Jordan Peterson

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson's 12 Rules for Life has subtitle: "An Antidote to Chaos." What does this subtitle suggest about Peterson's meaning when he contends chaos is symbolically feminine?

Peterson enjoys drawing attention to himself by stirring up chaos?

Fathom

In 12 Rules Peterson claims that lobsters and humans exhibit hierarchies, and that there is an evolutionary explanation for this link because they both have serotonin in their systems. Peterson claims that increasing serotonin in lobsters and humans increases dominance hierarchies. Ergo, according to Peterson, hierarchies are natural. Nature not nurture locks in both lobster and human behavior to some extraordinary extent. Unfortunately, this oversimplistic, misleading, and to some extent spurious leaps by Peterson from comparative anatomy to behavior between species fails to account for the extraordinary differences between lobsters and humans in terms of evolution, physiology, neurochemistry, environment, behavior, etc., so typical of his simplistic arguments in 12 Rules. Peterson wraps a superficially scientific appearing cloak about his arguments, which would fail a rigorous scientific method examination, much less a face value review, where Peterson exhibits scientifiction rather than valid and reliable science in his arguments. Both lobsters and bees evidence serotonin, and bees have a stronger hierarchical structure than humans. And guess what gender rules bees? Not the males, who are killed off after mating with the queen. But I will not attempt, like Peterson does, to pseudo-scientifically do a comparison between bees and humans, and how bee or lobster behavior should serve as a guide for human behavior.

ILoveYourVibes

I find it strange. This has zero to do with philosophy but...

I will admit there are certain qualities that seem intrinsically feminine or at least traditionally feminine.

Softness , nurturing etc intuition.

For all their talk about wanting women to BE feminine the alt right/Peterson etc doesn't value these qualities very highly.

Maybe women would feel more inclined to be feminine if femininity was valued more by the west and the alt right/Peterson instead of despised and mocked.

Fathom

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I find it strange. This has zero to do with philosophy but...

Peterson has been reported a philosopher. Although he lacks any formally constructed philosophy. 12 Rules and Maps are part of the self-help genre, primarily directed towards a male audience. "How philosopher Jordan Peterson will change the world." "...you overhear references to Jung, identity politics, biology, responsibility, faith, Nietzsche, the importance of not lying, and Solzhenitsyn." Superficial references to Nietzsche does not a philosopher make of Peterson.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Maybe women would feel more inclined to be feminine if femininity was valued more by the west and the alt right/Peterson instead of despised and mocked.

"The audience to this beyond-sold-out event is disproportionately male..." Peterson's message has obviously been directed at men. If he wishes that audience, fine. But don't expect all women to sit silently when Peterson goes on the world wide web and advocates that North America should return to the era of Ozzie and Harriet paternalism (see Maps).

Greaney

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson has been reported a philosopher. Although he lacks any formally constructed philosophy. 12 Rules and Maps are part of the self-help genre, primarily directed towards a male audience.

"How philosopher Jordan Peterson will change the world."

"...you overhear references to Jung, identity politics, biology, responsibility, faith, Nietzsche, the importance of not lying, and Solzhenitsyn."

Superficial references to Nietzsche does not a philosopher make of Peterson.



"The audience to this beyond-sold-out event is disproportionately male..."

Peterson's message has obviously been directed at men. If he wishes that audience, fine. But don't expect all women to sit silently when Peterson goes on the world wide web and advocates that North America should return to the era of Ozzie and Harriet paternalism (see Maps).

It's interesting they 'sell him' as a philosopher, he always says he's a psychologist, and most of his audience may be male, but 80% of his students in college were female, go figure.

cdgalwegian

I was having a look around Peterson's blog to see if he styles himself as a philosopher. In his podcast archive though, I saw one with a description of one of his guests:

Screenshot_2019-05-27 Jordan B Peterson Podcast.png

It's a bit odd to describe/agree with description of, someone's facial features of a guest isn't it? (well, these days anyway). Would he describe a woman as such? Perhaps he's virtue signalling that he is in touch with his feminine/anima side.

Black Swan

Greaney wrote: »

... 80% of his students in college were female, go figure.

Do you have a link that confirms "80% of his students in college were female?" Thanks in advance.

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you have a link that confirms "80% of his students in college were female?" Thanks in advance.

Good question.

Greaney

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you have a link that confirms "80% of his students in college were female?" Thanks in advance.

I'll try and find the link but he said so himself in a number of interviews... Especially when he talks about the state of the 'humanities' in Universities...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCkZKjSmdu0


https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/07-08/women-psychology (this one refers to the figures being 75% women studying psycology)

I'm not gonna lie, because I hadn't watched his vids in long time I had to trawl through loads and struggled (where as i knew there were at least two, and these links are not them!!). If I find more I'll post... but I've got to get away from this screen!!!! I'll honestly have another look and add more links

Fathom

Still looking. Have not found cite. For women enrolled in Peterson's college classes. Gender percentage M-F?

