Jordan Peterson interview on C4

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I summarised two broad points JP makes above, and fully expect a response attempting to shred my credibility for the sake of point scoring, rather than a genuine intent to discuss.
Not a very safe or pleasant place to be willing to engage in difficult topics, and be wrong sometimes, as we are all likely to be.

You might or might not have noticed that I didn’t ‘pounce’ on your summary of Peterson’s idea when you outlined it. I don’t think anyone else critiqued the summary either (but I could be wrong). Im pretty sure not be of Peterson’s fans even attempted to discuss the summary.
I credited you with trying to understand it and said that it’s one of almost endless hypothesis about how things work. When you combine a social science with philosophy and then bring a god into the equation, you’re multiplying the variables. It becomes very difficult to tell it apart from complete gobbledygook. You acknowledged you can’t tell how close to correct Peterson’s hypothesise are.

I think a lot of this point scoring is in your imagination.

El_Duderino 09

storker wrote: »

Agreed, and there is the futility factor. It's rare enough to see agreement between two sides even in a discussion of history. A debate about philosophy with political baggage attached? Forget it.

But you can get a discussion about historical events. You can get a discussion about politics. But i am yet to see a discussion of Peterson’s hypotheses.

What’s the rationale? People wouldn’t agree so there’s no point even beginning a discussion, declare Peterson a genius and move on. Tell anyone who doesn’t agree that they need more Peterson. That seems to be exactly what his followers do.

Do you personally feel you could discuss his hypotheses? Pick them apart and discuss them the way you would discuss any other topic?

RandomName2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The fact that you think any of those are on a par with actual Nazis is telling.

The fact that you don't is even more.

I personally feel that everyone should be treated equally before the law. Making special cases to satisfy a type of psychological tribalism has few morally sound motives.

RandomName2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

declare Peterson a genius and move on.

I dare you. I double dare you, find someone.. anyone.. on this thread declaring him a genius in anything other than an ironic fashion.

I love the smell of lobster in the morning.

Mountainsandh

Sorry just for clarity the summarizing I was on about was the tidbits I posted while talking to Brian below :

He is proposing for example that biblical (and mythical and more) stories carry an important message that we should follow(pay attention to is a better phrase), because others before us were able to learn some fundamental truths that they illustrated in those (the stories). That's just his interpretation.

on the subject of stories and God, I am not at all convinced by his proposition that values are anchored in religion and God, that the notion of good and evil inevitably originates in God, and that we should live our lives accordingly. But the discussions are worth listening to, and I am not fully taken with Sam Harris's propositions either.

But you're right I attempted another bit (prior to.response to Brian), and I agree that philosophy + psychology + sociology + theology is bound to be messy, and boy is it confusing.

I think I'm just starting to understand that you are referring to the short video guys, maybe.
The way I see it, there's people who are interested in JP's theories at the same level as other academical stuff (ie, people who might listen to other academics as well, and might agree with bits and pieces from various people including JP). I would count myself as one of them, and we don't tend to post videos or whatever, just listen to different academic stuff, find some we click with, other bits we don't.

Then there's all the vocal ones on both sides : the haters who post edited videos with an obvious incendiary and misinforming purpose, and the followers who rely on short (sometimes "inspirational") extracts and posit that the man has it all sussed, without much of an effort to understand the hard stuff.

Thing is, you have to acknowledge that while it's true that sometimes people get over-enthusiastic and profess support maybe a little blindingly, the haters do the exact same thing.

So the advice to go and listen to more of his stuff stands really. If you're one of these people who hates or loves too quickly in life, then you're not thinking enough, and you really should make it your business to find out more about things, to make your opinion up on more substantial stuff. In other words, try and learn more, I think it applies to all in life.
And there's plenty to learn in his lectures and discussions. Not saying it all has to be agreed with.

When you combine a social science with philosophy and then bring a god into the equation, you’re multiplying the variables. It becomes very difficult to tell it apart from complete gobbledygook. You acknowledged you can’t tell how close to correct Peterson’s hypothesise are.

