Jordan Peterson

ancapailldorcha

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I haven't read the book, but from what I understand, he presents it as an "antidote to chaos" — meaning that it's a corrective to what he perceives as the wrongheaded thinking being taught in some sectors of universities? I'll take your word for it that it's digressive and rambling, but possibly because he wants to get to the root of this "chaos."

It isn't really focused or coherent enough to serve this purpose. I'd agree though that this was maybe his intention.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Since the '60s, many academic departments in the humanities and social sciences have become cultural Marxist fiefdoms. A recent study of American universities found that professors' voting patterns skew far to the left of the general population — in Peterson's own field of psychology, registered Democrat professors outnumber registered Republicans by a ratio of 17 to one, while the ratio goes up to 33 to one in history departments. Around 13 percent of American university professors describe themselves as "far left," versus the 0.4 percent who identify as "far right." So it's not surprising that Peterson criticizes Marxists, given their hegemony over academia and their influence over young people's minds.

Measuring Democrats in Universities would be a poor metric for left-wingers in my opinion. Regardless, this has no place in a self-help book.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

From what I can see, Peterson takes issue with students being encouraged to think of themselves as oppressed victims — of the patriarchy, of capitalism, of colonialism, of the "right," etc. — rather than being empowered through education to become confident, assertive agents in the world. I'd fully agree with that myself, actually.

Everyone is encouraged to think of themselves as victims nowadays. For the left, it's capitalism and imperialism. For the right, it's political correctness and liberalism. Either way, it's not something to be included in a self help book in my opinion. It comes across as Peterson looking to push his own anti-postmodernist and anti-left wing agenda.

El_Duderino 09

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I dislike Peterson because he perpetuates climate change denialism. I couldn't care less about his all beef diet, his Christianity, Conservative views, etc. In the book, he cites the same few sources over and over again, namely the bible, Freud and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Oddly, he never seems to find time to criticise Hitler and the Nazis but there's always time for a bit of Marx-bashing. What that has to do with a self-help book I'll never know.

That's the brand. It's like Fox News with big words - climate change denial, Christianity, Conservative views and anti feminism, anti liberalism, anti whatever is new and blaming those things for all the problems his target market experiences.

He doesn't have any unique insights to climate change, and as a man of science, he knows the story. He chips in on climate change only to shore up the Conservative branding. I watched him ramble on about climate change and he was careful not to explicitly say it isn't happening or its not man made but it was clear he was on the side of climate deniers. It took ages for him to make his position clear without explicitly denying climate change.

Likewise, he’ll whitter on about Marxism and feminists and liberals for ages. When explicitly asked if he also opposes white suprematists he’ll say “of course, obviously”, and then continue to go on and on about the feminists and liberals and the things his Fox News conservatives want to hear criticised.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Everyone is encouraged to think of themselves as victims nowadays. For the left, it's capitalism and imperialism. For the right, it's political correctness and liberalism. Either way, it's not something to be included in a self help book in my opinion. It comes across as Peterson looking to push his own anti-postmodernist and anti-left wing agenda.

If the goal of a self-help book is to encourage the reader to stop thinking of him- or herself as a victim, and create a belief in positive change, then I think it's legitimate to start with the kind of thinking being taught in universities. A high percentage of young people go to university nowadays, and so they inevitably come into contact with the strains of thinking that Peterson is criticizing.

I'd note in passing that "rules for living," or the quest for a better, happier, or more ethical life, isn't confined to self-help. It has a long philosophical history, going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle.

ancapailldorcha

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

If the goal of a self-help book is to encourage the reader to stop thinking of him- or herself as a victim, and create a belief in positive change, then I think it's legitimate to start with the kind of thinking being taught in universities. A high percentage of young people go to university nowadays, and so they inevitably come into contact with the strains of thinking that Peterson is criticizing.

I'd note in passing that "rules for living," or the quest for a better, happier, or more ethical life, isn't confined to self-help. It has a long philosophical history, going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle.

The book makes a clear case for men and conservatives to see themselves as victims though. You can't have it both ways. Nor does it offer any advice for dealing with the alleged victimhood either.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The book makes a clear case for men and conservatives to see themselves as victims though. You can't have it both ways. Nor does it offer any advice for dealing with the alleged victimhood either.

