Jordan Peterson

[Bertrand]

oh look an article comparing him to billy graham, just like I mentioned earlier

[Singu]

Here's an article on Peterson in today's Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018...dangerous.html

Huh interesting, that does make him appear more like a cult leader or a demagogue than a genuine researcher or a "justice warrior". Something that many people are now realizing and pointing out.

I've seen his kind of demagoguery trick more than enough times, where he gets a fair amount of loyal and faithful followers, and he lets them do the bidding of attacking and harassing anyone that might disagree with him or criticize him. They often pick convenient and defenseless scapegoats, often minorities, liberals and women. Sometimes they pick powerful but universally loathed people (like the media, again scapegoats) to give the impression that they're fighting against some "enemies" for a noble cause.

This kind of thing is especially troubling:

I discovered while writing this essay a shocking climate of fear among women writers and academics who would not attach their names to opinions or data which were critical of Jordan. All of Jordan’s critics receive nasty feedback from some of his followers, but women writers have felt personally threatened.

[xerx]

JBP:

Right-wing, rightist

A general descriptive term for any of several otherwise rather different, conservative, reactionary or fascist political ideologies, the common denominator of which is their qualified or enthusiastic support for the main features of the current social and economic order, accepting all (or nearly all) of its inequalities of wealth, status and privilege (or even in some cases support for a return to an earlier, even more inegalitarian and hierarchical political-economic order).

Right wing ideologies tend to emphasize the values of order, patriotism, social cohesion, and a personal sense of duty that makes the individual citizen who “knows his place” responsive to discipline from his political and social superiors. In America, the term has a somewhat more derogatory flavor than in Europe.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/right-wing

[Pallas]

The whole Jordan Peterson thing is just so boring and always have been. If you like Jung (who really is kind of cool) there are thousands of people who've made Jungian inspired stuff, most of which is way cooler than Jordan Peterson. Yeah, getting into stuff other people like is cool too, but there's other Jungian stuff that other people like. There are plenty of groups of people who just don't care about Jordan Peterson and are even considered relevant. How do we have so little to do with our time that Jordan Peterson is important? Solamen miseris socios habuisse doloris.

[timber]

Ya I'm like so above this basic shit like I'm studying like philosophy and Jordan is just so basic like I talk about what he talks about like just for fun on friday nights with my college buddies its like not even a big deal.

[xerx]

[WVBRY]

After having watched some videos of JP, I think he is Ti-ISTj.

[ashlesha]

This is kind of a dump of thoughts that I don't want to parse, so yeah-

I wasn't happy with my phrasing before when I said I disagreed with him sometimes. As far as the scientific articles he cites, I don't have the background and the savvy to evaluate their merits and, as far as I know, they're pretty well accepted, so I just take them at face value as I'm listening. Its more about how he chooses to frame things, for example when he talks about women in the workplace and his experiences with unhappy female lawyers I don't think he's wrong, I just think the majority of women in the workplace are there to pay the bills and get by and feed their kids whereas in his framing of the subject its like women are there to compete with men! and get ahead! Which is, like, weird, and doesn't really portray the motivations of most women and is -cough- a divisive and provocative framing of the issue, even if that isn't his intention. Its about where he chooses to shine the light and where he doesn't. The other night I watched a video (I'm not going to look for it - I've been in the habit of watching a handful of videos of his a night lately and I really enjoy most of them, but anyway there are a ton in my history to dig through) where within the space of about 5 minutes in response to questions from an interviewer he says that 1) there is not really fire to the smoke of feminists complaints and that they're motivated primarily by resentment and envy, and 2) that young disgruntled men are upset for good reasons, because of the culture and society. I mean... this is probably an annoying and wishy washy centrist thing to say but obviously there is some legitimate grievance and some shitty resentment coming from both groups - on the level of the individual! Which is the important thing, right? In my eyes this is a pretty obvious example of how he's influenced by certain ideological underpinnings even though he unequivocably denies it. Though to be fair, another person might see it as just an accurate portrayal of reality that shouldn't be viewed through the dirty lens of identity politics (eh, I don't think that's really fair, since it deviates from the emphasis on individuality he promotes). On that note, I'd like someone to explain to me in a balanced way that I can understand why I'm wrong in my perception that left wing ideas are widely considered to be ideological and right wing ideas are widely considered to be neutral perception. It seems to me like a matter of PR and nothing else. If I see one more article about how left wing rhetoric fuels right wing extremism I swear lol! I have definitely been "pushed" into left wing and extreme feminist rhetoric by constant trolling from anti feminists and the right wingers surrounding me etc but that's my own fucking responsibility, I have to be accountable for my own words, the public at large expects me to hold myself accountable. I can't cross my arms and pout and say "the right wing made me do it!" which is exactly what the right wing is doing with the enabling and support of the moderate left. I seem to be alone in this view so I'm open to correction and feedback.

