Jordan Peterson interview on C4

El_Duderino 09

Can anyone think of any of his messages that his primary audience of conservative American men wouldn’t already largely agree with?

ILoveYourVibes

suicide_circus wrote: »

So to summarise;

"Human being turns out to be flawed"

The man does his lectures and sells his books. If people make him out to be some kind of guru or messiah, thats on them. I dont get the vitriol towards him.

He said trump was a genius.

Can anyone think of any of his messages that his primary audience of conservative American men wouldn’t already largely agree with?

Yeah his newest one. Sometimes some addictions are too hard for humans to kick. Its probably his most honest one though.

El_Duderino 09

suicide_circus wrote: »

BOOOO! HISSSSSS!!!!

That's not the point I'm making at all. But it's interesting that you'd think it was.

It just happens to be his target audience so he only really says things thy would like to hear. That's why things like the religious stuff leaves his Irish fans in the cold. It's a product designed to sell to his primary market - conservative American men.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Tell us more about this "notorious" book that you first heard about ten minutes ago, and your frantic search to find a YouTube video that allegedly discredits it.

We're not all like you Permabear. We don't all scramble for links at skirt notice. I've watched that video a few times. I know it's a bit long, but it's worth a look.

The book has become very popular because Peterson recommended it. However, it makes numerous incorrect claims and uses quotes out of context to paint a misleading picture. Hicks is more interested in making a political point than in analysing the philosophy at hand.

Outlaw Pete

Was driving home the other day and seen that my mechanic's car had broken down. What a fake.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Suddenly, everyone's an expert in 18th century German idealist philosophy. Who knew there were so many intellectuals in AH?

ILoveYourVibes

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

We're not all like you Permabear. We don't all scramble for links at skirt notice. I've watched that video a few times. I know it's a bit long, but it's worth a look.

The book has become very popular because Peterson recommended it. However, it makes numerous incorrect claims and uses quotes out of context to paint a misleading picture. Hicks is more interested in making a political point than in analysing the philosophy at hand.

I dunno about Hicks wanting to make a point.


I just don't get it when he says epistemology is wrong. Its like saying psychology is wrong or science is wrong or art is wrong.

I mean the whole thing?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Suddenly, everyone's an expert in 18th century German idealist philosophy. Who knew there were so many intellectuals in AH?

Indeed. The forum is only allowed to have one renaissance man who knows everything, and the position has already been filled.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Here's a review of Hicks's book, which I actually did just find. However, it makes most of the same points as the video I linked.

https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/17/a-review-of-explaining-postmodernism-by-stephen-hicks/

ILoveYourVibes

Kassidy Savory Tick wrote: »

Suddenly, everyone's an expert in 18th century German idealist philosophy. Who knew there were so many intellectuals in AH?

I have a B.A in philosophy.;)

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The religious stuff is terrible. But his main audience of conservative American men would want to hear the he believes in the Christian god so he gives them incredibly convoluted arguments for the Christian god.

The bit where he changes the question “do you believe in god” to “do you act like you believe in god” is an incredibly bad bait and switch. He says he doesn’t know what you mean by the terms “believe” or “god”. But that’s just nonsense. You could use the totally normal use of the terms but he prefers to invent new meanings for the purpose of that question.

It’s just a matter of giving a clever sounding reason for believing in Christianity because that’s what his conservative American audience wants to hear.

And this is one of the reasons I do not like him. He is deceptive, hides his true views if he thinks it will affect his popularity and sends out dog whistles to his supporters telling them that it’s ok, or even noble, to hold any of the reprehensible views that they hold. JPs fan base is littered with very unpleasant subcultures that feel like he is speaking directly to them, and in many ways, he was indeed pandering to them for his own profit

Whether he believes the crap he says or not is just the difference between what kind of reprehensible character he actually is

ILoveYourVibes

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Was driving home the other day and seen that my mechanic's car had broken down. What a fake.

Was this mechanic trying to fix his own car with a carrot and claiming his skoda was a tesla?

Beware of dodgy mechanics.

Huntergonzo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The religious stuff is terrible. But his main audience of conservative American men would want to hear the he believes in the Christian god so he gives them incredibly convoluted arguments for the Christian god.

The bit where he changes the question “do you believe in god” to “do you act like you believe in god” is an incredibly bad bait and switch. He says he doesn’t know what you mean by the terms “believe” or “god”. But that’s just nonsense. You could use the totally normal use of the terms but he prefers to invent new meanings for the purpose of that question.

It’s just a matter of giving a clever sounding reason for believing in Christianity because that’s what his conservative American audience wants to hear.

Ye I would agree with all of that.

For me he tries to legitimize christianity by making his answers so convoluted and obscure that I honestly doubt even he understands his answer much less the poor unfortunate who asked him the question and had to endure his long-winded response.

suicide_circus

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have a B.A in philosophy.;)

my condolences

ILoveYourVibes

suicide_circus wrote: »

my condolences

ha ha! :pac:


Don't feel bad! It comes in useful at times. And i really loved doing it.

EmmetSpiceland

Akrasia wrote: »

Whether he believes the crap he says or not is just the difference between what kind of reprehensible character he actually is

He’s just another in another long line of charlatan “saviours” that pop up from time to time.

However, I don’t feel that Peterson started out that way. It seems he got pulled in by the whole “celebrity” thing and got hooked on that.

He’s, basically, just a “modern” version of Peter Bartholomew.

ILoveYourVibes

Pep Guardiola 75 wrote: »

On what basis does he hide his true views? What do you think are his true views?

I think he is a lot more racist/transphobic/homophobic than he likes to let on!

El_Duderino 09

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ye I would agree with all of that.

