Jordan Peterson

[xerx]

yeah this is how discourse goes to absolute shit, congratulations I don't want to talk with you ever

The feeling is mutual.

[niffer]

the bottom line is people are critiquing what they really don't understand, which isn't a problem but they're carrying it over into character judgements which is really silly.

Lmao look who's talking, this is all you do

[FDG]

Why is it necessarly better for men to be less violent?

[Bertrand]

people are assuming a violence against women context and assuming women are innocent. which is funny because when men are archetypally associated with "positives" its seen as sexist, but their entire way of thinking relies on similar reference to archetypes. Peterson starts to talk about this directly and its like that is the sin, hes guilty of making explicit certain forms of archetypal associations, where people give themselves and would give him a pass as long as it was all left under the surface. the bottom line is this is way more complex than people understand they just cherry pick one liners and take offense without realizing they're totally captured within the dynamic peterson is trying to explain to them, but like children they're just mad about it because it sounds like they might not be getting their way on some collateral issue

honestly Im thinking peterson is LIE and what xerx stands for is LII seeking with that kind of "perfect" impartiality and unconscious rather than explicit Ni. the way xerx goes about seeking it is by pushing an endless parade of noise at anyone who fails to live up to their expectations and peterson is so very very disappointing on that front (all this only superficially related criticism "what about this? what about this?!--links unrelated article--is like Ne HA Ti seeking Si creative Fe dominant in a nutshell)

[ashlesha]

im always amused by the need to reassure oneself and others that you're nobody's bitch. its like oh my God maybe people think my arguments arise out of personal loyalty to a person. its like well, if you can just assess them for what they are it really doesn't matter what they arise out of. they either fail or succeed on their merits. this resorting to calculating where peoples loyalties lie is just a cheap proxy for actual thinking. if someone is legitimately biased it will express itself in the logic. I could be peterson's butler and it wouldn't change anything. in any case everyone has biases so its a false assumption to look for them and not at the logic anyway since you can find them, with everyone. everyone is enmeshed in a web of biases, what this entire thread stands for is you have people living in the flow of personal bias trying to pass themselves off as objective and sort out scientific disputes via this kind of social calculation, but at the same time desperately using those same methods to try and present themselves as "scientific" i.e.: not doing that. this whole thing is a mess of people who can't think trying to pass themselves off as thinking by way of using the language of thinking without any of the actual substance. what underlies it is this pure social calculus. its whats so ironic about singu and his ilk, its like they can't see how silly they're being, and yet at the same time they're dangerous because if enough people agree they can simply force their agenda through despite it never having been reasonable at any point in time. its what happens when Venezuela kicks everyone out of the professional sphere and then is surprised when no one knows how to run anything

when peterson is talking about how fucked up and pernicious entire segments of the academy have become because of exactly this farce hes talking about people like xerx and singu who drape themselves in the language of objectivity but lack any semblance of it. he's saying you follow these peoples leadership at your own peril

I think people here are operating in good faith. In my own case, "trying to be objective" might very well come across as "trying to *look* objective," because, well, I'm just fucking trying, and this kind of criticism wouldn't be at all useful. I'm sort of frustrated reading this.

To be annoying and throw a loyalty bone, lol, i do think his net effect on incels and frustrated young men is probably positive because of his message to take responsibility for yourself. He DOES tell those murderous fuckers to clean their room (@xerx). I even recommended him to my son (which is probably a guarantee he'll never listen to him lol).

[Bertrand]

you're good lungs I think Peterson has major shortcomings, like you, but I think those aren't really before the thread at this time. like I think to seriously talk about those you have to get there by understanding what he's really about first. I think you grasp the fundamental gist of what he's saying so therefore can comment on where the shortcomings are. I think most the people though just never bother to get that far. that's my 2 cents, I know I'm not God, but that's how it seems to me. I feel like most people live in a world of simple prejudice and just cannot get past the fact that he's ostensibly on the wrong side of the relatively straightforward in their minds pronoun dispute. the position is something like "a priori I know anyone who is on the wrong side of this issue cannot possibly be (substantially) right about anything else that might relate to the issue" thus the goal simply becomes to expose the ways in which they already trust he has to be wrong. this is what gives rise to all the uncharitable interpretations, they're seen as a priori accurate because peterson being wrong is deemed true as a base proposition flowing from his stance on c-16

