Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Jordan Peterson

145791015

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,472 ✭✭✭ cdgalwegian


    Fathom wrote: »
    Your post stimulated thought. That's all.

    Sound as a pound. ;)

    The use of women as a symbol of negative forces is a common thread in Abrahamaic religions, which Peterson perpetuates. Older chthonic/nature goddesses had both negative and positive attributes, to varying degrees- but mostly positive. The serpent (female, as it represents fertility) in Eden becomes transformed into a wholly negative symbol in Abrahamic faiths, who tempts the woman, not the man. This narrative must be true, according to Peterson, because Christian mythology is the best exemplar of how Truth is played out across humanity.
    At a casual glance, Peterson's work is intellectually interesting, but this soon fades. The more I think of it, his agenda is to warp the strongly positive feminine symbolism of Jung as an intellectual underpinning, to fit the Christian conservative value of male dominance.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    jackboy wrote: »
    He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad.
    Fathom wrote: »

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

    The use of women as a symbol of negative forces is a common thread in Abrahamaic religions, which Peterson perpetuates...

    The more I think of it, his agenda is to warp the strongly positive feminine symbolism of Jung as an intellectual underpinning, to fit the Christian conservative value of male dominance.

    When authoring Maps and 12 Rules, Peterson superficially cherrypicked things to fit his biased agenda from conservative paternalistic Christianity, the Jungian "second personality" (i.e., the genius-demon that lies in a woman’s soul), comparative biological pseudo-science of advocating that humans be guided by lobster behavior, and Joseph Campbell's archetypal heroes that were predominantly male to woo men that were experiencing an identity crises to buy his self-help books. Added to this were outdated and often spurious left-brain, right-brain foundation arguments in several pages of Maps, where he takes something that was originally intended as a metaphor and treats it as if a scientific fact. All of which symbolically associates women with chaos in need of antidotes, and not placing women in the best light vis-à-vis men.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭ jackboy


    Black Swan wrote: »
    comparative biological pseudo-science of advocating that humans be guided by lobster behavior

    I haven’t read his 12 rules book but from watching his videos I don’t think he meant that we should be guided by lobster behavior. I think he was trying to demonstrate that hierarchies are inherent in nature going very deep into the past. Maybe the lobster stuff is nonsense. I know nothing about that but I think there is little doubt that any group of humans will form hierarchies quickly. In other words, formation of hierarchies is due to our biology rather than due to culture or learned behavior.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    jackboy wrote: »
    I haven’t read his 12 rules book but from watching his videos I don’t think he meant that we should be guided by lobster behavior.
    Peterson's use of lobsters to compare with, and offer guidance to human behavior was rather clear in the first chapter of 12 Rules. This would be a huge comparative leap of faith, not science.
    jackboy wrote: »
    I think he was trying to demonstrate that hierarchies are inherent in nature going very deep into the past. Maybe the lobster stuff is nonsense.
    Peterson in 12 Rules proclaimed that choice in lobster mating demonstrated that females were irresistibly attracted to (serotonin and octopamine concentrated) dominant males in "machine-like calculations," and comparatively, such was the case to a large extent with chimpanzee and human female mating hundreds of millions of evolutionary years later. This represented just another comparative pseudo-scientific "lobster argument" by Peterson to justify human male dominance over females today.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    jackboy wrote: »
    I haven’t read his 12 rules book
    The "lobster argument" is in 12 Rules. You should read it. Then perhaps decide?
    jackboy wrote: »
    but from watching his videos I don’t think he meant that we should be guided by lobster behavior.
    Look at vids where Peterson was debated. He frequently says he was being misinterpreted. Jacques Derrida would be proud. Peterson's "signature" was known to himself. Confounded by others.
    jackboy wrote: »
    I think he was trying to demonstrate that hierarchies are inherent in nature going very deep into the past.
    Big problem. Peterson was not comparing serotonin and octopamine levels from the remains of lobster-like crustaceans that appeared approximately 372-409 million years ago. Nor was he able to examine lobster behavior long dead from way back then. Did he have an H. G. Wells time machine? The serotonin and octopamine levels and behaviors he cited were from today's lobsters, not those "in nature going very deep into the past." His research citations were cross-sectional (one moment in time and today), not longitudinal (going back millions of years). Consequently, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between ancient lobster serotonin and octopamine levels and dominant lobster behavior today was problematic.
    jackboy wrote: »
    Maybe the lobster stuff is nonsense.
    Peterson tosses claims out as if they were an elaboration of the obvious. Left-brain, right-brain an example. The "lobster argument" another.
    jackboy wrote: »
    I know nothing about that but I think there is little doubt that any group of humans will form hierarchies quickly. In other words, formation of hierarchies is due to our biology rather than due to culture or learned behavior.
    This absolutely takes the Nature side of the Nature vs nurture debate in science. Would you consider a balance between the two? This debate has raged for centuries. Interesting reading.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    Self-authoring has been part of the Jordan Peterson, et al, self-help genre. Now seeking to review any scholarly peer-reviewed publications that research this topic.

