Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm addicted to tobacco, and I have been for almost two decades. I haven't lost control over my actions. I have friends who are addicted to various other drugs including cocaine and/or prescription drugs. As with many people out there, I became borderline addicted to Alcohol when I was in my 20's. I sought help. I was still capable of deciding what was right for me, and how I should go about getting that help.

You're making a sweeping statement about both addicts and the drugs/addictions that they partake in. There's a thing called willpower. You can be addicted to something and still be able to lead a relatively normal life. Not everyone becomes a shell of a person.

Your idea of what is messy is far different from mine. He went to Russia... so what? Why would it be better for him to get treatment in the US or Canada, considering he's using private care? You're making assumptions about his state of mind, and degree of addiction based on what...? Yup. Absolutely nothing. Peterson has a long history of talking about his depression.. and the fact that he does so, shows that he's willing to reveal other aspects of his vulnerabilities..

You're not standing on stages telling people how to live their lives.

The point is hypocrisy. Not drug addiction.

Don't go around telling people to "clean up their room", when your own is in a state.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

You're not standing on stages telling people how to live their lives.

How do you know?

The point is hypocrisy. Not drug addiction.

The point is that you want to use his addiction to discredit him.

Don't go around telling people to "clean up their room", when your own is in a state.

Ahh but his "room" was clean when he started doing all this... and he's had a long run before this addiction occurred or became a problem.

Considering what happened to him, I can be sympathetic about him breaking down and getting addicted to something. Nobody should have to be "strong" all the time.

Regardless, we're not going to agree on this. Let's move on.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A lot of irrelevant assumptions in that post. How do you know he was taking the prescribed dose? How do you know he got help as soon as he realised he was dependent? Why are those invented details even relevant?

Why invent the details?

Was that not pretty much what happened though?.. anyway..carry on.. yourself and Tony can go mad telling each other what a charlatan he is.. telling people how to live.. the cheek of him..you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that you want to use his addiction to discredit him.

If someone engages in a hypocritical manner, then they'll be called on it. It's the hypocrisy of the matter that's the salient point, not his addiction. Even if it's a relatively mild hypocrisy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh but his "room" was clean when he started doing all this... and he's had a long run before this addiction occurred or became a problem.

Considering what happened to him, I can be sympathetic about him breaking down and getting addicted to something. Nobody should have to be "strong" all the time.

Regardless, we're not going to agree on this. Let's move on.

Not clean now though, so the message becomes a bit tainted.

But look, as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care that much about Peterson either way. I've never been that interested in his output and have never found any of his "self help" yap all that much to write home about, but I'd be willing to lend him an ear now and again.

But, he's really just some guy who's made a name for himself by mainly talking to people that agree with him. Unlike his acolytes, though, I don't he's the second coming.

But, yeh, we're probably not going to find any common ground on this matter, except to say that we both can sympathise and wish him a speedy recovery...for what it's worth.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Was that not pretty much what happened though?..

I've no idea about the details of what happened and neither do you.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

anyway..carry on.. yourself and Tony can go mad telling each other what a charlatan he is.. telling people how to live.. the cheek of him..you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

This is embarrassing nonsense

AllForIt

Of course Peterson is not the latest greatest Philosopher of our age - he's a clinical psychologist for a start.

His clinical psychology is what he does best - which influences his view that if one is going to complain about some social issue whether it be a feeling of unequal pay for women or whatever - if your going to complain about it you have to have your own house in order first - rather than blaming society for you ills. That is one of the strongest points he has ever made imo. You can extrapolate that across any social injustice complaint. I.e. if you feel you didn't get a job because you are black...are you sure you did everything right in the first place. People are far to quick to scream discrimination these days imo.

What weirds me out on this thread is the idea that he went about himself deliberately to make himself controversial and consequently to make money for notoriety. He came to prominence because of speaking out against his University where they enforced the nations policy on hate speech - for which the transgender pronoun issue encompass's.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 . It was at that point in 2016 that he came to wider prominence. He defends his position in this TV debate I think very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc This was before the wider world ever heard of him. So to suggest he engaged in all this just to further himself when he clearly is very passionate about the issue of free speech is just nonsense. And I think the issue of forced speech is something we should be concerned about - it's tantamount to controlled speech.
Also the idea he's in any way anti-transgender is also nonsense. No evidence for that at all.

