Jordan Peterson

Your favorite books and links
Campitor
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:12 am

@Daylen

I'd being interested in hearing what you're experiences have been as the semester progresses. Hopefully you can share them.

daylen
Posts: 922
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:17 am

@Campitor

I am probably going to start a teaching journal at some point.

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Sat Sep 08, 2018 11:58 am

I'm frankly befuddled over the inability to judge Peterson's other ideas based on his dietary choices, based on the context.

First of all he is in the business of collating and analyzing data and making recommendations to others. He is an academic. And the audience is relatively general. These examples about Einstein are way off the mark (as is the example of not judging the messenger). Of course I am not going to judge someone with unusual dietary habits doing advanced work in a highly specific area that has no relevance to other fields, like Einstein in Physics.

Maybe no one has seen the interview I am talking about? I have made this point twice and no one has responded to it, but Peterson himself, who has purportedly made previous conclusions based on large amounts of data, said that his recent dietary change (to a 100% beef diet, NOT to beef and greens), CAUSED HIM TO QUESTION HIS OTHER (that is, NON-dietary) CONCLUSIONS, because a couple anecdotal experiences were able to convince him of the dietary change, and that would never have sufficed in his previous life. Thus he was questioning the methods he used to make his other, previous, conclusions. Certainly he ignored a lot of personal experiences in his other, data-driven, conclusions.

I am questioning his methods, not the fact that he has an unusual diet. And as I have said, he said he was questioning his own methods. I do not know how much more clear I can make this.

Also, the Einstein example is off the mark in another way - his contributions have been established. If someone had mental illness evidenced in other personal decisions, and was doing work that had unclear quality, and you didn't know if she was right or wrong, then would you not be more skeptical of the work, methods, and conclusions?

Campitor
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:27 pm

@trfile

Did you link the interview somewhere? I need to view it to see if his statements are being taken out of context or if the assumptions are accurate.

And of course Einstein's contribution have been established. But if you were alive during his formulation of relativity and heard his erroneous stance on another subject, it would have been silly to debunk his theories on physics based on his views on a totally unrelated subject.

That Peterson has doubts doesn't invalidate his positions in psychology or make all of them wrong. Einstein had doubts about his theories as well until they were proven. That isn't to say that Jordan Peterson isn't wrong but I haven't seen any arguments, concerning his psychological theories, that have been debunked by anything that has been posted in this thread which references his beef eating proclivities or his utterances referenced in an interview that I haven't seen. Please point out one of his psychology theories that has been proven wrong by his admission of doubt and his hasty adoption of 100% beef.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4651
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:45 pm

I believe that patience and good humor are normally distributed in human population, but self-selection combined with poor experience and reviews will lead to greater distribution of these traits in the educational field.

Also, I would note that the system itself is part of the problem, because human beings are only naturally equipped to care for as many people exhibiting infantile behavior as equals the maximum number of functional mammary glands on the human body. Also, Dunbar's number, or Rule of 150 for sustainable human relationships, precludes any group of 28 humans who are all 5 years old as being anything resembling natural.


One aspect of Peterson's philosophy that sort of dumbfounds me is that he states that he believes in gender dichotomy, but he also states that after age 4 is too late for socialization, and that too much feminine chaos or maternal smothering is part of the problem. This makes no sense whatsoever to me, because children are more or less infantile in behavior until around age 6, and in almost every human culture on the planet, they are largely in the care of their mother until the end of the infantile phase. It makes much more sense to suggest that IF there are some troubling behavioral or developmental trends observable in the youth of most recent generations, this would be due to increased and earlier separation from mother and enrollment in group-setting where social rules are more uniform and rigidly enforced due to decreased availability of human resources.

So, in my opinion and experience, both total group size and adult-to-child ratio are better correlated with depletion of "patience" and "good-humor" than the presence of a particularly challenging student, although this definitely is an issue, and these 3 problems greatly compound when they occur simultaneously, which is often the case in more resource-deprived districts. Student absenteeism or virtual absenteeism (for instance, present in the classroom, but sleeping on his desk or traumatized by event at home previous evening) would be another major issue.