I'm just looking at table of contents on Amazon, but several of his "rules," such as "Stand up straight with your shoulders back," "Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping," "Make friends with people who want the best for you," and "Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)" would seem at first glance to be good antidotes to the perpetual victimhood that seems to afflict many young people these days.

If you're a confident person pursuing something meaningful, and you have friends who want the best for you, you're much less likely to whinge and moan your way through life, claiming that men, whites, capitalists, conservatives, or [insert oppressor of choice] have stacked the deck against you. On the contrary, if you believe that your race, gender, sexual identity, etc., are rate limiting factors, you'll probably create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

ancapailldorcha

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I'm just looking at table of contents on Amazon, but several of his "rules," such as "Stand up straight with your shoulders back," "Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping," "Make friends with people who want the best for you," and "Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)" would seem at first glance to be good antidotes to the perpetual victimhood that seems to afflict many young people these days.

If you're a confident person pursuing something meaningful, and you have friends who want the best for you, you're much less likely to whinge and moan your way through life, claiming that men, whites, capitalists, conservatives, or [insert oppressor of choice] have stacked the deck against you. On the contrary, if you believe that your race, gender, sexual identity, etc., are rate limiting factors, you'll probably create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The titles of the chapters are all but completely and utterly meaningless. They sound wonderful but the first chapter contains much more about lobsters (pages and pages worth) than posture (a few mentions and none about seeing professionals or exercise advice).

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

If you're a confident person pursuing something meaningful, and you have friends who want the best for you, you're much less likely to whinge and moan your way through life, claiming that men, whites, capitalists, conservatives, or [insert oppressor of choice] have stacked the deck against you. On the contrary, if you believe that your race, gender, sexual identity, etc., are rate limiting factors, you'll probably create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The oppressors of choice for Peterson's market are feminists, liberals, leftists and Marxists. He tells his fans they're being portrayed as oppressors but they're actually the victims - and they need to buy his book to find out what to do next.

The books seem to take a different tone to when he's in marketing mode. The book sounds like normal enough self help whereas Peterson’s marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it’s controversial and chimes with his conservative market’s preconceptions.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Peterson’s marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it’s controversial and chimes with his conservative market’s preconceptions.

What has he actually said that is so controversial?

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

What has he actually said that is so controversial?

Climate denial, loads about Christianity, all the transgender stuff, the Marxists are coming to get you, an all beef diet is a 'cure' for whatever ails you.

It's not all controversial in and of itself (nothing controversial about Christianity) what's controversial is pretending there are great academic reasons to believe all the stuff his target market already believes. The climate change denial and all beef diet are 2 things which he must personally struggle to support given his supposed reliance on science and reason.

Watching him discuss Christianity is embarrassing. It's so vague and convoluted and I guarantee the average Christian doesn't understand half of what he says but can agree with it regardless because he arrives at the 'right' conclusion.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Climate denial, loads about Christianity, all the transgender stuff, the Marxists are coming to get you, an all beef diet is a 'cure' for whatever ails you.

Any specific statements you would identify as especially controversial? I'm more interested in particulars than vague gesturing towards "all the transgender stuff."

It's not all controversial in and of itself

So his statements are controversial but not controversial at the same time?

Watching him discuss Christianity is embarrassing. It's so vague and convoluted and I guarantee the average Christian doesn't understand half of what he says but can agree with it regardless because he arrives at the 'right' conclusion.

What has he said about Christianity that is embarrassing and/or controversial?

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Any specific statements you would identify as especially controversial? I'm more interested in particulars than vague gesturing towards "all the transgender stuff."



So his statements are controversial but not controversial at the same time?



What has he said about Christianity that is embarrassing and/or controversial?

Yes. On reflection I should have says his marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it chimes with jus target market's prejudices and if helps if it's controversial.

Watch him talk about Christianity. It's truly embarrassing to see a grown man go all around the houses and talk for so long and still make such a weak case.

All the transgender stuff was what made him famous specifically because it was controversial and conservative. He didn't get to his current level of fame by doing self help books and teaching psychology to post grads.

