Jordan Peterson interview on C4

alaimacerc · 11-09-2018 4:32pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).

Maybe he's not so much skeptical of the science, as attempting some sort of social-science critique of the people that do it, or care about the implications. Perhaps due to being "hysterical" about it, which is very much the sort of thing he'd say. (Generally while being high-pitched, animated, and emotive himself, mind you.)

alaimacerc · 11-09-2018 4:38pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Yes, they're absolutely inevitable.

Indeed? And do you find that there's continuity and a continuum between hierarchies in lobsters, and hierarchies in humans? And in hierarchies in every single other organism descended from their common ancestor?

I think you might find yourself trying -- and rapidly failing -- to defend the proposition that JP was trying hard not to have to.

The problem with leftists / sjw's is that they assume that the existing structure until now has always been "the patriarchy", an inherently corrupt hierarchy designed by and for powerful rich white men.

Yes, that's precisely the flawed argument I just pointed out the fallacy of. Do keep up.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 11-09-2018 4:39pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm definitely not qualified to critique the views of an MIT professor, but it's clear that the majority scientific opinion, even within climate science, is against him.

I notice that on Lindzen's wikipedia page he relies on the fact that science has been wrong before, as being somehow supportive of the implication that science is wrong about climate change. That's a whopping great logical fallacy. Just because science was once incorrect about the geometry of the planet, doesn't mean that it's also wrong about every subsequent claim like atomic theory, evolution, or for that matter, climate change.

I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).

Yeah, I feel pretty similar about it.

It might be technically true that we don't fully understand the climate, climate change and our influence on it, but it's pretty clear that the burning of fossil fuels, etc is bad, regardless of whether they are only slightly speeding up a natural process or not.

I see movements towards renewable energy as exclusively positive (are there cons I'm not seeing?). Given this, I see no reason to argue against efforts to reduce our "carbon footprint".

I do question his motive for posting it.

A) It's poking the bull to get another hysterical reaction from lefties/sjw's. (Childish)

He is a climate change denier. (Unlikely, but a blow to his credibility for sure)
C) Paid to tweet? Hard to know, but a horrible blow to his credibility too if that was the case.

xckjoo · 11-09-2018 4:41pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Clearly", eh? Why do you think I put in quotes? Enforced means "not enforced at all" when that suits him, and "actually enforced" when that does. It's either deliberate bait-and-switch on his part, or -- gasp! -- lamentably imprecise use of language.

I must have missed that class in English where they explained that usage of quotation marks. I'm surprised I haven't encountered it before but I suppose it is a very specific use case. It's quite involved too. If other people had questioned the clarity of your posts I'd be doing the same, but it's not like that's happening right?

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's a wise person that knows which those people actually are.

Flattery will get you everywhere

alaimacerc wrote: »

Why's this a "quick" question? Isn't "whole new can of worms" more apt?

If you want a "quick" summary, then what happened is that he pandered shamelessly to the usual right-wing suspects, the usual right-wing suspects loved it, everyone else with a lick of regard to scientific fact sighed wearily.

"Quick" because it has already been discussed at length in the thread but hasn't been mentioned in a while. So in your parlance, it's an "already open can of worms that's starting to go moldy". And here was me thinking you weren't doing any due diligence before you "post".

7aubzxk43m2sni · 11-09-2018 4:42pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Indeed? And do you find that there's continuity and a continuum between hierarchies in lobsters, and hierarchies in humans? And in hierarchies in every single other organism descended from their common ancestor?

I think you might find yourself trying -- and rapidly failing -- to defend the proposition that JP was trying hard not to have to.

Yes, that's precisely the flawed argument I just pointed out the fallacy of. Do keep up.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the continuity question?

Regarding your second point, if I understand correctly, you don't believe that the premise for most sjw movements is the existence of the "patriarchy"?

xckjoo · 11-09-2018 4:45pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm definitely not qualified to critique the views of an MIT professor, but it's clear that the majority scientific opinion, even within climate science, is against him.

I notice that on Lindzen's wikipedia page he relies on the fact that science has been wrong before, as being somehow supportive of the implication that science is wrong about climate change. That's a whopping great logical fallacy. Just because science was once incorrect about the geometry of the planet, doesn't mean that it's also wrong about every subsequent claim like atomic theory, evolution, or for that matter, climate change.