I think based on what you have shared on this forum, both you and Riggerjack might have some insight into the similarities and differences between the plight of the good student trapped in a very poor educational environment and the plight of a child from an under-privileged background surrounded by children from more affluent homes in a very good educational environment. A 5 year old who finds herself in a classroom with children who come with backpacks loaded with all the right snack, toys, and books is not unlike the adult who is embarrassed at not being able to make "correct" wine and cheese selection. So, a very good kindergarten teacher will exert discipline up to the point of making that child return the toy she stole from another child, but she will also engage enough empathy and compassion to not embarrass the child in the process, and also give her an opportunity to earn such a toy for herself, even though that teacher will likely have to use her own funds to purchase the toy.

Anyways, I didn't mean to imply with what I noted above that only women make good elementary school teachers. I did mean to imply that there are some men well suited for working with young children and some men who are ill-suited for working with young children, and everybody naturally knows this, and I will prove this by making use of Dr. Peterson's Mythology Method:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn_p8Z8Ltng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OORsz2d1H7s

*Oops, I hacked off the original top of this post, and made hasty reconstruction. Hope it still makes some kind of sense.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4651
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Sep 08, 2018 1:19 pm

I would also note that those individuals who do possess temperaments in the range of Winnie-the-Pooh, Miss Honey, and Santa will often find themselves equally in demand to provide companionship/service to colicky infants, rowdy youngsters and grouchy old men. Therefore, it can sometimes seem like grouchy old men wish all the colicky infants and rowdy youngsters to be tucked away in quiet, good order into time out cribs and benches, so that then Miss Honey will have more patience and good-humor available to provide for the needs of Grouchy Old Man.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 840
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:06 pm

Here, Peterson says in the first 10 seconds that he is not a dietary expert.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGikB-54Lwk&t=27s

You’re welcome, everybody, back to the regularly scheduled programming.

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:05 pm

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:06 pm
Here, Peterson says in the first 10 seconds that he is not a dietary expert.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGikB-54Lwk&t=27s

You’re welcome, everybody, back to the regularly scheduled programming.
I am not sure what the relevance of this is? No one claimed that Peterson said he was a dietary expert.
Campitor wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:27 pm
But if you were alive during his formulation of relativity and heard his erroneous stance on another subject, it would have been silly to debunk his theories on physics based on his views on a totally unrelated subject.
You repeatedly misrepresent what I say, but I do not think it is intentional.

We do not know that Jordan Peterson's stance on diet is erroneous.
I do not care about his views, it's how he arrived at his views. This Einstein example is bad because there was not widespread access to data at that time. But to use your analogy, yes, if Einstein had a friend who started drinking her urine and had tremendous improvement in a health condition, and then Einstein started doing it himself, without looking at any data or doing any research on the diet, and saying that he doesn't know what to believe about Physics anymore, and he doesn't know what to believe about anything anymore, then yes, I would question his physics theories too. Not that they would be wrong; maybe I would still agree with all of them when I looked at them, but would it make me question them more? Yes.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:09 pm

Jordan Peterson tends to exaggeration.

what if brute said the following, upon discovering that the carnivore diet fixed his <whatever condition it was>: "wow, if everything the experts told me about this is wrong, brute wonders what else experts have been telling him in other fields that's wrong?"

in fact brute pretty much wonders that all the time, because "experts" in fields brute knows well are typically full of shit. maybe that's true for all fields, and brute just doesn't know any better in the other ones.