in other words they're progressing like this: "peterson is wrong about c-16 therefore any thinking that would justify that must also be wrong", not, "i've understood and evaluated peterson's thinking with an open mind and then decided if his stance on c-16 holds up." the most obvious evidence as to this being the case is they can't actually accurately reproduce what peterson believes on any given issue, rather they simply invent an interpretation that comports with the first stance. its also blatantly obvious because the entire reason peterson is in their consciousness at all is because the controversy c-16 generated. theyre literally working backward from the public ethical outburst, evaluating it in that light, making their Facebook conclusions and proclamations, then trying to work out the details later, if challenged. it is so incredibly stereotyped it blows my mind people still do this, but here we are. its actually really efficient to proceed that way because you don't actually have to think about anything you just already know the answer. the downside is you could be wrong, so there's radical close mindedness at work, not only that but such a person lacks the capacity to convince others except via emotional pressure which naturally creates conflict if someone prefers to reason before concluding

its like this is what peterson means when he says "you do not think like a scientist" when people talk about science but don't actually employ it. to actually think that way proceeding from the position of logic stripped of affect is almost impossible, these a priori ethical positions (enforce gender pronouns) are anti scientific to the core in the deep sense of the word, not the dumbass political blunt instrument caricature of science Singu is always try to grasp for

[xerx]

people are assuming a violence against women context and assuming women are innocent. which is funny because when men are archetypally associated with "positives" its seen as sexist, but their entire way of thinking relies on similar reference to archetypes. Peterson starts to talk about this directly and its like that is the sin, hes guilty of making explicit certain forms of archetypal associations, where people give themselves and would give him a pass as long as it was all left under the surface. the bottom line is this is way more complex than people understand they just cherry pick one liners and take offense without realizing they're totally captured within the dynamic peterson is trying to explain to them, but like children they're just mad about it because it sounds like they might not be getting their way on some collateral issue

No, I've seen & heard a lot of Peterson. The problem is that he uses Order vs. Chaos systematically to refer to unbridgeable differences between Man & Woman. The association of Order/Man & Chaos/Woman has varied across time & space; this is Peterson's idiosyncratic interpretation.

The real dichotomy he wants us to acknowledge is Order/Man/Hierarchy/Individualism vs. Chaos/Woman/Equality/Collectivism. This particular arrangement of the eight chosen archetypes is unique to Peterson. But taking him at his word when he states his belief that Individualism & Hierarchies are superior to Collectivism, the political implications of the social contract he envisions become very clear.

honestly Im thinking peterson is LIE and what xerx stands for is LII seeking with that kind of "perfect" impartiality and unconscious rather than explicit Ni. the way xerx goes about seeking it is by pushing an endless parade of noise at anyone who fails to live up to their expectations and peterson is so very very disappointing on that front (all this only superficially related criticism "what about this? what about this?!--links unrelated article--is like Ne HA Ti seeking Si creative Fe dominant in a nutshell)

Expecting that someone should live up to his stated impartiality is hardly an unreasonable expectation.

[Raver]

Some of his points are good, but what's his job? Peterson is a psychology professor, what he produces should be as accurate as such levels require. One thing is that you go to your psychologist and he tells you a nice story to help make you see your condition differently; another thing is promoting seemingly academic knowledge filled with incorrect info. Ok, psychology is a not a branch of the sciences, unlike psychiatry, but if you are to explain a whatever theme, at least you should study the details of what you're saying, even if you don't have a degree in medicine or statistics. It's ok if Peterson wants to talk about anything, free speech, he can do that, but so can people point out the fallacies too, and wonder why does Peterson talk so much of anything? And what would this benefit exactly? yt views? (anyway I don't see how a liberalist, critic of Marxism, in conflict with various minorities and universities, is leftist)

I think his track record is generally good in terms of accuracy. The main crux of what is going on here is that it's okay to not agree him on everything due to differences in specific values. Also, like any professional, they are bound to a few mistakes from time to time.

What is a problem is labelling him a pariah because of the odd comment he makes that doesn't coincide with someone's values or because he made a comment that was misinterpreted by the general public. I don't agree with him on everything, but I won't disregard him completely and attack his character because of those disagreements.