For me he tries to legitimize christianity by making his answers so convoluted and obscure that I honestly doubt even he understands his answer much less the poor unfortunate who asked him the question and had to endure his long-winded response.

Ultimately it's just what his American audience wants to hear so he sells it to them. It's a point that doesn't overlap with his Irish fans so it looks very odd over here.

Gynoid

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think he is a lot more racist/transphobic/homophobic than he likes to let on!

In the mode of an assignment on an Arts/ Phil course - Justify the proposition using more evidence than personal prejudice.

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

ha ha! :pac:


Don't feel bad! It comes in useful at times. And i really loved doing it.

It's Interesting that JP is assumed to be the big expert in philosophy (because of his credentials in psychology) you've actually read the material for uni and you're the eejit.

Peterson can't lose.

El_Duderino 09

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think he is a lot more racist/transphobic/homophobic than he likes to let on!

I don't think i have any idea what he thinks on those topics. He sells a product to people and that product would work for the racist/transphobic/homophobic fan as much as the casual conservative. They can take different messages from what he says.

Likewise the climate denial stuff. That works as well for the "I'm just questioning the science" fans as much as the "climate change is a Chinese hoax" fans.

logseman

Pep Guardiola 75 wrote: »

The topic being discussed was addiction, smart phones are notoriously addictive, in case you haven't noticed, most people are glued to them throughout the day. This is an addiction. Jordan Peterson quite rightly points out that the addiction to smart phones can hinder medium to long term goals.

"You, you there. You're an addict.

Checking your calendar, you say?
Writing an email?
Reading a book?

All of that is nonsense. You're addicted to your screen! Clean your room!

...
...
...

Now where's my Klonopin?"

Urethral Buttercup

I am in the opposite political camp to JP in many respects, with communist/anarchist leanings.

Nevertheless, I've seen a few of his sociology/psychology lectures which I found worthwhile. That's my area of interest though. I'm aware he became famous for protesting against legislation coming in which may have made pronouns protected in law, or some such. Which I have no issue with. As much as I hate the "JP destroys feminist" or "JP intellectually sodomises leftist" videos, I'm still at a loss as to why people loath him so much. If it gets kids reading Freud, and Jung, and Nietzsche and Marx well that's something.

ILoveYourVibes

Gynoid wrote: »

In the mode of an assignment on an Arts/ Phil course - Justify the proposition using more evidence than personal prejudice.

He has made friends with neo nazis.

He constantly ties race and IQ together. Some races are just smarter than others.

He constantly fights SJWS who make it their cause to oppose racism homophobia etc. Why is he always on the opposite side ?

His entire career was founded on the Human rights code in Canada being extended to trans people.

Peterson says that IQ is a single, irreducible heritable trait, and then argues that smart people have more cognitively difficult, higher-paying jobs, while people with IQs below 83 have no place in modern society.
“What it implies is that in a complex society like ours, and one that’s becoming increasingly complex, there isn’t anything for 10 percent of the population,” Peterson says.

He says Jews have a higher IQ than other races (which is racist)...but then he says said jews have health or brain neurological defects.

THAT IS BULL****.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have a B.A in philosophy.;)

I have a Bachelor in Psychology, and I still don't think I know that much about it.

Whereas I have a Bachelor in Finance and a MBA, but it's my experience working in the field, that makes me think I know a fair bit. Simply having a degree guarantees very little.

Urethral Buttercup

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have a Bachelor in Psychology, and I still don't think I know that much about it.

Whereas I have a Bachelor in Finance and a MBA, but it's my experience working in the field, that makes me think I know a fair bit. Simply having a degree guarantees very little.

I've a degree in philosophy also and can confirm.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a Bachelor in Psychology, and I still don't think I know that much about it.

Whereas I have a Bachelor in Finance and a MBA, but it's my experience working in the field, that makes me think I know a fair bit. Simply having a degree guarantees very little.

Peterson has no degree in philosophy and no experience in it. And at a glance anyone can tell he hasn't a clue about it. So much so i don't even bother with him.

But you have a good point he probably knows nothing about psychology either.

ILoveYourVibes

Urethral Buttercup wrote: »

If it gets kids reading Freud, and Jung, and Nietzsche and Marx well that's something.

It obviously isn't getting them to read them. They just like ...JP clubs seal like leftie to death etc.

logseman

Pep Guardiola 75 wrote: »

Most people are addicted to their smartphones, they're designed to be addictive. Do you disagree that smartphones are addictive?

Yes, I disagree. Smartphones by themselves are not addictive. If you download applications that are meant to be addictive such as slot machines... sorry, free-to-play games with microtransactions, or social networks/messaging clients designed to drive engagement and keep you inside them, then you're enabling addiction no doubt. There's also a lot of stuff that has been outsourced to the smartphone as it is simpler and more convenient to do it from there.

However, if you want to say that doing your banking, searching for flights, reading, using a translator, calculating stuff quickly, etc. is addictive, I am not going to stop you.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Peterson has no degree in philosophy and no experience in it. And at a glance anyone can tell he hasn't a clue about it. So much so i don't even bother with him.

But you have a good point he probably knows nothing about psychology either.

Not my point. He's worked as a Psychologist, and taught it as a professor. So, I suspect he's well read on the areas he has an interest in. Teaching a subject encourages one to cover your bases well. I've been caught out by student questions regarding Business Ethics, and needed to read beyond what was covered within my degrees or past experiences. I would imagine Peterson has had to do the same considering how many public appearance's he's made.

Psychology tends to cross over with philosophy at times, as it does with many other disciplines (like ethics).. There is a cross over, so, I also suspect he's done a fair amount of reading about Philosophy. Not an expert but a dabbler.