Do you at least see the controversy in espousing an all meat diet as a 'cure'?

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. On reflection I should have says his marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it chimes with jus target market's prejudices and if helps if it's controversial.

Watch him talk about Christianity. It's truly embarrassing to see a grown man go all around the houses and talk for so long and still make such a weak case.

All the transgender stuff was what made him famous specifically because it was controversial and conservative. He didn't get to his current level of fame by doing self help books and teaching psychology to post grads.

Again, more vague gesticulating towards "all the x stuff" that is allegedly so controversial — and yet so unspecific.

If his views are so inflammatory, and if he'll say "almost anything," it's odd that nobody can give specific examples of his controversial opinions.

Do you at least see the controversy in espousing an all meat diet as a 'cure'?

Sure. But he's not being attacked for giving questionable nutritional advice, surely?

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Again, more vague gesticulating towards "all the x stuff" that is allegedly so controversial — and yet so unspecific.

If his views are so inflammatory, and if he'll say "almost anything," it's odd that nobody can give specific examples of his controversial opinions.



Sure. But he's not being attacked for giving questionable nutritional advice, surely?

The all beef cure diet is definitely something he's being critiqued for. As man example, I'm criticising him for espousing an all beef diet as a 'cure' and I'm not criticising him for advising petting cats. An all beef diet is nonsense but it's also something his conservative American market would like the sound of.

I actually don't criticise him for the Christianity stuff but its just a marketing ploy as his climate change denial.

If you don't know about the transgender stuff, look it up. It's what made his name. I've absolutely no idea what he actually thinks about transgenderism but he took the controversial angle because it suited the brand he was creating.

nkl12xtw5goz70

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The all beef cure diet is definitely something he's being critiqued for. As man example, I'm criticising him for espousing an all beef diet as a 'cure' and I'm not criticising him for advising petting cats. An all beef diet is nonsense but it's also something his conservative American market would like the sound of.

I actually don't criticise him for the Christianity stuff but its just a marketing ploy as his climate change denial.

If you don't know about the transgender stuff, look it up. It's what made his name. I've absolutely no idea what he actually thinks about transgenderism but he took the controversial angle because it suited the brand he was creating.

Right -- so we're agreed about his all-beef diet. That's a bit silly. But I don't think he causes such controversy by giving dietary advice.

I looked up his views on Christianity which seem to amount to saying God may not exist, but that the Biblical texts and Christian religions propagate valuable teachings that should be preserved. I'd agree with that myself. I don't think it's all that controversial to note that Christianity played a significant foundational role in spreading ideas about tolerance, forgiveness, and human rights that shaped the modern world as we know it. (Look at the values the Romans held before Christianity spread, and the latter is infinitely preferable.)

On the transgender issue, he disagrees that gender has no grounding in biology. He also objects to the Canadian government's efforts to compel people to use transgendered people's preferred pronouns, seeing that as an issue of compelled speech. Again, hardly controversial, unless you believe the government should be passing laws around such things.

El_Duderino 09

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Right -- so we're agreed about his all-beef diet. That's a bit silly. But I don't think he causes such controversy by giving dietary advice.

I looked up his views on Christianity which seem to amount to saying God may not exist, but that the Biblical texts and Christian religions propagate valuable teachings that should be preserved. I'd agree with that myself. I don't think it's all that controversial to note that Christianity played a significant foundational role in spreading ideas about tolerance, forgiveness, and human rights that shaped the modern world as we know it. (Look at the values the Romans held before Christianity spread, and the latter is infinitely preferable.)

On the transgender issue, he disagrees that gender has no grounding in biology. He also objects to the Canadian government's efforts to compel people to use transgendered people's preferred pronouns, seeing that as an issue of compelled speech. Again, hardly controversial, unless you believe the government should be passing laws around such things.

The all beef diet isn't just silly. It's a cynical example of how far away from reality he's willing to go to sell his products. It casts a fairly dark cloud over all his work if he's willing to peddle that kind of absolute nonsense - but it's what his market wants to hear. Honestly, that alone should be a massive red flag.

