Jordan Peterson interview on C4

WinnyThePoo

storker wrote: »

When I asked for the the reason why you dismiss what he says about the left as rubbish. You suggested I watch some of his videos. That's not an answer.



I was posting on the move. Is that your reason for not knowing what "the left" means?



Again this doesn't answer what I was asking.

And I have watched some Peterson videos. I wouldn't be a fan, subscriber or even regular viewer and I wouldn't agree with everything he says, but I do think he tends to attract misprepresentations of what he says and shoot-from-the-hip dismissals, so sometimes ask for more detail, as I often do whenever I hear a poorly-put argument about anything.

The same applies to the "type of person" you have decided likes his output. I know one such type of person, and it's a type I don't like, but since you brought it up, I'd like to hear what you see as being the Jordan-liker-type.

This again. I've answered your questions .

The answers you are looking for might be behind a paywall.

WinnyThePoo

Akrasia wrote: »

If he is as intelligent as he makes himself out to be than his choice of sending out that 'Prager U' climate change denial video on twitter is even more damning. What kind of intellectual would ever dream of promoting anything by 'Prager University' unless they're doing so in the knowledge that it is intended to misinform and preach to a certain audience.

He knows exactly what he doing. He's looking for more followers. Throw the net out.

Junkyard Tom

Nobody understands postmodernism.

storker

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

This again. I've answered your questions .

The answers you are looking for might be behind a paywall.

You have not even come close. It would be more honest to say that you can't or you won't.

The last line is one of the more feeble cop-outs I've ever read.

But I get it...you're not prepared (or able) to give a proper answer, and it's your right to refuse to. At least a refusal would be honest...

WinnyThePoo

storker wrote: »

You have not even come close. It would be more honest to say that you can't or you won't.

The last line is one of the more feeble cop-outs I've ever read.

But I get it...you're not prepared (or able) to give a proper answer, and it's your right to refuse to. At least a refusal would be honest...

Really a cop out?. Recommending to look for Peterson output. Why would I put words in Peterson mouth when he can so elegantly talk himself.

You don't like the answers I gave you. That's perfectly fine. I have answered you though. I've tried to be as precise with my words with you as possible.

Watch more Peterson videos, that's my tip.

storker

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Really a cop out?.

Yes, really. I asked you to develop your argument, you responded with ducking and weaving. It's not for me to do research to work out your position.

Have you ever actually taken part in a debate?

WinnyThePoo

storker wrote: »

Yes, really. I asked you to develop your argument, you responded with ducking and weaving. It's not for me to do research to work out your position.

Have you ever actually taken part in a debate?

I've made position very clear.

storker

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I've made position very clear.

Quite.

El_Duderino 09

backspin. wrote: »

What so you don't understand it so it must be nonsense and nobody else could possibly understand it.

Such arrogance.

Ah no o get the idea. I studied psychology, psychoanalysis and philosophy. The structure of the unconscious, how language and metaphor shape our consciousness etc. It’s tricky stuff and since it can’t actually be tested validly, it leaves loads of room for different interpretations. I know Peterson’s fans don’t understand what he’s saying because they never, ever, ever discuss that portion of his sermons. If they understood it they would have opinions on it. But they don’t.


The bit that winds me up is that he pretends the bible is particularly interesting or important in discussing consciousness and morality. It’s not. That’s just bible thumping.

There is absolutely no link from morals or the unconscious or ‘metaphysical substrate of reality’, to a god. That part is necessarily an assumption based on faith. His fans don’t discuss that huge part of his sermons because hey do t understand it. It’s tricky stuff.

Do you personally follow his god-bothering nonsense?

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think it's kind of trolling really, a desperate attempt to rile people up.

El Duderino, it's like anything, if you listen to enough of the word salad, it starts to make sense. It's philosophy, mythology, psychology, and other -ogys combined so yeah, it's not your 12 rules for life.

He's not an easy lecturer to follow, you have to get used to his fast thinking and branching out style, but the broad ideas and basic concepts are repeated often, and the more you listen the more you recognize. He's very consistent across lectures and conferences, so if he branched something in a lecture once that went over your head, you can be sure that'll be repeated and re-explained some place else.

I was going to engage in demonstrating the bits I do understand (not all, as I said, far from it) but there is no point really, unless you are genuinely interested in any of it. You're very clearly saying you're not.

edit : oh, and apologies about the lobsters, it seems to be a great bit of ammunition for people who don't like him so I thought you would have seized that.

Of course you can make sense of the word salad if you look at it for long enough. Numerology can also do the same with random numbers and you can be fooled by the random postmodern word generator.

