Jordan Peterson

Your favorite books and links
Optimal_Solution
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 4:56 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Optimal_Solution » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:40 am

There is also a rumor that the moon landings were faked.

Peterson is good at espousing a sentiment that is currently in demand. I don't feel a conspiracy is needed to explain his popularity.

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ZAFCorrection » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:52 am

Standard response to conspiracy theories (honed from years of living with truthers/birthers):

1. It might be true.
2. faeries might also be real but we don't bother about them because there is no real proof of their existence.
3. A couple pieces of circumstantial evidence don't prove anything.
4. Commonly observable reality is usually absurd enough without resorting to made-up bullshit.

Repeat as needed when the discussion immediately shifts to the next conspiracy theory.

prognastat
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by prognastat » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:20 pm

I think his popularity is natural. He is intelligent, pretty charismatic and happened to be in the right place at the right time and got lucky. No need for conspiracies to explain it.

The alt-right thing depends on your definition of alt-right. If it means just an alternative to the standard conservatives then maybe. However the general consensus seems to be that alt-right means white identity politics, generally racial superiority and/or a goal of a white nation. The latter he definitely isn't supporting or distilling their ideology and the former doesn't really have a coherent ideology to distill as there are many variations.

He also doesn't seem to be all that right wing at all. From what I have seen of his content he actually seems to have a general left disposition with him seeming to be high in openness, agreeableness(some might argue this since he can be combative, but in general he seems to default towards agreeableness) and neuroticism. He tends to get accused of being very right wing a lot, but this seems more due to his opposing some of the more extreme on the left wing and them reactively calling him right wing.

Mostly he got on the anti-pc side of things at a time where this was no longer a complete death sentence and there was a proven audience for this message. He is also a professor and despite the argument from authority fallacy being a thing, this is still going to carry weight for most people helping his popularity. Most people would prefer to say their argument is shared by an accomplished professor rather than *insert random youtuber/blogger*. Even if this doesn't actually make your arguments any more or less valid it's going to convince more people and thus make him a more popular choice.

I think his message is actually pretty basic, but I suspect it's very similar to comparing say Dave Ramsey to Jacob. The latter has the more accurate message, but the former will always be more popular as he appeals to a more mainstream audience.

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:15 pm

Here are two videos from Reason.tv that I just came across. Nick Gillespie talks about the original meaning of postmodernism as "incredulity towards meta-narratives" with a libertarian leaning. Jordan Peterson seems to actually support aspects of postmodern thought, but he continuously criticizes a watered down version of it. Postmodernism often gets equated with meaninglessness and the deconstruction of knowledge; Foucault's work was aimed at recognizing the limitations of knowledge and how it can be obscured by power.

This one is a more direct reply to Jordan and the IDW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzJFh-7daQ

This one goes into more detail in a discussion with Michael Shermer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAvWRgF8Sj0&t=4123s

Campitor
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:35 pm

daylen wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:15 pm
This one is a more direct reply to Jordan and the IDW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzJFh-7daQ

This one goes into more detail in a discussion with Michael Shermer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAvWRgF8Sj0&t=4123s
I'm currently viewing the 1st video but it's really off-putting because of its manipulation. Note the music in the background within the beginning 3 minutes of the video. When Foucault and Peterson are talking, there's an eerie conspiratorial type music in the background. And note the footage used of Peterson - it's dark and his countenance shadowed which gives him a more sinister look. When the prefered message is being discussed, the music suddenly stops. I'll listen to the other 37 minute and try to be objective but I hate the psychological manipulation being employed from the start.

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:45 pm

Good observation. The full transcript is linked in the video description.

The second video is more like a podcast so it avoids that.

Campitor
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:38 pm

I finished the 1st video and watched the 2nd video from the linked time forward. The persons doing the youtube video made a lot of sense. We should always remain skeptical of entrenched ideas and theories while remembering that hard sciences (chemistry, math, physics, etc.) are not open to debate in their most practical applications. I think Jordan Peterson would agree with this. I think his objection to postmodernism is regards to its corrupted ideology by those who are postmodernist dilettantes; they've read a couple of articles and books and mistakenly believe that everything is open to debate. They cloak themselves in postmodernism but without the critical thinking required to come to a cogent and rational belief system.

It's kind of like communism. Communism looks great on paper but is horrible in its application because humans are imperfect; and the unscrupulous will gravitate towards political power and abuse the dictatorial structure required to implement communism. Capitalism is similarly flawed. The unscrupulous capitalist gravitates to positions of economic power and subborns democracy by buying favorable legislation and creating externalities. However one system is the lesser of two evils and at least has the potential to put in systems of checks and balances.

I think Jordan Peterson cautions against postmodernism because there are inherent flaws in some of its theories such as intersectionality which in my opinion was meant to broaden inclusion by accurately accessing the scope and groups affected by oppression. In practice it has turned into hair splitting with each subgroup accusing the larger group of having less legitimacy to oppression (the oppression olympics).