I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).

I'm not qualified either but Lindzen definitely seems like a quack. Akrasia has critiqued him heavily earlier in the thread and they seem to know what they're talking about.

alaimacerc · 11-09-2018 4:46pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

So here you're saying ... nothing?

So here, you're attempting to repeat the "just trying to waste my time" tactic you've just effectively fessed up to? Fool me once, etc.

When/ where did he "throw in a date", and what did he get wrong? In other words, what are you talking about?

alaimacerc wrote: »

(Hauling it back to the C4 interview, however fleetingly!)

The actual bleedin' thread title wrote:

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

What he got wrong was... the date.

I'm thinking it's not so much that I'm not saying things clearly enough, as that some people need the same thing said three times.

xckjoo · 11-09-2018 4:54pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't know for certain if he "identifies" as such. Perhaps another Operation Motte and Bailey exercise on his part. I wasn't entirely clear which tweet was being referred to by the other poster, but seemingly there's something of a track-record of at best snidey comments on the topic.

And yet you still felt the need to post and give an opinion that's based on (by your own admission) no knowledge of what's even being asked. More due diligence I see! Snidely (sic) commented on too I might add.

alaimacerc · 11-09-2018 5:06pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the continuity question?

Of course you're not. That would be breaking the combo, wouldn't it?

How do hierarchies in humans relate to hierarchies in lobsters? JP appears to just start waving his hands about serotonin. As if every bilateral animal has essentially the same hierarchy, arising from the same biological mechanism. Which would be obvious nonsense, of course, so he doesn't quite say it. Seems happy enough to hint in that direction and have his fanbase pick up the ball and run with it, all the same. In actual fact, the two are pretty much unconnected, as a moment's consideration of the vast diversity among such life should tell you. So his argument is pretty much actually "hierarchy whataboutery", with some inept attempts to appropriate some concepts from biology thrown in. Because he's a "public intellectual", after all.

Regarding your second point, if I understand correctly, you don't believe that the premise for most sjw movements is the existence of the "patriarchy"?

"Most sjw movements" is not a useful description. Are you trying to say "second-wave feminism"? Just with some classic JP-fan "snarling at feminists" loading of the linguistic bases?

"Be precise in your speech." #10, IIRC.

alaimacerc · 11-09-2018 5:10pm

xckjoo wrote: »

And yet you still felt the need to post and give an opinion that's based on (by your own admission) no knowledge of what's even being asked. More due diligence I see!

Is this what one might call a "riff"? Because it certainly doesn't speak to anything I actually said.

Snidely (sic)

I'm hoping you realize that "snidey" and "snidely" are different words, if that was an attempt at a typo flame. More like (non sic).

alaimacerc · 11-09-2018 5:21pm

xckjoo wrote: »

I must have missed that class in English where they explained that usage of quotation marks.

Never too late for some remediation. I'd suggest you start by googling "scare quotes". (If that wasn't the use of quotation marks that broke the camel's back.)

If other people had questioned the clarity of your posts I'd be doing the same, but it's not like that's happening right?

Yes, a minor mob of JP-fan hecklers. My feels, they're so very hurt.

due diligence

Was this in your "phrase of the day" diary, or did you just get stuck in a little loop on this? I'm posting in AH. Replying to some low-grade "OMG, someone said something less than reverential about Prof P!" posts. Precisely how much "diligence" do you think is "due"?

I'd say that you're all getting about 150% of what's rhetorically necessary for the thread at hand, and 400% of what you karmicly deserve. But I won't pretend those are precise estimates.

Mountainsandh · 11-09-2018 7:08pm

besserwisser wrote: »

Apologies if previously posted. Interesting opinion piece in the Toronto Star:-

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

It's interesting alright, and a cut above what the anti-JP on here are able to express.
Re the quote below from the piece, I think his mission is simply to make people think for themselves. All people : oversimplification, facts, and emotion are just tools to reach everyone.

His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He can be very persuasive, and toys with facts and with people’s emotions. I believe he is a man with a mission. It is less clear what that mission is.

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I do question his motive for posting it.

