Jordan Peterson

AllForIt · 28-03-2019 2:01am

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson's position.

Yes, that's what was asked and I answered it I think accurately, if I've taken him up correctly and I think I have.

Also, Peterson is not anti-feminist, he's anti radical feminist.

Peterson argues for equality of opportunity but not for equality of outcome.

I have heard quite a few prominent women complain about gender quotas. They don't think it's right. Mary Rourke would be one who I heard voice opposition to this right-on view.

I don't think Peterson's opinions on these issues are in any way whacky.

Black Swan · 02-04-2019 2:35am

Fathom wrote: »

His religious hierarchical paternalism in Maps forms a glass ceiling for women.

This was one reason why his position on women has been controversial.

Black Swan · 04-04-2019 4:36pm

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson labeled a "controversy-courting culture warrior" by Vox.

It would appear that Peterson does love controversy.

Cyclonius · 06-04-2019 12:25pm

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson labeled a "controversy-courting culture warrior" by Vox.

Vox aren't exactly ideologically neutral themselves, per Media Bias/Fact Check and AllSides. I'm not saying that the description of Peterson is necessarily incorrect, but Vox's slant does need to be highlighted.

Black Swan · 11-04-2019 10:41am

Fathom wrote: »

All sources have their target audiences. Their Weberian non-value-free orientation.

Economy and Society (1922)?

Charles Ingles · 11-04-2019 10:43am

Used to love Peterson very convincing.
Them I realised he just a male version of Oprah Winfrey

ILoveYourVibes · 07-05-2019 11:32am

Jordan Peterson is not qualified in anyway to lecture in Philosophy. He has zero philosophical background. He doesn't understand philosophy.

What lectures on is not Philosophy. A course on Philosophy would have no business including him or his work.

He does have an academic background in Psychology as far as I am aware its the only topic he has taught.

By the way he also gives lecture on Physics. Jordan Peterson has no background in Physics. He doesn't understand physics.

I don't know why someone with ZERO education on physics is giving public lectures entitled 'Jordan Peterson on Physics' and charging people to listen to them.

This is what an ACTUAL physicist has to say about Jordan Peterson's 'RESEARCH IN PHYSICS'.

I have a degree in law and philosophy its insulting to us to say this is philosophy.

He has ZERO to do with philosophy.

He made a hashed explanation of what postmodernism was and when an ACTUAL professor in philosophy corrected him in his technical mistakes his fanboys lost it.

If you want to study philosophy you have no business listening to him unless its on your own free time.

If you are a serious philosophy student and some of what he has said on postmodernism sinks in to your brain and you put it in an essay or an exam YOU WILL FAIL.

Obv I am not qualified to advise any physics students..but i gather his lecture on that are rubbish too.

Now NONE of this has anything to do with whether you agree with him or not. I am not venturing an opinion on whether i agree with him or not.

I am certain he has a lot of interesting things to say on his actual topic of expertise which is psychology.

Black Swan · 07-05-2019 3:10pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He made a hashed explanation of what postmodernism was and when an ACTUAL professor in philosophy corrected him in his technical mistakes his fanboys lost it.

Agree.

ILoveYourVibes · 07-05-2019 4:12pm

Marries the terms post modernism and Marxism.
There are two meanings of the term Post Modernism. One is a period in time after WW2. In this sense Post -Modernism is like 'The Enlightenment' 'or the renaissance'.

But Jordan Peterson has said that is NOT what he means. Which is a pity because then it might make sense.

Philosophical Post Modernism is what Peterson says he was talking about.
It’s very very vague. And it’s the rejection of the idea that you can actually 'know' it’s a form of scepticism.

Modernism is faith in certainty Post modernism is denying such certainty is possible. It's talked about Derrida and Foucault.
Now I don't want to talk about Derrida because I hate him. But he does bring up a point about Post Modernism and some issues with it. Derrida was lambasted for lack of 'rigour.' He is criticized because his work was too vague and almost artistic. And sometimes Post modernism is also. Why ? Well simply put scepticism about everything about every big idea or theory doesn't present its own idea beyond that. It REMAINS vague. You could say it’s not a theory but constant uncertainty.

