Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Star Bingo · 07-09-2018 12:41PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

I can't help but be reminded of a certain other notorious Canadian export. They used to say that the worst thing about Rush was the Rush fans...

Ouch! That’s gotta hurt.

xckjoo · 07-09-2018 12:45PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Kids today might be as hard working as generations before they (I suspect the type of work has changed). But the kids today don’t get the same benefits as generations past.

Things like chances of home ownership, job stability, financial stability in retirement and pensions, not to mention the fact that lots of young people can’t afford to start a family. This means the demands, prospects and rewards for ‘the kids today’ are very different from the past.

Peterson doesn’t spend time discussing those factors, he jumps straight to ‘kids were better in the old days, amiright?’

He talks about a very specific set of things but it’s on no way supposed to be an impartial look at things. It’s about justifying the conclusion that the kids and the lift are wrong.

It’s the intellectual side of the Fox News message. But it’s no more honest.

Again I think this is an interpretation thing. You hear "kids were better in the old days", while I hear "these are the issues that are facing a lot of todays youth". I find it very hard to believe that a clinical psychologist would "blame" kids for who they are or how they've developed. That's all on us grown ups.

Anyway, you say potato, I say potato. I don't think we're going to agree. Shall we settle it with fisticuffs at dawn? Or have a sleep in and let it lie :pac:

markodaly · 07-09-2018 02:00PM

Nixonbot wrote: »

Glassdoor....eh. Ok. It's not exactly the most reliable or trustworthy thing out there.

If you await my evidence you've not been reading my posts. Waste of time, this is well, well known in the software industry. I'm out.

Just coming back to this point. I offer some evidence and you offer the nonsense, 'the dogs on the street knows it' argument.

You're out alright because you have no argument or proof of your claim.

Skylinehead · 07-09-2018 02:08PM

markodaly wrote: »

Just coming back to this point. I offer some evidence and you offer the nonsense, 'the dogs on the street knows it' argument.

You're out alright because you have no argument or proof of your claim.

If you're not going to read my posts, what's the point?

I'm in the industry, I know people who do and have worked for Amazon and Google, let me know how to turn that into a peer-reviewed scientific journal if that's all you're going to accept.

Coming back to this a month later, weird. Bye now.

markodaly · 07-09-2018 02:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

See the bit in bold? Again this is not bloody America. Of course any company offering healthcare and other perks people in the rest of the developed world think of as givens is going to fare well.

And who are the best companies or organisations to work for in Ireland? The US multinationals are by far the best, in terms of remuneration and perks. I have worked on both sides of the fence and the US firms are by far the best to work for, in comparison to Irish firms who more often than not treated their employees like indentured servants.

https://ie.indeed.com/Top-Rated-Workplaces/2018-Ireland

Yes, like the American model of "healthcare" is a good one. Not. If you get cancer you hear the tills ringing before the X-ray machines have powered up. If you can afford it. America, the only country in the developed world where life expectancy is going down. You realise the US of A has the fourth widest wealth gap in the developed world, only being beaten out by barely functioning kips like Turkey, Chile and Mexico?

US tech firms are not responsible for US government health care policy. So the point above is not relevant. However, in Ireland, US tech firms almost always offer free health insurance as part of the package. Most Irish companies do not.

If these corporations are so "left" how come they "avoid" tax like the plague, seriously look down on even the sniff of unions and are happy to outsource their operations to third world crapholes where labour is much cheaper?

Your view on what left wing is belongs to the 1950's. Left wing is nothing to do with Marxism anymore. Besides, I didn't know that the criteria of a left winger was wanting to pay more tax.

Irish property and water charges anyone??? Rich Boy Barret and Paul Murphy are capitalists.

markodaly · 07-09-2018 02:20PM

Nixonbot wrote: »

If you're not going to read my posts, what's the point?

I'm in the industry, I know people who do and have worked for Amazon and Google, let me know how to turn that into a peer-reviewed scientific journal if that's all you're going to accept.

Coming back to this a month later, weird. Bye now.

All anecdotal.

