Discussion How do you feel about Jordan Peterson?

[StateOfMind]

Any thoughts on him?

 

[Final Escape]

He woke me up to some hard truths lol! I think a lot of his stuff is good. I've heard there's topics he refuses to touch because it's politically incorrect to discuss. It was nice that he dismantled the white privilege myth. You can get a good moral education from his work, because he explains stuff so well in a way that makes sense.

 

[Apathy79]

I've only discovered him recently. Really interesting guy. Seems to have a better grasp on psychology than just about anyone I've seen. Yet still plagued by his own mental demons.

 

[Myforevercharlie]

Who?

 

[Apathy79]

Jordan Peterson. I bought his book a few weeks ago but have only read a couple of chapters so far. There's also an absolute mountain of lectures on his Youtube page - hundreds of hours worth on all sorts of topics but psychology at its core.

So I'm familiar with him but have mostly focussed on subjects he discusses of interest to me. There's a whole mountain of work he's done that I'm not familiar with yet. But he's certainly a guy that when he presents an opinion in any field related to psychology, it's extremely well backed up and difficult to dismiss. And he's so introspective in his approach to it too which aligns with me. If I have a criticism, I think he has a few tools he uses excessively to explain things where there are stronger contributing factors that are left ignored. To a man with a hammer every problem looks kinda like a nail syndrome. But it's just a minor thing, and is a fairly general criticism of any specialist trying to explain things outside their field with knowledge from their field.

 

[Arrow]

he's...interesting. i agree fundamentally with a lot of what he says, but he's the kind of guy that talks a lot without saying much. the way he talks about women and the roles they do/should play in society is a bit vague, and probably not in a good way,

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I read his book, and he makes leaps of logic sometimes, connecting things that aren't related in a pseudo-scientific rather than symbolic way, so he gets criticized for that.

He also had in the book an attitude of, "Why did others around me fall prey to drugs and self-destruction while I remain so great?" And then guess what happened?

He has strong opinions and a strong, charismatic personality. He's easy to either love or hate and judge. He's quite polarizing and provocative, and he seems to seek to be. He's very intelligent, and I like some of the things he says, but there are a lot of paths he tries to lead his audiences down that I don't want to follow, and I don't think he applies enough critical thinking to some of the ideas he presents, so I disengaged.

 

[Matthias_k]

He was still very interesting 4-5 years ago. Then he began to become well known and saw the opportunity to make some easy money. Can't blame him, meat is expensive but I don't like the new him.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

He's a bigoted, conservative, Christian apologetic who uses a sophisticated vocubulary, strung together into long, confusing, rambling sentences to hide that fact from his susceptible audience.

 

[waived]

He's a fraudulent skank.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

Wisdom of Peterson

The profound wisdom of Jordan Peterson. Randomly generated quotes comprised of words Peterson uses regularly.

www.wisdomofpeterson.com

 

[RileyTanaka]

Any thoughts on him?

He sucks. Simple way to put it.

 

[strand]

He's a pseudo-intellectual quack. I get why people might like his persona, but the guy talks out of his ass most of the time, and he's a bigot (what a surprise!). I suggest looking into the rationalwiki article about him. They cover pretty much everything he's done or said.

 

[mediocre]

He's a pseudo-intellectual quack. I get why people might like his persona, but the guy talks out of his ass most of the time, and he's a bigot (what a surprise!). I suggest looking into the rationalwiki article about him. They cover pretty much everything he's done or said.

I agree with the pseudo-intellectual part but what makes him bigoted exactly? Has he said anything derogatory about a particular group? It is an honest question because everything I have seen of him I didn't notice anything bigoted.

I tried to read his book but I found it to be a lot of psychobabble. Didn't understand it all.

 

[Fragile]

His methods of self improvement by washing your penis and cleaning your room work wonders, until something bad happens in your life. then you develop the worst benzo addiction in history and try to kill yourself many times, so your psycho daughter (who represents everything you hate in women) kidnaps your and takes you to Russia where a sleazy doctor will put you into a medical induced coma so you don't have to go through detox and withdrawals.

how the fuck a clinical psychologist didn't know about the dangers of benzos?

in all honesty i think that there are some truths in what he says, and now that i'm disillusioned with what's becoming of the lesfitst "woke" ideas and "sciences" he's becoming somehow less deranged in my mind. but he is still a pseudo intellectual and a hypocrite who's only interest is to sell you his books.