Why I think so many ppl seem to hate his guts is his comments on equal pay. As shown in that now infamous C4 interview. And as a result they won't argue his points instead claim he's being pro male, one sided, making money by focusing on one (male) demographic, and profiting off this. Feminist's done like him one little bit.

I think it is good that someone like JP has moved into a more open public space rather than those types of intellectual's living in more privileged exclusive circles where their thoughts would get less exposure. Let's see more people like JP reaching to a much wider audience, and I think that would be beneficial for wider society.

I have never everyone agree with one person. JP talks nonsense when he brings God into things and I'm baffled how he can be a competent clinical psychologist and bring God into the equation at the same time. Completely baffled by that. But that's the thing about humans and human opinion - you'll never figure it out. But at least he's played a part in opening public discussion about issues in a way no one else ever has.

El_Duderino 09

AllForIt wrote: »

Of course Peterson is not the latest greatest Philosopher of our age - he's a clinical psychologist for a start.

His clinical psychology is what he does best - which influences his view that if one is going to complain about some social issue whether it be a feeling of unequal pay for women or whatever - if your going to complain about it you have to have your own house in order first - rather than blaming society for you ills. That is one of the strongest points he has ever made imo. You can extrapolate that across any social injustice complaint. I.e. if you feel you didn't get a job because you are black...are you sure you did everything right in the first place. People are far to quick to scream discrimination these days imo.

Yeah that's dead clever a'nall. But it doesn't actually cover the situation, does it?

Don't like the situation you're in? Then get Your own house in order before complaining. If that applies to everyone than it surely applies to the Irish rebellion against colonial rule. If everyone in Ireland didn't have their house in order, then they had no business looking for independence...

In case you haven’t noticed, his system assumes the situation is preferable as it is. And that narrative suits his audience of conservative American men. Same can be applied to any change or revolution such as the American revolution or civil rights movement in America or Northern Ireland, but obviously he’d never actually make that point because it’s not what his people want to hear.

It’s a message for those who either are wealthy, think they’re wealthy, think they’re going to be wealthy or are afraid that meritocracy would make them less wealthy.

The message of “don’t change unless you’re perfect”, is a great message to sell to a conservative audience.

El_Duderino 09

Salbanza4 wrote: »

His message doesn't assume the situation is preferable, he doesn't stop banging on about ways people should change.

You have let your personal hatred for him cloud your judgement. You hate him because he stirs up old wounds to your ego that have never healed.

.
Ah, it's my personal rereg troll. My biggest fan. Lol.

El_Duderino 09

Salbanza4 wrote: »

Saying lol all the time only makes you appear even less masculine.

You'll be gone in a bit because you're a troll. So what would I care? Lol.

El_Duderino 09

Salbanza4 wrote: »

As if you don't care, you are seething :pac:

Furious, I am. Night. Lol.

AllForIt

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah that's dead clever a'nall. But it doesn't actually cover the situation, does it?

Don't like the situation you're in? Then get Your own house in order before complaining. If that applies to everyone than it surely applies to the Irish rebellion against colonial rule. If everyone in Ireland didn't have their house in order, then they had no business looking for independence...

In case you haven’t noticed, his system assumes the situation is preferable as it is. And that narrative suits his audience of conservative American men. Same can be applied to any change or revolution such as the American revolution or civil rights movement in America or Northern Ireland, but obviously he’d never actually make that point because it’s not what his people want to hear.

It’s a message for those who either are wealthy, think they’re wealthy, think they’re going to be wealthy or are afraid that meritocracy would make them less wealthy.

The message of “don’t change unless you’re perfect”, is a great message to sell to a conservative audience.

That was hard to read.

He's speaking to the privileged rich now is he?

What's 'his system'?

Zubeneschamali

QueenRizla wrote: »

Was the induced coma the withdrawal treatment?

Yes, the idea is to put the patient in a coma for a week so that they miss the worst physical effects of withdrawal.

I learned all about it on the documentary series House M.D., maybe the Russian clinic did too.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How do you know he got help as soon as he realised he was dependent?

Earlier in the thread we had quotes from his daughter saying explicitly that he did not.

Instead he tried to quit on his own using will power.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh but his "room" was clean when he started doing all this... and he's had a long run before this addiction occurred or became a problem.

Yes indeed, there he was, a Professor, lecturer and celebrity author, on top of the world pontificating about his 12 rules for living.

