Jordan Peterson

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jennypenny »

I totally understand not liking Peterson (I'm married to an INTJ for a reason ;) ). And I didn't think your words were unkind. I was just explaining why they might be so over-the-top about their experience on the diet. I don't necessarily agree with the constant proselytizing about it -- you don't see me mention it on the forum unless the subject comes up -- but I understand why they feel compelled to ... medicine let them down and something as simple as eating differently cured them after dozens of wasted tests, thousands of wasted dollars, and countless prescriptions for drugs that usually did more harm than good. Still, it muddies his message and I don't think the diet is appropriate for everyone.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor »

I could care less about Peterson's diet or his hyperboles. I care if his message is wrong based on his arguments for whatever message he is promulgating at the time. I would hope that if he was talking about the dangers of alcohol on fetal brain development, that his arguments wouldn't be dismissed because he eats meat only or because HE believes he didn't sleep for 25 days. It's easy to dismiss a message's veracity because we dislike the messenger.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jennypenny: Gotcha :)
Campitor wrote:It's easy to dismiss a message's veracity because we dislike the messenger.
True, that's why I mentioned my bias. OTOH, it's not the case that the majority of Peterson's arguments are in realms where easy, objective fact-checking is available. If the Emperor is commenting on how chilly it is, and I note that he appears to be naked, then I am simply observing his likely bias. It is my take that many of Peterson's arguments are not absent bias derived from his inherent temperament and life experience. For instance, based on my life experience being in relationships with irritable men, they are inclined to develop arguments in favor of smacking a kid to keep him in line. Peterson goes so far as to suggest that smacking kids to keep them in line when they are young will aid them in the development of internal self-discipline. So far as I know there has not been a single reputable study in the annals of science to confirm this "Grouchy Dad" hypothesis, so one is therefore forced to go to "Spare the rod, Spoil the child" as source of core wisdom unassailable by the alternate philosophy of the sort of masculinity-crippling post-modernists who work in Montessori nursery schools and believe that it is perhaps better to handle young children with patience, redirection, and a bit of compassion.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE »

jennypenny wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:35 am
I understand why they feel compelled to ... medicine let them down and something as simple as eating differently cured them after dozens of wasted tests, thousands of wasted dollars, and countless prescriptions for drugs that usually did more harm than good.
not to speak of 40 or 50 years (in Peterson's case) of very confidently being told this is just what it is, there is no cure, by the medical establishment.
wikipedia wrote:There is no cure for psoriasis; however, various treatments can help control the symptoms. These treatments include steroid creams, vitamin D3 cream, ultraviolet light and immune system suppressing medications, such as methotrexate.
doesn't even mention the fact that it can be completely brought under control with a simple diet change.

brute thinks this is a non-trivial factor in humans developing suspicions against authorities and institutions. the human body is somewhat complex, each one somewhat unique, and there are in fact some absurdly successful niche diet treatments for conditions that the medical establishment has given up on treating.

it is the ultimate "fake new" and "institutions aren't looking out for the little man". few things are as dear to the heart as a human's own body. this type of incompetence and active denial of working treatments by the medical establishment breeds inability to trust The Humans In Charge ever again.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

BRUTE wrote:with a simple diet change.
Since when is a diet change simple? Some variety of Atkins/Paleo/Keto has been around for at least 60 year and most people are well aware of this option. I am sure I first gave it a go when I was around 15 or 16. Excruciating pain or serious medical risk put aside, I would have to be something well north of 20 lbs. overweight before I would choose to eat nothing but ribeye, dark chocolate, heavy cream and greens for the rest of my life. I'll take kind of chubby and full smorgasbord over the alternative. You can hand me the pamphlet, but I will just toss it in the recycling bin.

Also, I would note for the record, that beef was one of the googleplex of ingredients my ex-husband claimed caused him physiological distress. I literally had to keep a spreadsheet. He also claimed exemption from changing diapers, washing dishes and mowing the lawn due to his various afflictions. Yet, somehow, downing a 6 (or 12) pack of beer was never a problem :x

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE »

what is 7Wannabe5 talking about? the topic is a lifelong skin condition described by one sufferer as:
jennypenny wrote:If you've ever lived with constant pain or something as socially-crippling as full-blown psoriasis, you'd get why they think this way of eating feels like a visit from Jesus.
other problems solved by eating tons of ribeye include AMPUTATION OF THE LIMBS AND BLINDNESS DUE TO DIABETES.

brute couldn't care less about 7Wannabe5's subcutaneous unsprung masses. the topic is that the medical establishment is withholding life saving or quality of life altering diet changes in order to protect their status and their egos.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Right. Sorry. I thought the topic was why does Jordan Peterson trigger me, so I was having a flashback to my hyper-critical super-picky eater ex who suffered from eczema, loved Nietzsche, and thought I was too chubby.

