All things relating to Jordan Peterson

Pug160

I just watched another interview today - this time it was the BBC's Stephen Sackur on the Hardtalk programme. I was actually expecting better from him as I seem to remember watching that particular show before and thinking he was a decent enough presenter. But once again it looks like he had made his mind up before the interview started and had no intention of conducting an objective interview. These are simply carbon copies of each other and no one is going to learn anything from them. It's both annoying and frustrating to watch so many intelligent people who are unwilling to sit down with an open mind. If critical thinking is a by product of intelligence then why are so few of these people showing it? Sure, I know it's probably hard for anyone to see past their ideologies at times but these people are experienced professionals.

Pug160

Pug160 wrote: »

I just watched another interview today - this time it was the BBC's Stephen Sackur on the Hardtalk programme. I was actually expecting better from him as I seem to remember watching that particular show before and thinking he was a decent enough presenter. But once again it looks like he had made his mind up before the interview started and had no intention of conducting an objective interview. These are simply carbon copies of each other and no one is going to learn anything from them. It's both annoying and frustrating to watch so many intelligent people who are unwilling to sit down with an open mind. If critical thinking is a by product of intelligence then why are so few of these people showing it? Sure, I know it's probably hard for anyone to see past their ideologies at times but these people are experienced professionals.

Ah, Hardtalk is always a tough interview which asks oppositional questions shall we say..It wasn't that he wasn't objective I thought..

The clue is in the name..

iptba

Pug160 wrote: »

I just watched another interview today - this time it was the BBC's Stephen Sackur on the Hardtalk programme. I was actually expecting better from him as I seem to remember watching that particular show before and thinking he was a decent enough presenter. But once again it looks like he had made his mind up before the interview started and had no intention of conducting an objective interview. These are simply carbon copies of each other and no one is going to learn anything from them. It's both annoying and frustrating to watch so many intelligent people who are unwilling to sit down with an open mind. If critical thinking is a by product of intelligence then why are so few of these people showing it? Sure, I know it's probably hard for anyone to see past their ideologies at times but these people are experienced professionals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIEYYh7oyM

blinding

Great stuff from Peterson again as usual .

Jordan Peterson DESTROYS Dishonest TV CUCK Stephen Sackur

Pug160

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, Hardtalk is always a tough interview which asks oppositional questions shall we say..It wasn't that he wasn't objective I thought..

The clue is in the name..

I remember watching it before and finding it somewhat stimulating. That's why I was disappointed when I viewed this interview with Jordan Peterson. I thought he (Sackur) would have shown some originality at the very least, but all he did was go over the same line of questioning as the many interviewers before him, whilst looking rather emotional at times. Then he goes down the tiresome lobster route in an apparent attempt to embarrass Peterson and downplay his credentials. As if that wasn't attempted before. I don't think it meets the requirements that should be set for an experienced journalist/presenter of that calibre. Peterson has been in the public eye for a while now and someone with Mr. Sackur's intellect and experience should have surely been able to do better homework and challenge Peterson more than he did.

I know the BBC has its critics, especially for the perception that it's somewhat biased. For me personally, I don't even think it's necessarily a big issue but I do expect quality of some sort. Just remember that some people are paying a licence fee for this. There have been some amazing programmes over the years, like some of David Attenborough's wildlife/natural history shows (and even some of Louis Theroux's documantaries, which I find half decent), which I'm sure most people would find good value for money, but if you're watching an experienced professional who is unable to do any better than what a spotty faced teenager on work experience could do then it can understandably be frustrating to watch. I'll probably not be having this conversation again as I'll not be watching any more of these types of interviews. Maybe they're just trying to bore everyone and are trying to make Peterson go away. It's not actually a bad tactic in that case.

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUiG5_GcMyY

An interesting take on male feminists at the end of this. I doubt it is true in every case: I imagine some/many genuinely believe in the positions they have taken.

I do think there are likely more reasons men would try to strive to be higher up one or more hierarchies than women whose attractiveness is less influenced by their position on hierarchies.

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uoxxvdvjiI

(11 minutes)
I'm not sure about the title: the interviewer seems reasonably calm.

A lot of this is about feminism and the like.

On the question of men historically oppressing women, Peterson says:
"First of all, women aren't that easy to oppress as you might have noticed if you've ever had a relationship with them".