    EDIT: Found one. Schippers, MC, Scheepers, A., and Peterson, JB (2015), A scalable goal-setting intervention closes both the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap, Palgrave Communications. It was a quasi-experimental college student cohort study.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Self-authoring has been part of the Jordan Peterson, et al, self-help genre.
    Similar to "dear diary?" Except in 3 stages?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭ Charmeleon


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Peterson's use of lobsters to compare with, and offer guidance to human behavior was rather clear in the first chapter of 12 Rules. This would be a huge comparative leap of faith, not science.


    Peterson in 12 Rules proclaimed that choice in lobster mating demonstrated that females were irresistibly attracted to (serotonin and octopamine concentrated) dominant males in "machine-like calculations," and comparatively, such was the case to a large extent with chimpanzee and human female mating hundreds of millions of evolutionary years later. This represented just another comparative pseudo-scientific "lobster argument" by Peterson to justify human male dominance over females today.

    Not sure where you got that from. His point, from how I recall it, was that females chose males that were dominant over other males, not over females specifically. I think you are trying to twist his argument here. He is just saying that female choice in sexual selection results in greater assertive and dominant behaviour in successful males. That could result in the total opposite of what you are saying, dominant males may end up showing deference to individual females, females themselves can end up with their own hierarchy that doesn’t overlap and therefore doesn’t endanger the male’s dominance over his rivals.

    Lobsters are given as an example to show how far back this dynamic goes in evolutionary terms and how serotonin, common to both us and lobsters, mediates the reaction both lobsters and humans can have to being pushed down the hierarchical pecking order.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭ Charmeleon


    Fathom wrote: »
    The "lobster argument" is in 12 Rules. You should read it. Then perhaps decide?

    Look at vids where Peterson was debated. He frequently says he was being misinterpreted. Jacques Derrida would be proud. Peterson's "signature" was known to himself. Confounded by others.

    Big problem. Peterson was not comparing serotonin and octopamine levels from the remains of lobster-like crustaceans that appeared approximately 372-409 million years ago. Nor was he able to examine lobster behavior long dead from way back then. Did he have an H. G. Wells time machine? The serotonin and octopamine levels and behaviors he cited were from today's lobsters, not those "in nature going very deep into the past." His research citations were cross-sectional (one moment in time and today), not longitudinal (going back millions of years). Consequently, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between ancient lobster serotonin and octopamine levels and dominant lobster behavior today was problematic.

    The argument against Peterson’s then has to be that serotonin, and its relationship to social positioning in a hierarchy, evolved independently in much more than two species separated by tens of millions of years since last common ancestor. Whether you believe that it somehow did evolve multiple times independently and its only coincidence that it has the same relationship across species today, or that that relationship goes way back to last common ancestor is essentially irrelevant. His point still stands.