I don't think anyone deserves that kind of treatment for what the actions were so the punishment does not fit the crime. If he was consistently making value judgements that were obnoxious ala Trump then it would be more understandable.

Also, I think it is possible for someone like him to have views that conflict with leftist marxist university doctrine and still be leftist. His views merely coincide largely with progressive views without an authoritarian basis and a libertarian basis instead.

The left-right dichotomy is overly simplistic and for this reason you can find all sorts of opposing views within the same group. Someone like JBP is good because it helps bring into light what needs to be remedied with the left and what needs to be maintained for it to head in the right direction.

[squark]

im always amused by the need to reassure oneself and others that you're nobody's bitch. its like oh my God maybe people think my arguments arise out of personal loyalty to a person.

Actually, I was asserting that my personal opinion of him hasn't changed, and I think no less of him for any errors he has made. But, nice projection, keep it up, since you're so good at it.

[xerx]

Jordan Peterson isn't a liberal; he's what we might call a compassionate conservative-- that is a conservative with a sense of noblesse oblige. To his credit, he does seem sincere in wanting to help the poor within the context of the social hierarchy he preaches. If people are confusing the two, it's only because our society has shifted so far to the right economically that anyone who isn't a total dick seems like a lefty.

[Bertrand]

Actually, I was asserting that my personal opinion of him hasn't changed, and I think no less of him for any errors he has made. But, nice projection, keep it up, since you're so good at it.

sorry can you restate for me what you think just happened, because I'm not following

Jordan Peterson isn't a liberal; he's what we might call a compassionate conservative-- that is a conservative with a sense of noblesse oblige. To his credit, he does seem sincere in wanting to help the poor within the context of the social hierarchy he preaches. If people are confusing the two, it's only because our society has shifted so far to the right economically that anyone who isn't a total dick seems like a lefty.

define liberal then restate Jordan Peterson's position on the issues relevant to the definition. this little piece of insular logic in the air is totally disconnected from facts and only represents your perception

its so funny how you make this so complicated in order to reach your goal, when its like whether or not peterson is a liberal is an incredibly straightforward affair

not only that it operates with the premise in the back of the mind that people would associate or disassociate with him solely based on the label, as if that matters. when its precisely his actual position on the issues that matters (both as to whether the label fits, and to what it means or why someone should accept or reject him as a matter of the label--i.e. for the label to have meaning it must represent an actual position and not just some kind of empty "title")

this is like a hilariously empty attempt to lose sight of why labels matter in the first place, by arguing over what label should be applied because the assumption is people will go by the label without thinking as to why it matters or whether it should even apply and how we go about determining how to apply it. in other words, it presumes a straight ticket voting worldview, which is asinine on so many levels

it essentially skips over into a dispute over the most shallow labeling system in order to essentially stand in the place of actual judgement

[ashlesha]

you're good lungs I think Peterson has major shortcomings, like you, but I think those aren't really before the thread at this time.

Thanks for clarifying. What you're talking about in this post definitely happens but I don't see any compelling reason to think that's what xerx and singu are doing based on what I've seen here.

[squark]

sorry can you restate for me what you think just happened, because I'm not following

Perhaps you shouldn't quote me then?

[Adam Strange]

Jordan Peterson isn't a liberal; he's what we might call a compassionate conservative-- that is a conservative with a sense of noblesse oblige. To his credit, he does seem sincere in wanting to help the poor within the context of the social hierarchy he preaches. If people are confusing the two, it's only because our society has shifted so far to the right economically that anyone who isn't a total dick seems like a lefty.

Man, I'd "like" this post twice if I could.

[xerx]

its so funny how you make this so complicated in order to reach your goal, when its like whether or not peterson is a liberal is an incredibly straightforward affair

Liberalism:
>Egalitarianism: scepticism about hierarchies
>Collectivism: scepticism about competition
>Bodily autonomy: dislike of obligatory marriage (socially enforced or otherwise)
>Minimisation of differences in gender roles: gurrrrl power

To one degree or another depending on the person; some people mix & match. Exactly the opposite of each of the above descriptors applies to Jordan Peterson. He likes to call himself a "classical liberal". This makes him an arch-capitalist / i.e. someone much more at home in a modern conservative (or maybe centrist) political party.