Smegging hell

Yet more sense from Dr. Peterson

(Non)sense?

kunst nugget

Smegging hell wrote: »

Yet more sense from Dr. Peterson

Jesus, words fail me…

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46dWNX0p1PE

He highlights that there are lots of dimensions onto which people fit. But only some of them get highlighted by social justice warriors and the like.

And indeed we can see that with gender quotas but not quotas for lots of other dimensions.

He says women's studies and the like are not methodologically rigourous.

Who are the post modernists and the Marxists?

ancapailldorcha

Actually, I'd be quite keen on a definition as well for the former.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Postmodern_theory

It fits.

Especially buffy theory.

kunst nugget

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Actually, I'd be quite keen on a definition as well for the former.

It's a term that can mean anything to anybody really.

Theorists associated with postmodernism often used the term to mark a new cultural epoch in the West. For philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, the postmodern condition was defined as “incredulity towards metanarratives”; that is, a loss of faith in science and other emancipatory projects within modernity, such as Marxism.

Marxist literary theorist Fredric Jameson famously argued postmodernism was “the cultural logic of late capitalism” (by which he meant post-industrial, post-Fordist, multi-national consumer capitalism).

In his 1982 essay Postmodernism and Consumer Society, Jameson set out the major tropes of postmodern culture.

These included, to paraphrase: the substitution of pastiche for the satirical impulse of parody; a predilection for nostalgia; and a fixation on the perpetual present.

In Jameson’s pessimistic analysis, the loss of historical temporality and depth associated with postmodernism was akin to the world of the schizophrenic.

Postmodernism can also be a critical project, revealing the cultural constructions we designate as truth and opening up a variety of repressed other histories of modernity. Such as those of women, homosexuals and the colonised.

The modernist canon itself is revealed as patriarchal and racist, dominated by white heterosexual men. As a result, one of the most common themes addressed within postmodernism relates to cultural identity.

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-postmodernism-20791

or

Are nationalism, politics, religion, and war the result of a primitive human mentality? Is truth an illusion? How can Christianity claim primacy or dictate morals? The list of concerns goes on and on especially for those affected by a postmodern philosophy and lifestyle. For some, the questions stem from lost confidence in a corrupt Western world. For others, freedom from traditional authority is the issue. Their concern centers around the West’s continued reliance on ancient and traditional religious morals, nationalism, capitalism, inept political systems, and unwise use and adverse impact of promoting “trade offs” between energy resources and environment, for economic gain.

According to the Postmodern Worldview, the Western world society is an outdated lifestyle disguised under impersonal and faceless bureaucracies. The postmodernist endlessly debates the modernist about the Western society needing to move beyond their primitiveness of ancient traditional thought and practices.

Postmodernism claims to be the successor to the 17th century Enlightenment. For over four centuries, “postmodern thinkers” have promoted and defended a New Age way of conceptualizing and rationalizing human life and progress. Postmodernists are typically atheistic or agnostic while some prefer to follow eastern religion thoughts and practices. Many are naturalist including humanitarians, environmentalists, and philosophers.

They challenge the core religious and capitalistic values of the Western world and seek change for a new age of liberty within a global community. Many prefer to live under a global, non-political government without tribal or national boundaries and one that is sensitive to the socioeconomic equality for all people.

Postmodernists protest Western society’s suppression of equal rights. They believe that the capitalistic economic system lacks equal distribution of goods and salary. While the few rich prosper, the mass populace becomes impoverished. Postmodernists view democratic constitutions as flawed in substance, impossible to uphold, and unfair in principle.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm

So, it's either a rejection of modernist narratives like Marxism and the cultural logic of late capitalism or it's the embracing of socialist ideals, equality and cultural identity.

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmg4fV5mAKs

I don't know whether the title is suitable but it explores the idea that gender preferences and the like aren't simply socialised

iptba

(6 minutes)

Jordan Peterson on How Gender Temperament Data is Not a Right-Wing Conspiracy (Oxford Union)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMoOu0L9Y64

Fairly shocking hatchet piece I just came across in the independent...Jesus, you'd expect more from them tbh..

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-nazi-apologism-lindsey-graham-holocaust-migrant-caravan-mexican-border-tear-gas-a8659001.html?amp

blinding

iptba wrote: »

(6 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMoOu0L9Y64

The usual brilliance from Jordan Peterson .

Facts and good arguments = His opponents just can’t cope .

Danzy

Deleted User wrote: »

Fairly shocking hatchet piece I just came across in the independent...Jesus, you'd expect more from them tbh..