 

[strand]

I agree with the pseudo-intellectual part but what makes him bigoted exactly? Has he said anything derogatory about a particular group? It is an honest question because everything I have seen of him I didn't notice anything bigoted.

I tried to read his book but I found it to be a lot of psychobabble. Didn't understand it all.

I'm calling him a bigot, because of his reactionary opposition to the c-16 bill and his multiple (quackery) statements about natural hierarchies. He's made other statements about other issues too, atheists, gays, drug addicts, porn, you name it. If you want to call those microaggressions, that's fine by me, but personally I'm not going to beat around the bush anymore* and cut him slack (I'm not implying that you're doing this, I'm just explaining why I am using strong characterizations), especially since he's got a big audience.

Now, I'm not sure if he's used any slurs (if that's what you mean by derogatory) but he's made multiple directly discriminatory statements about women. He's been surely very polite and a big proponent of civil discussion, but in my book, neatly disguised dog-whistle bigotry, it's still bigotry.
*I liked the guy 4-5 years ago, even as a feminist(granted I was a shallow feminist), I'd watched his h3podcast interviews multiple times, and believed him when he was saying that he was a misunderstood liberal, but evidence says he's a wishy-washy reactionary right-winger(us)/socially conservative liberal (eu).

 

[mediocre]

I'm calling him a bigot, because of his reactionary opposition to the c-16 bill and his multiple (quackery) statements about natural hierarchies. He's made other statements about other issues too, atheists, gays, drug addicts, porn, you name it. If you want to call those microaggressions, that's fine by me, but personally I'm not going to beat around the bush anymore* and cut him slack (I'm not implying that you're doing this, I'm just explaining why I am using strong characterizations), especially since he's got a big audience.

Now, I'm not sure if he's used any slurs (if that's what you mean by derogatory) but he's made multiple directly discriminatory statements about women. He's been surely very polite and a big proponent of civil discussion, but in my book, neatly disguised dog-whistle bigotry, it's still bigotry.
*I liked the guy 4-5 years ago, even as a feminist(granted I was a shallow feminist), I'd watched his h3podcast interviews multiple times, and believed him when he was saying that he was a misunderstood liberal, but evidence says he's a wishy-washy reactionary right-winger(us)/socially conservative liberal (eu).

That's how I heard of him through that c-16 bill. Are you from Canada? according to him it would've compelled professors to use transgender pronouns and if they refused they could be fired. Do you know if this is true? I am gay and pretty left leaning person politically, but if that were true even I would have an issue with that. I believe everybody should be respected but to punish someone for not using the right speech, I don't think that's right. But perhaps I've gotten this completely wrong. All I know about the bill is from what he has said.

What discriminatory statements has he made about women? If somebody doesn't identify as a feminist, do you consider that discriminatory or misogynistic? Btw I'm not trying to start an argument I am just really interested:) I hope I haven't babbled on too much

 

[ManWithNoName]

He woke me up to some hard truths lol! I think a lot of his stuff is good. I've heard there's topics he refuses to touch because it's politically incorrect to discuss. It was nice that he dismantled the white privilege myth. You can get a good moral education from his work, because he explains stuff so well in a way that makes sense.

Precisely my take on him too. I noticed too how he indeed effectively tip toes around politically incorrect topics.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

Look what he has to say here on the topic of 'reasons not to commit Suicide':

1. Think about other people

2. Tell someone, and go to the hospital; what do you have to loose

3. Don't deprive the world of what you can bring to the world/ don't underestimate your value in the world

4. It is not clear whether your life is yours to take

Personally, this doesn't help me at all. But for each his own.

 

[Kumachan]

Look what he has to say here on the topic of 'reasons not to commit Suicide':

1. Think about other people

2. Tell someone, and go to the hospital; what do you have to loose

3. Don't deprive the world of what you can bring to the world/ don't underestimate your value in the world

4. It is not clear whether your life is yours to take

Personally, this doesn't help me at all. But for each his own.

so basically nothing new, no enlightment here. He talks for hours on some common sense ideas like "clean up your room" - no ones gonna argue with that! But when it comes to controversial topics he either avoids it entirely or takes the mainstream approach...