Re Christianity, if only he said it so succinctly.

Re climate change denial, it's pretty cynical to use climate change denial to market your product. But Peterson didn't mind.

I have no problem with advising people to stand up straight, tidy their room or stroke a cat. And if that's all he said then neither of us would have ever heard of him because those things are unremarkable. It's the controversial stuff that got him known to the public.

An all beef diet... I mean, seriously. It's not just a bit silly, it's a sign of a man who would say anything to sell his product and that's pretty much how I see him.

Fathom

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I'm just looking at table of contents on Amazon,

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The titles of the chapters are all but completely and utterly meaningless. They sound wonderful but the first chapter contains much more about lobsters (pages and pages worth)

The first chapter of 12 Rules should be renamed "Lobsters as a guide for human behavior," before Peterson launches into his pseudo-science.

Fathom

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Right -- so we're agreed about his all-beef diet. That's a bit silly.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The all beef diet isn't just silly. It's a cynical example of how far away from reality he's willing to go to sell his products. It casts a fairly dark cloud over all his work if he's willing to peddle that kind of absolute nonsense - but it's what his market wants to hear. Honestly, that alone should be a massive red flag.

Peterson just looking for another controversy to sell something.

He really does seem to inspire an opposition..

And like, regarding the beef diet.. after he was on it a few months he looked way healthier than he had in a long time..

Fathom

CQD wrote: »

And like, regarding the beef diet.. after he was on it a few months he looked way healthier than he had in a long time..

Anecdotal. Not science.

ancapailldorcha

Another issue I have with him is that he can come across as being highly disingenuous. For example, in the Helen Lewis interview she brings up the beef only diet. He says that it resolved a lot of his issues but states that he wouldn't recommend it. Extolling its virtues is an implicit recommendation while attempting to cover himself.

Fathom

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

...the beef only diet. He says that it resolved a lot of his issues but states that he wouldn't recommend it. Extolling its virtues is an implicit recommendation while attempting to cover himself.

Allows Peterson and his apologists to claim that he is often misunderstood.

El_Duderino 09

Fathom wrote: »

Anecdotal. Not science.

And he said he was on an all beef diet. That doesn't actually mean he was on an all beef diet. Doctors (medical doctors with expertise in nutrition and gastrointestinal health) will tell you it’s absolutely not a viable diet.

nkl12xtw5goz70

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

Fathom

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And he said he was on an all beef diet. That doesn't actually mean he was on an all beef diet. Doctors (medical doctors with expertise in nutrition and gastrointestinal health) will tell you it’s absolutely not a viable diet.

According to Rafi Letzter in Live Science (November 2019): "High cholesterol, cancer and a shorter life span would all be very real risks," of an all beef-diet.

Fathom

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

No. See earlier posts about Peterson's Maps, 12 Rules, and vids.

Black Swan

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So is his all-beef diet the most controversial thing about Peterson?

Fathom wrote: »

No. See earlier posts about Peterson's Maps, 12 Rules, and vids.

Add Peterson's debate on Bill C-16.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Black Swan wrote: »

Add Peterson's debate on Bill C-16.

Peterson's concern about Bill C-16 was and is legitimate. On Boards.ie, posters have been threatened by a community manager with bans if they refuse to refer to a trans individual by his or her or their or zir chosen pronoun — meaning, in effect, that Boards.ie compels speech. Now, imagine that logic extended to the category of hate crime. "Call me what I wish to be called or face arrest." It is entirely possible.

Is it just that he kind of moved the conversation/thinking forward beyond the kind of scientific materialism of the previous era that he incites such ire?

Fathom

CQD wrote: »

Is it just that he kind of moved the conversation/thinking forward beyond the kind of scientific materialism of the previous era that he incites such ire?

Or did Peterson move the "conversation/thinking" back to previous eras? Back to theology, mythology, patriarchal, and pre-scientific?

Fathom

Fathom wrote: »

Or did Peterson move the "conversation/thinking" back to previous eras? Back to theology, mythology, patriarchal, and pre-scientific?

Well, yeah, I had to stop myself putting /back in to that too..but the point being that the ideas that had come to prevail were lacking in some respects?..