    The relationship is not random and either evolved very similarly in many species for the same purpose, or it has been that way for tens of millions of years. Either case demonstrates his argument.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Charmeleon wrote: »
    The argument against Peterson’s then has to be that serotonin, and its relationship to social positioning in a hierarchy,
    Peterson takes a leap of faith to argue paternalism as the appropriate form of hierarchy in Maps, which is Judeo-Christian, not science. A similar leap occurs in 12 Rules with his lobster argument, which makes for great story telling, but was in reality spurious pseudo-science to compare lobster and human behavior. Huff warned about lying with statistics, and Peterson's lobster argument would fit nicely should Huff's book be revised.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    Fathom wrote: »
    Peterson takes a leap of faith to argue paternalism
    Patriarchy?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Patriarchy?
    Yes, should have been "patriarchy." Peterson's message to men experiencing an identity crises vis-à-vis women's changing education, power, and roles, was to reaffirm that men deserve a return to the 1950's Ozzie & Harriet Era patriarchy, or going back further to Judeo-Christian "Adam's Rib" teachings where women were subordinate to men. When confronted, Peterson has claimed this was a misrepresentation of his position, which has been a talking point for his followers, who conveniently ignore the subtitle of 12 Rules symboling men with (desirable) order, and women with (undesirable) chaos as elaborated later in 12 Rules.
    Charmeleon wrote: »
    Either case demonstrates his argument.
    At face value, Peterson comparing lobster and human behavior in Chapter 1 of 12 Rules based upon one shared chemical was amusing at best, and poor science at worst. Upon closer examination, it was a logical fallacy, in particular exhibiting false equivalence. He compares two species that exhibit extraordinary and obvious biological and intellectual differences. Then Peterson claims that one or two shared characteristics justify the comparison that's way off in order of magnitude, greatly oversimplified, and ignores substantial factors that make them significantly different, and was scientifically ludicrous.

    Aside from being a gross false equivalence argument, Peterson arguing that both lobsters and humans have hierarchies does not justify support for patriarchies. Peterson also conveniently ignores bees, ants, and other species that were hierarchical but not patriarchies (i.e., yet another fallacy of Peterson, where he cherry picks evidence that favors his position, ignoring cases or data that may contradict that position).


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    Fathom wrote: »
    Peterson's message to men experiencing an identity crises vis-à-vis women's changing education, power, and roles...
    This is the Peterson male self-help niche.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Black Swan wrote: »
    This is the Peterson male self-help niche.
    Target market.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,580 ✭✭✭✭ Drumpot


    Fathom wrote: »
    Yes, should have been "patriarchy." Peterson's message to men experiencing an identity crises vis-à-vis women's changing education, power, and roles, was to reaffirm that men deserve a return to the 1950's Ozzie & Harriet Era patriarchy, or going back further to Judeo-Christian "Adam's Rib" teachings where women were subordinate to men. When confronted, Peterson has claimed this was a misrepresentation of his position, which has been a talking point for his followers, who conveniently ignore the subtitle of 12 Rules symboling men with (desirable) order, and women with (undesirable) chaos as elaborated later in 12 Rules.
    At face value, Peterson comparing lobster and human behavior in Chapter 1 of 12 Rules based upon one shared chemical was amusing at best, and poor science at worst. Upon closer examination, it was a logical fallacy, in particular exhibiting false equivalence. He compares two species that exhibit extraordinary and obvious biological and intellectual differences. Then Peterson claims that one or two shared characteristics justify the comparison that's way off in order of magnitude, greatly oversimplified, and ignores substantial factors that make them significantly different, and was scientifically ludicrous.

    Aside from being a gross false equivalence argument, Peterson arguing that both lobsters and humans have hierarchies does not justify support for patriarchies. Peterson also conveniently ignores bees, ants, and other species that were hierarchical but not patriarchies (i.e., yet another fallacy of Peterson, where he cherry picks evidence that favors his position, ignoring cases or data that may contradict that position).

    The following is not meant as a statement about you, this is more a general statement on these kind of discussions. I know you are singling out a specific point and addressing points made by Peterson in what looks like an objective and rational manner.

    Its funny cause when I was listening to his 12 Rules book I wasn't thinking about male Patriarchy or any sort of "men over woman" narrative. I was generally just listening for interesting ideas/theories or explanations on human behavior. I was thinking there were some good ideas or theories and some poor ones. To be honest I haven't finished it cause it was tedious at times but it wasnt all bad.

    Do people have to be for or against a persons ideal ? I mean, is it not OK to think "well not everything he says is wrong or bad" while discarding elements that are not really relevant to me personally ? I see my wife as an equal and I try to self regulate my behavior, so I find these sort of discussions very polarizing at times. When I told my sister I was listening to his book she gasped as if I had joined the nazi party. It is Almost like if you find Peterson interesting and sort of neutral (personally) you are somehow complicit in promoting his ideals.