I too know people who work in the Industry, both in Amazon and Google, among others and have worked in it myself. The difference is I am not posting opinions based on my own experience, I am posting data and surveys detailing who are the best companies to work for.

You offer nothing but 'the man in the pub told me' type evidence. I think its best that you do go, as your embarrassing, not for the first time with your argument.

Skylinehead · 07-09-2018 02:29PM

markodaly wrote: »

All anecdotal.

And I never claimed otherwise. You're arguing nothing.

alaimacerc · 07-09-2018 02:32PM

markodaly wrote: »

All anecdotal.

I too know people who work in the Industry, both in Amazon and Google, among others and have worked in it myself. The difference is I am not posting opinions based on my own experience, I am posting data and surveys detailing who are the best companies to work for.

You offer nothing but 'the man in the pub told me' type evidence. I think its best that you do go, as your embarrassing, not for the first time with your argument.

Your "data", offered in rebuttal of the "US tech firms have long hours" claim is people's opinions on glassdoor, recommending (for unspecified and presumably aggregate) assorted US tech firms. But people directly stating that said firms have long hours, in as many words -- and lots of those on glassdoor too, as well as the ones you've been given directly are "anecdotal".

Sounds a bit straw bias and confirmation man to me, have to say.

alaimacerc · 07-09-2018 02:48PM

markodaly wrote: »

Your view on what left wing is belongs to the 1950's. Left wing is nothing to do with Marxism anymore.

Guess that makes sense, in the parallel world where people like Sharyl Attkisson can claim than Info Wars is centre-right, the Washington Post is Hard Left, and the political centre is round about Reason magazine and Military Times.

If you're gonna lurch to the right, your view on what's "centre" is inevitably going to be subject to considerable revisionism.

07-09-2018 03:45PM

markodaly wrote: »

And who are the best companies or organisations to work for in Ireland? The US multinationals are by far the best, in terms of remuneration and perks. I have worked on both sides of the fence and the US firms are by far the best to work for, in comparison to Irish firms who more often than not treated their employees like indentured servants.

That's way too sweeping a statement to be taken seriously. Do you know anybody who works for Google, for example? The only people I've ever met in Google say that career progression is impossible unless you're willing to eat, breathe, and (preferably not sleep) for the company. I have a close friend in one of those companies who works as a manager, and is worked harder than anybody I know outside of the healthcare professions! At least healthcare professionals get
paid for doing work out-of-hours and during their holidays.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be worked like that, some people clearly love it. But it would never happen in my workplace, a UK company in Ireland which is actually a really positive place to work.

Yes, these are just anecdotes, but I'm just really surprised to hear anybody come out with such a rosy view of US-MNC workplaces. Yoga mats and free lunches are all well and good, but not all of us want to live for the company we work for.

markodaly · 07-09-2018 03:49PM

Nixonbot wrote: »

And I never claimed otherwise. You're arguing nothing.

Ha, that's great. I'm the only person bothering back up my points. You on the other hand just offer pub talk rebuttals.

markodaly · 07-09-2018 03:57PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Your "data", offered in rebuttal of the "US tech firms have long hours" claim is people's opinions on glassdoor, recommending (for unspecified and presumably aggregate) assorted US tech firms. But people directly stating that said firms have long hours, in as many words -- and lots of those on glassdoor too, as well as the ones you've been given directly are "anecdotal".

Sounds a bit straw bias and confirmation man to me, have to say.

If the sole metric to measure how good a place of work is, is the hours you work, then everyone is better off in the Public Service with their low 30-odd hour weak and bountiful sick leave.
Yet, anyone I know working there states that its a soul-destroying work environment.

No one has ever, here or elsewhere made the argument that the Public Service is the best place to work in Ireland. That tells you all you need to know about that 'metric'.

Besides, I never disputed the hours of work, merely stated that people are happier in these companies on average than other companies.

markodaly · 07-09-2018 04:02PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

Guess that makes sense, in the parallel world where people like Sharyl Attkisson can claim than Info Wars is centre-right, the Washington Post is Hard Left, and the political centre is round about Reason magazine and Military Times.

If you're gonna lurch to the right, your view on what's "centre" is inevitably going to be subject to considerable revisionism.