The fact that you can eventually get to the meaning behind what he’s saying isn’t enough to think it’s true/good/sensible. The links to God’s are just ideological rubbish because he thinks it’s important to behave as if god exists.

How much of the tricky stuff do you estimate you actually understand and could explain to someone else?

Mountainsandh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course you can make sense of the word salad if you look at it for long enough. Numerology can also do the same with random numbers and you can be fooled by the random postmodern word generator.

The fact that you can eventually get to the meaning behind what he’s saying isn’t enough to think it’s true/good/sensible. The links to God’s are just ideological rubbish because he thinks it’s important to behave as if god exists.

How much of the tricky stuff do you estimate you actually understand and could explain to someone else?

Advisory for others : TOO LONG, DON'T READ.

For this and your previous post about the bible, God, and how you think he squeezes that in without good reason, look to the discussions with Sam Harris. I've only watched the first two, but there is a third one I think (in Dublin ?) that I'll watch when I'll have got over the "sick of hearing about that" part.
There's only so much of that sort of discussion you can listen to at a time.
(they're easily found, JP and Sam Harris with Brett Weinstein as moderator.
I had never listened to Weinstein or Harris either, so for me these are all really great discoveries that I can explore further. Weinstein in particular as I like his elocution style better than Harris.

I tend to side with Sam Harris in these discussions actually, but JP's argument that ultimately, the notion of heaven vs hell or what's good and what's really really bad cannot just be derived from facts (and/or science) is fairly compelling. (he links all that to morals. And God of course)

When I listen to the lectures about the bible and all that, I like to keep an open mind. My current and "normal" feelings are that there is no God, (and that the bible and all these writings are BS) so it's interesting to let JP try and convince me that there is, and either way, even if he doesn't convince me, the myths and stories are interesting and good to learn about.

You see you have to give someone the leeway to listen to something for learning while not necessarily adhering to all that is said, or even understanding all that is said.

For the second part of your post :

How much of the tricky stuff do you estimate you actually understand and could explain to someone else?

... that's a good question and a bit early to be asking me, since I've only been watching lectures etc... a few weeks. I don't understand everything first time around, some of the lectures are gobbledigook the first time I hear them (especially with CandyCrush pressure, and tiredness from the day).

Then I start making shapes out of the fog, and I recognize those shapes in other discussions or lectures. Then I start to understand why he's talking about those shapes, and maybe at that stage I'll understand how this was a tangent, and why he branched out into that, how it sits within the bigger picture. Sometimes if I'm too tired I just get the bigger picture and to hell with the tangents.

I didn't finish the lecture yesterday about existentialism, Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky. I had to digest whatever bit about the babies that he was on about at the start.

I think I have it sort of figured out now, albeit with probably a lot of mistakes : the personality of an adult is the result of thousands of little combinations and experiences in childhood. His lectures list different types of personalities so it makes sense that he stops and explains a little how the personality types he's on about might have come to develop.

When a baby is born, the first thing that is going to be shaping his personality is sort of factual, biological : he's got needs, he has to do things in order for those needs to be met. Crying, suckling etc... these are all motor needs that will trigger actions. These actions (and consequences) will influence personality. He explains that lots of micro-personality-shaping actions take place, that set the scene for later development.

He branches out into Piaget at that stage because Piaget analyzed how children interact socially, and the moral codes children spontaneously adopt (or not, as the case may be), such as those seen in games. So that's another aspect of how personality develops : it twists and shapes when the individual is confronted with social situations. The individual negotiates between their needs and the culture/social situation they are in (ie others). He draws a parallel between culture and social codes at this stage, since they pretty much exert the same force on the child's actions or her way to perceive the world. (in comes the breast feeding example, where baby might accidentally bite the mother's nipple, and the mother's reaction feeds a message back into the baby's data set of developing personality)

He also mention Freud, as Freud is more or less doing a mash up of both with his analysis, since he looks closely at toilet training, and how this reflects how biological needs and social needs may clash, and how to overcome this leads to the development of certain traits. (or hang ups, since Freud seems to look for pathology rather than happy endings)

That's as much as I remember so far to be honest. So it's roughly speaking about how personality develops, to tie in with the personality profiles he has been and will be teaching his students about. There's bits about biology and how it compounds with social/cultural situations to provoke actions. These actions develop micro-personalities that feed in to the development of, eventually, an adult personality.

I think Nietzsche and the other guy (too hard to spell) are all about morals, and how that develops. How someone strives to become good, and why (according to them). Oh yeah, and I just remembered how it ties in with hierarchy : when you are learning to function socially, you have to learn where to fit in the hierarchy. You can't do everything you want as you want, so the hierarchy is obvious : whoever you concede something to is higher up than you are. You might decide to fight for your position, or adapt, there's all different ways of negotiating that are part of the personality picture. I don't get the Nietzsche stuff much yet other than he thinks God is dead. Don't know how that ties in with everything, although I've listened to that several times.