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:55 pm

Campitor wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:38 pm
In practice it has turned into hair splitting with each subgroup accusing the larger group of having less legitimacy to oppression (the oppression olympics).
On a related note, Bret Weinstein was featured in a video recently that documented the recent events at Evergreen college. Some of the clips in this video are stunning!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk

Campitor
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:31 pm

The level of forced indoctrination in that video was very concerning and the display of ideologically fascism was horrifying.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:08 pm

Yes but what about the spooky music Campitor? :lol:

Campitor
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Campitor » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:30 pm

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:08 pm
Yes but what about the spooky music Campitor? :lol:
It was present at the end of the video. I actually wanted to comment on it but I deleted it; I didn't want to beat a dead horse. I highly dislike any message, regardless the accuracy or legitimacy, that seeks to evoke subconscious bias via the effect of emotionally charged words, euphemisms, music, lighting, or logical fallacies. Facts should be able to stand on their own. But I have to admit that these messages are probably geared toward an audience that probably avoids critical thinking and introspection. I still don't like it. :evil:

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by daylen » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:47 pm

The way I see it is that all information sources are incomplete. Sometimes I analysis raw sources of data directly, sometimes I read summaries of data, sometimes I read descriptions of summaries of data, sometimes I watch people interpreting data, sometimes I watch people who have never seen a data set, and so forth. My attention and time are limited, so I absorb the essence of many perceptions and judge them for myself in an aggregated form. I take nothing at face value and trust no one to provide a final interpretation. Sometimes watching/reading people leads me to think of completely unrelated ideas. My curiosity and sensitive pattern recognition may sometimes lead me astray, but this is not usually a problem given how quickly I cycle through perceptions.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Peterson and Paglia

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:52 pm

Interesting discussion on gender differences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9euZXgyYixs

Kriegsspiel
Posts: 874
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:05 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Kriegsspiel » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:00 pm

"Quisling."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ZAFCorrection
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:49 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by ZAFCorrection » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:53 pm

An interesting take on forming a take on Jordan Peterson.

https://medium.com/@jonathanrowson/cult ... 717b3f4148

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6239
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by jennypenny » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:02 pm

ZAFCorrection wrote:
Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:53 pm
An interesting take on forming a take on Jordan Peterson.

https://medium.com/@jonathanrowson/cult ... 717b3f4148
Good article. It's interesting that the author criticizes Peterson for the way he frames arguments as the individual vs. the collective, then concludes the article by arguing that current challenges require a collective, not individual, response ...

"The challenges of our time are daunting precisely because they are not principally about individuals solving discrete problems but interrelated challenges arising from collective processes. We therefore need visions of individuality that are not about slaying the dragon of the collective, but more like learning to ride it. The question for the individual is how to grow morally, cognitively, and spiritually by expanding circles of belonging, developing bio-psycho-social-spiritual selves in a manner that is truly one’s own because it speaks to a social milieu in which the self is created.

Set against that fuller context and perspective, our challenge is to imagine a world beyond consumerism, where 9 billion humans can survive and thrive on a planet that is technologically imperious but ecologically imperiled and politically and spiritually confused. Peterson growls: Grow the hell up and tidy your room! Perhaps we should. Our rooms after all are dramatic settings, and microcosms of the world as a whole. But I think Peterson needs to grow the hell up too. The more profound story begins when we ask who owns the room, why there is so much stuff in it, and what joy we might find and create with the people outside."


I find the contrast between the two interesting from an ERE perspective. ERE generally proposes that the individual should take care of themselves, albeit without making things worse. Solutions to big problems aren't a necessary part of the process. It's more of a grass roots approach similar to Peterson's in that solutions will emerge from groups of individuals doing the right thing.

I mention this because, in general, the response to Peterson has been fairly negative here and in the IDW thread. I would think Peterson's 'put on your own oxygen mask first' approach would be more appealing to ERE types.


edited to add: I should point out I like Peterson but I'm not an ardent fan girl. I don't always agree with him, especially his views on christianity (he really should read Girard). My point is that I'm surprised he's not more appealing given his preference for focusing on changing oneself since that's all that we can reliably control.

prognastat
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri May 04, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by prognastat » Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:17 pm

It depends on if you believe the solution needs to/will come top down or bottom up. Peterson and those following him believe that by inspiring people to better themselves will lead to their families doing better in turn causing communities to do better etc all the way up. The author disagrees with this and seems to believe that the problems are too big and that they can't solve by people improving their own lives.

I also don't think Peterson intends to say that your should focus on the individual only. Rather that he believes you should focus on it first. Fix your own life and problems first before you try to fix the world so to speak.

I probably side more with Peterson in this dichotomy, that focusing on yourself first tends to be more productive.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:48 am

In my early 30s, when I reached a low-point of young children and clutter, I became a follower of the FlyLady. The FlyLady gently but persistently (multiple automatic e-mails every day) instructed her disciples to start anew every day from core activity of thoroughly cleaning kitchen sink until bright and shiny. Her disciples were referred to as SHEs (scattered household executives.) So, I think it is apt, although also rather amusing, that Peterson offers similar instruction to his disciples in quest to become better centered in masculine energy.

I also don't think it is completely wrong to associate feminine energy with chaos, but consider the different possibilities and challenges inherent if instead of starting from "Clean your room.", an individual started from "Plant a tree" which is an activity requiring more equivalent balance of masculine and feminine energy, and is overtly additive requiring expansion of boundaries vs. reductive within clear boundary structure (in theory only, since, obviously, any trash you remove from "your room" must be dumped elsewhere, and you are breaking through microscopic boundaries of living creatures with each squirt of spray cleaner, etc. etc.)?

Another thing that struck me watching the conversation between Peterson and Paglia which I linked somewhere above, was that they were both nodding strongly in agreement with notion or fact that men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people, yet CLEARLY both Peterson and Paglia are long time card-holding members of the sub-section of humans who are most interested in ideas. And, somehow this shared tendency causes Paglia to state in proud manner that she has never really felt very feminine , but also causes Peterson to exclaim that he is indeed masculine and proud of it.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by Mister Imperceptible » Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:45 pm

Aren’t ideas things and not people?

7Wannabe5
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Jordan Peterson

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:58 pm

Mister Imperceptible wrote: Aren’t ideas things and not people?
No. 3 separate categories. Things are too rigid. People are too squishy. Ideas are just right, said Goldilocks to Baby Bear.

Post Reply