A) It's poking the bull to get another hysterical reaction from lefties/sjw's. (Childish)
He is a climate change denier. (Unlikely, but a blow to his credibility for sure)
C) Paid to tweet? Hard to know, but a horrible blow to his credibility too if that was the case.

If the guy is genuinely simply trying to make people stop and think for themselves, then it makes sense to post such a video.

I don't see a dark motive to secretly hypnotize everyone into thinking any particular thoughts, I think the motive is really to get everyone to think thoughts !

He has put such thorough research into his own domain that it may look to us like he's got an answer for everything, and all leads back to his own theories.
I think it's fair enough, and that if and when someone comes up with a valid or valuable argument against his train of thought, he willingly engages and digests it his own way. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The interviews with Russel Brand are interesting from that perspective.

flexcon · 11-09-2018 8:12pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, a minor mob of JP-fan hecklers. My feels, they're so very hurt.

Jordan Peterson said something along the lines of the following in an interview a few years ago that I have remembered. Could have been the Joe Rogan Podcast:

Objective world - it’s all about interpretation.

“Imagine groups of people who are competing for resources and it’s a zero sum game - Every group against every other group and the reason why we engage in dialogue isn’t to establish the truth or move towards some closer approximation of reality but to structure the social interaction so our group comes out on top. “

That’s literally what happens in the "Right vs Left".

Someone like myself is literally ONLY trying to understand what the world is about and to get by and do what I believe is the right thing.

Your engagement so far has rendered this impossible for myself today.
When I am trying to find out what all of this means in dialogue I just get the feeling that your mind is already prepared for battle.
Most of us out there i would imagine are not political scientists, or listen to engaging podcasts or - even a member of a forum(besides facebook)

You might say boohoo grow a pair, but, that ain’t taking away a fact - You have alienated yourself from my willingness now to discuss any further. Your style is just insanely intense and of no use to some of us here anymore.

you may not like the fact that JP has succeed in reaching out to myself and others like myself with over simplistic expressions but - At least he somewhat succeeded and you utterly failed.( But I have learned not to take you as a rep of the entire LEFT)

Isn’t it a paradox of sort that, the LEFT as it were, historically tends to stick up for those on the edge of society, those who cannot speak up. Those that need help and are dammed by the current world we live it and yet - You, in your character traits have basically rendered myself to now be silent and not engage anymore directly to you.

And what happens when this becomes more and more apparent? Well suddenly the FAR right comes out and beats the recently established left world. Now, the issue I see it is this - Centre left or right, good folk, will be on that side, simply because they are not shut down by individuals, not to far from you. The left were fighting the oppressors. Funny that, seems almost at my view now to be the other way around.

That is really what the problem is with all of this I find it’s no longer a choice to be defined in one way or the other but compelling others to define themselves wholly.

Anyway - I have enjoyed this thread immensely but I too am over and out in general. Of course I will continue to read new posts but won’t be participating.

Brian? · 11-09-2018 8:15pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

If you listened to more than snippets and hit piece articles you might understand that acknowledging the existence of something, hierarchies in this example, does not defend them.

Yes, they're absolutely inevitable.

The problem with leftists / sjw's is that they assume that the existing structure until now has always been "the patriarchy", an inherently corrupt hierarchy designed by and for powerful rich white men.

Answer me this. Why are you so ready to rail against identity politics and Grouping people together and yet do exactly that to anyone on the left?

Why is Jordan Peterson so happy to do it to?

If grouping people and generalising is wrong, it’s always wrong. Always, whether you agree with them or not.

Mountainsandh · 11-09-2018 9:31pm

Brian? wrote: »

Answer me this. Why are you so ready to rail against identity politics and Grouping people together and yet do exactly that to anyone on the left?

Why is Jordan Peterson so happy to do it to?

If grouping people and generalising is wrong, it’s always wrong. Always, whether you agree with them or not.

I think the people who are "very left" are just doing that themselves really, by excluding all sorts of people from their group.
See Giraffe Box's categorization of people above for example ?

If you proclaim to belong to a group, and declare that such or such does not belong because this or that, you can expect others, from the outside, to see you as a closed group too. It's not even a mark or disrespect, it's just... what the group in question is telling others to view them as.