And look where his rules got him.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

That, of course, is what he wants you to think. He has dressed up a few fireside banalities and conservative talking points as 12 rules, but wants you to think that his clinical experience gives his advice real authority.

Because this gig pays way better than actually applying himself to clinical practice.

Zubeneschamali

AllForIt wrote: »

His clinical psychology is what he does best - which influences his view that if one is going to complain about some social issue whether it be a feeling of unequal pay for women or whatever - if your going to complain about it you have to have your own house in order first - rather than blaming society for you ills.

Again, there is nothing about his qualifications in clinical psychology which lends any weight to this idiotic notion that you can't wish for society to improve (i.e. "complain") unless your own house is in order.

And if that were true, then no-one should listen to Peterson, since his house is demonstrably on fire.

Woke Hogan

Salbanza4 wrote: »

There is no hypocrisy, he doesn't claim to be infallible. If you have to be perfect to give advice then nobody can give advice.

And you have to be perfect, in order words "tidy your room," before you can make any attempt to change the power structures in society, right? That's the gist of what he says, after all.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Was that not pretty much what happened though?.. anyway..carry on.. yourself and Tony can go mad telling each other what a charlatan he is.. telling people how to live.. the cheek of him..you'd swear he was basing it on years of clinical experience..

Hold up there. Having years of clinical experience does not entitle him to tell everyone how to live. It entitles him up treat patients 1 to 1.

It definitely doesn’t entitle him to any deference when he expresses opinions on economics or politics, which is where he really made it big.

If I get a PhD in engineering, am I allowed to tell people how to raise kids?

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

Hold up there. Having years of clinical experience does not entitle him to tell everyone how to live. It entitles him up treat patients 1 to 1.

It definitely doesn’t entitle him to any deference when he expresses opinions on economics or politics, which is where he really made it big.

If I get a PhD in engineering, am I allowed to tell people how to raise kids?

Well, he's not really insisting that you live by his standards.. he's giving an educated opinion on what makes a good life as he sees it..

Well, like..Chomsky studied linguistics..does he have a right to give his political opinion?..jesus christ..does anyone have a right to give their opinion on anything really?..if you have a phd in engineering of course you can tell people how to raise kids..and people can listen to you if they want?..

It's not like he's basing his political ideas on a few youtube videos..he has seriously considered these things..jesus christ like..the real question here is how and why he became so popular..and how and why he drew such fervent opposition..

Like, the mad Peterson heads are an product of the whole identity politics world..where you can't just listen to some dude's opinions on youtube..you have to become a fan, buy the tshirt, and it becoming a part of your identity..but the vicious anti Peterson heads, like really..what is he saying to draw such vitriol?..he's trying to give people a deeper understanding of the role religion has played in our world over the ages..he's trying to suggest people bear some responsibility in their lives, and stand up straight etc..he's trying to warn people about the dangers of totalitarianism in all it's forms..

like.."he wants you to think that his clinical experience gives his advice real authority."

For the love of god..how is this in any way negative..is it just that your world view finds it threatening?

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes indeed, there he was, a Professor, lecturer and celebrity author, on top of the world pontificating about his 12 rules for living.

And look where his rules got him.

Ahh, well, his rules... aren't really rules to follow for a lifestyle. They're either basic common sense or just his own ramblings. I found 12 rules to be rather shallow and useless overall as a guide towards, well, anything.

Have you read the book?

The truth is though that following any amount of rules set out by other people is not going to guarantee a wonderful life. Life has a habit of throwing curve balls.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

Hold up there. Having years of clinical experience does not entitle him to tell everyone how to live. It entitles him up treat patients 1 to 1.

If someone is a successful trained mechanic for twenty years, they're someone who would be good to give general advice on what type of car to buy and what to avoid. Even if they themselves drive a heap.

Of course even mechanics have biases and so does this guy, but then everyone has biases, especially in a subject like psychology, therapy et al. That subject drifts from hard clinical work all the way to major quackery and the latter tends to get more airtime. I mean the subject of a looooong thread hereabouts concerning one Ms O'Neill revealed as part of her journey to public pontification on gender politics her therapy sessions with a psychologist who was coming at it from her bias of feminist theory, but that got a freer ride. Certainly no media I read asked eh wut? Pick your bias and take your choice to believe it's ironclad.

It definitely doesn’t entitle him to any deference when he expresses opinions on economics or politics, which is where he really made it big.

That I'd agree with. Common enough with public experts mind you. Stephen Hawking in his capacity of Tortured Public Genius was regularly asked his opinion and gave it on matters way out of his wheelhouse(no pun).

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

For the love of god..how is this in any way negative..is it just that your world view finds it threatening?

Yer man's bias bumps into his. It's little more than that C.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Yer man's bias bumps into his. It's little more than that C.

I think there must be more to it than that.. They see him as threatening..

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there must be more to it than that.. They see him as threatening..

You see the threads here on boards regarding gender pronouns, and many feminist issues, like the pay gap. Supporters of those issues tend to insult, demean, and label anyone who disagrees with them. Peterson became famous for very publicly ripping down the obvious idiotic media driven issues. The Cathy Newman interview being the big one, although his legal fight against pronoun usage is a very close second. Those who support such things can't seem to tolerate any resistance to their glorious crusade.

He's threatening to them because he has internet presence. The twitter addicts can't allow him to stay as a gathering point for those who resent the social conditioning going on.

El_Duderino 09

AllForIt wrote: »

That was hard to read.

He's speaking to the privileged rich now is he?

What's 'his system'?

I said his target audience is conservative American men. I didn't say privileged or rich.

"His system" is to get your own life in order before criticising anything else. So if that really applies then no change would ever happen.

When he talks about this stuff he sometimes says your own life should be "perfect" before you try to change the world. So effectively saying you should never criticise the world and should work towards perfecting your own life.

For example, civil rights groups of the 60s would never get started because they ought to get their own life sorted out first. Catholics in NI and blacks in America should not have criticised the system unless their own lives were in order first. Nonsense

Hope this helps clarify

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

"His system" is to get your own life in order before criticising anything else. So if that really applies then no change would ever happen.

So what, we should let the drunks and the drug addled lead the revolution?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, he's not really insisting that you live by his standards.. he's giving an educated opinion on what makes a good life as he sees it..

Well, like..Chomsky studied linguistics..does he have a right to give his political opinion?..jesus christ..does anyone have a right to give their opinion on anything really?..if you have a phd in engineering of course you can tell people how to raise kids..and people can listen to you if they want?..

It's not like he's basing his political ideas on a few youtube videos..he has seriously considered these things..jesus christ like..the real question here is how and why he became so popular..and how and why he drew such fervent opposition..

Like, the mad Peterson heads are an product of the whole identity politics world..where you can't just listen to some dude's opinions on youtube..you have to become a fan, buy the tshirt, and it becoming a part of your identity..but the vicious anti Peterson heads, like really..what is he saying to draw such vitriol?..he's trying to give people a deeper understanding of the role religion has played in our world over the ages..he's trying to suggest people bear some responsibility in their lives, and stand up straight etc..he's trying to warn people about the dangers of totalitarianism in all it's forms..

like.."he wants you to think that his clinical experience gives his advice real authority."

For the love of god..how is this in any way negative..is it just that your world view finds it threatening?

That's a very long winded way of saying "he's entitled to his opinion." I 100% agree that he is.

That's not what I was arguing. I was pointing out that his years of being a psychologist butters no parsnips for me when it comes to the subjects he spends most of his time talking about. Religion, moral philosophy, politics and economics.

Peterson deserves no vitriol IMO. He's a thoroughly decent human being who's often wrong. I've no problem with that. I have a problem with him being placed on a pedestal, but that's not his fault.

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again, there is nothing about his qualifications in clinical psychology which lends any weight to this idiotic notion that you can't wish for society to improve (i.e. "complain") unless your own house is in order.

And if that were true, then no-one should listen to Peterson, since his house is demonstrably on fire.

This is it. Earlier in the thread we had people saying it's fine for great figures to be flawed and now we're back to PJ's rule about how you better be perfect before you criticise the world - quoting JP who's in rehab right now. Some people don't mind what the details of the argument are as long as the conclusion is that JP is correct.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Yer man's bias bumps into his. It's little more than that C.

Am I the "yer man" in this post?

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think there must be more to it than that.. They see him as threatening..

Dr Peterson is the least threatening man I can think of.

I genuinely can't think of anyone I'm threatened by. Why would I or anyone be threatened by a complete stranger? I quite enjoy being disagreed with, it means I constantly have to question my own beliefs.