Phew.
That's sort of how I figure things out for myself.
I'm in my 40s, and I feel the need to learn new things. There is no pressure on me to get it right really, but I enjoy the process. I'll exhaust the JP's source, and then I'll move on to others, with my new imperfect knowledge and understanding. I'm ok with that, and grateful to JP for all the good times.

edit : in case some brave people with time to spare have read this and think they might be interested (or want to check how wrong I am ), here's a link to the lecture again. https://youtu.be/WjpV9mja3Wc

storker

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Advisory for others : TOO LONG, DON'T READ.

Warning read and disregarded - excellent post. I salute you.

Your efforts deserve a more detailed response but it's late and I'm tired so that will have to do for now...

flexcon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

You see you have to give someone the leeway to listen to something for learning while not necessarily adhering to all that is said, or even understanding all that is said.

Great post.
I'm back to just support this point alone.

I get the feeling some posters here(and in the local) are inclined to forget that most people out there don't understand most deep topics beyond a layer or two into the discussions.

That I feel is in fact the norm, not the other way around where we all seem to argue against each other as if we are in fact informed fully and masters of our own points. Heck, I find boards.ie the only place I can fully articulate some points as it gets lost on the majority of people I encounter on my daily life.

Mountainsandh

Thanks both above, my attempt at an explanation is only on a tiny fraction of that lecture. Imagine the guy's mind, it's crazy how well and fast he thinks, and all the knowledge that he has backing up every explanation or argument.
I seem to have an acute sense of fairness and I don't like to see people denigrated when it's disingenuous.

His word salad makes sense, it is interesting and backed up by years of study and reading. It doesn't mean you have to agree with him, simply that he's worth listening to, and that there is learning available here for anyone who fancies a bit of brain gymnastics.

He doesn't claim that his lectures are easy, and in one of the introductory ones he makes it clear for the students that this is how he lectures, it's scattered, he branches out, he thinks fast, and if they didn't like his introductory class, just don't pick his course because they won't like the rest.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Thanks both above, my attempt at an explanation is only on a tiny fraction of that lecture. Imagine the guy's mind, it's crazy how well and fast he thinks, and all the knowledge that he has backing up every explanation or argument.
I seem to have an acute sense of fairness and I don't like to see people denigrated when it's disingenuous.

His word salad makes sense, it is interesting and backed up by years of study and reading. It doesn't mean you have to agree with him, simply that he's worth listening to, and that there is learning available here for anyone who fancies a bit of brain gymnastics.

His word salad makes sense? I’m sorry but I don’t understand this at all. There are many intellectuals on the left and right who deliver their message in a coherent way. None of these people wrote a rule related to their precision of speech, yet they manage it wonderfully.

Stephen Hawking was one of the most intelligent people to ever live and he managed to effectly deliver the most complex subjects with ease.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would be more divisive characters who could also deliver a very complex message in a simple way. It’s an awful pity Hitchens is gone, he’d make short work of Peterson in a debate. He’d do it with some comic flare as well.

As for the “knowledge that he has backing up every explanation or argument”. His scatter gun delivery makes it almost impossible to take note of his references. He delivers his lectures in such a way it’s tough sometimes to parse his arguments, but he’s often incorrect in his references.

He doesn't claim that his lectures are easy, and in one of the introductory ones he makes it clear for the students that this is how he lectures, it's scattered, he branches out, he thinks fast, and if they didn't like his introductory class, just don't pick his course because they won't like the rest.

Having said all of the above, I understand the points he’s trying to make. Even if I find it tough to follow. I simply disagree with the man on some fundamental issues.

I would enjoy chatting to him one on one though to see if it was any easier. I imagine I’d stop him and ask him to get to me the point a lot.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

His word salad makes sense? I’m sorry but I don’t understand this at all.


Having said all of the above, I understand the points he’s trying to make. Even if I find it tough to follow. I simply disagree with the man on some fundamental issues.

I would enjoy chatting to him one on one though to see if it was any easier. I imagine I’d stop him and ask him to get to me the point a lot.

It really depends what content you are consuming here. When addressing the general public, he is a lot easier to understand than when giving a lecture in university, or participating in a pretty niche philosophical discussion, obviously.

A conversation with Joe Rogan is targeted to a different audience than philosophical debate or psychology lecturing, and he amends his expression accordingly, just like the famous speakers you mentioned above did, presumably. Stephen Hawkins in a more specialist context would probably have been just as difficult to follow as JP, but what we know of him is mostly targeted at an interested general public.