I know some people will rile up rather than watch a JP video, but this is only 4 minutes long. a) it doesn't sound like a man who's a right winger b) he addresses group identity, why it is not good, but also how it does exist. You can't just pretend that it doesn't, like.

https://youtu.be/63DaxIMlfs0

Brian? · 12-09-2018 7:51am

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think the people who are "very left" are just doing that themselves really, by excluding all sorts of people from their group.
See Giraffe Box's categorization of people above for example ?

If you proclaim to belong to a group, and declare that such or such does not belong because this or that, you can expect others, from the outside, to see you as a closed group too. It's not even a mark or disrespect, it's just... what the group in question is telling others to view them as.

I know some people will rile up rather than watch a JP video, but this is only 4 minutes long. a) it doesn't sound like a man who's a right winger b) he addresses group identity, why it is not good, but also how it does exist. You can't just pretend that it doesn't, like.

https://youtu.be/63DaxIMlfs0

I think you'll find that saying you're left wing isn't declaring yourself part of a group. It's a handy description of where one's political beliefs lie.

JP and his followers here, are declaring everyone on the left to be a group. A homogeneous group that are completely aligned in their thinking on all matters. That's simply not the case though.

I would consider myself "very left". Part of that is that I believe in unrestricted free speech.

You seem to consider people who indulge in identity politics as "very left". I would have serious issues with such people, yet we are both politically left wing. I would have major disagreements with Trokskyites and Stalinists as well on different issues.

We should be arguing the issues. JP should agree with that, he proclaims to agree with that, yet he indulges in his own form of lazy identity politics when discussing "the left".

7aubzxk43m2sni · 12-09-2018 8:17am

Brian? wrote: »

Answer me this. Why are you so ready to rail against identity politics and Grouping people together and yet do exactly that to anyone on the left?

Why is Jordan Peterson so happy to do it to?

If grouping people and generalising is wrong, it’s always wrong. Always, whether you agree with them or not.

I don't do that to anyone on the left. I merely call it out when I see it happening, as in this thread Giraffebox has repeatedly try to do.

Brian? · 12-09-2018 8:33am

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I don't do that to anyone on the left. I merely call it out when I see it happening, as in this thread Giraffebox has repeatedly try to do.

Edit, I mixed up posters. Disregard

El_Duderino 09 · 12-09-2018 2:36pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I do question his motive for posting it.

A) It's poking the bull to get another hysterical reaction from lefties/sjw's. (Childish)
He is a climate change denier. (Unlikely, but a blow to his credibility for sure)
C) Paid to tweet? Hard to know, but a horrible blow to his credibility too if that was the case.

And the glaringly obvious reason for posting it is because his (US) fans are likely to enjoy that message and it’s simply throwing red meat to his fans. It’s not terribly complicated. It’s exactly what it looks like.

Mountainsandh · 13-09-2018 11:55pm

Brian? wrote: »

I think you'll find that saying you're left wing isn't declaring yourself part of a group. It's a handy description of where one's political beliefs lie.

JP and his followers here, are declaring everyone on the left to be a group. A homogeneous group that are completely aligned in their thinking on all matters. That's simply not the case though.

I would consider myself "very left". Part of that is that I believe in unrestricted free speech.

You seem to consider people who indulge in identity politics as "very left". I would have serious issues with such people, yet we are both politically left wing. I would have major disagreements with Trokskyites and Stalinists as well on different issues.

We should be arguing the issues. JP should agree with that, he proclaims to agree with that, yet he indulges in his own form of lazy identity politics when discussing "the left".

I get what you're saying, but he usually clearly states that it's the radical left he has issues with. That's what I meant by "very left".
He often also adds that he is talking about groups of people he has to deal with ie Canadian (and occasionally American) uni students.
His experience has broadened to a wider array of radical left uni students alright, since he travels a bit more these days.

note : these are the people who instigated/insired/supported the legislative change in linguistics that started the outcry about him.

I'm sure he might occasionally forget the "radical" or "extreme" words and speak in broad terms of "the left"/"the right", although he is usually cautious with his words. I need to watch some videos again see if I can spot omissions.
In the video above, he's on about just "the left/the right" alright. I think it was at right wing conference so maybe he felt there was no need for qualifiers, don't know.

Brian? · 14-09-2018 7:31am

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but he usually clearly states that it's the radical left he has issues with. That's what I meant by "very left".