All anybody needs to know about the medical establishment is that Pharmaceutical Engineers exist and they like to get paid.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by BRUTE »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:30 pm
too chubby
no such thing

brute is a little triggered himself. he has the feeling that 7Wannabe5 thinks he wants to force all humans to live on ribeye only and suffer from terrible libertarian freedoms in a dystopian hellhole. nothing could be further from the truth. brute thinks all humans should be allowed to poison their bodies with empty carbs and achieve "well-marbled" status as well as ride subsidized socialist public transit and help little old human ladies cross the streets.

to his memory, brute has never advocated keto here outside of relatively extreme contexts/conditions like the aforementioned skin condition or diabetes. just because brute likes it doesn't mean humans like it.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@BRUTE:Hugs. A couple people on this forum said that people ought to be charged health insurance rates directly correlated to BMI, but that wasn't you. Sorry again. I am stressed out, and thinking about all my past flawed relationships, because I have to decide whether to break up with my BF or move to God's Armpit, TX with him. I will take it to my journal and away from this thread.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:48 am
@jennypenny: Gotcha :)
So far as I know there has not been a single reputable study in the annals of science to confirm this "Grouchy Dad" hypothesis, so one is therefore forced to go to "Spare the rod, Spoil the child" as source of core wisdom unassailable by the alternate philosophy of the sort of masculinity-crippling post-modernists who work in Montessori nursery schools and believe that it is perhaps better to handle young children with patience, redirection, and a bit of compassion.
I don't think such a study would be ethical. You would need several control groups where some get lavish praise, others get "the rod" to varying degrees and frequency, some get neither praise/patience/or the rod, and some are told they will get the rod but not get it, while others are promised praise but don't get it either.

And human diversity being what it is, I'm sure some kids would thrive on "the rod", others would do better with praise/patience/compassion, some would prefer neither, and some would need a mix of 2 or 3 of the aforementioned. There is no size fits all when it comes to human diet or psychology.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ThisDinosaur »

BRUTE wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:35 pm
. this type of incompetence and active denial of working treatments by the medical establishment breeds inability to trust The Humans In Charge ever again.
The only thing western physicians are taught about nutrition is what specific deficiencies look like, and that sugar causes type 2 diabetes. You're right to call it incompetence, not a conspiracy.
Campitor wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:39 pm
human diversity being what it is, I'm sure some kids would thrive on "the rod", others would do better with praise/patience/compassion, some would prefer neither, and some would need a mix of 2 or 3 of the aforementioned. There is no size fits all when it comes to human diet or psychology.
None of Jordan Peterson's parenting advice has been useful on my kids. n=2

Paula
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Paula »

Campitor wrote:
Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:30 am
He suffers from food allergies which express as autoimmune disorders: severe psoriasis and arthritis.
It is sad that he is a supporter of corporal punishment for children.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave »

Could someone provide a link reference to JBP espousing (or bragging about) adults smacking children around? Curiosity piqued by the assertions of promoting and engaging in what is described here in a way clearly suggestive of child abuse, I went on a search of the resources I had at hand. In his written works I found only a "for instance" referring to a hypothetical mother who flicks a finger across the back of a kid's hand immediately after the kid strikes a sibling or similar; and an allowance that a swat on the backside might be required in an extreme case. He considers "timeout" a form of corporal punishment, and based on his talks and writing that seems to be the go-to technique he repeatedly discusses. His stated "doctrine" is to always use the minimal force necessary to halt unacceptable behavior. The idea of not allowing children to behave in ways that cause their parents not to like them seems to be about parents disciplining themselves (by being vigilant and consistent wrt their children's behavior) to avoid an accumulation of resentment that will too often be revisited on the child in inappropriate ways, than it is about beating kids for the sheer sport of it.

pukingRainbows
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 5:56 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by pukingRainbows »

I seriously doubt you will find anything remotely close.
Most of the criticisms I have read about him have very little connection to what he's actually said or written. Instead, they tend to be based on ideas people attribute to him based on articles they've read about him.