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-nazi-apologism-lindsey-graham-holocaust-migrant-caravan-mexican-border-tear-gas-a8659001.html?amp

Wow, he really had to pull and mangle to get that article over the line.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Fairly shocking hatchet piece I just came across in the independent...Jesus, you'd expect more from them tbh..

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-nazi-apologism-lindsey-graham-holocaust-migrant-caravan-mexican-border-tear-gas-a8659001.html?amp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dwsYWF7TXI

Pretty sure this is the video.

Talking about Hitler makes you a nazi apologist.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Talking about Hitler makes you a nazi apologist.

Well yeah. To keep on the right side of public(and certainly media) opinion regarding Adolf, the only response is "he was pure evil", he was the Big Bad Wolf" and that's that. Trying to tease out the whys is usually not welcome. It wasn't always thus. When I was a kid back in the 70's and 80's I remember quite the bit of discussion on the whys of how a modern, educated, industrialised European nation went down that road with Hitler and his mates steering it.

I would disagree a little on one point. While he's dead right that vanishingly few people will brave sticking their heads up, even when stakes are low and that the vast majority of people watching that video if they were around at the time would be supporters of the regime. The German leaders were well aware of this, but contrary to popular belief(like the interviewer in the above) didn't come down so hard on low to mid level dissenters, especially in the early days.

The one thing the Nazis were scarily tuned into was human nature. EG there was a police chief of a German town whose name sadly escapes and when the order came to round up Jews and other "troublemakers" he took issue with it and said to his men that if they disagreed with this order they could choose to not go along with it. The Nazi hierarchy heard of this, but didn't frog march him to a firing squad. They knew. They waited. And the police chief noted that only a minority, the real bully boys set about this task with enthusiastic vigour and most of his men held back. At first. Within weeks all but a few were nearly as enthusiastic as the minority bully boys of the start. The herd instinct is strong, particularly if one believes one is protecting one's own herd.

I would say that very broadly speaking that's a difference between the extreme "right" and the extreme"left". The former are acutely aware of human nature and fashion it to their purpose, the latter see human nature as something that either doesn't really exist and it's "culture" and/or they think they can change it. That's on the philosophical level, though hard right types use it practically, but all totalitarian regimes and states of mind, left or right ultimately resort to using human nature for their own ends and to hang onto power.

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Actually, I'd be quite keen on a definition as well for the former.

Can you get out of bed in the morning without questioning whether the idea of sleeping in a wooden structure with a fabric mattress is symbolic of the patriarchal tyranny of capitalism that forces you to sleep in such conditions? If not, then you are a post modernist.

iptba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH16ympCb7Q

I can't find the bit now but he describes how men can feel in a no-win situation when against a woman e.g. in a debate: if he wins, he is a bully; if he loses, he is pathetic*. So they can tend to avoid such situations.

*not the word I would have used

While I don't blindly agree with everything he says, I think he's on the whole a massively positive influence, particular ly for young men.

blinding

If you have better ideas than Jordon Peterson then they are very good ideas .

20Cent

This video sums up why I dislike Peterson.
Shut up and know your place. Let your betters rule you.
Even the "psychology" is messed up. One can work on themselves and society at large as well.
PragerU is a far right propaganda site run by billionaires to tell regular people to stfu.
Peterson is helping them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOJe4_edU3E

I've yet to watch that video but PragerU should be taken with an enormous dollop of salt. Some of their videos are laughably bad. They are paid for by the republican party 100 times over. The audacity to claim they are a university, as if they are some kind of bastion of knowledge is mindblowing.

Watched it; if you skip to 2:38 in the video and go from there, it leaves out all the political nonsense and its a simple self help message. I must admit I agree with everything he says from there. Try be the best person you can be. The context that PragerU tries to put that in is horrific though.

iptba

‘There’s a difference between Jordan Peterson and a film about him’
Mike Sheridan on his viral interview with controversial professor and why he was impressed by new documentary

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/film/there-s-a-difference-between-jordan-peterson-and-a-film-about-him-1.4073236

It was clear, at least in the murky world of YouTube comment sections, that he had fans on both sides of the political divide, not just perpetually angry alt-right incels (who, granted, were still by far the loudest).

I'm not sure how he knows whether certain commentators are incels or not, I'm guessing it more insult aimed at people whose views you disagree with?

I didn't find the article that interesting, but I didn't click on any of the links.