[Singu]

It's like yes, JP is not a fan of feminism and we get that, but I think that he's being too much of a reactionary when he suggests that we should just "go back" to the old days of traditional gender roles, when things were much more simpler and predictable. But I don't think that we can "go back" to it, because there are still some merits to feminism, and that's why it has been adopted to some degree, and it has been so culturally ingrained in the Western culture that going back to it isn't going to be possible. So I think the solution isn't to "go back" to something previous, but come up with a new solution. I have no idea what this solution is going to look like, because it's still a work in progress and nobody has come up with a solution so far. But I do think that it has to be done. Probably the work of the left and the "feminists" is to actually come up with this solution, somehow.

So what I'm wondering is, is there a merit to saying men should be men and women should be women, or is this all just a bunch of nonsense, and something that we shouldn't really bother with?

[ashlesha]

People really should stop seeing objective data and confusing it with the opinions of the messenger

[Raver]

This is kind of a dump of thoughts that I don't want to parse, so yeah-

I wasn't happy with my phrasing before when I said I disagreed with him sometimes. As far as the scientific articles he cites, I don't have the background and the savvy to evaluate their merits and, as far as I know, they're pretty well accepted, so I just take them at face value as I'm listening. Its more about how he chooses to frame things, for example when he talks about women in the workplace and his experiences with unhappy female lawyers I don't think he's wrong, I just think the majority of women in the workplace are there to pay the bills and get by and feed their kids whereas in his framing of the subject its like women are there to compete with men! and get ahead! Which is, like, weird, and doesn't really portray the motivations of most women and is -cough- a divisive and provocative framing of the issue, even if that isn't his intention. Its about where he chooses to shine the light and where he doesn't. The other night I watched a video (I'm not going to look for it - I've been in the habit of watching a handful of videos of his a night lately and I really enjoy most of them, but anyway there are a ton in my history to dig through) where within the space of about 5 minutes in response to questions from an interviewer he says that 1) there is not really fire to the smoke of feminists complaints and that they're motivated primarily by resentment and envy, and 2) that young disgruntled men are upset for good reasons, because of the culture and society. I mean... this is probably an annoying and wishy washy centrist thing to say but obviously there is some legitimate grievance and some shitty resentment coming from both groups - on the level of the individual! Which is the important thing, right? In my eyes this is a pretty obvious example of how he's influenced by certain ideological underpinnings even though he unequivocably denies it. Though to be fair, another person might see it as just an accurate portrayal of reality that shouldn't be viewed through the dirty lens of identity politics (eh, I don't think that's really fair, since it deviates from the emphasis on individuality he promotes). On that note, I'd like someone to explain to me in a balanced way that I can understand why I'm wrong in my perception that left wing ideas are widely considered to be ideological and right wing ideas are widely considered to be neutral perception. It seems to me like a matter of PR and nothing else. If I see one more article about how left wing rhetoric fuels right wing extremism I swear lol! I have definitely been "pushed" into left wing and extreme feminist rhetoric by constant trolling from anti feminists and the right wingers surrounding me etc but that's my own fucking responsibility, I have to be accountable for my own words, the public at large expects me to hold myself accountable. I can't cross my arms and pout and say "the right wing made me do it!" which is exactly what the right wing is doing with the enabling and support of the moderate left. I seem to be alone in this view so I'm open to correction and feedback.