He rarely states “the radical left” from what I’ve seen. But I am open to correction.

But as I said, even then the term “radical left” is not a specific term. The people he had the most issues with aren’t the radical left as far as I’m concerned. The real radical left (IMO)want to tear down the capitalist economic system and replace it with a socialist model. They spend very little time worrying about pronouns.

The people Peterson have issues with are social progressives, of sorts. they don’t seem to spend much time on economic issues. Both Peterson and I agree that these people are misguided zealots for social progressivism, they should be more concerned with economic issues, the traditional cause of the left.

He often also adds that he is talking about groups of people he has to deal with ie Canadian (and occasionally American) uni students.
His experience has broadened to a wider array of radical left uni students alright, since he travels a bit more these days.

note : these are the people who instigated/insired/supported the legislative change in linguistics that started the outcry about him.

I'm sure he might occasionally forget the "radical" or "extreme" words and speak in broad terms of "the left"/"the right", although he is usually cautious with his words. I need to watch some videos again see if I can spot omissions.
In the video above, he's on about just "the left/the right" alright. I think it was at right wing conference so maybe he felt there was no need for qualifiers, don't know.

One of Peterson’s rules is “be precise in your speech”, isn’t it? If this is a rule, he should pay more attention to it himself. He should be calling out the issues he disagrees with, not use broad generalisations the way he does. He’d find far more allies on the traditional left if he did.

I have a suspicion he doesn’t want allies on the left though. He plays to his base. Throwing stones at the left suits this agenda. Calling out the ills of “the left” is a handy way to draw people in.

There are many people on the right I disagree with. I disagree with some of their beliefs. If I am going to critique these beliefs I try to be very clear about what I disagree with. I do not say, “the problem with the right is ....”, it raises the level of discourse so ideas can be debated. What Peterson does helps create an anti-left mentality in his followers, so instead of critically analysing the ideas of the left they simply dismiss the ideas out of hand.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 8:46am

Brian? wrote: »

I have a suspicion he doesn’t want allies on the left though.

In 1999 Peterson was 37 and published a book called Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief solidly in his area of academic expertise. He did not become rich and famous. His lectures were popular with students and he was a practicing clinical psychologist.

In 2016 he started a Youtube channel, and in 2018 published a book of populist conservative baloney called 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos with an accompanying world tour, arena performances, interviews on TV and appearances in the best-seller list. Since all this kicked off he has given up teaching and clinical practice to be a famous person instead.

The man is not stupid - he knows exactly what he is doing, and it is working wonderfully. The baloney in his book is aimed at a particular audience, and annoying everyone else is a bonus for these people ("triggering the SJWs, owning the libs, rejecting PC" etc.).

If the left in general dislikes him, it means his act is a success.

silverharp · 14-09-2018 9:39am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In 1999 Peterson was 37 and published a book called Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief solidly in his area of academic expertise. He did not become rich and famous. His lectures were popular with students and he was a practicing clinical psychologist.

In 2016 he started a Youtube channel, and in 2018 published a book of populist conservative baloney called 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos with an accompanying world tour, arena performances, interviews on TV and appearances in the best-seller list. Since all this kicked off he has given up teaching and clinical practice to be a famous person instead.

The man is not stupid - he knows exactly what he is doing, and it is working wonderfully. The baloney in his book is aimed at a particular audience, and annoying everyone else is a bonus for these people ("triggering the SJWs, owning the libs, rejecting PC" etc.).

If the left in general dislikes him, it means his act is a success.

painting him as a huxter doesn't fly , he doesn't strike me as a Tony Robbins type character

Brian? · 14-09-2018 9:55am

silverharp wrote: »

painting him as a huxter doesn't fly , he doesn't strike me as a Tony Robbins type character

Are you calling Tony Robbins a huckster?

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 10:25am

silverharp wrote: »

painting him as a huxter doesn't fly

I never said he was a huckster, he is a very intelligent man who is making a tonne of money selling a carefully targeted product to a demographic which has a lot of disposable cash.

It's a good business model.