Akrasia

Brian? wrote: »

His word salad makes sense? I’m sorry but I don’t understand this at all. There are many intellectuals on the left and right who deliver their message in a coherent way. None of these people wrote a rule related to their precision of speech, yet they manage it wonderfully.

Stephen Hawking was one of the most intelligent people to ever live and he managed to effectly deliver the most complex subjects with ease.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would be more divisive characters who could also deliver a very complex message in a simple way. It’s an awful pity Hitchens is gone, he’d make short work of Peterson in a debate. He’d do it with some comic flare as well.

As for the “knowledge that he has backing up every explanation or argument”. His scatter gun delivery makes it almost impossible to take note of his references. He delivers his lectures in such a way it’s tough sometimes to parse his arguments, but he’s often incorrect in his references.



Having said all of the above, I understand the points he’s trying to make. Even if I find it tough to follow. I simply disagree with the man on some fundamental issues.

I would enjoy chatting to him one on one though to see if it was any easier. I imagine I’d stop him and ask him to get to me the point a lot.

This is the thing
He fancies himself a philosopher, but philosophy, at its core is a logical almost scientific breakdown of arguments into core meaning. Good philosophy is extremely rigorous and should clearly articulate a position in as few or as many words that are required to explain a proposition clearly and without ambiguity.

Peterson's scattergun approach increases ambiguity, muddies his points and reduces the usefulness of his reasoning if the goal is to impart wisdom and understanding

One of my favourite philosophers is Epicurus, and we don't have any full copies of his writings, but from fragments we can understand what he was meaning to say. Peterson is the opposite, He makes statements that mean the opposite of what he is trying to say told we can't judge his points until we've seen all of his lectures and read all his books

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

This is the thing
He fancies himself a philosopher, but philosophy, at its core is a logical almost scientific breakdown of arguments into core meaning.

I have never heard him describe himself or being presented as a philosopher.

He's a clinical psychologist.

This is his biog on his website :

Dr. Peterson is a professor at the University of Toronto, a clinical psychologist and the author of the million-plus selling 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Jan 2018, Penguin Books), which has been a Number 1 bestseller in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands and Brazil, and which is now slated to be translated into 40 languages. His now-classic book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (just released as an audiobook) offers a revolutionary take on the psychology of religion, and the hundred or more scientific papers he published with his colleagues and students have substantively advanced the modern understanding of creativity and personality. He is is regarded by his current University of Toronto students as one of three truly life-changing professors, and was nominated for the prestigious Levinson Teaching Prize as a Harvard professor. His classroom lectures on mythology and the psychology of religion, based on Maps of Meaning, were turned into a popular 13-part TV series on TVO.s

bolds are mine.

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Thanks both above, my attempt at an explanation is only on a tiny fraction of that lecture. Imagine the guy's mind, it's crazy how well and fast he thinks, and all the knowledge that he has backing up every explanation or argument.
I seem to have an acute sense of fairness and I don't like to see people denigrated when it's disingenuous.

His word salad makes sense, it is interesting and backed up by years of study and reading. It doesn't mean you have to agree with him, simply that he's worth listening to, and that there is learning available here for anyone who fancies a bit of brain gymnastics.

He doesn't claim that his lectures are easy, and in one of the introductory ones he makes it clear for the students that this is how he lectures, it's scattered, he branches out, he thinks fast, and if they didn't like his introductory class, just don't pick his course because they won't like the rest.

That’s grand. All the developmental psychology stuff mixed with philosophy and the evolution of our understanding of human development from conception to death. I admire your attempt to learn what he’s saying. That’s nothing but admirable.

But there’s a problem. You’re struggling to understand what he says (because it’s legitimately difficult stuff). How far are you from being able to tell if it’s correct or not? How much of it is correct and which parts are closer to correct than others?

Development is a huge topic and it’s interesting, but nobody has cracked it. There are 1000 different ways to formulate a hypothesis about development and opportunities to test are limited.

I had to study this stuff in uni and I dont claim to be an expert. But I can tell you that there are lots of ways of looking at it. When Peterson brings a god into the mix, he’s multiplying the uncertainty because of the lack of evidence for gods.

It’s ideologically driven claptrap. As I said before, his followers are so far from understanding what he says and are hopelessly unable to critique it. So you can declare him a brilliant mind, but if you can’t understand what he’s saying, then how can you tell whether it’s genius or word salad?

Akrasia

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have never heard him describe himself or being presented as a philosopher.

He's a clinical psychologist.

This is his biog on his website :



bolds are mine.

His own blog has this as it's description
"Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's blog contains posts about psychology, political issues, philosophy, book lists, relevant news, various other topics."

He's trained as a psychologist, but he talks a lot about philosophy and constantly quotes and references philosophers.

Havockk

He's an intelligent lad for certain, but in a Machiavellian sense.

fiveleavesleft

Dipping into Peterson. His stuff about dragons, lobsters, wrens, "celebrity chickens" etc... reminds me of Karl Pilkington. Especially when he says things like "lobsters trying to make a living, raise a family" or when he gets into the death stare with the toddler wishing he could beat him up!... something so Pilkington-esque about them.

Whats amazing is Pilkingtons gibberish is seen as a surreal idiot/genius whilst Peterson is a rational upholder of enlightenment thinking.

Mountainsandh

Akrasia wrote: »

His own blog has this as it's description
"Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's blog contains posts about psychology, political issues, philosophy, book lists, relevant news, various other topics."

He's trained as a psychologist, but he talks a lot about philosophy and constantly quotes and references philosophers.

posts about...

I could have a blog with posts about the weather without claiming to be a meteorologist, and fancying myself one.

That he's trained as a psychologist is exactly my point. He's not trained as a philosopher, so if he doesn't espouse the philosopher's methods of expression and questioning, it really makes sense.


ED, I find it strange that in the one post you claim to have studied philosophy and such in uni, and that you should also post this :

But there’s a problem. You’re struggling to understand what he says (because it’s legitimately difficult stuff). How far are you from being able to tell if it’s correct or not? How much of it is correct and which parts are closer to correct than others?

JP does not claim to be correct, and I don't need to know whether he is or not.

Most of his lectures and discussions are asking questions, trying to understand something.

Whether that's in the psychological, theological, philosophical field is not even relevant. By definition, philosophy is probably the most questioning of these studies, but the other ones, especially so in a university lecture/discussion context, are also exercises in questioning rather than affirming.

JP is always asking questions, and hypothesizing, this is clearly stated always, and he's repeatedly calling on people to think and ask questions too.

This is what I do when I listen to his stuff. Attempt to understand, ask questions, learn, not in a finite way, where I'm going to be determined that JP was correct or that he was wrong, not in a way where I'm going to be adamant there is a God or it's all BS, not in any manner where I'm going to take it that this is definitely what Nietzsche was trying to say or not say.

I listen to his hypotheses, and thinking aloud sessions (as he sometimes calls them himself), I assess the value of that in my own terms, if I need to I can go double check references he's made, read studies he refers to, and if I feel confident I might draw my own conclusions. (all to be swiftly amended or destroyed on learning something else occasionally)

To illustrate this, if you did watch the sessions with Sam Harris, refer to the many times they are insisting these are not debates but discussions. They are trying to progress in their thinking and hypothesizing rather than score points on some convictions.

He is working on finding out what might be correct. It really puzzles me you should ask how I know that he is correct, that's like being completely beside the point (sorry if that's a bit blunt).



I feel your posts are still just trying to raise a reaction from people, trying to "hit" or score points, and maybe leverage you into some position you long to have.
I guess maybe it is an easy way to justify your negative bias against the man to yourself : "all his followers are stupid and I know better".

Look. Whatever rocks your boat, right.

(maybe just bear in mind that you may not be the only one to have studied in uni, and these subjects among others)

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

ED, I find it strange that in the one post you claim to have studied philosophy and such in uni, and that you should also post this :

But there’s a problem. You’re struggling to understand what he says (because it’s legitimately difficult stuff). How far are you from being able to tell if it’s correct or not? How much of it is correct and which parts are closer to correct than others?

JP does not claim to be correct, and I don't need to know whether he is or not.

Most of his lectures and discussions are asking questions, trying to understand something.

Whether that's in the psychological, theological, philosophical field is not even relevant. By definition, philosophy is probably the most questioning of these studies, but the other ones, especially so in a university lecture/discussion context, are also exercises in questioning rather than affirming.

JP is always asking questions, and hypothesizing, this is clearly stated always, and he's repeatedly calling on people to think and ask questions too.

This is what I do when I listen to his stuff. Attempt to understand, ask questions, learn, not in a finite way, where I'm going to be determined that JP was correct or that he was wrong, not in a way where I'm going to be adamant there is a God or it's all BS, not in any manner where I'm going to take it that this is definitely what Nietzsche was trying to say or not say.

I listen to his hypotheses, and thinking aloud sessions (as he sometimes calls them himself), I assess the value of that in my own terms, if I need to I can go double check references he's made, read studies he refers to, and if I feel confident I might draw my own conclusions. (all to be swiftly amended or destroyed on learning something else occasionally)

To illustrate this, if you did watch the sessions with Sam Harris, refer to the many times they are insisting these are not debates but discussions. They are trying to progress in their thinking and hypothesizing rather than score points on some convictions.

He is working on finding out what might be correct. It really puzzles me you should ask how I know that he is correct, that's like being completely beside the point (sorry if that's a bit blunt).



I feel your posts are still just trying to raise a reaction from people, trying to "hit" or score points, and maybe leverage you into some position you long to have.
I guess maybe it is an easy way to justify your negative bias against the man to yourself : "all his followers are stupid and I know better".

Look. Whatever rocks your boat, right.

(maybe just bear in mind that you may not be the only one to have studied in uni, and these subjects among others)

I asked you how much of petersons sermons are correct and how would you tell the difference between when he's right or not. I've no idea why you though that was a strange question. So you don't think he's claiming to be correct and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Peterson being correct or not without doing your own research. And presumably you don't actually read Nietzsche or Piage, bowlby or Berger to check if his psychology is even correct or relevant.

So if it's all just a thought experiment and he caveats everything by saying it's hypothesis, that's fine. But he doesn't say it's just a hypothesis that young people 'know nothing, literally nothing' or they you g people and the left are doing things all wrong.

It's not true that his followers are checking out the references and looking for alternative hypotheses. It's not true that they're even discussing his hypotheses and seeing if they agree.

The way the followers come across (because it's exactly what they're saying) is that they presume Peterson is a genius even though they don't understand what he's saying and have no idea whether he's actually correct or not.

That's interesting in and of itself.

storker

I was also surprised about the concentration of philosophy when Peterson doesn't sell himself as a philosopher, although he does frequently refer to philosophy and philosophers, but there's a big difference between being an expert in a discipline, and just referring to it or talking about it. Jung, who Petersen often quotes, had an interest in philosophy in addition to his activities in the realms of psychology and psychiatry, so maybe Peterson is just continuing in that vein because he's a fan of Jung and/or he sees some overlap in those different disciplines.

Peterson talks about a lot of different things; in some he's convincing, in others less so. I suspect that this is at least in part because his followers (and yes, there are worshippers - unfortunately) ask him about all kinds of everything. Maybe he feels duty bound to provide some kind of answer, even if it's just semi-educated guesswork. I suspect anyone with kids knows how that feels. Peterson does have a strong presence and i suppose you could say a didactic demeanour in terms of his delivery, but it's easy to miss those bits where he confesses that he's not 100% sure of his ground or hasn't given <issue at hand> as much thought as he'd like.

I haven't sat through many of this full lectures, and I do think a bit more structure would do no harm. He seems to dislike leaving tangents unexplored and his lectures sometimes remind me of a Billy Connolly performance but without the laughs. And he could certainly do with injecting a bit more humour into his work.

I didn't discover Peterson via philosphy or psychology, but rather he was "that professor in braces who gets harangued by students over pronouns" in some Youtube Video I watched in connection with universities' no-platforming of speakers students' disruption of events by platform-provided speakers to they deem unworthy. And in this area, along with the question of safe spaces, etc, and the tendency of gender/womens' studies to be more a question of blame-allocation-indoctrination than genuine scientific enquiry. Although I may be conflating his views here with those of people like Janice Fiamengo, Karen Straughan, Christina Hoff-Sommers, Christopher Hitchins and Richard Dawkins.

I have less time for the likes of Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos who, even if I agree with what they're saying, I usually don't like how they're saying it. Shaprio usually comes across as an obnoxious pr1ck, and Milo is like a shock-jock on a stage. They - and Peterson - tend to aquire a large band of almost religious followers, who don't really do them any favours, becuse basically they're thick, and the followers seem to be getting off on some vicarious sense of intelligence by virtue of the fact that they're in agreeement with the intelligent guy on the screen...some hope. They're the kind of people who post videos with titles that include words like "destroys", "crushes", "schools", "humiliates" - yes, these people really get off on what they perceive as the humiliation of other people - although chances are if you look for the humilation you won't see it, because it exists only in the minds of the faithful.

But it's a mistake to judge any content on the responses of the least intelligent people who are exposed to it, and I think that's a problem that Petersen suffers from, and I think that may be the trap that Cathy Newman fell into during that car-crash interview. That and the other things that tends to afflict Peterson: misunderstanding if not outright misrepresentation of what he's actually saying, and the tendency of the radical left to demonise or airily dismiss rather than engage with those of different opinions.

storker

It's not true that his followers are checking out the references and looking for alternative hypotheses. It's not true that they're even discussing his hypotheses and seeing if they agree.

The way the followers come across (because it's exactly what they're saying) is that they presume Peterson is a genius even though they don't understand what he's saying and have no idea whether he's actually correct or not.

That's interesting in and of itself.

It is indeed interesting, although one can't say with any certainly what the majority of his followers (or to use the YouTube term, "subscribers") believe, because he has 1.4 million subscribers, and how many of those subscribers' thoughts have we actually read?

It's not very credible to criticise Peterson for presenting hypotheses and conjecture as fact if one is indulging in the same behaviour oneself.

Edit: But I suspect you are right.

Mountainsandh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I asked you how much of petersons lectures/discussions are correct and how would you tell the difference between when he's right or not. I've no idea why you though that was a strange question.

You were on about philosophy.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

So you don't think he's claiming to be correct and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Peterson being correct or not without doing your own research. And presumably you don't actually read Nietzsche or Piage, bowlby or Berger to check if his psychology is even correct or relevant.

No, he is clearly stating in many videos and lectures that he is hypothesizing and questioning, it's not that I "think" it. If you actually did spend some time watching other videos than the incendiary 10 minutes snippets that enrage you, you would be fully aware of that.
You are presuming a lot.
I have studied Piaget, and I will read Nietzsche and others if I feel I need to do so.
How very arrogant again to presume what people read or not.
Of course there has to be an element of trust that the interpretation of studies and readings referred to in lectures are accurate on the part of the student, otherwise we'd all be lecturers. I tend to trust that were JP's interpretations of the masters inaccurate, he would a) not have graduated as a professor b) not have got employment with the best universities.

So if it's all just a thought experiment and he caveats everything by saying it's hypothesis, that's fine. But he doesn't say it's just a hypothesis that young people 'know nothing, literally nothing' or they you g people and the left are doing things all wrong.

It's not true that his followers are checking out the references and looking for alternative hypotheses. It's not true that they're even discussing his hypotheses and seeing if they agree.

The way the followers come across (because it's exactly what they're saying) is that they presume Peterson is a genius even though they don't understand what he's saying and have no idea whether he's actually correct or not.

That's interesting in and of itself.

It's not interesting, it's just you trying to point score again.
I'm not going to engage in this, as I stated above I think there are things that are completely by-passing you, I'm not sure if it's a maturity thing, or if it's anger about statements that you obviously don't seem to understand yourself.

Here is a quote from Socrates in keeping with the theme, and that might help you understand if you ponder a bit : "the only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing".

You have made your points that you think he's talking rubbish, you think people who follow him don't have a clue, and you are upset about the remarks about young people and the left.
I have made mine, and I don't think it's going to achieve much for me to dissect your posts or engage. I certainly hope that thanks to my posts, some people might decide to try and listen to/watch some of the lectures/discussions rather than the controversial snippets that come up in youtube searches. People can make up their own minds then.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

You were on about philosophy.



No, he is clearly stating in many videos and lectures that he is hypothesizing and questioning, it's not that I "think" it. If you actually did spend some time watching other videos than the incendiary 10 minutes snippets that enrage you, you would be fully aware of that.
You are presuming a lot.
I have studied Piaget, and I will read Nietzsche and others if I feel I need to do so.
How very arrogant again to presume what people read or not.
Of course there has to be an element of trust that the interpretation of studies and readings referred to in lectures are accurate on the part of the student, otherwise we'd all be lecturers. I tend to trust that were JP's interpretations of the masters inaccurate, he would a) not have graduated as a professor b) not have got employment with the best universities.



It's not interesting, it's just you trying to point score again.
I'm not going to engage in this, as I stated above I think there are things that are completely by-passing you, I'm not sure if it's a maturity thing, or if it's anger about statements that you obviously don't seem to understand yourself.

Here is a quote from Socrates in keeping with the theme, and that might help you understand if you ponder a bit : "the only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing".

You have made your points that you think he's talking rubbish, you think people who follow him don't have a clue, and you are upset about the remarks about young people and the left.
I have made mine, and I don't think it's going to achieve much for me to dissect your posts or engage. I certainly hope that thanks to my posts, some people might decide to try and listen to/watch some of the lectures/discussions rather than the controversial snippets that come up in youtube searches. People can make up their own minds then.

If history has thought us anything, it’s that people can make up their own minds but the majority rarely do. Instead they pick a team and decide to defend their team no matter what.

Trump rides a porn star? Christian conservatives are fine with that because they’ve chosen team Trump.

Jordan Peterson is regularly factually incorrect in his talks? That’s ok, he was just thinking out loud.

You don’t see any issue with him being wrong so often? Not the thinking out loud stuff now, some of his central points he repeats. He’s absolutely wrong that young people shouldn’t protest as they know nothing of the world. Objectively wrong. What do you think of that?