Yes, because globalization and internationalism don't exit? Modern economies and labour markets are very different to the 1870's. There are no Marxists anymore, just wanna be hipsters who want to be rebellious and contrarian.

markodaly · 07-09-2018 04:04PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

not all of us want to live for the company we work for.

That is fine, its a free country and you can take your skillset to another company that suits your needs and wants. All I am stating, which is backed up by the facts, that US multinationals are where Irish employees feel the happiest.

Wibbs · 07-09-2018 04:11PM

markodaly wrote: »

All I am stating, which is backed up by the facts, that US multinationals are where Irish employees feel the happiest.

and yet these happiest employees make up the highest staff turnover in the corporate world.

07-09-2018 04:22PM

markodaly wrote: »

All I am stating, which is backed up by the facts, that US multinationals are where Irish employees feel the happiest.

Are you basing this all on the Indeed/ Glassdoor reviews or..?

Because if you're relying on a self-selecting survey where larger firms have a numerical advantage, that's obviously *hugely* problematical....

El_Duderino 09 · 07-09-2018 04:45PM

xckjoo wrote: »

Again I think this is an interpretation thing. You hear "kids were better in the old days", while I hear "these are the issues that are facing a lot of todays youth". I find it very hard to believe that a clinical psychologist would "blame" kids for who they are or how they've developed. That's all on us grown ups.

Anyway, you say potato, I say potato. I don't think we're going to agree. Shall we settle it with fisticuffs at dawn? Or have a sleep in and let it lie :pac:

I don’t think he outlines the issues facing the youth unless he’s focusing on blaming the left.

Anyway, Dawn is far too early for fisticuffs. It’ll have to be a sleep in tomorrow and Sunday is the Sabbath so we’ll just have to forget it and enjoy our weekends.

Brian? · 07-09-2018 06:11PM

markodaly wrote: »

That is fine, its a free country and you can take your skillset to another company that suits your needs and wants. All I am stating, which is backed up by the facts, that US multinationals are where Irish employees feel the happiest.

No. That’s not all you were stating. You were claiming Tech companies are left wing because they treat their staff well. It’s complete nonsense, so you’re moving the goalposts.

Brian? · 07-09-2018 06:12PM

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, because globalization and internationalism don't exit? Modern economies and labour markets are very different to the 1870's. There are no Marxists anymore, just wanna be hipsters who want to be rebellious and contrarian.

“There are no Marxists anymore”- seriously now. Are you smoking crack?

Giraffe Box · 07-09-2018 06:24PM

Brian? wrote: »

“There are no Marxists anymore”- seriously now. Are you smoking crack?

Agreed.
If there are no Marxists anymore then Jordan Peterson and his army of individuals can stand at ease.
What's the problem?

HappyAsLarE · 07-09-2018 06:58PM

Life is too short to dedicate it to a huge multinational corporation.

I cut my teeth at one of the big famous ones, learnt a lot, and got a little sucked into believing it was a “great place to work”.

It’s only looking back with more life experience that I can see through a lot of their BS.

HappyAsLarE · 07-09-2018 07:04PM

Question:

Has anyone here that would lean well Left been made to take a step back and deeply consider their political views because of Peterson’s criticism of the far Left?

07-09-2018 07:19PM

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Question:

Has anyone here that would lean well Left been made to take a step back and deeply consider their political views because of Peterson’s criticism of the far Left?

Yes. I think he has a lot of value to contribute to how the left views itself.

His views on how society can (or cannot reasonably) address 'intersectionality' seem to have a lot of merit. His critique of the Left as being weak in recognising its own excesses and inconsistencies are also worth listening to. As (I think) he has said himself, if you're not willing to listen to the gaping holes in your own argument, you're going to lose the argument.

I think he's almost pathologically and excessively cynical towards ("cultural") marxism, to the point where he doesn't seem to be able to critique it completely honestly, so he occasionally fails to take his own advice. I also get the impression I wouldn't much like JP as an individual level, but of what relevance is that? None.

We shouldn't immediately rush to the defensive, any time our ideas are challenged. I have often found my beliefs challenged by JP, and that's why he's well worth listening to.