[Bertrand]

lol alternatively

I love you guys

xerx all you do is gerrymander all your arguments, they're these closed loops of definitions that fit the conclusion without recourse to any objective data, although they use language that makes it sound like its kind of sort of objective, its always a mirage. its like you're doing the same dumb shit I see singu do all the time. it seems to be working on adam though

[Singu]

It's not that Jordan Peterson merely makes a few odd comments here and there, it's just that he completely doesn't know what he's talking about, when he tries to sell off his ideas that are backed by "science". I don't think any serious scientists will take the ideas of Jordan Peterson seriously. Psychologists don't take him seriously, either:

Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...hilosophy-life
What's Up with Jordan Peterson? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ordan-peterson

Even morally speaking, the idea of making monogamy as a means to an end to reduce male violence is troubling and just absurd. I'm not sure why would anyone take these sort of thing seriously. But then again, people can be pretty stupid and are easily impressed by people that might just be talking a lot of nonsense. There are charlatans, and there are people who are duped by charlatans.

[squark]

still not gettin it; what I don't understand is what happened after I quoted you, i.e.: the substance of this quote, and I'm simply asking you to clarify what I don't understand.

First, Singu says "You couldn't have predicted that he would turn out in this way" as though something changed. To me "turn out this way" means that he was one way, and then became another way. And it implied that he is somehow worse, and that he lost ground somewhere, to now be seen differently, like a hero falling or something.

So, I said that I still respected him just as much and hadn't changed my opinion, but that I had never worshipped him, in other words, I never had that kind of blind devotion that would cause someone to "lose faith" so to speak. I always saw him as a normal human being who agreed with me in a lot of ways, was similar to me in some (and different in others) had lots of interesting things to say about psychology and philosophy but had somehow become extremely popular through some of his controversial views.

Then, quoting the quote in which I wrote "I was never a worshipper or sycophant" you said, "I'm always amused by the need to reassure oneself and others that you're nobody's bitch. . ." as though that's what I was doing. Whether you later refer to other people or not, you begin by quoting me and throwing that implication out there in your opening sentences.

[Bertrand]

yeah my point is its a beta priority to let everyone know they're not submitting to anyone even if they happen to agree with them on some points, and my point is thats totally unnecessary for reasonable people since its taken for granted. whether or not you were acting from those motives is for you to decide, I'm just simply commenting on the general phenomenon which I see pop up a lot. if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it, I know I quoted you and so it made it seems like I was saying it definitely does, for that I'm sorry. I was merely suggesting it may be at stake and drawing to a general trend underlying this thread where there's palpable feeling of people needing to let JP know he's not their boss and so forth as if thats what he's about

[Singu]

First, Singu says "You couldn't have predicted that he would turn out in this way" as though something changed. To me "turn out this way" means that he was one way, and then became another way. And it implied that he is somehow worse, and that he lost ground somewhere, to now be seen differently, like a hero falling or something.

By that, I meant you couldn't have predicted what he's going to say or what he's going to do (who could have predicted that he'd be saying the things that he's saying now?). Not that you lost respect for him or something.

[niffer]

lol i just love watching bertrand being autistic and repulsive on the internet, it's my favourite hobby

[Singu]

He just goes on this weird hysteric hand-waving nerdrants all the time, I don't know why would anyone take him seriously.

On the other hand, he should be banned from the forum already for constantly being creepily manipulative and making personal attacks instead of making actual arguments.

[niffer]

What about yourself Singu

[Singu]

They can ban me, but I'd take it if Bertrand were to be banned.

[niffer]

would you take all 16 types of it up the ass?

[Singu]

I don't know what you're talking about, and this is getting off-topic.

Anyway, it seems that the study that he has linked in his blog doesn't actually support his argument. It says that violence is correlated with number of sexual partners, with 6+ partners being the most violent, and 0 partner being the least violent:



https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...5.2016.1216153

Highly competitive = 6+ partners
mid-competitive = 4-5
low-competitive = 2-3
monogamous = 1
non-active = 0

So it has to do with a study of correlation of number of sexual partners, and violence.

