dunno if you're familiar with jordan peterson - he's a clinician psychologist with a keen analytical mind, approaches a problem from a scientific perspective - his take on it is one that should be considered:
Peterson is an interesting guy. He's done some good academic work, regarding the sociology of extremism. I'm not so convinced his modern revival of Jungian trait theory, which derives from eugenic beliefs, is of any value.
Notable trait-based theorists are Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton.
Their ideas, published in the mid-1800s, did much to establish and reinforce popular support for trait-based leadership thinking then, and for many years afterwards.
Trait theory can be traced to Francis Galton's (cousin of Charles Darwin) infamous work, hereditary genius, published in 1869. In this book - most well known as being the foundations of eugenics - Galton hypothesised two important notions with regards to leadership:
1. That it's a unique ability, possessed by certain extraordinary individuals, and their opinions and decisions are capable of bringing about radical changes.
2. These unique attributes are part of their genetic makeup; therefore, leadership is hereditary.
Galton and Carlyle both suggested that some people were "natural born leaders", inheriting the talents required to lead groups of individuals.
The general acceptance of trait-based leadership theory remained virtually unchallenged for around a hundred years, when in the mid 20th century more modern ways of researching leadership started uncovered inconsistencies in the trait-based ideas. However, new thinkers during the early 1980s led to a revival, and a new form of Trait Theory.
https://www.businessballs.com/leadership-models/trait-theory-carlyle-and-galton/
Peterson was a serious academic with rock-solid credentials and academic publications within his discipline. He has a PhD from McGill University, one of Canada’s best universities, taught and researched at Harvard University, and was a tenured Professor at the University of Toronto...
Peterson is a social conservative of a particular type. He’s Christian. He thinks men are inherently different than women and that is a positive versus merely interesting thing. He has a theory of masculinity, which is patriarchal in nature. He has a strong belief — see his lobster metaphor — that humans are inherently and innately hierarchical and that men should be more dominant. He’s on record as espousing enforced monogamy. He refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns. Some social conservatives find his stance appealing; some social conservatives don’t. Therein lies another divide.
https://medium.com/s/story/jordan-p...his-weaknesses-not-his-strengths-d385e7bb9856
Here is the complete list of Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life:
Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Make friends with people who want the best for you
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t
Be precise in your speech
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street
Which resonates well with me; my Mom told me almost all of these things, although she advised me to be precise in speech
and writing, and advised me to be kind to animals generally.
Nevertheless, he has some interesting idea on why people go off the deep end politically.
Why have people from different cultures and eras formulated myths and stories with similar structures? What does this similarity tell us about the mind, morality, and structure of the world itself? From the author of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos comes a provocative hypothesis that explores the connection between what modern neuropsychology tells us about the brain and what rituals, myths, and religious stories have long narrated. A cutting-edge work that brings together neuropsychology, cognitive science, and Freudian and Jungian approaches to mythology and narrative, Maps of Meaning presents a rich theory that makes the wisdom and meaning of myth accessible to the critical modern mind.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203902851
Some might dismiss this as so much Jungian myth-peddling, but the Briggs/Meyers inventory is certainly useful for many people, in determining things like effective study. In particular, NT people find the usual educational system to be difficult.
At the beginning of each school year, I had students take the inventory and score themselves, suggesting that they not show me the results. I then went over learning strategies for them, suggesting that they try the ones indicated for their personality type. It seemed to work well.
ISFJs do great in the "tradiional" education system (most teachers are ISFJs) while INTPs and ENTPs are put off by the same sort of teaching. SFs are best served by the "you have to lay the foundation before you build the house" approach, while NTs do well to skip to the back of the chapter, read the summary, and then go back and filling the concept with detail.
It's a useful framework, but one shouldn't build a grand theory of mind and behavior on it. And Peterson seems to have done that.
He's not overtly sympathetic to the alt-right, which has appropriated some of his ideas that are superficially compatible with misogynistic ideologies.
