The Jordan Peterson thread - Printable Version
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: The Jordan Peterson thread (/thread-61725.html)
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: The Jordan Peterson thread (/thread-61725.html)
The Jordan Peterson thread - MOVSM - 01-30-2019
Jordan Peterson Convinces Pile Of Clean Laundry To Sort Itself Out
Quote:Quote:
TORONTO, CANADA—After noting that the pile of clean laundry was still sitting on the kitchen table where he had left it the previous day, clinical psychologist and University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson reportedly sat down with the clothing Tuesday and convinced it to sort itself out, reports confirmed.
“You can’t just keep lying around like this. Take some bloody responsibility! Otherwise you’ll find no meaning, no purpose,” a stoic yet impassioned Peterson said. “Move away from chaos and toward order.”
“You want to stay unfolded and unsorted your whole life? This is just like Peter Pan. But we’re not in Neverland! Grow the [expletive] up. You’ve got to get yourself sorted out,” he added.
At that, the large pile of clean garments is said to have folded and sorted itself at once into nice piles, separated by type and owner.
At publishing time, the neatly folded laundry had reportedly decided to clean its room, stand up straight with its shoulders back, and always tell the truth.
The Jordan Peterson thread - debeguiled - 01-30-2019
Quote: (01-30-2019 09:32 AM)911 Wrote:
E. Michael Jones on Jordan Peterson
I give up. Post whatever wherever.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Teedub - 01-30-2019
@StrikeBack - good post mate, well said.
We're all hypocrites in one way or another.
The Jordan Peterson thread - SamuelBRoberts - 01-30-2019
Quote: (01-30-2019 02:54 PM)debeguiled Wrote:
I give up. Post whatever wherever.
Hey man, I don't know why you're trying to criticize these people.
Is your house in order?
The Jordan Peterson thread - The Catalyst - 01-30-2019
Quote: (01-30-2019 03:32 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:
Quote: (01-30-2019 02:54 PM)debeguiled Wrote:
I give up. Post whatever wherever.
Hey man, I don't know why you're trying to criticize these people.
Is your house in order?
![[Image: laugh3.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/laugh3.gif)
The Jordan Peterson thread - debeguiled - 01-30-2019
Quote: (01-30-2019 03:32 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:
Quote: (01-30-2019 02:54 PM)debeguiled Wrote:
I give up. Post whatever wherever.
Hey man, I don't know why you're trying to criticize these people.
Is your house in order?
Just my room.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Blaster - 01-30-2019
Quote: (01-29-2019 01:04 AM)Aurini Wrote:
Quote: (01-28-2019 11:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.
I used to think so, until I looked into it. I can usually identify somebody within a few minutes of meeting them.
You could also just come up with a few words in normal English to describe their personality and it will probably have more predictive power. The extra step of assigning a category adds very little. In fact, it introduces baggage, as the category descriptions are very subjective and open to interpretation, leading to confirmation bias.
Also, the scales present dichotomies that may not be valid or necessary. Take something like the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. How would you differentiate between someone who exhibits both Judging and Perceiving traits, and someone who doesn't exhibit either one strongly? MBTI emphasizes the dominance of one over the other in order to assign the cagetory, rather than just letting the results speak for themselves.
On the other hand, consider the Big Five model, where you have simply traits like conscientiousness and openness-to-experience, where you can independently score higher or lower in each one. You can score high in both, or low in both, or high in one and low in the other, or in between. A wide range of personalities, far more than just 16 types, can be described this way.
Furthermore, this system allows the possibility for refinement and increased detail. The Big Five Aspect Scales break down the traits into sub-traits. Conscientious breaks down into orderliness and industriousness. You can be a diligent, high-energy worker but somewhat disordered, or you can be extremely orderly but also low-energy and not very productive.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Syberpunk - 01-30-2019
Legend has it that if Jordan Peterson were to tell E Michael Jones to straighten up anymore, he'd have no ass and break his hip bones.
The Jordan Peterson thread - astro - 01-30-2019
@blaster read up on the "cognitive functions" related to it, that's where it then made a lot more sense to me.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Aurini - 01-31-2019
Quote: (01-30-2019 09:44 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Quote: (01-29-2019 01:04 AM)Aurini Wrote:
Quote: (01-28-2019 11:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.
I used to think so, until I looked into it. I can usually identify somebody within a few minutes of meeting them.
You could also just come up with a few words in normal English to describe their personality and it will probably have more predictive power. The extra step of assigning a category adds very little. In fact, it introduces baggage, as the category descriptions are very subjective and open to interpretation, leading to confirmation bias.
Also, the scales present dichotomies that may not be valid or necessary. Take something like the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. How would you differentiate between someone who exhibits both Judging and Perceiving traits, and someone who doesn't exhibit either one strongly? MBTI emphasizes the dominance of one over the other in order to assign the cagetory, rather than just letting the results speak for themselves.
On the other hand, consider the Big Five model, where you have simply traits like conscientiousness and openness-to-experience, where you can independently score higher or lower in each one. You can score high in both, or low in both, or high in one and low in the other, or in between. A wide range of personalities, far more than just 16 types, can be described this way.
Furthermore, this system allows the possibility for refinement and increased detail. The Big Five Aspect Scales break down the traits into sub-traits. Conscientious breaks down into orderliness and industriousness. You can be a diligent, high-energy worker but somewhat disordered, or you can be extremely orderly but also low-energy and not very productive.
You do realize that the Big Five has 32 personality archetypes?
I do agree that it's more scientifically verifiable and more useful for predictions.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Genghis Khan - 01-31-2019
Quote: (01-31-2019 12:18 AM)Aurini Wrote:
Quote: (01-30-2019 09:44 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Quote: (01-29-2019 01:04 AM)Aurini Wrote:
Quote: (01-28-2019 11:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.
I used to think so, until I looked into it. I can usually identify somebody within a few minutes of meeting them.
You could also just come up with a few words in normal English to describe their personality and it will probably have more predictive power. The extra step of assigning a category adds very little. In fact, it introduces baggage, as the category descriptions are very subjective and open to interpretation, leading to confirmation bias.
Also, the scales present dichotomies that may not be valid or necessary. Take something like the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. How would you differentiate between someone who exhibits both Judging and Perceiving traits, and someone who doesn't exhibit either one strongly? MBTI emphasizes the dominance of one over the other in order to assign the cagetory, rather than just letting the results speak for themselves.
On the other hand, consider the Big Five model, where you have simply traits like conscientiousness and openness-to-experience, where you can independently score higher or lower in each one. You can score high in both, or low in both, or high in one and low in the other, or in between. A wide range of personalities, far more than just 16 types, can be described this way.
Furthermore, this system allows the possibility for refinement and increased detail. The Big Five Aspect Scales break down the traits into sub-traits. Conscientious breaks down into orderliness and industriousness. You can be a diligent, high-energy worker but somewhat disordered, or you can be extremely orderly but also low-energy and not very productive.
You do realize that the Big Five has 32 personality archetypes?
I do agree that it's more scientifically verifiable and more useful for predictions.
That sounds very neat. Do you have a link? I googled "big five 32 archetypes" etc, didn't find anything
The Jordan Peterson thread - Oberrheiner - 01-31-2019
Quote: (01-28-2019 11:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.
Maybe, however I've seen companies using it during the recruitment phase, so it can have quite a bit more impact I'd say.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Aurini - 01-31-2019
Quote: (01-31-2019 09:30 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:
Quote: (01-31-2019 12:18 AM)Aurini Wrote:
Quote: (01-30-2019 09:44 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Quote: (01-29-2019 01:04 AM)Aurini Wrote:
Quote: (01-28-2019 11:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.
I used to think so, until I looked into it. I can usually identify somebody within a few minutes of meeting them.
You could also just come up with a few words in normal English to describe their personality and it will probably have more predictive power. The extra step of assigning a category adds very little. In fact, it introduces baggage, as the category descriptions are very subjective and open to interpretation, leading to confirmation bias.
Also, the scales present dichotomies that may not be valid or necessary. Take something like the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy. How would you differentiate between someone who exhibits both Judging and Perceiving traits, and someone who doesn't exhibit either one strongly? MBTI emphasizes the dominance of one over the other in order to assign the cagetory, rather than just letting the results speak for themselves.
On the other hand, consider the Big Five model, where you have simply traits like conscientiousness and openness-to-experience, where you can independently score higher or lower in each one. You can score high in both, or low in both, or high in one and low in the other, or in between. A wide range of personalities, far more than just 16 types, can be described this way.
Furthermore, this system allows the possibility for refinement and increased detail. The Big Five Aspect Scales break down the traits into sub-traits. Conscientious breaks down into orderliness and industriousness. You can be a diligent, high-energy worker but somewhat disordered, or you can be extremely orderly but also low-energy and not very productive.
You do realize that the Big Five has 32 personality archetypes?
I do agree that it's more scientifically verifiable and more useful for predictions.
That sounds very neat. Do you have a link? I googled "big five 32 archetypes" etc, didn't find anything
2^2^2^2^2=36
The Jordan Peterson thread - 911 - 01-31-2019
2^2^2^2^2=65,536.
You meant 2x2x2x2x2, which is the number of total permutations with a combination of five binary states, equal to 32.
The Jordan Peterson thread - 911 - 01-31-2019
Quote: (01-30-2019 02:54 PM)debeguiled Wrote:
Quote: (01-30-2019 09:32 AM)911 Wrote:
E. Michael Jones on Jordan Peterson
I give up. Post whatever wherever.
God forbid, a post about Jordan Peterson, in a Jordan Peterson thread!
![[Image: smile.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/smile.gif)
The Jordan Peterson thread - Genghis Khan - 01-31-2019
I thought the entire point of Big Five was not to have binary scales. E.g. most people aren't hardcore introverts or hardcore extraverts, but are somewhere in between. Hence the entire thing about using a scale and assigning percentiles to people.
So Big Five doesn't actually have 32 personality archetypes.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Blaster - 02-02-2019
Exactly. If you consider 3 classifications per trait (high/low/moderate), you're up to 243 categories. If you split it 4 ways you're up to 1,024.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Aurini - 02-02-2019
Quote: (01-31-2019 10:23 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:
I thought the entire point of Big Five was not to have binary scales. E.g. most people aren't hardcore introverts or hardcore extraverts, but are somewhere in between. Hence the entire thing about using a scale and assigning percentiles to people.
So Big Five doesn't actually have 32 personality archetypes.
It has five dimensions, creating 32 extreme points, and vectors in between. Is that better?
The Jordan Peterson thread - debeguiled - 02-03-2019
Quote: (01-31-2019 10:23 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:
I thought the entire point of Big Five was not to have binary scales. E.g. most people aren't hardcore introverts or hardcore extraverts, but are somewhere in between. Hence the entire thing about using a scale and assigning percentiles to people.
So Big Five doesn't actually have 32 personality archetypes.
I am pretty sure the point of the Big Five is that it is objective and that it has predictive value.
Myer's Briggs, well, look into the history yourself.
All about a mother in law who couldn't understand her son in law, so invented a personality inventory that twisted Jung's theories to figure out the dude, with help from her daughter, neither of them psychologists.
No predictive power, and people change classifications when they take the test more than once.
The Jordan Peterson thread - CynicalContrarian - 02-03-2019
Myer-Briggs?
Big 5?
Probably best to honestly know yourself first.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Gotti - 02-27-2019
Thoughts?
This is a perspective I haven't heard in a way that I really understood and connected with.
The Jordan Peterson thread - nomadbrah - 02-27-2019
Quote: (02-03-2019 02:31 PM)debeguiled Wrote:
Quote: (01-31-2019 10:23 AM)Genghis Khan Wrote:
I thought the entire point of Big Five was not to have binary scales. E.g. most people aren't hardcore introverts or hardcore extraverts, but are somewhere in between. Hence the entire thing about using a scale and assigning percentiles to people.
So Big Five doesn't actually have 32 personality archetypes.
I am pretty sure the point of the Big Five is that it is objective and that it has predictive value.
Myer's Briggs, well, look into the history yourself.
All about a mother in law who couldn't understand her son in law, so invented a personality inventory that twisted Jung's theories to figure out the dude, with help from her daughter, neither of them psychologists.
No predictive power, and people change classifications when they take the test more than once.
Jungs original archetype test is better than Myers Briggs by far, because it is a serious piece of work.
What's usually missing in the Myers Briggs is the focus on dominant vs secondary functions, i.e. "extroverted sensing" vs "introverted thinking".
Jung's idea is to be aware of the way your mind processes information and makes decisions - and then work on building up those less functions. It's not meant to make the introvert feeler indulge only in sentimentality, but to make the introverted feeler grow to be able to share with the world.
Jung has many interesting insights in his original text, such as the pure theoretical extrovert (dominant function "extroverted sensing"), not really existing as a person, only as a purely stimuli reactive person (NPC). And the pure introvert ("introverted feeling"), as being trapped in an inner prison.
The takeaway from Jung, is to WORK through (therapy?) in developing your underdeveloped sides. More rational and outgoing if you're a feeling artist type, more thinking and feeling if you're an extroverted doer.
The Jordan Peterson thread - CynicalContrarian - 02-27-2019
Quote: (02-27-2019 06:47 PM)Gotti Wrote:
...
Thoughts?
This is a perspective I haven't heard in a way that I really understood and connected with.
Hedonism is hollow.
Hedonism is hellish.
Add in the savvy observation of AnonymousBosch that there is a new "puritanism". Yet not one based on old school religious principles, rather - female insecurity & paranoia.
Plus the element of juvenile angst against any sort of personal responsibility from the kidults today.
Feels over facts & carefree over consequence.
The Jordan Peterson thread - BetaNoMore - 02-27-2019
He sees things in a jungian manner of the “collective unconscience.” Our society has changed so much and in too short of time such that we as a people are having problems navigating the norms.
Sometimes I have doubts about him but when I see videos like this, it makes me more confident that he’s not “controlled opposition.” Intact, he’s really taking a stance here that Roosh has been taking on hookup culture and how it’s bad for everyone.
The Jordan Peterson thread - Batman_ - 02-28-2019
Quote: (01-31-2019 09:52 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:
Quote: (01-28-2019 11:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Myers-Briggs is a glorified horoscope.
Maybe, however I've seen companies using it during the recruitment phase, so it can have quite a bit more impact I'd say.
Yes, and it's actually a complete disaster that companies do this.
(skip to about 5:00)