    Perhaps this is more a reflection of me but I find it very difficult to have objective conversations on these things as ultimately peoples prejudices appear to override their ability to judge from a more balanced perspective. That is to say, in my opinion few people are generally 100% wrong or 100% bad and while they may have strong views or ideals (even dangerous ones) you can learn something from everybody.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    Drumpot wrote: »

    Do people have to be for or against a persons ideal ? I mean, is it not OK to think "well not everything he says is wrong or bad" while discarding elements that are not really relevant to me personally ?
    Please note that I was unaware of Jordan Peterson until the OP (Fox-In-Socks) started this thread many months ago (see my first posts on this thread). To reply I then did a bit of a search and found him in vids, and his 2 books (Maps and 12 Rules).

    Jordan really is not a philosopher, per se, lacking a formally constructed philosophy; rather, he is a clinical psychologist that has gained a public reputation in the self-help genre, primarily directed to a male audience. What controversy that has been attached to him has occurred as a result of his challenge of the use of personal gender pronouns recently debated in Canadian law.
    Drumpot wrote: »
    Perhaps this is more a reflection of me but I find it very difficult to have objective conversations on these things as ultimately peoples prejudices appear to override their ability to judge from a more balanced perspective. That is to say, in my opinion few people are generally 100% wrong or 100% bad and while they may have strong views or ideals (even dangerous ones) you can learn something from everybody.
    As noted elsewhere in this Philosophy forum, no one is value free (Max Weber, 1922). Caution should always be exercised when discussing a subject accordingly, but that does not suggest that such discussions cannot be made, or should not be made.

    Furthermore, as suggested by Jacques Derrida, the "signature" of a philosopher, or in this case clinical psychologist Peterson, was subject to interpretation, and that such an interpretation may or may not be recognized by the person (Peterson) being discussed, or those that may favour or not such an interpretation. Going beyond a casual discussion, and approaching a debate as to the merits of someone's position (e.g., Peterson), often in debate a side was taken by posters in this thread for-or-against Peterson's positions. I see no problems with this approach.

    That's my 2-euros, for what they may be worth for anyone reading this Jordan Peterson thread. Others may disagree, and that's grand too.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Furthermore, as suggested by Jacques Derrida, the "signature" of a philosopher, or in this case clinical psychologist Peterson, was subject to interpretation, and that such an interpretation may or may not be recognized by the person (Peterson) being discussed, or those that may favour or not such an interpretation. Going beyond a casual discussion, and approaching a debate as to the merits of someone's position (e.g., Peterson), often in debate a side was taken by posters in this thread for-or-against Peterson's positions. I see no problems with this approach.
    Derrida's signature. Excellent point. We should proceed with this in mind in all philosophy discussions.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    With the changing roles of women, Jordan appeals to those men who may feel displaced from the old roles they had assumed were a constant.
    I think a lot of men are being told to kind of step out of the way and make space for women, so where does that leave you, and what is your purpose?

    Source: WIRED (26 Oct 2019). ‘The Rise of Jordan Peterson’ Doesn’t Tell You What to Think.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    The Canadian political correctness controversy has subsided. So has Jordan Peterson.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    Went through a couple news cycles, and now is "olds."


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭ AllForIt


    Well, there were a lot of journalist's who were eager to interview and perhaps discredit Peterson but it didn't quite work, like The Guardian interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s. I just get the feeling the interview didn't go quite the way Helen Lewis was expecting or hoping.

    I think there are prolly a lot of journalists who now think maybe the better tactic is not to interview him at all leaving him with less media attention as a result. The scale of the media attention he got was always going to diminish anyway.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,066 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Black Swan


    AllForIt wrote: »
    I think there are prolly a lot of journalists who now think maybe the better tactic is not to interview him at all leaving him with less media attention as a result. The scale of the media attention he got was always going to diminish anyway.
    The media attention came close to the publication of his 12 Rules book (16 January 2018), so it probably helped sales.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,125 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09


    Black Swan wrote: »
    The media attention came close to the publication of his 12 Rules book (16 January 2018), so it probably helped sales.

