Professor Peterson, however the deal was struck to allow you to film your lectures and upload them on youtube doesn't matter. What does matter is that those of us who are financially or geographically unable to take your class in person are able to access the content online. I consider it a huge gift, and appreciate it greatly. Thank you, professor.
***** No offense meant by this or my previous comment, I guess I just assumed the university would be involved on some level. However, your class is very clearly you compilation of very important people, along with your interpretations. Thank you for responding and again, thank you for the amount of content you've made available. I'd send a Christmas card to express my gratitude!
Learning that peoples biologically rooted personalites dictate the facts they find that make up their conception of the world and also dictate what they see moment to moment has made it much easier to empathize with others and has made my interactions with people much less abbrasive and much easier to being understanding of differences between people.
01:05 17 thousand trait descriptors - perhaps there is a simpler structure underneath. 03:46 Raymond Cattell's 16 traits. 04:56 What a trait might be? 06:35 Measurement techniques. 09:25 Making a questionnaire. 23:03 Criteria-related validity. 26:22 3 different kinds of categories. 35:30 Current standard model of personality. 43:04 Plasticity. 45:37 Open people are more capable of aesthetic experience. 48:40 The assertiveness element of extroversion. 50:52 Conscientiousness. 51:02 Follow a schedule. 58:18 Orderliness, disgust and authoritarianism. 59:25 Personality traits have no intrinsic moral value. 1:01:15 Neuroticism. 1:02:22 Agreeableness. 1:02:42 Openness. 1:02:56 Extroversion. 1:03:40 Try consciously to do something for someone else. 1:04:30 General cognitive ability.
This man is brilliant and could actually change the world, he teaches what should be taught in schools and colleges and he is articulate in his methods.
Always a pleasure to listen to Dr Peterson's lectures from his Toronto University days, it is so good to have all of these on RUclips to reach a much wider audience. He must really miss doing research, he has authored or co-authored over 100 research papers. And now he cannot even carry on with his clinical practice in Canada either, it must be so frustrating for him but at least he has lots of other revenue streams. Dr Jordan Peterson is a legend in his own lifetime, and very few people can say that of themselves. Long may it continue.
Dear Dr Jordan B Peterson Thank you for shedding light on the intricate psychological aspects during your talk. Your academic perspective was both enlightening and profoundly inspiring. I greatly appreciated your expertise and many of us have been inspired to delve deeper into the subject. We are truly grateful for the knowledge you shared I believe. Warm regards,
Thank you so much for this oportunity to improve myself and learn. I hope someday that I can tell how much you have improved my life and inspired me to be better, you have no idea :). I feel very gratefull thats for sure!
Did you know that all the information digested in different times in your life make you realize how to apply to that particular situation. If you’re wondering what changed it’s the situation not the man 😅
A question I wish I could ask Jordan Peterson, is if these Big 5 traits are bell curves, and they’re a product of evolution, then it stands to reason that nature has selected low contentiousness as fit for survival in some way. Yet, you tell people to adopt orderly habits regardless of their personality dimension on the Big 5 scale. Is that a paradox or am I missing something about evolution or the Big 5 personality dimension in raising that question?
I’m not in a sociological field, so wonder, has anyone plotted a huge number of people in a multidimensional trait space (I only know the myers Briggs 4-d example) and then done principal component analysis on the points to see how they cluster?
22:25 i personally wouldn't define someone as a "sad person" but rather as a melancholic or pessimistic person who experiences sadness as a variable emotion more consistantly than an optimistic person would , but its not a trait , it could be generated by a trait of high on negative emotion , which is a non variable state , that person would be constantly and "normally" high on negative emotion and therefore experience sadness more oftenly , or negative emotions , it really is a tricky thing , cuz we didnt take into consideration the circumstances they live in , like if everything is alright and the person is still on average more sad or anxious than happy , then its probably the person's nature , or could be a probleme in their dopaminergic systeme ( biochemical probleme ) , the question is should it be considerate as "normal" trait , or treat them ?