No, you said I can't tell if they are correct or not. (not "close to correct")

Hypotheses and theories are never proven correct or not, some may have stronger evidence than others, but they are not facts.

Since JP deals in sciences where (as you acknowledge) it is very difficult to prove one thing or another, it can't be stated that this one is wrong, or that one is correct, and it's even more nonsensical to demand that listeners (however academic) tell whether that particular theory is correct or this hypothesis is wrong.

Sure he himself doesn't categorically say he's correct about things. He seems more confident about some things than others, but the fact that he engages in discussions such as the one with Sam Harris for example, illustrates how he is open to challenge and further investigation.

The steel manning at the start of the discussions above shows this well : Sam Harris saying "JP thinks that ... according to him... his idea is that...", and then JP doing the exact same thing : "Sam is of the opinion that... Sam's theory is that ... Sam's point of view is that..."

How can you still ask how a listener should decide one thing is correct or not in Sam Harris, or Jordan Peterson's, or other academics' discussions or lectures ?

It just doesn't make sense.

I can attempt to judge (for myself) which theory or which hypothesis is the strongest, in my opinion.
I simply cannot tell whether it is correct, as neither of them (academics) can.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

The 'young people shouldn't protest' thing. Was he talking about people, in general, or very specific people?

He was talking about young people, he wasn't exactly clear about when they stopped being young and started being old enough to protest.

His general point was: "What do they know, they haven't sorted out their own lives yet."

Zubeneschamali

Ha ha!

https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue-feminist-critic-kate-manne.html

Excerpt:
But Peterson’s affection for unbounded “linguistic territory” only goes so far, it seems. In June, he threatened to sue Down Girl author and Cornell University assistant professor Kate Manne for defamation, after she criticized his book, 12 Rules For Life, and more generally called his work misogynistic in an interview with Vox. (Peterson previously filed a lawsuit against a university whose faculty members, in a closed-door meeting, argued that showing his videos in a classroom created an unsafe environment for students.) In letters to Manne, Cornell, and Vox, Peterson’s lawyer, Howard Levitt, demanded that all three parties “immediately retract all of Professor Manne’s defamatory statements, have them immediately removed from the internet, and issue an apology in the same forum to Mr. Peterson. Otherwise, our client will take all steps necessary to protect his professional reputation, including but not limited to initiating legal proceedings against all of you for damages.”

Comedy Gold:

Manne, who coined the instantly immortal portmanteau “himpathy” to describe the disproportionate sympathy our society extends towards men, says her fellow academic’s letter is “morally disappointing, but seems quite predictable.” So far, Peterson hasn’t made good on his threat to file suit, though neither she, Cornell, or Vox have complied with his requests. “It’s a classic attempt to chill free speech,” Manne says. “Like many of his ilk, what he really seems to be demanding — when one examines his actions rather than words — is to be able to speak free from legitimate social consequences, such as other people talking back.”

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Oh and Brian, I forgot to say ... who cares what he tells young people to do or not do ? He's not passing that into law like. He's just as free to speak out what he thinks as you or I, it's not like it's going to stop them doing it. That's freedom of speech, in the same way you have a right to say you think it's wrong.

The "picking a subset of society based on their age is wrong" bit, that doesn't hold really with me. Yeah, there's some generalization there, and we know that's generally not a good idea, but he is generalizing for a pretty good reason insofar as he's a psychologist, and he knows better than most about human development.

I'd like to hear the bit you are incensed about too, if you don't mind, it would help judge if he was indeed a bit too angry and got carried away, or if he was a bit more specific.

I'm only guessing that this was said in relation to a specific group of students who have a gripe against him, more than likely from the University of Toronto, and possibly from a few US universities (I've a notion I heard him mention a uni in Virginia some time).

I'm not incensed, I'm mildly irked at the hubris displayed.

As in most circumstances, he was vague at best. Which only added to my annoyance.