    If he's not flogging anything right now it makes sense to keep his powder dry. But his wife was sick during the year so he's probably just taking some time off. Which is fair enough.

    He might be cooking up some right wing home remedies like his cure for depression. Didn't he claim he cured his depression with an all beef diet?

    Maybe helm claim he cured his wife's cancer by living in a house powered exclusively by fossil fuels.

    Some of his stuff is interesting
    but it's aimed exclusively at a right wing American audience - religious, Conservative, cross that the world had changed and not able to keep up with that change. And you'll never guess who's to blame... It's only the bloody lefties and the Marxists.

    There was a while earlier in the year where the After Hours forum was blaming everything on the Marxists. Since Peterson has gone away the Marxists don't seem to get a look in anymore.

    He'll be back with another book and a lecture tour. I wonder who the villain will be in the next book... SPOILER ALERT it's the lefties and probably the Marxists too.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 8,147 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Fathom


    He'll be back with another book and a lecture tour. I wonder who the villain will be in the next book...
    Good guess.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,125 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09


    Fathom wrote: »
    Good guess.

    You wouldn't think there's that much Marxism about. Marxists are a very safe enemy to have. They don't really exist as a group so they won't even fight back so they're an ideal nemesis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 47 WhymeWhynot


    If he's not flogging anything right now it makes sense to keep his powder dry. But his wife was sick during the year so he's probably just taking some time off. Which is fair enough.

    Went to rehab for addiction to anti anxiety meds which he was no doubt taking for work schedule and his wife's illness. I'm presuming his next work will feature something regarding addiction.
    Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist who grew to international fame following his stand against political correctness and refusal to use gender pronouns, has been checked into a rehabilitation facility in New York, his daughter has confirmed.

    In an eight-minute video released on her YouTube and social media channels, Mikhaila Peterson said her 57-year-old father was checked into the clinic after experiencing "horrific" physical withdrawal symptoms from trying to take himself off of the drug Clonazepam.

    https://www.newsweek.com/jordan-peterson-rehab-wife-cancer-scare-1460399


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,125 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09


    Went to rehab for addiction to anti anxiety meds which he was no doubt taking for work schedule and his wife's illness. I'm presuming his next work will feature something regarding addiction.



    https://www.newsweek.com/jordan-peterson-rehab-wife-cancer-scare-1460399

    Ah and there was me thinking the all beef diet was the cute to all his ills. In fairness, it's incredible that anyone believed that nonsense and didn’t see it as the lamentations of a man who wasn’t well.

    Hopefully he’s getting the treatment he needs and let’s people know he was talking pure brown when he claimed beef cured his metal illness.

    He’d have to be careful how he phrased his next book on addiction. It wouldn’t suit to make big business flogging drugs, the enemy. I suspect is was the leftist who addicted him to drugs. The details can be worked out later but I strongly suspect it was the leftists and the Marxists. Here’s no way he can blame any of his core market or anything they already support.

    Who knows, maybe supporting Donald trump, believing in god and giving tax cuts to the wealthy will cure his current illness.

    He’s flogging a very specific product. The man could do with a break form his self promotion role.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭ jackboy


    Marxists are a very safe enemy to have. They don't really exist as a group so they won't even fight back so they're an ideal nemesis.

    They are just as dangerous as the far right wingers. They are the useful fools that have been used throughout history by lunatics to gain power.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,125 ✭✭✭✭ El_Duderino 09


    jackboy wrote: »
    They are just as dangerous as the far right wingers. They are the useful fools that have been used throughout history by lunatics to gain power.

    Turn on Fox News for an hour of opinion and say the far right don’t exist. The right wing is extant and dangerous. The Marxists as a group are mostly an imaginary nemesis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,176 ✭✭✭ jackboy


    Turn on Fox News for an hour of opinion and say the far right don’t exist. The right wing is extant and dangerous. The Marxists as a group are mostly an imaginary nemesis.

    The far right does exist. The far left also exists. They are equally dangerous, as history shows. Strict definitions of far left, far right and Marxism are outdated. Principles are rapidly evolving and sometimes don’t even seem to make sense.

    It’s all basically extremism.


Advertisement