Jordan Peterson interview on C4

B0jangles wrote: »

Peterson appears to be intentionally as vague as possible when it comes to expressing a concrete opinion or stance on virtually every topic. It's so consistant that it cannot be unintentional - he clearly wants to avoid alienating any potential follower.

If he was really concerned with helping people he'd give concrete advice and solid opinions but he hardly ever does; he just keeps on dodging and waffling.

Why does he need to have an opinion and what does he have to have an opinion about?

What is it you're expecting from the man that has never claimed to be anything other than a Clinical Psychologist?

What is it you think he should be doing, based on the fact that he has reached the position he is in doing everything that he is doing now?

markodaly wrote: »

Never heard of scientific racism?
Another example, it was not until 1981 that the WHO removed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Science is not infallible.

Nobody is suggesting that. What I have been saying is that it is more sensible to listen to experts in a given field than it is to listen to people who aren't qualified.

In this specific instance, I'll listen to climate scientists over a unqualified regular joes or an organisation sponsored by fracking.

Brian? wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If this was ironic, it’s funny.
If it’s not ironic, it’s hilarious.

Unfortunately Dick doesn't do irony. I've pointed this out a few times.

I hate people who use lazy generalisations, especially those bourgeois lefties who don't like Jordan Peterson. Some shower of mindless libtards.

Luckily they can’t look down on DS because he’s so far above them on his high horse. Generalisations should be expected Since they all look the same from all the way up there.

B0jangles wrote: »

Undividual wrote: »

His book offers concrete advice, surely?  Clean your damn room etc.  I think most of his contributions relate to dissecting other peoples' "advice" and revealing the disingenuity of those who claim to be working for the good of others.

I think he doesn't give clear positions on topics because he doesn't want to become a guru, where people are more obsessed with the idea of him than his actual words.  His message (I realise the religious connotations) seems to primarily be about self empowerment through discipline and self-awareness and being/becoming a force for genuine good in the world, in whatever way each individual defines good.

'Clean your room' is literally the only concrete piece of Jordan Peterson's advice that ever get cited.
How many books has he produced?
How many hours of youtube videos?
Does it really all boil down to one three word sentence?

Hang on, 'Be precise in your speech' is another one, isn't it?

You say he doesn't want people to be more obsessed with him than with his words, but you also say his message 'seems to be...', so you recognise that his message is unclear.

If he really wanted people to think about the message, not the messenger, surely he'd make an effort to keep it clear, keep it simple and keep it useful.

I recognise the limitations of my own understanding, if that's what you're asking?  As far as I know he has 2 books, only one of which I've read.  Why do people need to cite his rules?  I assume anyone discussing him knows he has a book on that topic.  Having read the book, there are some chapters which appealed to me and others less so.  No big deal.

His ideas (or at least his combination of others' ideas) are complex and takes time for some people (me) to appreciate / integrate.  I don't understand the pressure for his message to be completely polished and bite-sized. 

Is it not better to have hundreds of hours of Jordan Peterson lectures/talks/interviews online for people to access which help those people, than hundreds of hours of ______ which don't help people?  How does it affect anyone negatively, (besides, perhaps, through misinterpretation)?

Just want to jump in here and say he's brilliant. That's it I'm off now.

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, in the past we had experts, tell us that homosexuality was a mental disorder and that blacks were inferior to whites and science proved it. These were the experts at that time.

Look, I see your point but as I said, science is not infallible and this topic, especially of climate change have fundamentalists on both sides, who have questionable motives.

This is the false equivalence people like the guy in Petersons video are trying to sell in order to muddy the waters. Reality is over 90%+ of climate scientists agree. In addition we have things called thermometers which just record temperature with no political bias.
There is no debate left to be had.

markodaly wrote: »

The last words of a zealot fundamentalist.

You wanna argue with a thermometer work away lol.

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

He's precise in his speech, [..]

No, he asserts that he is -- or more precisely, preaches that should be. In practice, he's anything but.

Case in point, his recent RTE interview, during the space of which he used "enforced" variously to mean "not enforced", and to mean "enforced".

Very often it's classic bait-and-switch. Or motte-and-bailey, if you prefer the cod-medievalist term. Made a hyperbolic claim. When challenged on it, resort to sputtering outrage, and defending some far weaker version of if, citing "obviously I meant", "it's a well-known technical term", and other such blather.

Much like Trump's mendacity being excused by his apologists as "metaphor". Or I suppose like the BrExit bus. Who cares if it's a lie, if it gets people onto your talking point, and appeals to their prejudices, then job done.

Probably why he falls out with Sam Harris -- though I'm not fan of his, either -- with his "let us first redefine 'truth'" stunt.