Having said that, I've read '12 Rules for Life', and found it to be an utter waste of 24 quid. If anyone is thinking of buying it, and expecting it to change their lives, i'd say you'd have better luck with a dozen scratchcards.

Brian? · 07-09-2018 10:03PM

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Question:

Has anyone here that would lean well Left been made to take a step back and deeply consider their political views because of Peterson’s criticism of the far Left?

No. Because I already had issues with the people on the Left that Peterson criticises.

I don’t think the ideas of “cultural Marxism” Peterson harps on about are anywhere near as pervasive on the Left as Peterson believes they are.

Zubeneschamali · 07-09-2018 10:26PM

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Has anyone here that would lean well Left been made to take a step back and deeply consider their political views because of Peterson’s criticism of the far Left?

Peterson's "criticism of the left" is not meant to change minds on the left. It is intended to earn Peterson cash from right-wing young to middle-aged white men in America.

07-09-2018 11:15PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peterson's "criticism of the left" is not meant to change minds on the left. It is intended to earn Peterson cash from right-wing young to middle-aged white men in America.

it's probably a mixture of both.

Peterson is an economic liberal (correct me if i'm wrong), who clearly has one eye very firmly fixed on his 'brand' as a personal cashcow.

But he strikes me, also, as a very driven, morally assiduous (speaking subjectively) individual, who really believes in what he says, and believes in the value of disseminating his message.

Why is it so unbelievable that Peterson might actually believe what he says, for example about falling standards in the universities? Or the concept that individuals need to get their own houses in order, before we try to change the world (after all, if we all just got our house in order, the world might be saved a lot faster)?

Why is it so difficult to believe that JB actually believes many of the fairly uncontroversial stances he takes? Plenty of people believe this, and some of us on the left think he occasionally has some valid points.

Mountainsandh · 07-09-2018 11:32PM

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Good post. You seem like a reasonable person who's unashamedly unsure of Petersen, and definitely not a reverential acolyte.
Speaking of which, you might want have a listen to this interview which is very interesting, it includes a surprisingly candid remark from JP, which, in my opinion, is dictionary definition 'bite the hand that feeds you': ''18 year old students don't know anything, they seriously don't know anything''.
12.29 approx.
Enjoy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b0b3fk63

Giraffe Box wrote: »

Well, it was a one-on-one with a 69 year old writer and broadcaster.
Maybe he really does believe that 18-year-old students don't know anything, maybe he'll change his mind if questioned about that quote at some future time, who knows.
These things slip out sometimes, as I said 'biting the hand that feeds', and he's feeding very well lately thanks to a hell of a lot of know-nothing 18-year-old students.
Some might call that hypocrisy, but I think we're all fallible, aren't we, even JP?

Giraffe Box wrote: »

I'll take it up to 'destructive', the rest is waffle.

Young people get involved in politics - and yes on the Left if that's still allowed - for a number of reasons, some personal, some idealistic (imagine that). And not just to 'remedy their problems', which is a very cynical and caustic view of 18-year-old students and their political motives. Not everyone is as self-serving as the millionaire professor, though he certainly has remedied any financial problem he may have had himself thanks to the largesse of those very students he holds in such low regard.

https://www.networthleaks.com/jordan-b-peterson/

So much bitterness in your posts, it pretty much invalidates the point(s) you're trying to make tbh.

I don't think the youth who attend his lectures would resent the "18 year olds know nothing" remark, and if they do, well then, they don't have to attend any more lectures, or maybe they could engage in dialogue with him about it.

I think the people who attend want to learn, so by definition, they know that they know little, or nothing.
I'm 45, and listening to his lectures I feel like I know little or nothing. And that's ok, because being able to learn about and follow his train of thought helps me know maybe a little bit more.

I never knew the guy before seeing the thread on here about him.
I have spent the past 3 weeks listening to various lectures, Maps of Meaning (very hard !), some about personality and other psychology, some interviews, and even some of the ridiculously titled (as mentioned earlier in this thread) "inspirational" ones. I usually try and find the original of these ones as that bloody music drives me loolah. Oh and the point scoring ones, but they're not really his of course.