Paula
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Paula »

Here is a quote from his book.

"If your child is the kind of determined varmint who simply runs away, laughing, when placed on the steps or in his room, physical restraint might have to be added to the time out routine. A child can be held carefully but firmly by the upper arms, until he or she stops squirming and pays attention. If that fails, being turned over a parent’s knee might be required. For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of a responsible adult."

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

IlliniDave wrote:Could someone provide a link reference to JBP espousing (or bragging about) adults smacking children around?
pukingRainbows wrote:I seriously doubt you will find anything remotely close.
Most of the criticisms I have read about him have very little connection to what he's actually said or written. Instead, they tend to be based on ideas people attribute to him based on articles they've read about him.
Okay, forced to type I guess.
When I worked in daycare centres, early in my career, the comparatively neglected children would come to me desperately, in their fumbling, half-formed manner, with no sense of proper distance and no attentive playfulness. They would flop, nearby-or directly on my lap, no matter what I was doing-driven inexorably by the powerful desire for adult attention, the necessary catalyst or further development. It was very difficult not to react with annoyance, even disgust, to such children and their too-prolonged infantilism- difficult not to literally push them aside- even thought I felt very badly for them, and understood their predicament well. I believe that response, harsh and terrible though it may be, was an almost universally-experienced internal warning signal indicating the comparative danger of establishing a relationship with a poorly socialized child.- "12 Rules"
See what he did here? He jumped right from his own very personal emotional reaction to some sort of fried baloney quality level assignment to human evolution. What is the age of children in daycare centers? Usually 4 and under. So, Peterson thinks that the attempt by a 4 year old to climb on his lap is a sign of pathological neglect leading to highly regressive social behavior :roll:
I remember taking my daughter to the playground once when she was about two. She was playing on the monkey bars, hanging in mid-air. A particularly provocative little monster of about the same age was standing above her on the same bar she was gripping. I watched him move towards her. Our eyes locked. He slowly and deliberately stepped on her hands, with increasing force, over and over, as he stared me down. He knew exactly what he was doing. Up yours, Daddy-O-that was his philosophy. He had already concluded that adults were contemptible, and that he could safely defy them. (Too bad, then, that he was destined to become one.) That was the hopeless future his parents had saddled him with. To his great and salutary shock, I picked him bodily off the playground structure, and threw him thirty feet down the field.

No, I didn't. I just took my daughter somewhere else. But it would have been better for him if I had. - "12 Rules"


No. I did not edit to remove next line where Peterson writes anything remotely resembling "Just kidding. I don't really think that would be good option"
For the child who is pushing the limits in a spectacularly inspired way, a swat across the backside can indicate requisite seriousness on the part of a responsible adult. There are some situations in which even that will not suffice, partly because some children are very determined, exploratory, and tough, or because the offending behavior is truly severe. -"12 Rules"
Gentlemen, I rest my case. I hope in the future you will bear in mind towards whom you are making trifling accusations of not reading original sources :ugeek:

Peanut
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:18 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Peanut »

IlliniDave wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:58 am
He considers "timeout" a form of corporal punishment, and based on his talks and writing that seems to be the go-to technique he repeatedly discusses. His stated "doctrine" is to always use the minimal force necessary to halt unacceptable behavior. The idea of not allowing children to behave in ways that cause their parents not to like them seems to be about parents disciplining themselves (by being vigilant and consistent wrt their children's behavior) to avoid an accumulation of resentment that will too often be revisited on the child in inappropriate ways, than it is about beating kids for the sheer sport of it.
Yes, so I think this is an accurate rundown and illustrates the following: timeout IS a form of corporal punishment and for this reason along with others it is no longer recommended by more and more experts on child-rearing. I appreciate his warning about tolerating assholery from your kids to their own detriment, but I think he's pretty out of touch with a few aspects of child-rearing theory. His account on Youtube somewhere of force-feeding a nine-month old baby babyfood presumably for his own good is crazy to me.