Marxism on the other hand is a theory that wants to present itself with certainty. It has VERY distinct groups the proletariat and the bourgeoisie etc. Postmodernism would ask ‘can we really be certain these two groups exist?’ Is society not more fluid etc etc? Marxism wishes to present these groups as a fixed certainty. There is even Marxist sociology.

So with postmodernism being pure scepticism etc ...and Marxism being a theory and manifesto based on firm ideas etc you can see why they just can't go together.

You can also see that its clear Jordan Peterson has NO idea what post modernism is. It’s unlikely he has even read about it from a real philosopher. I think he just heard the word and ASSUMED he knew what it meant. That is the only conclusion I can come to.

Therefore marrying the two terms post modernism and Marxism is very difficult and makes no sense.

I think Contrapoints makes a great analyses of Jordan Peterson.

She makes the point that all of his 'Self help' is really a Trojan horse for his 'reactionary political agenda.'

He incorrectly uses terms that are very specifically defined in the philosophical community for vague leftist ideas.

And for anyone studying post modernism she gives you a good basic intro into what it actually is.

This is titled 'Jordan Peterson' Its really a video about philosophical postmodernism.

Contrapoints references Foucault READ HIM don't read Derrida! She's right **** Derrida! You could also read Richard Rorty and Kierkegaard. on post modernism.

friendlyfun · 07-05-2019 4:14pm

I find his behaviour a bit bizzare. Like there's a video of him crying about the loss of liberty.

In another interview he shouted "Gotcha!"at someone he was debating. He could be the smartest man but he's quite immature in his behaviour.

Black Swan · 07-05-2019 4:35pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Philosophical Post Modernism is what Peterson says he was talking about.
It’s very very vague.

Indeed. When Peterson steps away from psychology, he fails. And even in psychology his Maps book was in error, when he treated the left brain-right brain metaphor as if it was a scientific discovery, rather than a mere metaphor to foster discussion. As noted elsewhere, Garth Morgan in Images of Organisation cautions about metaphors being useful for discussion, but not to be taken literally, rather being distortions of reality.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Modernism is faith in certainty Post modernism is denying such certainty is possible. It's talked about Derrida and Foucault. Now I don't want to talk about Derrida because I hate him. But he does bring up a point about Post Modernism and some issues with it. Derrida was lambasted for lack of 'rigour.' He is criticized because his work was too vague and almost artistic.

Jacques Derrida has been labeled as a postmodern philosopher, but he does not have a formally constructed philosophy; consequently, was he a philosopher? I do not consider him a philosopher, rather a philosophical methodologist, with deconstruction as his method. His methods have been useful when designing theoretical frameworks for research studies (e.g., dichotomy cautions, signature, the "other," etc.), although I find him a hard read. Comparatively speaking, Peterson was so superficial and misleading that I found him useless in my work.

ILoveYourVibes · 07-05-2019 5:22pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Indeed. When Peterson steps away from psychology, he fails. And even in psychology his Maps book was in error, when he treated the left brain-right brain metaphor as if it was a scientific discovery, rather than a mere metaphor to foster discussion. As noted elsewhere, Garth Morgan in Images of Organisation cautions about metaphors being useful for discussion, but not to be taken literally, rather being distortions of reality.

Jacques Derrida has been labeled as a postmodern philosopher, but he does not have a formally constructed philosophy; consequently, was he a philosopher? I do not consider him a philosopher, rather a philosophical methodologist, with deconstruction as his method. His methods have been useful when designing theoretical frameworks for research studies (e.g., dichotomy cautions, signature, the "other," etc.), although I find him a hard read. Comparatively speaking, Peterson was so superficial and misleading that I found him useless in my work.

A lot of people don't consider Derrida to be a philosopher at all. I think the 'salon' or group of people in France he was surrounded by had a lot of contacts to promote him.

It became like this epic battle between Sartre and Derrida.

No one can understand what derrida means. Just the methods he used i am not even certain he came up with them I mean can you honestly say Derrida came up with Deconstruction? It kind of had to be around before then. And he doesn't call it a method himself it says it can't be ...so...i dunno.