I was curious about the guy and his ideas, I did want to check if indeed he was far right, but I had no preconceived political leaning to be biased about. (imo and in his words, he is not far right)

I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.

But I have no problem saying that I don't think he's trying to hammer any political agenda, genuinely.

I think his concern is more societal. There are many many instances when he says in various lectures and conferences that there is a need for dialogue, and that his concern is that this dialogue is no longer possible as the extreme left are shutting down freedom of speech.

It is not politically biased really, in his sphere (universities Canada and US) it is a fact. Freedom of speech is indeed curtailed, professors are self-censoring, and laws are being changed.

He repeatedly explains that both the left and the right, even extreme, have roles to play, and have to talk, to discuss things.

His major issue, and the reason he is so peed off at youngsters in Canadian/US universities, is that they will not tolerate discussion. It's not makey-uppy stuff, it is factual (Lindsay Shepherd's story is a good example).

He often mentions that the extremes he gets the most passionate about and that he talks about are mostly back home, and in the US.

I think it's useful to watch other videos/listen to other lectures by him to get a better idea of who he is, and what his intentions are.

I agree that the 12 rules for living don't seem great (I haven't bought the book, he mentions enough about it online to have a fair idea of the content), and they seem more like the bread winning career move.

The lectures and conferences, and interviews with Russel Brand for example are different. There is no obsessing about the left in them. He is more concerned about Chaos and Order, God, how humans behave, and how we all strive to find meaning in life.
You really get a sense that a) he wants to communicate what he has found out and learned (bible, religious and mythical stories, Nietzsche and others) by showing his reasoning b) he's striving to develop his own ideas by sharing them (ie tries to push his ideas further a bit with every discussion).

To be honest once you start listening to the other lectures, you feel like the whole political hoo-ha is just that, and he says himself, fair enough, the scandal made his videos go exponential, but he already had a million views on lectures before that. It certainly triggered his greater use of Youtube.

He's in his 50s, has thought, learned and taught so hard, and still is doing all these things, so if he's loaded now for the past few years, good for him.

07-09-2018 11:49PM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

His major issue, and the reason he is so peed off at youngsters in Canadian/US universities, is that they will not tolerate discussion. It's not makey-uppy stuff, it is factual (Lindsay Shepherd's story is a good example).

I can identify with pretty much all of your post, and I think the above is especially worth emphasising.

I know plenty of Irish 'lefties' who lived under a really oppressive Church and State apparatus, when they were denied all sorts of personal freedoms, and many of them would probably be decried as reactionaries for doing what they have always done: speaking freely and asking some very fundamental, important questions, regardless of whether or not it gets them into trouble.

Take this as an example: during the recent abortion referendum, Nell McCafferty
stated that she was going to vote Yes, but that she found the idea of abortion personally upsetting. She said that it was the killing of human life, but that she nevertheless had to support it. And what did such honesty earn her?

For daring to engage in the free exchange of ideas, using free speech, some people on Twitter (!) used the opportunity to attempt to strip her of her entire civil rights, feminist record, and declare that she was some kind of turncoat, now conspiring with conservative Ireland. Twitter declared itself "disappointed" in her, despite the fact that her honesty probably persuaded a lot of her peers to vote for Repeal.

To bring this back to Jordan Peterson, he warns us against an ideological mode of thinking whereby asking hard questions is deemed socially unacceptable, or where unpopularity = wrongness.

Does anyone think that is healthy? Does anyone think that is progressive? Whatever happened to the idea that 'there's no such thing as a stupid question'? It seems to me that if you (quite respectfully) question issues like transgender identity recognition, or anything else which the left (correctly) supports, you're persona non grata.

Maybe this is indeed oppressive behaviour.

Mountainsandh · 08-09-2018 01:25AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Maybe this is indeed oppressive behaviour.

I think it is very oppressive, and that nevertheless, the hard questions need to be asked, and debates on issues that we normally would not touch with a barge-pole need to be had.