On the general topic, I would add I was most surprised by his assertions that proper socialization by age four must be completed or the child will never catch up to his/her peers. He claimed there was data backing that up, I believe. It made me think of this forum actually, with its emphasis on introversion. It's not quite the same thing, obviously, but it made me wonder what readers of his who consider themselves less than socially adept think of that theory.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ThisDinosaur »

@Peanut
What "aspects of child rearing theory" ?

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by IlliniDave »

7Wb5, thanks for taking the time. I made no such accusation, btw. I think we interpret Peterson quite differently. I'm relieved, honestly, that that's all all there was behind the accusations, since I consider that far short of encouraging or bragging about the smacking around of children by adults. I think in general he makes an excellent point about being consistent and unflagging when they are young. My ex- was the opposite, very inconsistent in maintaining order. I used to get endless grief from her for being too "harsh" because of my predictable consistency, yet she was the only one of us who ever struck them in anger (and "smack" would be an apt term). Interesting that we both interpret Peterson through a lens tinted by the perceived shortcomings of a former SO (or SOs).

Peanut, good golly, what's a poor parent to do in 2018? Luckily my child rearing days are far behind me (I have to wonder if that is the case for the "experts" as well). It is interesting how the expert consensus on child rearing pretty much changes entirely once a generation, and increasingly cedes power to the child. At some point along that continuum things will inevitably become dysfunctional. Unfortunately humans are remarkably resilient to being persuaded by verbal reasoning.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9370
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@IlliniDave: I agree that there should be consistency, and I also very much agree with Peterson's note that there should be few rules, although for some reason he does not seem to be inclined to go into nearly as much detail on that point ;) I had a sister-in-law-husband, stern and imposing, who ran his household, which included two generally very well-behaved little girls, like a time-out boot camp. One of them didn't line up her shoes facing North in the entrance-way "To the bench!" My children were terrified of him. So, on one occasion while we were all scurrying around getting ready for a wedding, unbeknownst to me, he ordered my son to "Go to the car!" My young son obeyed him and almost had to be taken to the hospital due to heat-stroke. Luckily, I am not inclined towards violence, or the King of Time Out would have gotten a good smacking.

However, I would note that I find it equally misguided when more progressive parents attempt to enforce too many rules at inappropriate level of development through milder means. For instance, when I witness a parent talking fake calmly (as though on quaaludes) about proper nutrition to a two year old screaming for a lollipop in the grocery store. When one of my children attempted such behavior, I often used the method of "mirroring." I would pretend to cry myself while saying something like "I want a cup of coffee." Worked like a charm to knock them out of the level of narcissism which is very natural at that age. Sometimes we would both start laughing.

I can see how it might read like I was implying that Peterson was bragging about smacking children. What I meant to convey is that he was being arrogant, and in my opinion misguided, in putting forward his theory about development related to discipline. He even brings up Skinner's work with rats. Training is not learning. Human beings are highly intelligent creatures. For instance, from a very young age they are perfectly capable of differentiating between what I can't do in the presence of Mr. Jordan Peterson without facing Consequence X vs. what I want to do anyways and can get away with through Means Z. It's kind of funny, or telling, that in the passage concerning the playground I posted above, Peterson imagines the ill-behaved 2 year old saying "Daddy-O" which was stereotypical hipster slang from the 60s era.

I would also like to note for the record that I am very much in favor of high level of paternal involvement in child-rearing, EVEN if the father is very autocratic and true believer in corporal punishment. In fact, in the case of my ex, the event that stands out in my memory, was an occasion where I was attempting to involve him in disciplining our son, and he lost all patience and temper and smacked him hard on the back of the head, and then just left the room. My Iranian "ex" , otoh, in marked contrast to my ex, was a very involved parent, and that was one of the things I liked about him initially. But I do remember him bragging to me on one occasion about he trained his daughters as toddlers to be safe while following him about as he did household repairs, by consistently giving them small smacks, much in the manner Peterson describes. I knew his daughters as teenagers, and although they did have a very warm loving relationship with their father, they had become experts in manipulation and deceit in order to evade his rules which they viewed as too strict. My own daughter lived with us for a while, and after we broke up, she told me that my 18 year old "step-daughter" who had been given a 10 PM curfew although in first year of college, simply sneaked out of the house after her father and I were asleep any given evening. I was not a bit surprised, since I eventually found myself, at the age of 49, escaping to my car and playing "Cherry Bomb" full-blast in reaction to his autocratic, domineering manner :lol:

Locked