Hobosan

Fathom wrote: »

Still looking. Have not found cite. For women enrolled in Peterson's college classes. Gender percentage M-F?

I've watched enough of his lectures to see it is around 80%. Just take a look at any random lecture if you haven't already, it's crystal clear.

Fathom

Hobosan wrote: »

I've watched enough of his lectures to see it is around 80%. Just take a look at any random lecture if you haven't already, it's crystal clear.

Watched small number Jordan vids. Certainly not all. Those I watched, just-eye-balling audience, there were more men than women. Not a random sample on my part. Rather convenience sample that cannot be representative or generalized.

Hobosan

Fathom wrote: »

Watched small number Jordan vids. Certainly not all. Those I watched, just-eye-balling audience, there were more men than women. Not a random sample on my part. Rather convenience sample that cannot be representative or generalized.

Apologies, I mean his college lecture classes specifically, it's ponytails from wall to wall, with a male or two scattered around. They're not particularly interesting videos, usually highlighting archetypes and recurring myths in The Lion King or Pinnochio.

There are nuggets of wisdom scattered throughout of course. The point is I've watched enough to see around 80% is accurate.

Edit - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm_2zmX6Akc

Around the 15 min mark is a good angle showing the make-up of a typical class, in case anyone thinks around 80% is an exaggeration. No clue if the content of the video, I just plucked the first one I found.

cdgalwegian

Hobosan wrote: »

They're not particularly interesting videos, usually highlighting archetypes and recurring myths in The Lion King or Pinnochio.
There are nuggets of wisdom scattered throughout of course..

Here’s my take: There is a superficial depth to them that was initially to me quite interesting, in an intellectually stimulating way. In terms of psychology, I was quite interested in Jung’s approach, even though I have always viewed it as hokum. It had high intellectual curiosity value for me, despite being mystical pseudoscience.
Peterson imposes his personality in an entertaining way in his lectures, which are a blend of his clinical psychology groundings and Jung’s archetypal claptrap, compiled as a (confusing) map of action in the world. I suppose he is proposing a meta-ethical theory of action: instead of, say, Virtue Theory, he has an evolutionary theory, which I have previously dubbed ‘Biological Traditionalism’ – basically a ‘stay-in-your-lane-conservatism-because-that’s-the-way-nature is’ philosophy.
Peterson’s eclectic brand of self-help meta-ethics manages then to start off with an intellectual base, appealing initially to inchoate academia (and many in the broader public), but ends up in the justification of male hierarchy, attracting the alt-right.

victor8600

cdgalwegian wrote: »

...There is a superficial depth to them...

Thank you, this matches very well with what I think about JP. Since I am not a psychologist, nor a philosopher, I cannot prove it, but I *feel* that JP bends the truth, or rather selects facts, to match his agenda. He does not state his agenda straight either! Probably he tries to defend the conservative American style Christian patriarchy, but he is too slippery to declare his views.

Fathom

cdgalwegian wrote: »

There is a superficial depth to them...

Very superficial.

cdgalwegian wrote: »

In terms of psychology, I was quite interested in Jung’s approach, even though I have always viewed it as hokum.

Peterson likes Jung. Peterson also calls himself a clinical psychologist. Clinical typically means case studies. Case studies are qualitative. Not representative and cannot be generalized to a population. But he often does generalize in Maps and 12 Rules. You cannot jump from one unit of analysis (case studies) to other units of analysis (populations). When he does take these leaps, he commits an ecological fallacy.

cdgalwegian wrote: »

despite being mystical pseudoscience.

Examples of pseudoscience: Left-brain and right-brain in Maps; Recommending that humans take behavioral guidance from lobsters in chapter 1 of 12 Rules.

Fathom

victor8600 wrote: »

I *feel* that JP bends the truth, or rather selects facts, to match his agenda.

Peterson's self-fulfilling prophecies?

victor8600 wrote: »

Probably he tries to defend the conservative American style Christian patriarchy

About halfway through Maps he suggests patriarchy was part of the natural order and should be followed. In 12 Rules he claims that males were symbolic of order, and that females were symbolic of chaos. Order was good and chaos was bad. Not much for women in Peterson's self-help agenda, provided that they wish to be more than just a Biblical rib or apple giver.

jackboy

Fathom wrote: »

About halfway through Maps he suggests patriarchy was part of the natural order and should be followed. In 12 Rules he claims that males were symbolic of order, and that females were symbolic of chaos. Order was good and chaos was bad. Not much for women in Peterson's self-help agenda, provided that they wish to be more than just a Biblical rib or apple giver.