It occurs to me that he regularly argues from a position of eminence and his followers swallow it whole. Because he's highly educated there's an inherent value to everything he says, in your opinion and his own. I prefer to approach each issue based on evidence.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

He was talking about young people, he wasn't exactly clear about when they stopped being young and started being old enough to protest.

His general point was: "What do they know, they haven't sorted out their own lives yet."

Yeah, I was kind of hoping to actually see what he said so I could make my own judgement of it. The context could be important if it was apropos of one of those protests that took place at a talk he was attending.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ha ha!

Is there a point you are making? Oh yeah, it must be the 'Us and Them' mentality you are adhering to, believing for some reason that everyone who doesn't attack Peterson is actually a devoted follower agreeing with every utterance of his.

Oh, Peterson's attack on the himpathy



Sorry I got a bit sick there, uh. Woah. I somehow feel more stupid too. Where was I?

Oh yeah, Peterson's attack on the himpathy one's attack on him could constitute an affront on free speech, whatever will I do? Don't worry, you'll get thanked by everyone on the same 'side' as you, regardless of the validity and logic of your 'ha ha'.

Zubeneschamali

RandomName2 wrote: »

Is there a point you are making?

Peterson is a giant hypocrite.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yeah, I was kind of hoping to actually see what he said so I could make my own judgement of it. The context could be important if it was apropos of one of those protests that took place at a talk he was attending.

Can't find the video, sorry. It was part of a greater discussion with someone, but I can't remember who. You'll have to take my word for it unfortunately.

RandomName2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peterson is a giant hypocrite.

Apparently she compared him to Hitler. He could argue that this could damage him professionally (I doubt it) and defamation is only actionable when it can be proven not to be true. She didn't say he was Hitler, just like Hitler, so that's doubtful too, I think.

Personally I don't see why he would bother stroking the ego of someone whose whole purpose in life is to waffle about how men are bad.

This is very much cherry picking on your part (well, not so much your part, you're just echoing a left wing publication), but you are, arguably, correct. Tenuous, though. Pretty tenuous.

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apparently she compared him to Hitler. He could argue that this could damage him professionally (I doubt it) and defamation is only actionable when it can be proven not to be true. She didn't say he was Hitler, just like Hitler, so that's doubtful too, I think.

Personally I don't see why he would bother stroking the ego of someone whose whole purpose in life is to waffle about how men are bad.

This is very much cherry picking on your part (well, not so much your part, you're just echoing a left wing publication), but you are, arguably, correct. Tenuous, though. Pretty tenuous.

Is it tenuous though? He's an outspoken proponent of unlimited free speech, who threatened to sue for defamation.

RandomName2

Brian? wrote: »

Is it tenuous though? He's an outspoken proponent of unlimited free speech, who threatened to sue for defamation.

Well she seems to have done the equivalent of calling him a giant poopie head, and he's ostensibly suing because of the ad hominem attack, which is a bit different from attacking someone for criticizing his positions.

In reality though I imagine that he was somewhat motivated by her attacks on his book as well.

Also, technically, he hasn't actually sued, merely considered it to date.

But yes, it does contradict the 'say whatever you want' line, though I will reiterate, that defamation is fundamentally based upon falsehood, not disagreement.

Zubeneschamali

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well she seems to have done the equivalent of calling him a giant poopie head, and he's ostensibly suing because of the ad hominem attack, which is a bit different from attacking someone for criticizing his positions.

He is an outspoken proponent of free speech for himself even when it offends other people (trans people who prefer he not use his favourite pronouns for example).

But when a feminist calls him a misogynist he calls his lawyer?

Utter hypocrisy.

storker

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He is an outspoken proponent of free speech for himself even when it offends other people (trans people who prefer he not use his favourite pronouns for example).

But when a feminist calls him a misogynist he calls his lawyer?

Utter hypocrisy.

I think the contradiction is more apparent than real. The free speech issue is about people being silenced because others don't approve of what they say. Libel laws are about holding people to account for what they do say. I don't recall Peterson ever arguing against libel laws.

There is a difference between failing to use someone's preferred terminology and libeling someone's character - which I don't believe actually happened, but that's for the courts to decide, if it goes that far...which I doubt it will.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not incensed, I'm mildly irked at the hubris displayed.

As in most circumstances, he was vague at best. Which only added to my annoyance.

It occurs to me that he regularly argues from a position of eminence and his followers swallow it whole. Because he's highly educated there's an inherent value to everything he says, in your opinion and his own. I prefer to approach each issue based on evidence.

I found what is called the "rant", and I suppose it is.
I love it, and I agree with it. It's passionate.
His point is that students would be much better advised to wait, and seize the opportunity to study, read, and become well rounded and more balanced individuals, before they start attempting to change the world.
In his words, and I share that opinion, university students are very lucky to have a system and a family to support them at that moment in their lives, and the best way to use that is to study, learn, become a person that has the power to change things.
Then go forth and do it.

He says "you see these Yale students complaining about their oppression it's just...it just leaves me aghast. It's like, "well, we're against the ruling class", it's like no no no, you're baby ruling class members, you're young."

His argument here is that obviously, the older you grow, the more money and power you will stack up, simply because you have been working at that all your life.

I'm not sure I fully agree there since some relatively young people seem to have accessed positions of power and outrageous money in recent years, then again, it could be argued that these young people are often exceptional in their dedication to a goal (I'm thinking of the Mark Zuckenberg or Elon Musks of this world). (As in, they made it all happen sooner, and fair fks to them)

https://youtu.be/tmZ5AxFkjvg

I remember watching it with a better sound quality (I think), so if sound doesn't suit you have a look elsewhere for that particular bit.

It's not to say Brian, your argument that young people precipitated social change in the past is a good one that could be discussed, and I would think that he'd engage fully in that discussion if someone put it to him reasonably.
I think his issue (he says it more explicitly elsewhere) is more with the weak manner in which protests are held, I would guess that a student engaging in dialogue or raising issues in an essay/academic paper for example would fit in more with his idea of "growing up".

Mountainsandh

storker wrote: »

I think the contradiction is more apparent than real. The free speech issue is about people being silenced because others don't approve of what they say. Libel laws are about holding people to account for what they do say. I don't recall Peterson ever arguing against libel laws.

There is a difference between failing to use someone's preferred terminology and libeling someone's character - which I don't believe actually happened, but that's for the courts to decide, if it goes that far...which I doubt it will.

I'd love to find out about this more, so if anyone has any links it would be great to see them. I've tried a search so I kind of know who the woman is, and I've read one article on what she has to say, but I don't think I'm getting the full picture.

I would tend to think that he would get more annoyed at her misrepresenting the contents of the book than calling him names, then again maybe being called Hitler is where he draws a line. (not making a value judgement there maybe he's wrong to do so)

Brian?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well she seems to have done the equivalent of calling him a giant poopie head, and he's ostensibly suing because of the ad hominem attack, which is a bit different from attacking someone for criticizing his positions.

In reality though I imagine that he was somewhat motivated by her attacks on his book as well.

Also, technically, he hasn't actually sued, merely considered it to date.

But yes, it does contradict the 'say whatever you want' line, though I will reiterate, that defamation is fundamentally based upon falsehood, not disagreement.

He hasn’t sued because it would be a waste of time. The burden of proof for a defamation case is unbelievably heavy in the states. In a way it makes it worse that it was an empty threat.

Brian?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I found what is called the "rant", and I suppose it is.
I love it, and I agree with it. It's passionate.
His point is that students would be much better advised to wait, and seize the opportunity to study, read, and become well rounded and more balanced individuals, before they start attempting to change the world.
In his words, and I share that opinion, university students are very lucky to have a system and a family to support them at that moment in their lives, and the best way to use that is to study, learn, become a person that has the power to change things.
Then go forth and do it.