If Derrida is a philosopher he is a very poor scholar.

I can't understand him anyway.:( it was like he was on drugs.

And Nietzsche used deconstruction and i know derrida says he was influenced by him etc but i don't think he actually added anything of value to that method.

He is a philosopher just not a great one. But then what do i know?

Black Swan · 07-05-2019 5:37pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Just the methods he used i am not even certain he came up with them I mean can you honestly say Derrida came up with Deconstruction? It kind of had to be around before then. And he doesn't call it a method himself it says it can't be ...so...i dunno.

In addition to his French appointment, Derrida also had a shared appointment at my university until his 2004 death. He gave seminars in English mixed with French, and our library has been filled with his collections. So from a utility standpoint to include him in my RFP citations goes well with my university affiliation, although as you suggest, deconstruction, other than its label for the past 40 years, probably can in part be attributed to earlier philosophical positions. Derrida does use the word deconstruction in several of his works. And you are correct that he does not call it a method, or himself a methodologist. Whereas Derrida may be a bit controversial in narrow philosophical circles, Peterson has loudly beat his drum across social media, which has benefited his book sales.

ILoveYourVibes · 07-05-2019 8:45pm

Black Swan wrote: »

In addition to his French appointment, Derrida also had a shared appointment at my university until his 2004 death. He gave seminars in English mixed with French, and our library has been filled with his collections. So from a utility standpoint to include him in my RFP citations goes well with my university affiliation, although as you suggest, deconstruction, other than its label for the past 40 years, probably can in part be attributed to earlier philosophical positions. Derrida does use the word deconstruction in several of his works. And you are correct that he does not call it a method, or himself a methodologist. Whereas Derrida may be a bit controversial in narrow philosophical circles, Peterson has loudly beat his drum across social media, which has benefited his book sales.

Wow i wonder what he was like did you meet him?

Its nice to have this discourse with you:)

I haven't really talked about philosophy in a while.

jackboy · 09-05-2019 8:47pm

friendlyfun wrote: »

I find his behaviour a bit bizzare. Like there's a video of him crying about the loss of liberty.

In another interview he shouted "Gotcha!"at someone he was debating. He could be the smartest man but he's quite immature in his behaviour.

Did he really shout “Gotcha”, or did he just say the word calmly. In any debate I’ve seen him in he clearly showed greater maturity than his detractors.

ILoveYourVibes · 11-05-2019 10:44pm

jackboy wrote: »

Did he really shout “Gotcha”, or did he just say the word calmly. In any debate I’ve seen him in he clearly showed greater maturity than his detractors.

I would define it better as 'calmness'. He lacks intellectual maturity though.

Some of the greatest philosophers were very emotionally immature. Wittgenstein for example! Total BABY!

This was the debate. Both parties seem calm and cordial.

Both parties seem to be intellectually grasping though.

Peterson should stay in his intellectual lane.

jackboy · 12-05-2019 8:53am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Both parties seem to be intellectually grasping though.

Peterson should stay in his intellectual lane.

What is his intellectual lane? Most of what he says is clear and simple. That is why it is powerful and very difficult to dispute in a debate.

ancapailldorcha · 12-05-2019 9:35am

I've been on the fence about Peterson for some time now. I've enjoyed some of his videos where he talks about depression, stress, anxiety, etc... I'm a lot less keen on his political views, particularly his denial of climate change. I get the impression that he feels that the way he lived his life, ie marrying his childhood sweetheard, growing up in a rural Canada community and being Christian is superior to others and to that he end he is pushing a traditionally conservative, nuclear family-based & Christian ideology. There isn't anything wrong with this but he seems predisposed to prevaricating when pressed about it on occasion.

