I get the impression that he's not only aware of the dialectic tension he's generating, but is very deliberately setting out to amplify it in order to try and get people with dogmatic political beliefs to bring both thinking and feeling logic to them. I'm not at all sure this is an effective tactic and it's more likely to end up polarising viewpoints - people are rarely argued out of a belief and just end up angry and frustrated, and back into a corner or resort to using ridicule or ad homo attacks if they haven't the debating gifts and knowledge to overcome such arguments.
I do think he may have a different sort of problem which definitely would be a sort of lack of self awareness. Those of us who are INFJ are probably aware of how we can overcommit emotionally - whether to a needy individual, or to a community we belong to. We set off with noble saviour intentions and it goes well at first, but eventually we can run out of emotional energy - it can take us by surprise when this happens and we end up a mess inside. We either withdraw feeling bad, anxious and defeated, or if we can't, we can end up with an emotional breakdown. The point where this happens is like a cliff edge in the dark, and some of us only find out where it is after we've gone over it at least once.
INTJs have a similar problem. They can be drawn in to trying to solve the world's problems in the round - they pull on a bit of string and the Moon and all the stars are on the other end. Trouble is that it's a New Moon and pitch dark, and often they only find out about it when it hits them in the face and overwhelms them. They are driven by the righteousness of their vision and their moral world falls apart when they encounter their own finiteness at the bottom of that cliff edge, just as can happen for INFJs. I've seen this happen. I fear JP lacks the self-awareness that is needed to stop this from happening to him - his more recent video shots show him looking pretty haunted and if he is INTJ, he maybe needs to back off and recover.
By the way, I think it's always a mistake when someone who is recognised as a highly qualified public figure in a particular field chooses to talk as an expert in a completely different area of expertise as a way of championing their inner vision. JP can't be all the things he's genuinely expert in, and also he an expert climate scientist as well, etc. That sort of thing opens up weak spots where you can be obviously wrong, and that matters if you are emotionally vulnerable at the same time. We see this sort of problem with Richard Dawkins' attacks on religion - he is an undisputed expert in biological sciences, but seems to be a bit of a child in each topic when he talks about the relationship between physics, cosmology and spirituality. That really spoils the points he's making because we are much less forgiving of a public expert when they flounder around in these things than when it's just pals discussing them over a pint or two. Not that Dawkins seems to be under emotional stress from where he's taken his public persona, but then he's a different type to JP - I think the points he makes could be very much better expressed than he does it.