Mr Peterson I have great respect for you and your theories but I hate to correct you on this one all hydrogen atoms are not created equal there's hydrogen there's deuterium and there's tritium they're different have a nice day
Re. agreeableness and compassion in a liberal versus a conservative with conscientiousness is the judgment that comes with the conservative. Not complicated, overly obvious.
I was surprised too see, early in the lecture, a summary of Allport's assumption about personality traits that included an assumption that is disputed by later generations of trait researchers: the claim that "traits" are causal. Jordan did not challenge Allport's classic assumption here. Traits are descriptive, not causal agents. Given the assessment (not true measurement) of traits using rating scales, etc., it seems that there is a misconception that when traits are claimed, based on correlational and other procedures) that they are "highly predictive" of Behavior X this means they cause the behavior. Strictly speaking, this is not the case. Furthermore, hypothetical constructs like personality factors only have evidence as existing in groups that have been assessed, in other words they only have evidence in support of them in of some sort of "between subjects" sense. There is little or no evidence of, say, the Big Five factors existing in a single individual (a "within subject" sense). We infer the between-subjects phenomena must exist in a particular individual who is being assessed, but strictly speaking, there is little or no evidence for this (I'm playing it safe and saying "little or no" instead of "no" just in case there is a scientific literature I am missing). An additional assumption, which leads to their misconception as causal, is the dominant assumption that psychological attributes are continuous and are reflective latent variables. This is an assumption that is not, strickly speaking, a proven one. See the work of Joel Michell and Denny Boorsboom on measurement theory that outlines this.
To say that traits, based on correlational and other procedures are highly predictive is powerful. I had never thought of just using technology and large data sets to find things and correlate them as something with the power to open doors we have never thought about before today. It will generate the research questions in the forms of answers we figure out how to find. Wow. Don't laugh if this has been apparent to you all along. Or if I am actually making it up as being so fantastic. Will sleep on it.
I think it's the same as the previous one which came about in the 1960s, only better distilled, and that's the big five model. There's a collective consensus on it by most scientists, too.
There are a lot of different ways to try to identify the number of ways to break down the big 5. He cowrote a paper in 2002 that showed some correlations between Openness and Extraversion and also showed correlation between Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. It isn't clear that there is any utility in this division other than to say perhaps that the big 5 arent necessary completely Independent from each other. He also co-wrote a paper in 2007 where their model was specifically trying to find biological markers for the big 5 and they were able to identify 2 aspects under each. Which showed that you could break it down further. I personally like the NEO-PI-3 model the most. It has the Big 5 and 6 sub-facets. At first glance, I didn't like the way that it was broken down but I do think there is a lot of utility Costa and McCrae have chosen to reduce the traits.
15:30 But couldnt a conscientious person also be someone who is lax about rules and not quick to judge or punish other people? Because I feel like this definition is basically saying conscientiousness = morality. When in reality I think it means discipline, and SOMEtimes it's good to let go of your rigid discipline. Or at least be disciplined to be open and forgiving.
I agree with your assessment. Cattelle's description of Conscientiousness is kind of 2 dimensional and under developed because of how early he lived in the process Personality Psychology when he was alive. Cattelle was probably High in Conscientiousness and his bias is spilling out in his assessment of Human Personality. Trying to constrain morality to Conscientiousness has the same problem that being "fun" is too general a term to be applied to just a single aspect of personality. Using the NEO-PI-3 model of personality (Which is another variant of the big 5 that has 6 sub facets under each of the big 5) one of the facets of Openness is Values. A person who is low in Openness then would have more traditional values and a person high in Openness would have more liberal values. This suggests that a persons morality is influenced by their openness too. One of the facets of Agreeableness is tendermindedness. Tenderminded people are generally more compassionate and inclined toward mercy as opposed to expecting justice. Therefore Agreeableness influences morality as well. There is another facet of Agreeableness that is straightforwardness which has to do with being direct and telling the truth. 1 of the 6 sub-facets of Conscientiousness is self-discipline, so I think you are on the right track in your critique of this statement Jordan quoted.
I like the idea of conscientiousness being discipline- the way I go through the world, I tend to be highly agreeable and conscientious and I have described it as a manicured effort to reduce friction. The problem that creeps into my mind sometimes is that perhaps an overabundance of care and politeness might be a demonstration of fear or weakness.. I guess, compared to a lot of brash, rude and loud voices, it’s easy to believe that conscientiousness is a way of making oneself “small” in order to reduce or avoid conflict. I can see how letting go of that rigid discipline in some moments would be almost necessary for a healthy life balance. I guess there’s reason to develop the discipline of conscientiousness, then to abandon it in moments when it wouldn’t serve you?
@@milliewoo337 I have a moderate amount of Conscientiousness but am also High in Agreeableness and have also had the problem you describe where I feel I am being compassionate and non-confrontational only to be forced to realize that it was cowardice. I think Disagreeableness is a person's strong sense of autonomy while Agreeableness is a sense of belonging. A person should be brave enough to say no when it's right, but cooperative, compassionate and polite enough to say yes whan that is right. I think as long as you have the capacity to say no, that's sufficient to make sure you aren't being a coward. Likewise, High Conscientiousness is discipline but also a sense of dutifulness and therefore a willingness to serve a higher ideal. Low Conscientiousness seems to be a will to resist humanities tilt toward rigid beurocracies. A willingness to seek out one's own desires instead of mindlessly serving the collective. It's complicated because it suggests that individuality and collectivism have multiple dimensions. But I agree with your sentiment the healthiest person has integrated both high and low sides. I think it's probably better to think of the Big 5 as actually 10 sub personalities that everyone has developed to varying degrees.
i think its funny that conservatives are polite but not compassionate equally absurd is that liberals tend to be compassionate but not polite i guess we're all crazy
![[PSYC200] 21. Personality Part 1: Introduction](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GrGjIGmSyUQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Professor Peterson, however the deal was struck to allow you to film your lectures and upload them on youtube doesn't matter. What does matter is that those of us who are financially or geographically unable to take your class in person are able to access the content online. I consider it a huge gift, and appreciate it greatly. Thank you, professor.
***** No offense meant by this or my previous comment, I guess I just assumed the university would be involved on some level. However, your class is very clearly you compilation of very important people, along with your interpretations. Thank you for responding and again, thank you for the amount of content you've made available. I'd send a Christmas card to express my gratitude!
What this guy said~
Agreed
TURN TO GOD; REPENT OR PERISH, TURN FROM YOUR SIN OR YOU WILL GO TO THE LAKE OF FIRE, ALL SIN LEADS TO DEATH. READ BIBLE TO GET WISDOM, SEEK GOD.
Bit dramatic
As a working class tradesman this is what gets me through my long days.
This and the technical analysis of bitcoin are what get me through every day of suffering.
Learning that peoples biologically rooted personalites dictate the facts they find that make up their conception of the world and also dictate what they see moment to moment has made it much easier to empathize with others and has made my interactions with people much less abbrasive and much easier to being understanding of differences between people.
Hear ya!
01:05 17 thousand trait descriptors - perhaps there is a simpler structure underneath.
03:46 Raymond Cattell's 16 traits.
04:56 What a trait might be?
06:35 Measurement techniques.
09:25 Making a questionnaire.
23:03 Criteria-related validity.
26:22 3 different kinds of categories.
35:30 Current standard model of personality.
43:04 Plasticity.
45:37 Open people are more capable of aesthetic experience.
48:40 The assertiveness element of extroversion.
50:52 Conscientiousness.
51:02 Follow a schedule.
58:18 Orderliness, disgust and authoritarianism.
59:25 Personality traits have no intrinsic moral value.
1:01:15 Neuroticism.
1:02:22 Agreeableness.
1:02:42 Openness.
1:02:56 Extroversion.
1:03:40 Try consciously to do something for someone else.
1:04:30 General cognitive ability.
You're the MVP !!
Really usefull, although I watched it all this deserves to be at the top.
Thank you!
I wish every Jordan Peterson video had time-skips like these, thank you!