It's also strange that the data consists of grade 7-12 high-schoolers?


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ihms912823.pdf

[Bertrand]

that totally proves peterson's point which is in a society with no limits violence is a viable path to enhanced reproductive success. by dicensentivizing hoarding they level things out. mongomy doesn't do away with violence in general it just mitigates the chances people will be sufficiently motivated to resort to it for lack of available partners by decreasing the overall instances of harems. it neither eliminates harems nor violence it only puts in place a norm to regulate it better


weak unvalued Te ladies and gentlemen

also singu you're like a weird version of a kamikaze, does your value really amount to "taking me out with you"? this thread is so beta its insane

if you want to sacrifice yourself for the collective there are better ways

[Adam Strange]

They can ban me, but I'd take it if Bertrand were to be banned.

"Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

-George S. Patton

[Raver]

Basic rule of thumb to follow: If JBP appears like a right winger to you then you are likely an extreme leftist. If JBP appears like a moderate or a left winger with some right wing views then there is hope for you after all.



Just like how the right is moving farther to the right, the left is moving farther to the left. Instead of following the crowd, which will shift you to either or, stick to your values and what makes sense rationally instead. You will still likely end up on the left or the right rather than the middle.

[Bertrand]

yeah but neither side wants to acknowledge they might both have shortcomings in light of a radical moderate, rather its easier for one side to claim him and the other side to fight them in order to keep on with business as usual. its sort of how like with camps that love to fight what is important is not whose side youre on but that the conflict never ends. in any case, since the right happened to claim him, he acts as a moderating influence on them, which is good. psychological interpretations of religious belief are a massive step forward in regard to religious dogma. its really what Jung himself was aiming at, to re-inject the numinosity of life back into culture after it had been stripped of most its meaning by scientific advancement (but one can't simply turn back the clock and retreat into now-dead dogma). the immediate reaction to this post will be to say "no he's totally a right winger" etc etc, people really do not want the satisfaction of rising above rather they want the satisfaction of overcoming opposition. in that sense they will never admit whatever truth there is to peterson's claims, because to them it is anti-meaning based on their commitment to conflict itself. they don't want to see

[ouronis]

Classical liberalism is distinct from modern liberalism, and typically characterized as a center-right viewpoint.

[Bertrand]

yeah he's totally a (center) right winger

[The Reality Denialist]

I think Bert beats Peterson at verbal diarrhea. Too bad one is professor (some authority) and message (=to be masochistic towards yourself and sadistic towards the rest of the world). Only few pieces are missing from the puzzle.

Yes, there should be a philosophy behind room cleaning. Even that is taken.

I would like to hear philosophy behind pressing a key on a keyboard and how it translates to presentation of a syllable then takes form of a word and by completing all the necessary word pieces forms coherent sentence (albeit obfuscated ones in some cases) and finally, with help of combination of sentences, you have a literary master piece or some sort (semi-)schizophrenic rambling.

[Singu]

also singu you're like a weird version of a kamikaze, does your value really amount to "taking me out with you"? this thread is so beta its insane

if you want to sacrifice yourself for the collective there are better ways

Er, what? I'm saying that I don't particularly care if I'm banned or not, but if you were to be banned, then I think that'd be cool.

But honestly though, you probably do deserve to be banned.

Basic rule of thumb to follow: If JBP appears like a right winger to you then you are likely an extreme leftist. If JBP appears like a moderate or a left winger with some right wing views then there is hope for you after all.

He's too traditionalist on social issues. "We need strong hierarchies and order, men need to be men, women are chaos (and chaos/change is bad), traditional values like monogamy should be protected, etc".