I agree with you for the most part. Anyways, JBP mentioned it in a video of his and the reason the perception is that the far left get criticized, while the right is left alone has mostly do with the far left mentality being dominated by the acadamia and the media for whatever reason.

It is not so much that the right is correct, but rather that far right ideas are unanimously discredited by the media, academia and the public as fringe looney ideas, while the far left gets accepted and welcomed into many circles.

JBP's argument appears to be that the far left deserves just as much criticism for their wacky ideas as the far right does, which I agree with. JBP calls himself a classical liberal, but from what I have read into it, it seems like a copout from calling himself a centrist or a libertarian.

I guess it is his way of appearing non-ideological by using an outdated ideology that can be intepreted in a numerous amount of ways. Anyways, I guess I would affiliate myself as centrist or a left leaning libertarian if I was forced to, but I personally don't like labels as it oversimplifies people's generally complex beliefs.

On one issue I am left wing, another I am centrist and another I am right wing so I don't like to pigeonhole myself into one mindset and prefer to be flexible. The only people that really bother me are extremists of any side. Far leftists and far rightists are both extremely annoying to me for different reasons.

Far rightists bother me because they use hate and fear to justify atrocious beliefs and actions and far leftists bother me because they use the moral high ground to justify their ludicrous beliefs and actions.

They are really just two sides of the same coin. I don't mind people in the center left like yourself or people on the center right because they are able to see multiple sides of an issue and respect them even though they settle with one of them in the end.

They are not so much driven by ideology, but rather the beliefs and values given by their overall mentality and life experiences, which is completely understandable.

[WVBRY]

This is kind of a dump of thoughts that I don't want to parse, so yeah-

I wasn't happy with my phrasing before when I said I disagreed with him sometimes. As far as the scientific articles he cites, I don't have the background and the savvy to evaluate their merits and, as far as I know, they're pretty well accepted, so I just take them at face value as I'm listening. Its more about how he chooses to frame things, for example when he talks about women in the workplace and his experiences with unhappy female lawyers I don't think he's wrong, I just think the majority of women in the workplace are there to pay the bills and get by and feed their kids whereas in his framing of the subject its like women are there to compete with men! and get ahead! Which is, like, weird, and doesn't really portray the motivations of most women and is -cough- a divisive and provocative framing of the issue, even if that isn't his intention. Its about where he chooses to shine the light and where he doesn't. The other night I watched a video (I'm not going to look for it - I've been in the habit of watching a handful of videos of his a night lately and I really enjoy most of them, but anyway there are a ton in my history to dig through) where within the space of about 5 minutes in response to questions from an interviewer he says that 1) there is not really fire to the smoke of feminists complaints and that they're motivated primarily by resentment and envy, and 2) that young disgruntled men are upset for good reasons, because of the culture and society. I mean... this is probably an annoying and wishy washy centrist thing to say but obviously there is some legitimate grievance and some shitty resentment coming from both groups - on the level of the individual! Which is the important thing, right? In my eyes this is a pretty obvious example of how he's influenced by certain ideological underpinnings even though he unequivocably denies it. Though to be fair, another person might see it as just an accurate portrayal of reality that shouldn't be viewed through the dirty lens of identity politics (eh, I don't think that's really fair, since it deviates from the emphasis on individuality he promotes). On that note, I'd like someone to explain to me in a balanced way that I can understand why I'm wrong in my perception that left wing ideas are widely considered to be ideological and right wing ideas are widely considered to be neutral perception. It seems to me like a matter of PR and nothing else. If I see one more article about how left wing rhetoric fuels right wing extremism I swear lol! I have definitely been "pushed" into left wing and extreme feminist rhetoric by constant trolling from anti feminists and the right wingers surrounding me etc but that's my own fucking responsibility, I have to be accountable for my own words, the public at large expects me to hold myself accountable. I can't cross my arms and pout and say "the right wing made me do it!" which is exactly what the right wing is doing with the enabling and support of the moderate left. I seem to be alone in this view so I'm open to correction and feedback.

I think you're totally right.

Resentment from both feminist and anti-feminists can be legitimate, but the problem is that the people who fall into these camps usually frame the issue as one of groups vs groups, when it is usually their own individual frustrations, fears, setbacks etc talking. Not that it is wrong to experience these frustrations, fears, and setbacks, but framing it as an us vs them issue is not going to solve something that exists (in my opinion) on an individual level. "What problem/s are you trying to addres and solve" is a good question for both feminists and anti-feminists alike, usually the problem is one that exists on an individual scale and not on a social one. There are some exceptions though, for example, men losing custody of their children because they are men, or women being payed less in some places than their male collegues for the same work, and if it was kept to that, the movements themselves would be alot less controversial. Fact is, alot of feminists and anti-feminists alike seem to have alot of anger, and need to sort themselves out if they want to improve the world. Finding a scapegoat isn't a solution, and unless there is a concrete issue that can be solved through civil and political action (like by changing an unjust law, for example) going after the other side only adds to the poison. I'm not sure if that's the same thing you're talking about though...I got kinda lost in my own process lol.

I do also agree (and I think you are talking about this) that people cannot blame "the other side" for being pushed into a political position. I too got tired of constant trolling and having opinions shoved down my throat, except it was from the left, but that isn't a reason to blame them for my classical liberal positions, which I am responsible for. Fact is, even if I hadn't had a shitty experience with some leftists in college, I wouldn't be left wing because it just doesn't resonate with me. You cannot simply react to stuff like a ping pong ball bouncing from one side to the other, lol.

[WVBRY]

I agree with you for the most part. Anyways, JBP mentioned it in a video of his and the reason the perception is that the far left get criticized, while the right is left alone has mostly do with the far left mentality being dominated by the acadamia and the media for whatever reason.

It is not so much that the right is correct, but rather that far right ideas are unanimously discredited by the media, academia and the public as fringe looney ideas, while the far left gets accepted and welcomed into many circles.

JBP's argument appears to be that the far left deserves just as much criticism for their wacky ideas as the far right does, which I agree with. JBP calls himself a classical liberal, but from what I have read into it, it seems like a copout from calling himself a centrist or a libertarian.

I guess it is his way of appearing non-ideological by using an outdated ideology that can be intepreted in a numerous amount of ways. Anyways, I guess I would affiliate myself as centrist or a left leaning libertarian if I was forced to, but I personally don't like labels as it oversimplifies people's generally complex beliefs.

On one issue I am left wing, another I am centrist and another I am right wing so I don't like to pigeonhole myself into one mindset and prefer to be flexible. The only people that really bother me are extremists of any side. Far leftists and far rightists are both extremely annoying to me for different reasons.

Far rightists bother me because they use hate and fear to justify atrocious beliefs and actions and far leftists bother me because they use the moral high ground to justify their ludicrous beliefs and actions.

They are really just two sides of the same coin. I don't mind people in the center left like yourself or people on the center right because they are able to see multiple sides of an issue and respect them even though they settle with one of them in the end.

They are not so much driven by ideology, but rather the beliefs and values given by their overall mentality and life experiences, which is completely understandable.

I agree here too.

I dislike the extremes for the same reasons you do.

Personally, I call myself a classical liberal because I lean libertarian but libertarianism and many libertarians are generally too extreme, radical, and ideological I find.

[Raver]

I agree here too.

I dislike the extremes for the same reasons you do.

Personally, I call myself a classical liberal because I lean libertarian but libertarianism and many libertarians are generally too extreme, radical, and ideological I find.

Yeah, libertarianism is a broad term too. You can have left-leaning libertarians and right-leaning ones and then there are the extreme ones that lean towards anarchy, which I am far away from. I guess that's why I call myself a left-leaning libertarian or a centrist if I had to choose. Classical liberalism could work too, but honestly the problem with it is that it's an outdated term that can be easily misinterpreted IMO.

[WVBRY]

Yeah, libertarianism is a broad term too. You can have left-leaning libertarians and right-leaning ones and then there are the extreme ones that lean towards anarchy, which I am far away from. I guess that's why I call myself a left-leaning libertarian or a centrist if I had to choose. Classical liberalism could work too, but honestly the problem with it is that it's an outdated term that can be easily misinterpreted IMO.

Yeah, and to make it even more confusing, when people say left or right libertarian, I think they mean left or right on political spectrum and libertarian (anti-authority) on the same spectrum. Left and right on the political spectrum/compass are measure only economics, and mean something different than traditonal left vs right (even if there are some overlapping themes between "left" on political compass and "left" in traditional terms).

Yeah...political labels are just such a confused area lol. You're probably right to stay away from them.

[Raver]

Yeah, and to make it even more confusing, when people say left or right libertarian, I think they mean left or right on political spectrum and libertarian (anti-authority) on the same spectrum. Left and right on the political spectrum/compass are measure only economics, and mean something different than traditonal left vs right (even if there are some overlapping themes between "left" on political compass and "left" in traditional terms).

Yeah...political labels are just such a confused area lol. You're probably right to stay away from them.

Exactly, I'm a big fan of the political compass as I think it's the best way to look at politics where I always test somewhere on the libertarian left. The simple left-right dichotomy is too simple, but even the political compass has its flaws as well and it should be taken with a grain of salt as well. Extremists of the left of the right are usually portrayed as being on too far into the authoritarian side, but it could even be interpreted as anyone that is too far away from the center:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

[ouronis]

I think anybody who identifies themselves as not being ideologically-motivated is inviting the fruits of hubris. I don't like the claim to neutrality, it's extremely disingenuous, so I tend to agree with criticisms of him from this end.

[Raver]

I think anybody who identifies themselves as not being ideologically-motivated is inviting the fruits of hubris. I don't like the claim to neutrality, it's extremely disingenuous.

Well, I'm not sure if you're talking about myself or JBP or anyone in general, but in case you're referring to me. I've identified myself as centrist or left-libertarian if I was forced to choose. On the simple, left-right scale I end up as centrist, but on the political compass I end up as left-libertarian, so take your pick I guess.

[WVBRY]

Exactly, I'm a big fan of the political compass as I think it's the best way to look at politics where I always test somewhere on the libertarian left. The simple left-right dichotomy is too simple, but even the political compass has its flaws as well and it should be taken with a grain of salt as well. Extremists of the left of the right are usually portrayed as being on too far into the authoritarian side, but it could even be interpreted as anyone that is too far away from the center:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

Political compass is imo better than traditional left vs right because it adds another dimension, but yeah, it isn't perfect either.

I usually score as right and libertarian on political compass.

[ouronis]

Well, I'm not sure if you're talking about myself or JBP or anyone in general, but in case you're referring to me. I've identified myself as centrist or left-libertarian if I was forced to choose. On the simple, left-right scale I end up as centrist, but on the political compass I end up as left-libertarian, so take your pick I guess.

No, kind of a tl;dr indirect response to lungs.

Also I saw a video where he claimed this. It's an absurd claim for anyone to make, I don't know whether he's aware and manipulating or unaware. Either way, it's a bad move from my perspective.

[WVBRY]

I think anybody who identifies themselves as not being ideologically-motivated is inviting the fruits of hubris. I don't like the claim to neutrality, it's extremely disingenuous, so I tend to agree with criticisms of him from this end.

I think there are varying degrees of ideology and ideological motivation.

Most people are not ideologically driven enough that it makes a difference in their lives.

When I say ideologically driven, I mean someone who lives their ideology, not someone who is 100 percent neutral. I thought this was obvious.

[Raver]

No, kind of a tl;dr indirect response to lungs.

Also I saw a video where he claimed this. It's an absurd claim for anyone to make, I don't know whether he's aware and manipulating or unaware. Either way, it's a bad move from my perspective.

Well, he generally classifies himself as classical liberal from what I've seen. If he claimed he was non-ideological, he hasn't mentioned it enough for it to mean anything IMO.

[ouronis]

You're both assuming too much about what I stated. I'm not responding to anything you said (because I didn't read it).

Nice hand-waving, Raver.

[Raver]

You're both assuming too much about what I stated. I'm not responding to anything you said (because I didn't read it).

Nice hand-waving, Raver.

As for the video you saw him say he was non-ideological, I didn't see it personally so I guess I can't truly comment on it, so if you want to, you can link it and I can offer a better opinion. I see what you're trying to say, but I just felt inclined to respond because you quoted me /shrug.

[WVBRY]

You're both assuming too much about what I stated. I'm not responding to anything you said (because I didn't read it).

Nice hand-waving, Raver.

Well, if you had, you would see that it makes sense since that is what we were talking about.

If Raver was assuming anything, he wouldn't have asked, would he?

[xerx]

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

^ Remove literally ONE word and this could be a Jordan Peterson quote. I'll let you figure out the source.

[Singu]

Well they were both probably influenced by Nietzsche.

[squark]

^ Remove literally ONE word and this could be a Jordan Peterson quote. I'll let you figure out the source.

Well, imo they are both the same type.

and

Well they were both probably influenced by Nietzsche.

and I think Nietzsche is also EIE.

[xerx]

It's amazing how dishonest he is about denouncing anything even allegedly Marx-influenced, all the while being in the thrall of a philosophy that directly inspired the most genocidal regime in history. I won't even get into his Christian apologism & the chain of liability it sweeps under the carpet.

[Adam Strange]

When you are a preacher, any gospel will do.

[nefnaf]

On balance, correct type is LIE . Very entrepeneurial and future-oriented. Uses dramatic language sometimes, particularly to criticize or praise others. Highly individualistic worldview. Simple / casual manner of dress, unkempt hair especially in earlier videos. Prone to hyperbolic language.

Speaks intelligently. Carries on with a subtle ulterior motive. Overly confident in his assessments. Views his ideas as unassailable even when they are flawed. Remarkable ability to draw ideas from various different sources and present them as a contiguous unit.

[Cosmic Teapot]

He's a psychologist. He has spent hundreds, maybe thousands of hours listening to people and genuinely helping them through difficult times in their lives and personality disorders with emotional intelligence(, competence in his field) and interest in human nature, culture and religion. He is a political activist who believes in social hierarchy as well as rational and stable structures that allow no experiments. That is not LIE.

[nefnaf]

He's a psychologist. He has spent hundreds, maybe thousands of hours listening to people and genuinely helping them through difficult times in their lives and personality disorders with emotional intelligence(, competence in his field) and interest in human nature, culture and religion. He is a political activist who believes in social hierarchy as well as rational and stable structures that allow no experiments. That is not LIE.

??? Not sure what you're trying to say. Psychologists can never be LIE? That's news to me

LIE can often be highly interested or involved in politics, so I don't know where you're going with that either.

His manner of speaking is classical vortical-synergetic, seemingly pulling things from the ether and then expanding them, combining them with other ideas, jumping around (involution). He also talks way way too much to be an introvert

[Bertrand]

I also feel like Fi suggestive would be somewhat untiring in listening to people's problems if they made it their job and weren't otherwise opposed to these people. the whole nature of Te dom is to feed off that little piece of Fi and work its ways on it. peterson often says, "you're not depressed, you have a real problem causing you distress"

[squark]

Te can easily be eliminated as an option, especially Te lead. The thread doesn't need to be rehashed hopefully to show that, as this has been thoroughly demonstrated on every page of it.

[Bertrand]

yeah this thread full is chock full of agreement

[niffer]

His popularity atm is leveling/dying soon (already!) like Snapchat from how it feels.

sell sell sell

[Bertrand]

good I hope he goes back to making more lecture series, maybe teach a new class besides personality/maps of meaning. one on phenomenology or clinical psychological techniques would be awesome

[niffer]

Or maybe he’s run out of horse shit to peddle to the masses LOLOL

[Bertrand]

haha yeah he's peddlng horse shit to the masses