I’m not attacking Peterson, the man, or his followers, the men. I want to debate what he stands for. Can we do that?

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

Jordan Peterson is regularly factually incorrect in his talks? That’s ok, he was just thinking out loud.

You don’t see any issue with him being wrong so often? Not the thinking out loud stuff now, some of his central points he repeats. He’s absolutely wrong that young people shouldn’t protest as they know nothing of the world. Objectively wrong. What do you think of that?

I’m not attacking Peterson, the man, or his followers, the men. I want to debate what he stands for. Can we do that?

I'd like to know what you think is "regularly factually incorrect" in his talks in your opinion. Central points he repeats that are wrong.

You are pointing at one thing : "young people shouldn't protest as they know nothing of the world". That is not objectively wrong, that is a matter of opinion and you strongly disagree.
That's fair enough that you completely disagree, but it is not a fact.
He doesn't "stand for" that particular opinion too. This is just one of many opinions or questions he raises. You can't reduce him to that one thing because it's the one you're most upset about.

I happen to agree with him on that one, kind of.
I would say that most young people do not have the experience of the world required to know much of the world. So they might know a lot in terms of theory, they might be very well read and educated, but because they have not experienced some of the anguish and pressure of living, all that knowledge is sort of parked there on the side for a while.
I don't have time to explain further now, but yes, this is totally something that can be debated, since there's a good question in it, and depending on our experiences we can all have something interesting to add into the mix.

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I asked you how much of petersons lectures/discussions are correct and how would you tell the difference between when he's right or not. I've no idea why you though that was a strange question.

You were on about philosophy.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

So you don't think he's claiming to be correct and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Peterson being correct or not without doing your own research. And presumably you don't actually read Nietzsche or Piage, bowlby or Berger to check if his psychology is even correct or relevant.

No, he is clearly stating in many videos and lectures that he is hypothesizing and questioning, it's not that I "think" it. If you actually did spend some time watching other videos than the incendiary 10 minutes snippets that enrage you, you would be fully aware of that.
You are presuming a lot.
I have studied Piaget, and I will read Nietzsche and others if I feel I need to do so.
How very arrogant again to presume what people read or not.
Of course there has to be an element of trust that the interpretation of studies and readings referred to in lectures are accurate on the part of the student, otherwise we'd all be lecturers. I tend to trust that were JP's interpretations of the masters inaccurate, he would a) not have graduated as a professor b) not have got employment with the best universities.

So if it's all just a thought experiment and he caveats everything by saying it's hypothesis, that's fine. But he doesn't say it's just a hypothesis that young people 'know nothing, literally nothing' or they you g people and the left are doing things all wrong.

It's not true that his followers are checking out the references and looking for alternative hypotheses. It's not true that they're even discussing his hypotheses and seeing if they agree.

The way the followers come across (because it's exactly what they're saying) is that they presume Peterson is a genius even though they don't understand what he's saying and have no idea whether he's actually correct or not.

That's interesting in and of itself.

It's not interesting, it's just you trying to point score again.
I'm not going to engage in this, as I stated above I think there are things that are completely by-passing you, I'm not sure if it's a maturity thing, or if it's anger about statements that you obviously don't seem to understand yourself.

Here is a quote from Socrates in keeping with the theme, and that might help you understand if you ponder a bit : "the only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing".

You have made your points that you think he's talking rubbish, you think people who follow him don't have a clue, and you are upset about the remarks about young people and the left.
I have made mine, and I don't think it's going to achieve much for me to dissect your posts or engage. I certainly hope that thanks to my posts, some people might decide to try and listen to/watch some of the lectures/discussions rather than the controversial snippets that come up in youtube searches. People can make up their own minds then.

How arrogant of me to correctly assume you didn’t actually read any of the references JP throws out except Piaget.

To clarify, when I asked how you can tell when Peterson is correct or not I was asking in general about whatpeyerdpn says including the philosophy, psychology and culture warrior stuff. You’re answer is that you can’t tell the correct stuff from the incorrect stuff, but it doesn’t matter anyway. That’s an extraordinary thing to say.

I don’t presume to know a lot about it, but I have actually studied it which I’m sure you’ll agree puts me at an advantage (if studying the material is actually important). I can tell you this much with confidence: when Peterson claims some necessary link from morals to god or the bible, it’s just Peterson being a god botherer or bible thumper. You could use any ancient myths or contemporary stories to illustrate the points from aesop's fables to Harry Potter. For some reason using ancient texts lends gravitas that his followers interpret as genius.

If you can’t tell when he’s talking ideological nonsense and when he’s talking scientific theory or simply conjecturing, then you’re in a very vulnerable position and ripe for exploitation.