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:10 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:11 pm
brute is talking type 2 specifically. low-carb or keto is the solution. the problem is high blood sugar, so the answer is not to raise blood sugar. type 1 is obviously different (no insulin to begin with, so there will always be the need for injections), but even then it helps stabilize blood sugar levels so injections become more predictable and therefore less dangerous.

but "low carb" is considered a fad and dangerous to heart health, so the majority of the medical establishment recommends ineffective, less effective, or even counter-effective "solutions" so they can avoid the cognitive dissonance of "eating meat/fat is healthy" and "eating plants (high in carbohydrate) is bad".
Maybe I am missing something, but there seem to be plenty of studies on this, I do not see how this is being hidden by the medical establishment:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24390522
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25071075

But it is not so clear-cut:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45195474

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:14 pm

BRUTE wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:09 pm

in fact brute pretty much wonders that all the time, because "experts" in fields brute knows well are typically full of shit. maybe that's true for all fields, and brute just doesn't know any better in the other ones.
Reminds me of this book I heard about, which regards the disdain and lack of interest in experts, but the book takes the position of how dangerous it is:
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Expertise- ... +expertise

My experience regarding experts has been relatively the opposite. But it's hard to paint a broad stroke, eg I view mainstream economic theory as being wrong, but there are plenty of experts who believe other things, as I have cited in the banking thread. There are physicians who advocate a vegan diet (eg, Neil Barnard).

Campitor
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:04 pm

@trfie

I see what your mean now. In this context I can see where your Peterson skepticism is founded...however...
I do not care about his views, it's how he arrived at his views.
Agreed. Per the link provided by MI (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KGikB-54Lwk&t=27s), Peterson arrived at his views in the following manner - video timestamp in parentheses:
  1. He issues a disclaimer first: "I'm not a dietary expert so I'm speaking as an uninformed citizen" (0:02 - 0.09).
  2. He's been on a pure carnivore diet for 2 months but was previously on a carnivore diet with greens for approximately 1 year (0:20 - 0:30).
  3. The motivation for cutting out the greens was his daughter autoimmune disorders (1:21 - 1:55).
  4. He notes that his daughter has attained positive results from her carnivore diet; all her autoimmune disorders are gone (2:02 - 2:21)
  5. His wife suspected their daughter's disorders was caused by food. In her youth MIkhalia Peterson would develop rashes eating oranges and strawberries (2:42 - 3:04).
  6. He states Mikhalia Peterson symptoms would worsen consuming gluten products. The removal of gluten had a "remarkable" effect. Further dietary restrictions improved other autoimmune symptoms (3:44 - 4:20).
  7. His daughter continued experimenting with food and noting the effect on her disorders. Her personal food experiments led her to the beef only diet; it offered the best relief (6:11 - 6:36).
  8. 2 years ago his daughter recommended to him the beef only diet since he suffers similar autoimmune disorders. He skeptically agreed to do so for 1 month (6:40 - 7:00).
  9. He notices disorders are disappearing as he modifies his diet to low carb - he hasn't gone pure beef yet (7:06 - 9:09).
  10. He eliminates his depression and mood irregularity by finally removing the greens in his diet at his daughter's urging. As time progresses he notes other biological improvements (9:09 - 11:13).
  11. He issues disclaimer #2 - he isn't recommending this diet to anyone (12:07 - 12:12).
  12. He receives anecdotal testimonials by his daughter's followers regarding the positive effects of the beef diet (12:12 - 12:31).

    The interview continues with additional positive anecdotes by Peterson. So in summary it appears that he reached his conclusions via experimentation and observation although it's certainly lacking any scientific rigour. In the interview he states he will be getting blood work to see which biomarkers may be good or bad. In my opinion he has used sound logic in determining the effectiveness of his diet while maintaining a healthy skepticism which is underscored by his desire to get blood work to determine the actual state of his health. I couldn't find anything within this interview that would make me question the soundness of his choices.

    Do you have a link were he specifically mentions doubting everything including his own conclusions regarding psychology as a result of his beef food odyssey?