This vid sums him up nicely:

 

[strand]

That's how I heard of him through that c-16 bill. Are you from Canada? according to him it would've compelled professors to use transgender pronouns and if they refused they could be fired. Do you know if this is true? I am gay and pretty left leaning person politically, but if that were true even I would have an issue with that. I believe everybody should be respected but to punish someone for not using the right speech, I don't think that's right. But perhaps I've gotten this completely wrong. All I know about the bill is from what he has said.

No, I'm Southern European, so I have no "insider" insights on this bill. Everything I'm writing is based on my own research I did when I was researching JBP. I think this answers JBP's claims and your question adequately, from my understanding. You can look up the bill and assess yourself if JBP's fears were reactionary or not. Also, bear in mind that the bill has been in effect since late June 2017 and there have been no arrests of anyone misgendering someone. There's subreddit that counts the arrests. Still zero!

What discriminatory statements has he made about women? If somebody doesn't identify as a feminist, do you consider that discriminatory or misogynistic? Btw I'm not trying to start an argument I am just really interested:) I hope I haven't babbled on too much

This is the rationalwiki article about JBP. They list many of his spicy takes about women. My "favourite" one is his claims about the benefits of "socially" enforced monogamy, because it's "evolutionary" (???) evident that it stops men from being violent towards women. But of course, the guy doesn't compel anyone to follow it! Unless of course, we consider his obsession with insisting that women want and should be housewives and mothers before 30. I have to admit he's really good at dogwhistling, deflecting and weaseling out of his statements, I'll give him that!

The last thing I want to say about him is that I'm not claiming I know what's in his heart. I really don't know and I don't care. He could be the most tolerable, humble person alive, but that's not how he presents himself. My issue is with the things he promotes and how his audience takes it.

And no, I have no problem with anyone not identifying as a feminist (now or ever). I think feminism is misrepresented enough and being very appropriated lately, I'm glad people are taking the time to think about this. Plus, labels are mostly meaningless when it comes to actions. But I'm sure you can tell that JBP's issues are way deeper than not aligning himself with a feminist cause. Also, your questions seem very genuine, I just hope I'm not coming off as rude (I'm definitely a bit pretentious and caustic when it comes to JBP, my bad!) and also I don't want to spam the thread, I'm doing my best to keep this short.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

I know inmendham isn't a serious intellectual and I don't agree with him on many of his views either, but his breakdown of twelve steps for life is just hilarious

Starts at ~6 minutes.

 

[mediocre]

No, I'm Southern European, so I have no "insider" insights on this bill. Everything I'm writing is based on my own research I did when I was researching JBP. I think this answers JBP's claims and your question adequately, from my understanding. You can look up the bill and assess yourself if JBP's fears were reactionary or not. Also, bear in mind that the bill has been in effect since late June 2017 and there have been no arrests of anyone misgendering someone. There's subreddit that counts the arrests. Still zero!

This is the rationalwiki article about JBP. They list many of his spicy takes about women. My "favourite" one is his claims about the benefits of "socially" enforced monogamy, because it's "evolutionary" (???) evident that it stops men from being violent towards women. But of course, the guy doesn't compel anyone to follow it! Unless of course, we consider his obsession with insisting that women want and should be housewives and mothers before 30. I have to admit he's really good at dogwhistling, deflecting and weaseling out of his statements, I'll give him that!

The last thing I want to say about him is that I'm not claiming I know what's in his heart. I really don't know and I don't care. He could be the most tolerable, humble person alive, but that's not how he presents himself. My issue is with the things he promotes and how his audience takes it.

And no, I have no problem with anyone not identifying as a feminist (now or ever). I think feminism is misrepresented enough and being very appropriated lately, I'm glad people are taking the time to think about this. Plus, labels are mostly meaningless when it comes to actions. But I'm sure you can tell that JBP's issues are way deeper than not aligning himself with a feminist cause. Also, your questions seem very genuine, I just hope I'm not coming off as rude (I'm definitely a bit pretentious and caustic when it comes to JBP, my bad!) and also I don't want to spam the thread, I'm doing my best to keep this short.

You are not rude at all you articulate your thoughts very well and I enjoy reading other points of view. I understand better why you disagree with JBP. I didn't know about a lot of those statements.