Otherwise, you are facing a situation where, as it is now, people are self-censoring, and this is not democratic.
So when it seems the threat to democracy is unbearable, these people who were not necessarily entrenched, but had questions, are going to polarize because they have no other choice, and vote for someone like Trump for example.

Because chaos is already there, and it seems that no good can emerge unless an evil is embraced, either way, to adopt JP's imagery.
In that situation the evil that will offer the best chance of finding order will be picked, and history has shown the kinds of evil humanity had to choose in order to restore order (to an extent).

Giraffe Box · 08-09-2018 10:56AM

Mountainsandh wrote: »

So much bitterness in your posts, it pretty much invalidates the point(s) you're trying to make tbh.
I don't think the youth who attend his lectures would resent the "18 year olds know nothing" remark, and if they do, well then, they don't have to attend any more lectures, or maybe they could engage in dialogue with him about it.
I think the people who attend want to learn, so by definition, they know that they know little, or nothing.
I'm 45, and listening to his lectures I feel like I know little or nothing. And that's ok, because being able to learn about and follow his train of thought helps me know maybe a little bit more.
I never knew the guy before seeing the thread on here about him.
I have spent the past 3 weeks listening to various lectures, Maps of Meaning (very hard !), some about personality and other psychology, some interviews, and even some of the ridiculously titled (as mentioned earlier in this thread) "inspirational" ones. I usually try and find the original of these ones as that bloody music drives me loolah. Oh and the point scoring ones, but they're not really his of course.
I was curious about the guy and his ideas, I did want to check if indeed he was far right, but I had no preconceived political leaning to be biased about. (imo and in his words, he is not far right)
I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.
But I have no problem saying that I don't think he's trying to hammer any political agenda, genuinely.
I think his concern is more societal. There are many many instances when he says in various lectures and conferences that there is a need for dialogue, and that his concern is that this dialogue is no longer possible as the extreme left are shutting down freedom of speech.
It is not politically biased really, in his sphere (universities Canada and US) it is a fact. Freedom of speech is indeed curtailed, professors are self-censoring, and laws are being changed.
He repeatedly explains that both the left and the right, even extreme, have roles to play, and have to talk, to discuss things.
His major issue, and the reason he is so peed off at youngsters in Canadian/US universities, is that they will not tolerate discussion. It's not makey-uppy stuff, it is factual (Lindsay Shepherd's story is a good example).
He often mentions that the extremes he gets the most passionate about and that he talks about are mostly back home, and in the US.
I think it's useful to watch other videos/listen to other lectures by him to get a better idea of who he is, and what his intentions are.
I agree that the 12 rules for living don't seem great (I haven't bought the book, he mentions enough about it online to have a fair idea of the content), and they seem more like the bread winning career move.
The lectures and conferences, and interviews with Russel Brand for example are different. There is no obsessing about the left in them. He is more concerned about Chaos and Order, God, how humans behave, and how we all strive to find meaning in life.
You really get a sense that a) he wants to communicate what he has found out and learned (bible, religious and mythical stories, Nietzsche and others) by showing his reasoning b) he's striving to develop his own ideas by sharing them (ie tries to push his ideas further a bit with every discussion).
To be honest once you start listening to the other lectures, you feel like the whole political hoo-ha is just that, and he says himself, fair enough, the scandal made his videos go exponential, but he already had a million views on lectures before that. It certainly triggered his greater use of Youtube.
He's in his 50s, has thought, learned and taught so hard, and still is doing all these things, so if he's loaded now for the past few years, good for him.

You're obviously a big fan of JP and good luck to you.
The above reads like you're almost attempting to justify your new-found attachment, don't worry, it's not a crime, you're entitled to like him.

''I don't really know what I am politically, I used to think I was center left, but then sometimes I think I'm center right, I just don't know enough about politics to decide.''

Not buying the above, particularly from someone of your age.
I've never met a left-wing person, not one, who doesn't say that they are of the left or left-leaning.
However, I have encountered lots and lots of seemingly confused people who claim to be unsure of where they stand on the political spectrum vis-à-vis left or right.

So if you need some help with this one, I'm telling you now for free.
You're not of the left......and you know you're not.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments