition of the I/E – N/S – T/F dimensions, with the majority of the same categories represented. The Big Five is a sort of scientifically rigorous incarnation of the same understanding of the greatest differences in temperament among individuals.
I think it would be a good idea to discuss these points, as they are actually the ones that are relevant to CT theory.
Do you guys believe they are true or false?
Do you believe they are relevant to CT or not?
Because Jordan Peterson is not mentioned here as a role model of good manners or patience…:) He is rather mentioned here because some of his ideas are partly connected to CT theory.
About associations with people who are not viewed in a good light by society…I could agree with this in principle if Auburn’s article had anything to do with shared values, but at least the way I see it, it is simply about theoretical associations. What is actually being shared are not moral principles, but opinions about psychology.
This in order to not go into more details about Jordan Peterson’s moral values, as our opinions about this topic are different. But in reality this has nothing to do with the article. As the article is not about values; it’s about opinions regarding the collective unconscious, psychological differences between male and female, type and development.
I hope this makes sense and I am curious about your opinions !
Auburn is in this world. In this world he finds the key so devise and different from the habits of modern day that it expands CT’s 1024 revolution by 100 fold. Many people around the world benefit from this very discovery even the one’s who’s ancestors were met with some much cruelty by the creator of this world.
In reality auburn can not travel in this world. He must make people happy, he must manipulate people the way they want to be manipulated. The offspring of the creator’s torture along with everyone else could have been armed with great self knowledge, but are instead less understanding of themselves.
The drama among humans over history has become truth of people. So the truth of possibility must now be forever forgotten.
@fayest42 I was too arrogant to think about your last post with great depth… But I when I thought about it even more I started asking… What does it mean to attract truth seekers to the works of this community? What is it that they love and what is it that they hate? What public image would a truth seeker expect Auburn to have? What is a truth seeker even comprised of? If someone is not truth seeker then how far are they from being one?
- This reply was modified 3 months, 4 weeks ago by EpicEntity.
- Type: FiNe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Unseelie
@epicentity Yes, I think these are good questions to ask. Who is Auburn trying to attract to CT? What do those people tend to think of Jordan Peterson? If they don’t like him, will they immediately leave or will they stick around to see exactly why he is brought up? If they disagree with that article will they still be able to see the wisdom of CT as a whole? Also, how important is Jordan Peterson specifically? Could the points made in that article be made without reference to him? One could even ask if his divisiveness could be useful? Sometimes controversies draw more people to something than would have otherwise seen it. Is that something we want? I don’t really have an answer to any of these questions, but these are some of the questions Auburn could ask himself about this.
- Type: SeFi
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Seelie
What does it mean to attract truth seekers to the works of this community?
I told you in the chat earlier, but I felt like I needed to say it here too. In my opinion, truth seekers are attracted by the truth. 🙂
Who is Auburn trying to attract to CT?
CT is a research project, so, at least the way I see it, it aims to find out the truth about types and to inform whoever is interested. There is no specific target group, as far as I know. There are people with very different backgrounds interested in CT.
If they don’t like him (Peterson), will they immediately leave or will they stick around to see exactly why he is brought up?
If someone leaves CT because he/she doesn’t like Peterson and because Auburn mentioned Peterson as being relevant to CT in this neutral, non – offensive way, it means this person’s views significantly clash with ours.
An then in the end even if this article was not on the site, this clash would still come to light sooner or later. This person would go on discord and find videos of Jordan Peterson and feedback about them from Auburn or members’ opinions that were not opposed by Auburn. Or would at some point ask something about Jordan Peterson and be unhappy about the answer. Or would see the thread with Big Five test results and remember this is a system supported by Jordan Peterson and become upset that we are “popularizing” it indirectly.
It is likely that this person would still be unhappy in the end after we also wasted energy on trying to address these issues. If the person didn’t discover that CT has some similar views with Jordan Peterson, I guess this difference in views would still manifest somewhere else sooner or later.
Could the points made in that article be made without reference to him?
I think so, yes, but he makes them too and then it’s fair to reference him.
Sometimes controversies draw more people to something than would have otherwise seen it. Is that something we want?
I don’t think it is something we want. I personally don’t like conflicts and disagreements. But, on the other hand, they are an inevitable part of life, especially in a community of people from different countries, age groups and backgrounds. Even type / quadra differences can play a part in this.
I will give some examples that I think could be connected to our discussion till now:
Fi: Discovery of Inner Essence
The Fi user is aware very early on that every individual possesses a unique and sacred soul which remains unmodified at its core, but which can be tarnished and crippled by our necessary collision with an imperfect world. Through years of conditioning, the environment misshapes and warps that essence when we’re forced to live through imaginary characters and personas; to fabricate egos and narratives atop of our neglected and parched nativity. When Fi is strong in a person, an acute aspiration buds forth to boldly return themselves and others to their sacred spark; that purity that remains always incorruptible but buried beneath a mountain of faces.
Fe: The Human Condition
Given this awareness, the Fe user is an acute student of human behavior, understanding – by the tracking of this domain – how we act, how we emote, how we move and why we make the choices we make. Fe monitors how it is that society shapes our opinions and thoughts; how it is that collective ideologies permeate into our beings and define our moral landscapes for better or worse. Thus, Fe soon comes to develop a concept of “the human condition” from a universal place defined by what commonly manifests across populations and lifetimes.In this sense, Fe comes to understand “what it means to be human” from the outside-in, using what is externally evident as reflective of our shared internal reality.
And then regarding an observation above – that Jordan Peterson rarely says anything new, there is :
Ni: Narrowness & Convergence
The Ni user is not an inciter or generator of novel things, nor is his specialty a spontaneous creativity, but is instead the holistic assimilation of trends over time, and a convergence of perspective along the most reinforced trendlines. They generally see only one or a few trajectories stemming from a given situation and are magnetically drawn to the likeliest interpretations. Thus, the ideas the Ni user arrives at are not things he creates, but things he discovers to already be “the case”; often sourcing from an inside-out evaluation of being but just as well from a panoramic evaluation of society. In this way, the Ni user is a sort of investigator or excavator of the primordial imagery in himself and society.
The Ne function is motivated to discover new information, whether by absorbing it from the outside or by synthesizing it out of existing datasets through a creative alchemy.
So, at least some of the reasons for disagreement can even be function related, type related or quadra related. Which is interesting and informative in itself.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 4 weeks ago by Bera.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.