I'm about 40% of the way through 12 rules for life and I have to say that I find it quite disappointing. I've no idea where this idea that Peterson is a great thinker or that the lavish praise which has been heaped on this book have come from. He spends the first chapter wittering on and on about Lobsters only to conclude that people who let others take advantage of or oppress them need to stand up for themselves and that women like confident men. In the second chapter, he asserts that we don't take proper care of ourselves because we feel unworthy to walk with God due to the sin committed in the Garden of Eden. It's at best highly reductionist reasoning and is clearly intended to push this agenda, freed from interjections from interviewers. It's a pamphlet that's been padded out with then intention of becoming a bestseller. Were it not for his popularity online, there's no way this would have survived a publisher's editorial process.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-05-2019 10:34pm

jackboy wrote: »

What is his intellectual lane? Most of what he says is clear and simple. That is why it is powerful and very difficult to dispute in a debate.

Everything he says regarding philosophy is incorrect.

Whatever his lane is its not philosophy. According to physicists its not physics either.

He isn't difficult to dispute in debate on philosophy as contrapoints demonstrated. He just never debates philosophers.

He debates journalists who obv haven't a clue or Ben Shapiro.

ILoveYourVibes · 12-05-2019 10:38pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've been on the fence about Peterson for some time now. I've enjoyed some of his videos where he talks about depression, stress, anxiety, etc... I'm a lot less keen on his political views, particularly his denial of climate change. I get the impression that he feels that the way he lived his life, ie marrying his childhood sweetheard, growing up in a rural Canada community and being Christian is superior to others and to that he end he is pushing a traditionally conservative, nuclear family-based & Christian ideology. There isn't anything wrong with this but he seems predisposed to prevaricating when pressed about it on occasion.

I'm about 40% of the way through 12 rules for life and I have to say that I find it quite disappointing. I've no idea where this idea that Peterson is a great thinker or that the lavish praise which has been heaped on this book have come from. He spends the first chapter wittering on and on about Lobsters only to conclude that people who let others take advantage of or oppress them need to stand up for themselves and that women like confident men. In the second chapter, he asserts that we don't take proper care of ourselves because we feel unworthy to walk with God due to the sin committed in the Garden of Eden. It's at best highly reductionist reasoning and is clearly intended to push this agenda, freed from interjections from interviewers. It's a pamphlet that's been padded out with then intention of becoming a bestseller. Were it not for his popularity online, there's no way this would have survived a publisher's editorial process.

Maybe he says things that have basis in psychology that are true but are uncomfortable. I am not knowledgeable about psychology. He is. What do i know about psychology?

I know philosophy though. Enough to know at a glance that its doubtful he has every read a philosophy book. He name drops philosophers he can't understand and hasn't read. Its really like someone going to the ballet and saying my favorite dancer is Puccini.

Black Swan · 13-05-2019 6:21pm

Jordan Peterson on why Chaos is Symbolically Feminine in terms of archetypes and brain architecture as contained in his 12 Rules book was highly problematic, as was Peterson's continued claim that the left-brain right-brain comparison was a scientific discovery beyond reasonable doubt, and continues to be a foundation argument for Peterson in both Maps and 12 Rules; rather than merely a metaphor, which, as a metaphor should not be taken literally as it was a distortion of reality. Further he draws from Disney movies for additional support of this questionable positions regarding chaos being symbolically feminine referencing the "evil queen" as if popular anecdotal support from movie goers added additional foundation for his feminine chaos claim.

Black Swan · 15-05-2019 6:24pm

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson's 12 Rules for Life has subtitle: "An Antidote to Chaos." What does this subtitle suggest about Peterson's meaning when he contends chaos is symbolically feminine?

Peterson enjoys drawing attention to himself by stirring up chaos?

ILoveYourVibes · 20-05-2019 12:45am

I find it strange. This has zero to do with philosophy but...

I will admit there are certain qualities that seem intrinsically feminine or at least traditionally feminine.

Softness , nurturing etc intuition.

For all their talk about wanting women to BE feminine the alt right/Peterson etc doesn't value these qualities very highly.

Maybe women would feel more inclined to be feminine if femininity was valued more by the west and the alt right/Peterson instead of despised and mocked.

Greaney · 27-05-2019 9:03am

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson has been reported a philosopher. Although he lacks any formally constructed philosophy. 12 Rules and Maps are part of the self-help genre, primarily directed towards a male audience.

"How philosopher Jordan Peterson will change the world."