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:42 pm

trfie wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:10 pm
Maybe I am missing something, but there seem to be plenty of studies on this, I do not see how this is being hidden by the medical establishment
then trfie should be surprised that 1.5-5 million humans die each year from diabetes. the wikipedia page on Diabetus mellitus type 2 mentions the following for prevention:
The Lying Wikipedia wrote: Dietary changes known to be effective in helping to prevent diabetes include maintaining a diet rich in whole grains and fiber, and choosing good fats, such as the polyunsaturated fats found in nuts, vegetable oils, and fish.[69] Limiting sugary beverages and eating less red meat and other sources of saturated fat can also help prevent diabetes
brute has marked untruths in bold.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:46 pm

trfie wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:14 pm
the book takes the position of how dangerous it is
"it is dangerous when humans find out that institutions and experts have been lying to them". maybe, but who's fault is it, and is blind trust the answer?

brute is basically of the opinion that a society that has leveraged up on trust and expertism so much that finding out the truth on some issues via the internet now threatens the entire society is pretty fucking fragile. maybe overleveraged in a sense.

an analogy is going too fast to take a turn, and then blaming the driver for not making the turn. at that point, there was nothing he could've done. the problem was in the buildup of excess speed, or excess reliance on expert opinion.

edit: brute thinks maybe this should be its own topic so that humans can continue discussing JP. if interested, trfie can create a new topic and brute will happily respond.

trfie
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:35 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by trfie » Wed Sep 26, 2018 7:01 am

Campitor wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:04 pm
He didn't say he doubted his conclusions regarding psychology, he said something like "I don't know what to believe about anything anymore", after talking about his experimentation. It was either the joe rogan podcast, or it was the news program that he went on a few years ago with his daughter and went on it again recently. But according to brute, Peterson tends toward exaggeration, so maybe it does not mean anything.

That logic you have posted is abominable. Maybe it is apparent to me because I worked as a researcher in science and know that it is possible to come to any belief with that kind of logic. Just a few things that are wrong with the picture, and maybe there are some facts he did not mention that would explain it:
1. Getting bloodwork for biomarkers is not going to establish anything - the ill effects of a bad diet (such as developing cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc) take years to decades to form. There are a huge number of studies showing bad effects to diets over years, it is not speculation.
2. He came on a news program I saw with his daughter a few years ago, and at that time she claimed that she was completely better with a diet. All the stuff about the autoimmune disease going away, and so on. So how is it that she was actually not better and she needed to give up even more things until getting to the all beef diet? Because she was not on an all beef diet at that time.
3. Changing anything in one's diet/environment can have positive effects for a few months. That's why there are so many diet programs that are so popular, and they can all advertise ppl who lost incredible amounts of weight in a few months. it isn't made up, the numbers and pictures are real. The problem is that ppl gain back all the weight that they lost, and more, over the next year. It has to do with the biophysiology of diets, and is not a result of whether the person can stick to it or not.
4. It's anecdote as you point out, not data. Why didn't he do any research on whether anyone else had tried an all beef diet and find out what happened; how long were the ppl able to stick to it, what were the long-term effects, did they have blood testing done, changes in weight, mood, etc? How do we know that Jordan Peterson isn't a freak of nature and the process of elminating everything down to 1 food, any one food, isn't going to have the same effect? Isn't it possible that Peterson would have had the same result on a 100% broccoli diet? Notice that he tells Joe Rogan that he was sick for a month after having one substance, I think apple cider? It's because anything one gives up, one loses the taste/ability to handle it. Notice how when someone goes from eating meat to a strict vegetarian diet for a few months, eating meat will make them physically sick. Of course they were able to tolerate it before.
5. related to the above, how do we know that the results are not psychological/the placebo effect? Notice how the daughter is able to tolerate hard liquor as well as beef, something that is known to be toxin. The mind is very powerful.
6. He didn't consult anyone about the diet - no nutritonists, dietians, doctors, etc, etc. Doesn't it make sense to talk to someone who has seen literally thousands of people try various diets? Maybe they have had people with an all beef diet before.