This man is brilliant and could actually change the world, he teaches what should be taught in schools and colleges and he is articulate in his methods.
Please don’t ever take these down. I am a bio major, and I’ve seen every one of your RUclips lectures. It’s my second, honorary bachelors degree
just wanted to let you know how much i appreciate your uploads. Really helps for someone who missed the class for legit reasons :)
Always a pleasure to listen to Dr Peterson's lectures from his Toronto University days, it is so good to have all of these on RUclips to reach a much wider audience. He must really miss doing research, he has authored or co-authored over 100 research papers. And now he cannot even carry on with his clinical practice in Canada either, it must be so frustrating for him but at least he has lots of other revenue streams. Dr Jordan Peterson is a legend in his own lifetime, and very few people can say that of themselves. Long may it continue.
Dear Dr Jordan B Peterson
Thank you for shedding light on the intricate psychological aspects during your talk. Your academic perspective was both enlightening and profoundly inspiring. I greatly appreciated your expertise and many of us have been inspired to delve deeper into the subject. We are truly grateful for the knowledge you shared I believe.
Warm regards,
Thank you Jordan Peterson for all the uploads and these lectures are beyond helpful!
Thank you so much for this oportunity to improve myself and learn. I hope someday that I can tell how much you have improved my life and inspired me to be better, you have no idea :). I feel very gratefull thats for sure!
6:40 measurement techniques , 33:05 extracting words from language , 35:40 he standard module for human personality ,
Thank you for everything you give us !
I wish we could have this version of Jordan back. Culture warrior is not as good.
He is the same.
He didn’t make himself into a culture warrior. Our culture went to war, with HIM
Different contexts and topics are discussed. He's the same
@JeffMTX he could have risen above it and not participated. Plenty of other respectable people did. Can't hate him for cashing in on it though.
Did you know that all the information digested in different times in your life make you realize how to apply to that particular situation. If you’re wondering what changed it’s the situation not the man 😅
Enjoying my time on this channel
40:20 serotonin dominance hierarchy confidence/stability
So cool! Bravo! Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
We sneezed at exactly the same time, nine years later. Be well!
~8:45 Now we can have 500,000 people rate themselves on 100 traits, but with each person seeing a different sample of the 17,000 words.
1:00:42 trait diagnosis
Peterson needs to speak to the concept of judgment as critical to the conservative and conservative thinking.
A question I wish I could ask Jordan Peterson, is if these Big 5 traits are bell curves, and they’re a product of evolution, then it stands to reason that nature has selected low contentiousness as fit for survival in some way. Yet, you tell people to adopt orderly habits regardless of their personality dimension on the Big 5 scale. Is that a paradox or am I missing something about evolution or the Big 5 personality dimension in raising that question?
Think deeply
There are time’s that I can’t really stop it or to control those even if it’s just a simple word though
I’m not in a sociological field, so wonder, has anyone plotted a huge number of people in a multidimensional trait space (I only know the myers Briggs 4-d example) and then done principal component analysis on the points to see how they cluster?
I went go deeper when it started
22:25
i personally wouldn't define someone as a "sad person" but rather as a melancholic or pessimistic person who experiences sadness as a variable emotion more consistantly than an optimistic person would , but its not a trait , it could be generated by a trait of high on negative emotion , which is a non variable state , that person would be constantly and "normally" high on negative emotion and therefore experience sadness more oftenly , or negative emotions , it really is a tricky thing , cuz we didnt take into consideration the circumstances they live in , like if everything is alright and the person is still on average more sad or anxious than happy , then its probably the person's nature , or could be a probleme in their dopaminergic systeme ( biochemical probleme ) , the question is should it be considerate as "normal" trait , or treat them ?
Yes
Seldom Feel Blue
It’s could be a band name or something.
It’s like a sign
That I feel in my body
It’s probably not good if something thinks to save video games and material things from a fire. The persons value structure is a little off.
My television and phone because it keeps me warm and cozy at night.
Real people?
Sure I suppose I should save them. 😲
Do you mean in general, instead of just getting out yourself as quickly as possible? Or as opposed to saving something else altogether?