"...you overhear references to Jung, identity politics, biology, responsibility, faith, Nietzsche, the importance of not lying, and Solzhenitsyn."

Superficial references to Nietzsche does not a philosopher make of Peterson.

"The audience to this beyond-sold-out event is disproportionately male..."

Peterson's message has obviously been directed at men. If he wishes that audience, fine. But don't expect all women to sit silently when Peterson goes on the world wide web and advocates that North America should return to the era of Ozzie and Harriet paternalism (see Maps).

It's interesting they 'sell him' as a philosopher, he always says he's a psychologist, and most of his audience may be male, but 80% of his students in college were female, go figure.

cdgalwegian · 27-05-2019 2:55pm

I was having a look around Peterson's blog to see if he styles himself as a philosopher. In his podcast archive though, I saw one with a description of one of his guests:

Screenshot_2019-05-27 Jordan B Peterson Podcast.png

It's a bit odd to describe/agree with description of, someone's facial features of a guest isn't it? (well, these days anyway). Would he describe a woman as such? Perhaps he's virtue signalling that he is in touch with his feminine/anima side.

Black Swan · 28-05-2019 8:17am

Greaney wrote: »

... 80% of his students in college were female, go figure.

Do you have a link that confirms "80% of his students in college were female?" Thanks in advance.

Greaney · 31-05-2019 7:43pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you have a link that confirms "80% of his students in college were female?" Thanks in advance.

I'll try and find the link but he said so himself in a number of interviews... Especially when he talks about the state of the 'humanities' in Universities...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCkZKjSmdu0

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/07-08/women-psychology (this one refers to the figures being 75% women studying psycology)

I'm not gonna lie, because I hadn't watched his vids in long time I had to trawl through loads and struggled (where as i knew there were at least two, and these links are not them!!). If I find more I'll post... but I've got to get away from this screen!!!! I'll honestly have another look and add more links

Hobosan · 06-06-2019 4:25am

Fathom wrote: »

Still looking. Have not found cite. For women enrolled in Peterson's college classes. Gender percentage M-F?

I've watched enough of his lectures to see it is around 80%. Just take a look at any random lecture if you haven't already, it's crystal clear.

Hobosan · 06-06-2019 4:41am

Fathom wrote: »

Watched small number Jordan vids. Certainly not all. Those I watched, just-eye-balling audience, there were more men than women. Not a random sample on my part. Rather convenience sample that cannot be representative or generalized.

Apologies, I mean his college lecture classes specifically, it's ponytails from wall to wall, with a male or two scattered around. They're not particularly interesting videos, usually highlighting archetypes and recurring myths in The Lion King or Pinnochio.

There are nuggets of wisdom scattered throughout of course. The point is I've watched enough to see around 80% is accurate.

Edit -

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm_2zmX6Akc

Around the 15 min mark is a good angle showing the make-up of a typical class, in case anyone thinks around 80% is an exaggeration. No clue if the content of the video, I just plucked the first one I found.

cdgalwegian · 06-06-2019 5:49pm

Hobosan wrote: »

They're not particularly interesting videos, usually highlighting archetypes and recurring myths in The Lion King or Pinnochio.
There are nuggets of wisdom scattered throughout of course..

Here’s my take: There is a superficial depth to them that was initially to me quite interesting, in an intellectually stimulating way. In terms of psychology, I was quite interested in Jung’s approach, even though I have always viewed it as hokum. It had high intellectual curiosity value for me, despite being mystical pseudoscience.
Peterson imposes his personality in an entertaining way in his lectures, which are a blend of his clinical psychology groundings and Jung’s archetypal claptrap, compiled as a (confusing) map of action in the world. I suppose he is proposing a meta-ethical theory of action: instead of, say, Virtue Theory, he has an evolutionary theory, which I have previously dubbed ‘Biological Traditionalism’ – basically a ‘stay-in-your-lane-conservatism-because-that’s-the-way-nature is’ philosophy.
Peterson’s eclectic brand of self-help meta-ethics manages then to start off with an intellectual base, appealing initially to inchoate academia (and many in the broader public), but ends up in the justification of male hierarchy, attracting the alt-right.

Jordan Peterson

Comments