He says "you see these Yale students complaining about their oppression it's just...it just leaves me aghast. It's like, "well, we're against the ruling class", it's like no no no, you're baby ruling class members, you're young."

His argument here is that obviously, the older you grow, the more money and power you will stack up, simply because you have been working at that all your life.

I'm not sure I fully agree there since some relatively young people seem to have accessed positions of power and outrageous money in recent years, then again, it could be argued that these young people are often exceptional in their dedication to a goal (I'm thinking of the Mark Zuckenberg or Elon Musks of this world). (As in, they made it all happen sooner, and fair fks to them)

https://youtu.be/tmZ5AxFkjvg

I remember watching it with a better sound quality (I think), so if sound doesn't suit you have a look elsewhere for that particular bit.

It's not to say Brian, your argument that young people precipitated social change in the past is a good one that could be discussed, and I would think that he'd engage fully in that discussion if someone put it to him reasonably.
I think his issue (he says it more explicitly elsewhere) is more with the weak manner in which protests are held, I would guess that a student engaging in dialogue or raising issues in an essay/academic paper for example would fit in more with his idea of "growing up".

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

You can’t see he’s flat wrong, you love the rant. I will never convince you of anything if that’s the case.

On the point of engagement, I think Peterson would engage with me on the subject. But I’m easy meat for him. He will not engage with someone like Zizek though as he knows he’ll be dismantled.

Mountainsandh

Brian? wrote: »

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

You can’t see he’s flat wrong, you love the rant. I will never convince you of anything if that’s the case.

On the point of engagement, I think Peterson would engage with me on the subject. But I’m easy meat for him. He will not engage with someone like Zizek though as he knows he’ll be dismantled.

I guess you're right Brian, we are probably miles apart and I wouldn't expect to be able to convince you of anything either

Resverathrole

Are people still talking about Jordan Peterson. He's click bait all over youtube. "Jordan Peterson picks apart needy feminst" and the like. I'd avoid him like the plague.

RandomName2

Resverathrole wrote: »

Are people still talking about Jordan Peterson. He's click bait all over youtube. "Jordan Peterson picks apart needy feminst" and the like. I'd avoid him like the plague.

I think it's a little unfair to criticize him for videos and video titles he hasn't put up. If you look at his own channel, it's a bit bible-thumping, but not clickbaity.

Brian? wrote: »

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

I can't disagree with peaceful protest on principle. I don't really think it matters how well thought out the protest is, I don't care how well educated the protesters are, their age, or their social status, in the same way that these things don't matter when voting (except that people must be adults, and I think that the merit of that is even possibly debatable).

However! Although I don't care how well thought out protests are, I do think it is important how protests are conducted. If the protests are an active threat to individuals or groups of people, then that's not okay. If the protests are obstructionist, and are disrupting people not part of the protest that's not okay. If the protest is breaking the law that's not okay - with the exception of laws against protests or anything else that threatens free speech.

I also think that people are likely to protest sexy topics that they think will make them look good, but that's massively different from the very topic of whether people who may or may not be ignorant should protest in the first place. I disagree with Peterson on this. There's no magical age of enlightenment, no specific bar of understanding that people can cross and suddenly have a full mastery of knowledge of the world. I don't disagree with his right to articulate this view though.

SterlingArcher

Brian? wrote: »

That video is worse than the one I saw. The arrogance of the man.

On the point of engagement, I think Peterson would engage with me on the subject. But I’m easy meat for him. .

Really? You'd be easy meat for him. Talk about weak. Then what is the point?

Do you forget you have invested so much energy into this thread on the guy( what's that about then?), you think you'd have something of substance to show for it or at least a firm belief that you were so dead right in your assessment of the persons ideas that you could dismantle them no sweat.

Pffft no **** you'd be easy meat for him.

Brian?

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Really? You'd be easy meat for him. Talk about weak. Then what is the point?