People panic. I know someone who grabbed a block of cheese before running out. They weren't thinking.
How does someone strengthen their ability to pay attention?
By establishing a daily practice of concentration meditation and mindfulness...
Its the 21st century bro adderall, adderall and more adderall
Practice.
Villy Marge my advice to to embrace the suffering. The subject you need to focus will probably pay off. That suffering vs this suffering ie nihilism
Tune into what really interests u
I am introverted and agreeable and somewhat narcisistic
I’ve been trying to figure it out how to handle it
Mr Peterson I have great respect for you and your theories but I hate to correct you on this one all hydrogen atoms are not created equal there's hydrogen there's deuterium and there's tritium they're different have a nice day
Re. agreeableness and compassion in a liberal versus a conservative with conscientiousness is the judgment that comes with the conservative. Not complicated, overly obvious.
False.
And I can’t do it anymore coz I feel conscious already
Who is the guy Dr. Peterson mentions in 31:20?
I also found out that when the inject something in my mind from air😂
That sound I can feel her
That is from my old life
I found it out though
50:00 20:00
Use pain in every ways
I’m open
Do I really need to prove it to them
I fucking love this one. Gracias jbpapi
35:47
And I know that it’s from the air
Now I don’t want to go out anymore 😅
Just a question
Coz there was a time that I even ask my self where am I in that part thingi😅
I was surprised too see, early in the lecture, a summary of Allport's assumption about personality traits that included an assumption that is disputed by later generations of trait researchers: the claim that "traits" are causal. Jordan did not challenge Allport's classic assumption here.
Traits are descriptive, not causal agents. Given the assessment (not true measurement) of traits using rating scales, etc., it seems that there is a misconception that when traits are claimed, based on correlational and other procedures) that they are "highly predictive" of Behavior X this means they cause the behavior. Strictly speaking, this is not the case.
Furthermore, hypothetical constructs like personality factors only have evidence as existing in groups that have been assessed, in other words they only have evidence in support of them in of some sort of "between subjects" sense. There is little or no evidence of, say, the Big Five factors existing in a single individual (a "within subject" sense). We infer the between-subjects phenomena must exist in a particular individual who is being assessed, but strictly speaking, there is little or no evidence for this (I'm playing it safe and saying "little or no" instead of "no" just in case there is a scientific literature I am missing).
An additional assumption, which leads to their misconception as causal, is the dominant assumption that psychological attributes are continuous and are reflective latent variables. This is an assumption that is not, strickly speaking, a proven one. See the work of Joel Michell and Denny Boorsboom on measurement theory that outlines this.
To say that traits, based on correlational and other procedures are highly predictive is powerful. I had never thought of just using technology and large data sets to find things and correlate them as something with the power to open doors we have never thought about before today. It will generate the research questions in the forms of answers we figure out how to find. Wow. Don't laugh if this has been apparent to you all along. Or if I am actually making it up as being so fantastic. Will sleep on it.
Richard Noll so you’re saying that these are descriptions of attributes and not the description of the cause of these attributes?
Does he support a certain kind of trait theory? Arent there aloot of theories, words, how is his more accurate than other reductions of traits?
I think it's the same as the previous one which came about in the 1960s, only better distilled, and that's the big five model. There's a collective consensus on it by most scientists, too.
There are a lot of different ways to try to identify the number of ways to break down the big 5. He cowrote a paper in 2002 that showed some correlations between Openness and Extraversion and also showed correlation between Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. It isn't clear that there is any utility in this division other than to say perhaps that the big 5 arent necessary completely Independent from each other.
He also co-wrote a paper in 2007 where their model was specifically trying to find biological markers for the big 5 and they were able to identify 2 aspects under each. Which showed that you could break it down further.
I personally like the NEO-PI-3 model the most. It has the Big 5 and 6 sub-facets. At first glance, I didn't like the way that it was broken down but I do think there is a lot of utility Costa and McCrae have chosen to reduce the traits.
This pain that it’s not realistic
But what am I gonna do
Crazy stuff 😂
I don’t know also why I’m like that now
This guy is wild XD Fun to listen to though.
15:30 But couldnt a conscientious person also be someone who is lax about rules and not quick to judge or punish other people? Because I feel like this definition is basically saying conscientiousness = morality. When in reality I think it means discipline, and SOMEtimes it's good to let go of your rigid discipline. Or at least be disciplined to be open and forgiving.
I agree with your assessment. Cattelle's description of Conscientiousness is kind of 2 dimensional and under developed because of how early he lived in the process Personality Psychology when he was alive. Cattelle was probably High in Conscientiousness and his bias is spilling out in his assessment of Human Personality. Trying to constrain morality to Conscientiousness has the same problem that being "fun" is too general a term to be applied to just a single aspect of personality. Using the NEO-PI-3 model of personality (Which is another variant of the big 5 that has 6 sub facets under each of the big 5) one of the facets of Openness is Values. A person who is low in Openness then would have more traditional values and a person high in Openness would have more liberal values. This suggests that a persons morality is influenced by their openness too. One of the facets of Agreeableness is tendermindedness. Tenderminded people are generally more compassionate and inclined toward mercy as opposed to expecting justice. Therefore Agreeableness influences morality as well. There is another facet of Agreeableness that is straightforwardness which has to do with being direct and telling the truth.
1 of the 6 sub-facets of Conscientiousness is self-discipline, so I think you are on the right track in your critique of this statement Jordan quoted.
I like the idea of conscientiousness being discipline- the way I go through the world, I tend to be highly agreeable and conscientious and I have described it as a manicured effort to reduce friction. The problem that creeps into my mind sometimes is that perhaps an overabundance of care and politeness might be a demonstration of fear or weakness.. I guess, compared to a lot of brash, rude and loud voices, it’s easy to believe that conscientiousness is a way of making oneself “small” in order to reduce or avoid conflict. I can see how letting go of that rigid discipline in some moments would be almost necessary for a healthy life balance. I guess there’s reason to develop the discipline of conscientiousness, then to abandon it in moments when it wouldn’t serve you?
@@milliewoo337 I have a moderate amount of Conscientiousness but am also High in Agreeableness and have also had the problem you describe where I feel I am being compassionate and non-confrontational only to be forced to realize that it was cowardice.
I think Disagreeableness is a person's strong sense of autonomy while Agreeableness is a sense of belonging. A person should be brave enough to say no when it's right, but cooperative, compassionate and polite enough to say yes whan that is right. I think as long as you have the capacity to say no, that's sufficient to make sure you aren't being a coward.
Likewise, High Conscientiousness is discipline but also a sense of dutifulness and therefore a willingness to serve a higher ideal. Low Conscientiousness seems to be a will to resist humanities tilt toward rigid beurocracies. A willingness to seek out one's own desires instead of mindlessly serving the collective. It's complicated because it suggests that individuality and collectivism have multiple dimensions. But I agree with your sentiment the healthiest person has integrated both high and low sides. I think it's probably better to think of the Big 5 as actually 10 sub personalities that everyone has developed to varying degrees.
And I don’t want it that way
The vaccines
But I want to see and observed the sky😊
I’m trying to avoid it
“WHO”
Coz I don’t want people see me
Why there is no one same like me?
36:00
Coz I don’t want them to do those things the children
Really I swear
i think its funny that conservatives are polite but not compassionate
equally absurd is that liberals tend to be compassionate but not polite
i guess we're all crazy
Hunter Powers perhaps we’re all just wild animals with an inkling of the divine higherself
It just points to who speaks the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it may be.
If those from the air would really have to do those ok fine😅
That made me turn into evil though😂
😅
The beard
😂
Arabic
It’s not real
The covid
Bad stuff
TURN TO GOD; REPENT OR PERISH, TURN FROM YOUR SIN OR YOU WILL GO TO THE LAKE OF FIRE, ALL SIN LEADS TO DEATH. READ BIBLE TO GET WISDOM, SEEK GOD.
Yes