[Bertrand]

he doesn't say we need strong hierarchies, he's saying some hierarchies naturally emerge as a consequence of competence and that we mess with that at our peril

he doesn't say chaos is bad he says chaos is frightening [1]. he doesn't say women are chaos, he says women are identified symbolically with chaos because the role they play in the selection of men. i.e.: the fear they produce in their role as "that which selects" is the same fear the unknown evokes, hence as a product of collective unconscious nature and chaos take on a feminine face. this is just how the unconscious provides images to what it can't otherwise understand, i.e.: the unknown as such

he doesn't say traditional values like monogamy should be protected for their own sake, he says they should be acknowledged for the good they do inasmuch as they do any good

in any case most of what peterson is saying was said by Jung and particularly Neumann in regard to women first, which if you were really interested in understanding, you'd read the great mother. also this kind of thing is particularly ironic on a board devoted to a product of Jung's thought



[1] he actually says excess order is bad, which if you were paying attention that is what authoritarianism represents, he is opposed to neither order or chaos per se only each in their excessive capacity


WIN_20171128_15_46_33_Pro.jpg

[xerx]

he doesn't say we need strong hierarchies, he's saying some hierarchies naturally emerge as a consequence of competence and that we mess with that at our peril

Everyone who believes in hierarchies justifies it this way.

Even ****** believed that social hierarchies arose naturally out of innate characteristics. Almost nobody is enough of a dick to impose arbitrary authority and tell you to STFU about it.

[Singu]

If you have Peterson's followers constantly defending him and "reinterpreting" everything he says, then that's clearly a bad sign. It means that he's actually saying nothing, by making things so vague and broad. He and his followers don't clearly say "This is what I/he mean, and I/he could be wrong". That's how cult leaders and pseudoscience are made, by saying things that are so broad and vague that it can fit into anything and it can be interpreted in any kind of ways, and hence they could never be wrong. In fact it always seem like they're right, and that's why those people may charm and fool a lot of people. But being broad but right is in fact completely asinine. It's better to take a risk and have only a small chance of being right, but nonetheless saying something that might be true.

For example, should you say that there is a 99% chance that tomorrow will either rain or be sunny or be cloudy or snow, or say that there's only 30% chance that it will rain tomorrow? The former sentence has more chance of being right, but it's also a completely asinine and pointless prediction.

[xerx]

[Bertrand]

Everyone who believes in hierarchies justifies it this way.

Even ****** believed that social hierarchies arose naturally out of innate characteristics. Almost nobody is enough of a dick to impose arbitrary authority and tell you to STFU about it.

he's not saying competence is genetic (or innate) [1], further he's not saying we can't mess with heirarchies, he's saying we assume risk when we adjust them, that further, it helps if we know what we're adjusting in the first place

lol @ the ****** comparison, you really don't understand JP at all do you

both of you are just living in a beta psychological epoch and can't help but see things through that lens, its kind of sad really, but you need to direct your involutionary impulse at your own beta movement, that is where it is best applied. as it is you can't help but promote peterson by being an example of how his critics are ridiculous, kind of like that channel 4 interviewer. the first thing you'll say is well you like peterson so much shouldn't you be glad we're helping, and the answer is kind of, but not really, since its a real slog this kind of help, its the kind of help that conflictors provide not the kind of help of a dual. there are better ways for both you and him to go about things that would be more satisfying and productive all around. as it is this sort of thing can't be all that fulfilling or healthy. its essentially the slaughter block of history, but it would be ideal to move past it. I feel bad how you both speed so readily toward your fate


[1] he advocates developing it. you can't launder prejudice through competence and it still be competence. JP advocates for real competence, not some beta word game. part of the problem is your entire worldview and perspective on peterson has a degree of mistrust built into it (wherein words become a sham to pre determine outcomes dictated by group ethical directives--and you make it your role to influence group dynamics via various methods), but society cannot function if you treat everyone like a sophist up front. its precisely this presumption that necessitates the paranoid police state of LSI, so you have to let it go if you ever want out of it. unfortunately a system built on competence removes prejudice but it also removes your method of group control because your role as supplier of judgements is obsoleted (or moved to the entertainment sphere--interestingly this is why "cable news" is more entertainment than real discussion). this means as long as you maintain control there will always be prejudice, because its coming from you. this is where ego death becomes necessary for growth

[xerx]

he's not saying competence is genetic (or innate) [1],

actually, he says explicitly that it's related to IQ and that IQ is extremely heritable.

further he's not saying we can't mess with heirarchies, he's saying we assume risk when we adjust them, that further, it helps if we know what we're adjusting in the first place

Jesus; nobody is saying to adjust these systems without any circumspection whatsoever. "Don't change things until you've examined the consequences" is the most vapid & painfully obvious advice you can give someone.