Campitor
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:22 pm

He didn't say he doubted his conclusions regarding psychology, he said something like "I don't know what to believe about anything anymore", after talking about his experimentation. It was either the joe rogan podcast, or it was the news program that he went on a few years ago with his daughter and went on it again recently. But according to brute, Peterson tends toward exaggeration, so maybe it does not mean anything.
Utterances such as "I don't know what to believe about anything" need to be framed within the context of the conversation. If a fellow researcher discovered his/her wife were cheating, and said "I don't know what to believe about anything anymore", I'm pretty sure they are questioning their beliefs in marital fidelity and not the reality of the universe and the fundamental laws that govern it. Context matters.
That logic you have posted is abominable. Maybe it is apparent to me because I worked as a researcher in science and know that it is possible to come to any belief with that kind of logic. Just a few things that are wrong with the picture, and maybe there are some facts he did not mention that would explain it:
1. Getting bloodwork for biomarkers is not going to establish anything - the ill effects of a bad diet (such as developing cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc) take years to decades to form. There are a huge number of studies showing bad effects to diets over years, it is not speculation.


Again, context matters. He is observing the physical effects that his and his daughter's dietary preferences are having on their biology. He acknowledges that he isn't a dietary professional, that he isn't advocating the diet, and he will be getting blood work. And YES - bloodwork can uncover certain negative markers related to diet such as elevated serum cholesterol, vitamin deficiencies, etc., especially after being on a 2 year red meat diet. And who knows if Peterson is or isn't going to receive other health checks.
2. He came on a news program I saw with his daughter a few years ago, and at that time she claimed that she was completely better with a diet. All the stuff about the autoimmune disease going away, and so on. So how is it that she was actually not better and she needed to give up even more things until getting to the all beef diet? Because she was not on an all beef diet at that time.
Perhaps she was just refining her diet to compensate for other effects that became noticeable over time or were masked by other more severe symptoms? Or do you dispute this as a possibility?
3. Changing anything in one's diet/environment can have positive effects for a few months. That's why there are so many diet programs that are so popular, and they can all advertise ppl who lost incredible amounts of weight in a few months. it isn't made up, the numbers and pictures are real. The problem is that ppl gain back all the weight that they lost, and more, over the next year. It has to do with the biophysiology of diets, and is not a result of whether the person can stick to it or not.
Peterson and his daughter have been on their respective diets for more than just a few months and they are still spouting on about its beneficial effects. And let me repeat that Peterson is urging others not to replicate his diet because of his lack of nutritional expertise. I know that if I tried his diet, I would probably get very ill. If you check my forum history, I advocate plant based foods. But I also know some people have allergies to plants (celiac, peanut allergies, soy/pulses, etc.) which make a plant based diet hard to adopt. As a researcher you should know that there is enough genetic variation that outliers exists. That Peterson and his daughter suffer the same symptoms probably means there is a genetic component to their food allergies. Or do you discount gene inheritance as a source for disease and allergy susceptibility?
4. It's anecdote as you point out, not data. Why didn't he do any research on whether anyone else had tried an all beef diet and find out what happened; how long were the ppl able to stick to it, what were the long-term effects, did they have blood testing done, changes in weight, mood, etc? How do we know that Jordan Peterson isn't a freak of nature and the process of elminating everything down to 1 food, any one food, isn't going to have the same effect? Isn't it possible that Peterson would have had the same result on a 100% broccoli diet? Notice that he tells Joe Rogan that he was sick for a month after having one substance, I think apple cider? It's because anything one gives up, one loses the taste/ability to handle it. Notice how when someone goes from eating meat to a strict vegetarian diet for a few months, eating meat will make them physically sick. Of course they were able to tolerate it before.
Perhaps he is busy with whatever clinical practice he still maintains, if it all, or maybe the flood of interviews and speaking engagements precludes him from doing extensive research? Or maybe he is a bubble-headed nincompoop and can only juggle 1 set of research at a time. Or perhaps because he has a PhD, he has the hubris to believe that he is an expert in everything unlike the denizens of this forum. :roll:
5. related to the above, how do we know that the results are not psychological/the placebo effect? Notice how the daughter is able to tolerate hard liquor as well as beef, something that is known to be toxin. The mind is very powerful.
What if the effect is placebo related? Some doctor will tell you that you can't discount the placebo effect as a means of treatment under severe circumstances. Peterson was suffering from crippling depression and autoimmune diseases - who cares if placebo made him feel better? Or is it preferable that he curls into a fetal position as he contemplates death by suicide as long as he uses a more scientifically rigorous dietary research template for food choices that he repeatedly admonishes against?
6. He didn't consult anyone about the diet - no nutritonists, dietians, doctors, etc, etc. Doesn't it make sense to talk to someone who has seen literally thousands of people try various diets? Maybe they have had people with an all beef diet before.
Maybe his daughter's results were compelling enough for him to try the diet considering the state of his depression? And the improvements in his severe depression was a strong incentive to continue in that direction? There are some people, because of their maladies, who have no optimal choices and only tradeoffs. Maybe he and his daughter fit this category. Or maybe they are dietary kooks and their heads will explode from the blood pressure caused by astherclosis. But as a psychologist he may be especially gifted. And it's not a rare occurrence for smart men to do stupid things: https://galileospendulum.org/2014/07/13 ... d-feynman/ ; http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/m ... her_power/.