Do you forget you have invested so much energy into this thread on the guy( what's that about then?), you think you'd have something of substance to show for it or at least a firm belief that you were so dead right in your assessment of the persons ideas that you could dismantle them no sweat.

Pffft no **** you'd be easy meat for him.

You think I should be delusional enough to think I could take him on in a live debate? Not having debated live in over 20 years. That would be ridiculously arrogant. Live debate is a skill, and the person who’s actually right doesn’t necessarily win.

You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did.

My point is: he won’t debate difficult opponents who’ve called him out. It would be embarrassing for him

SterlingArcher

Brian? wrote: »

You think I should be delusional enough to think I could take him on in a live debate? Not having debated live in over 20 years. That would be ridiculously arrogant. Live debate is a skill, and the person who’s actually right doesn’t necessarily win.

You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did.

My point is: he won’t debate difficult opponents who’ve called him out. It would be embarrassing for him

So sure it would be embarrassing for him aren't you, just because you arrogantly deemed this or that person worthy or interesting to debate, does not make it so.

"You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did"

Wow you are quick and fast with the cowardice for someone calling someone out for not having the balls to debate.

I hope at least you can respect Peterson for having a backbone, standing up for what he believes in. He certainly has alot more on the line and to worry about, than the howling derision of some anonymous forum when speaking his mind or sharing his ideas.

Brian?

SterlingArcher wrote: »

So sure it would be embarrassing for him aren't you, just because you arrogantly deemed this or that person worthy or interesting to debate, does not make it so.

"You prefer me to say I could dismantle his ideas? Imagine the howling derision here if I did"

Wow you are quick and fast with the cowardice for someone calling someone out for not having the balls to debate.

I hope at least you can respect Peterson for having a backbone, standing up for what he believes in. He certainly has alot more on the line and to worry about, than the howling derision of some anonymous forum when speaking his mind or sharing his ideas.

You’re a delight eh? What’s the point of all this nonsense?

Resverathrole

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think it's a little unfair to criticize him for videos and video titles he hasn't put up. If you look at his own channel, it's a bit bible-thumping, but not clickbaity.

I heard him say that it was sociopathic for PUAs to approach a stranger for no other reason than to have to goal of sleeping with her! When I heard him say that, I realised this fcuker doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

He has to be a bit of an attention seeker!

SterlingArcher

Brian? wrote: »

You’re a delight eh? What’s the point of all this nonsense?

It is fair to say from your posts you dislike Peterson. You read the media around him, post here, and watch his videos. Why? Why would you invest so much energy into someone you clearly dislike.

Yet with all this time and effort you are putting in ,still cannot confidently put forward good arguments why others should not like or listen to him.

And you ask me what is the point.

Mountainsandh

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He is an outspoken proponent of free speech for himself even when it offends other people (trans people who prefer he not use his favourite pronouns for example).

But when a feminist calls him a misogynist he calls his lawyer?

Utter hypocrisy.

The bold bit is not accurate.
He is a proponent of free speech alright.
The pronouns issue is simply that a law was being passed forcing people to use certain words in certain circumstances.

He's opposed to such a law.

Let's imagine a similar situation here, where the law would enforce that any person who thinks they deserve it on grounds of say, education, should be called "your highness". This is law.
You now have to call your teachers, your doctors, anyone who claims they prefer it "your highness".

You are liable to sanctions if you do not call them "your highness", and you had better teach your kids to call them that too, because this is part of life now, and the authorities have the power to enforce this.

He thinks this is a slippery slope, and against the principles of democracy.
The law should simply not touch language, except for hate speech and defamation.

He has made it very clear multiple times that in his every day life, if a trans person asks to be called a particular pronoun, he has no problem using it. That's when the law enforces it that he has a problem.

It seems very difficult indeed to find information about what this lady said, and what brought about his suggestions that he might sue.
If she misrepresented what's in the book, I would totally understand that he might sue, as this could effect sales.

Other situations might not be as clear cut, but again, there are several people here giving out about this rumour without being able to provide precise information on what exactly the problem is.