This is a misinterpretation of what he said. He has clearly said that chaos is not necessarily bad.

cdgalwegian

jackboy wrote: »

This is a misinterpretation of what he said. He has clearly said that chaos is not necessarily bad.

The trouble with pseudoscience is that you can bend anything to your theory, so one can say what one wants without contradiction. This also means one can change a theory to accommodate criticisms or weaknesses, which I think is what he has done there i.e. it is a sop, to deflect from the anti-feminine basis of his theory.

jackboy

cdgalwegian wrote: »

The trouble with pseudoscience is that you can bend anything to your theory, so one can say what one wants without contradiction. This also means one can change a theory to accommodate criticisms or weaknesses, which I think is what he has done there i.e. it is a sop, to deflect from the anti-feminine basis of his theory.

I can’t think of anything he has said that is anti feminine.

Fathom

jackboy wrote: »

This is a misinterpretation of what he said. He has clearly said that chaos is not necessarily bad.

If you have his 12 Rules book, can you cite a page where he "clearly" says this?

jackboy

Fathom wrote: »

If you have his 12 Rules book, can you cite a page where he "clearly" says this?

Don’t have his book. There are some of his interviews on YouTube where he was questioned about this.

cdgalwegian

jackboy wrote: »

I can’t think of anything he has said that is anti feminine.

I think that's because you don't see the woods for the trees; there is nothing specifically anti-feminine in what he says, being deliberately metaphysical. The 'feminine' is always painted negatively-until it's criticised; then it can be bent to make it sound positive. But at root, its negative- not to be trusted, where evil lies etc. i think that's anti-feminine. Don't you?

jackboy

cdgalwegian wrote: »

But at root, its negative- not to be trusted, where evil lies etc.

From what I have heard him say, I don’t think this is what he has meant or believes. He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad. They just have significant differences. Such opinions make a lot of people apoplectic in the modern world (which probably means that deep down they believe him but don’t like it).

cdgalwegian

jackboy wrote: »

He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad.

No, women aren't portrayed as bad. So the 'feminine' in this metaphysics is merely symbolic; which means either it's not actually cashed out in real life, so that it's meaningless, or the differences are based on the metaphysics of the masculine/feminine principles i.e. feminine as negative.

Black Swan

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves (Jordan Peterson), and wiser people so full of doubts” (Bertrand Russell).

Fathom

cdgalwegian wrote: »

No, women aren't portrayed as bad. So the 'feminine' in this metaphysics is merely symbolic; which means either it's not actually cashed out in real life, so that it's meaningless, or the differences are based on the metaphysics of the masculine/feminine principles i.e. feminine as negative.

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (subtitle). In his book Peterson symbolically associates males with order, and females with chaos. To what extent does such a gender categorization appear to be pejorative for females? That female behavior needs an "Antidote?" 12 Rules falls into the self-help genre, is advertised as such, and is not a profound, indepth exploration of metaphysics or symbolism.

Black Swan

"An Antidote to Chaos." Is this a cure, remedy, neutralizer, neutralizing agent, or counteragent for chaos (symbolised by females) in Peterson's 12 Rules?

cdgalwegian

cdgalwegian wrote: »

No, women aren't portrayed as bad. So the 'feminine' in this metaphysics is merely symbolic; which means either it's not actually cashed out in real life, so that it's meaningless, or the differences are based on the metaphysics of the masculine/feminine principles i.e. feminine as negative.

Fathom wrote: »

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (subtitle). In his book Peterson symbolically associates males with order, and females with chaos. To what extent does such a gender categorization appear to be pejorative for females? That female behavior needs an "Antidote?" 12 Rules falls into the self-help genre, is advertised as such, and is not a profound, indepth exploration of metaphysics or symbolism.

Fathom- I'm a bit confused as to who this post is directed, considering the way it's worded. It lists a statement, a seeming rhetorical question, and a pronouncement- after quoting my post. Is it an endorsement or criticism of my post, or both?
I'm just a bit befuddled by it, so I'm not sure how to respond, if it is indeed for me to respond to.

Fathom

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Fathom- I'm a bit confused as to who this post is directed, considering the way it's worded. It lists a statement, a seeming rhetorical question, and a pronouncement- after quoting my post. Is it an endorsement or criticism of my post, or both? I'm just a bit befuddled by it, so I'm not sure how to respond, if it is indeed for me to respond to.

Your post stimulated thought. That's all.

jackboy wrote: »

He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad. They just have significant differences.

In 12 Rules Peterson discusses the importance of order, which he symbolizes with men. Why is "Chaos" symbolized with women needing "Antidotes."