Or maybe Peterson is intentionally acting stupid: http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771

User avatar
BlueNote
Posts: 482
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 6:26 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BlueNote » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:27 pm

After reading an earlier version of this thread I decided to look into Jordan Peterson.

I watched some of his lectures, listened to a couple of podcasts he did with Sam Harris and watched some Joe Rogan videos. I've read most of the 12 rules book and I even checked out the Maps of Meaning book from the library and perused it.

I think he has become a sort of lightning rod in the media and is fairly misunderstood. My take is that his popularity and thus the whole reason we're even discussing him is that he refused to be compelled by the law to use certain gender pronouns because it violated his right to free speech. So if the law says that I can ask to be called 'Zoorlon' instead of 'he' and everybody has to comply then Jordan is saying hell no I won't be forced into calling you 'Zoorlon' (but I might do so voluntarily). So he placed free speech higher in his hierarchy of ethics than obedience to the law. He also talks a lot about how his personal philosophy and approach to life is opposed to the identity politics of post-modernist marxists who he asserts have overrun the humanities departments in Universities throughout the world. He also peppers his lectures, talks , podcasts etc. with little tidbits of personal advice and anecdotes.His stance on the gender pronouns and some of the SJW ridiculousness around his works has seemed to propel him into the spot light and unlike many academics he's game for the spotlight so he does interviews and appears to be on a media blitz.

I just don't have time to try to separate the wheat from the Chaff with this guy. There is one podcast he does with Sam Harris where he redefines the word "true" to, what I believe, is his own idiosyncratically unique meaning involving evolutionary theory !?!. It was infuriating to listen to him try to get Sam on board with his unconventional definition. He should have just come up with a new word or something rather than hijacking the word 'true' because it just makes everything he says difficult to follow. I find his analysis where he goes from jungian archetypes to biblical references to mythological references and back to harder science references to be difficult to follow also.

I don't think there's any good in spending too much time on him vs. a lot of other smart people out there who happen to get little attention whatsoever.

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:24 am

BlueNote wrote:
Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:27 pm
I just don't have time to try to separate the wheat from the Chaff with this guy.
so this

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4651
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:18 am

BlueNote wrote:I don't think there's any good in spending too much time on him vs. a lot of other smart people out there who happen to get little attention whatsoever.
Well stated.

User avatar
TopHatFox
Posts: 1875
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:07 pm
Location: FL; 24

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by TopHatFox » Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:02 am

Maybe it’s been said, but there are rumors that Peterson is paid by the asset-owners to present a distilled version of alt-right beliefs. A form of co-option of that group’s growing popularity. That would explain Peterson’s suddenly massive audience and popular show.

Post Reply