There's a lot of tiny bits of concepts that might resonate with someone (or rather resonate with the learned cultural stereotypes carried by this person) and so one buys into the whole package, disregarding the parts that don't pattern match.
This idea is also applied at a larger scale by Susan Blackmore in her definition of a `memeplex` [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex
(Sidenote: I think a lot of the current cultural clashes in the western world can be interpreted as two big memeplexes fighting each other, having each developed strategies to be incommensurable [2] to the other side.)
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Lyotard
Regarding the OP taxonomy, it makes me wonder if there's a way to aggregate these taxonomies to see if extracting the relevant principal components (that do map to the real world) from the subjective noise is possible.
One could imagine testing the Barnum effect in this way, writing a large number of these personality descriptions and seeing if real personality traits can emerge by having individuals rank which Barnum profiles best describe them.
This isn't a system to describe the human psyche as one how society likes to think about it.
Of course, as long as you read it at the meta-level, comparing with other tools (scientific, pseudo-scientific), for example: Four Temperaments, MBTI, Big Five, Western Zodiac, Chinese Zodiac, etc.
While many predictions are bogus (e.g. month of birth and relationship comparability, vide https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/okcupid/howyourraceaff...) they capture various traits of character people consider important.
The difference between science and pseudo-science is much more smooth than most scientists would like to admit. While MBTI is not up to academics standards, it is highly correlated with Big Five, trait by trait (still, AFAIR there is reason to use it in the place of Big Five). Plus, there is too much Jungian interpretation for MBTI, which is not up to current scientific standards. Still, I defended MBTI (in a dating context, e.g. as a self-identification) more times than I care to admit (for some insights, this https://www.16personalities.com/ is decent).
There is also a corollary that psychology is still in its infancy, much like biology before the discovery of bacteria, viri, or DNA.
...
In mathematics, there is a concept of a basis - more or less, directions, or orientation. We can express the same thing is a few different ways. Some bases are better (unit length, dimensions are orthogonal (uncorrelated)), but otherwise there is a lot of room here.
In this case, Colors of Mana are one basis. Just because it is an impromptu psychological explanation, does not mean it does not work. Yet:
- Some explanations or interpolations may not be valid.
- It is likely that we can find a more refined way.
All in all, I would love to make people2vec, where we embed various psychological trains as vectors, as see which other parameters (scientific or not) we can reproduce. All in all, even IQ can be considered a personality trait (as it is correlated with other traits of personality, it is not a separate entity) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2014/04/...
Hundreds of scholarly papers cited thousands of times. But it's pseudo-science. Psychology might not be an exact science but it IS a genuine scholarship meant to understand human behavior.
Feel free to make your case based on "I just don't like him" though, I'm sure it will be very interesting and will include the "R" word.
I don’t think Peterson is promoting the carnivore diet, but I did hear him explain his diet on a podcast and it seemed pretty couched in curiosity, not resolution. The thing I remember is lots of “I don’t knows” and attribution of any benefits to it being an elimination diet vs any special property of beef.
He also says its not a healthy diet in general and that he doesnt know if it will work for other people.
I think a lot of people try to twist his words(or assume the worst interpretation) even on "normal" topics because they dont like his Politics.
Is a beef-only diet a good idea for the general population? Probably not. Could it be ideal for people with extremely rare auto-immune conditions that have an allergic reaction to virtually everything else? Sure, and that existing doesn't sound crazy to me at all.
I've noticed a trend where scientifically minded people tend to get hung up the "proven" at the expense of the "plausible", forgetting that everything they rightfully treat as proven once could have been dismissed in a similar manner. Real people in the real world have to make decisions based on nothing more than plausibility all the time, and I don't see why diet should be any different. Particularity if none of the "proven" solutions are working for you.
Put another way, there's a difference between "the evidence says this is wrong" and "there is no evidence that this is true".
So why beef only wouldn't work?
I have autoimmune diseases myself and have a very meat heavy diet, to me is what works, as soon I move to a more typical diet my health declines quickly.
Take care of both your mental and physical health.
Do something important with your life that's meaningful to you.
Respect yourself.
Life is bloody hard and you should be easy on yourself when you screw up. As long as you learn something from your mistakes and attempt to push forward again with new found knowledge, you're on the right path.
Clean up your room.
All of that is the utter nonsense Peterson spews out all of the time. None of that is useful or true. What a monster.