Skelet0n · 14-09-2018 10:34am

Havockk wrote: »

Used to be they handed out medals for bashing the fash.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-09-2018 12:59pm

silverharp wrote: »

painting him as a huxter doesn't fly , he doesn't strike me as a Tony Robbins type character

He’s Tony Robbins crossed with Bill O Reilly. Self help for the conservative white man. His message is tailored for you so I imagine you see his message as common sense

Stand up straight, shoulders back, tidy your room. The left are all wrong. Common sense for the conservative without challenging any of your beliefs. Magic.

silverharp · 14-09-2018 1:11pm

Brian? wrote: »

Are you calling Tony Robbins a huckster?

at a minimum he has always been a professional motivational speaker, he is a bit too slick and came across to me like a TV Evangelist.

silverharp · 14-09-2018 1:11pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’s Tony Robbins crossed with Bill O Reilly. Self help for the conservative white man. His message is tailored for you so I imagine you see his message as common sense

Stand up straight, shoulders back, tidy your room. The left are all wrong. Common sense for the conservative without challenging any of your beliefs. Magic.

white men eh? blacks and women banned :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09 · 14-09-2018 1:15pm

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’s Tony Robbins crossed with Bill O Reilly. Self help for the conservative white man. His message is tailored for you so I imagine you see his message as common sense

Stand up straight, shoulders back, tidy your room. The left are all wrong. Common sense for the conservative without challenging any of your beliefs. Magic.

white men eh? blacks and women banned :rolleyes:

Not banned. The message isn’t tailored to them the way it’s tailored to you. That much should be clear

Brian? · 14-09-2018 1:24pm

silverharp wrote: »

at a minimum he has always been a professional motivational speaker, he is a bit too slick and came across to me like a TV Evangelist.

At a minimum? He is a motivational speaker. I wouldn’t be a fan of his delivery, but some very successful people I respect are big fans of Tony Robbins. His message is simple and inoffensive, delivered with razzle dazzle.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 1:25pm

silverharp wrote: »

white men eh? blacks and women banned :rolleyes:

Not banned, just not his intended audience.

His message is all about individuals taking control of their own lives and forging their own path. This is a message aimed at your single white male, playing life at the easiest setting. He is absolutely able to take control of his own stuff, stand up straight, clean his own room and find himself on top of the world.

Because he was born on top of the world, and only his own screw-ups put him anywhere else.

Black women, facing all sorts of personal and institutional discrimination, are not so receptive to the message that if they just sort out their own crap they'll succeed.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 14-09-2018 1:33pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not banned, just not his intended audience.

His message is all about individuals taking control of their own lives and forging their own path. This is a message aimed at your single white male, playing life at the easiest setting. He is absolutely able to take control of his own stuff, stand up straight, clean his own room and find himself on top of the world.

Because he was born on top of the world, and only his own screw-ups put him anywhere else.

Black women, facing all sorts of personal and institutional discrimination, are not so receptive to the message that if they just sort out their own crap they'll succeed.

Right, so if you face challenges and your life is a bit harder because you don't have "white male privilege", and you're not quite on top of the world the same way a single white man is, you might as well not sort out your own crap.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 1:59pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Right, so if you face challenges and your life is a bit harder because you don't have "white male privilege", and you're not quite on top of the world the same way a single white man is, you might as well not sort out your own crap.

You are much less likely to buy a book saying "just sort out your own crap and bob's your uncle". Bob will never be your uncle no matter how on top of your crap you are.

Meanwhile, the SWM who can sort out his own crap loves this message, since it means he doesn't need to concern himself with all the institutional discrimination against people who are not just like him until they sort out their own crap first.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 14-09-2018 2:22pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are much less likely to buy a book saying "just sort out your own crap and bob's your uncle". Bob will never be your uncle no matter how on top of your crap you are.

Meanwhile, the SWM who can sort out his own crap loves this message, since it means he doesn't need to concern himself with all the institutional discrimination against people who are not just like him until they sort out their own crap first.

Bob might not be your uncle but your situation will seriously improve.

Can you define concretely any institutional discrimination you're referring to?

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 2:26pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Can you define concretely any institutional discrimination you're referring to?

Well, black people and women were mentioned earlier. If you are not aware of any institutional discrimination suffered by black people and women, Peterson's book is perfect for you.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-09-2018 4:40pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Meanwhile, the SWM who can sort out his own crap loves this message, since it means he doesn't need to concern himself with all the institutional discrimination against people who are not just like him until they sort out their own crap first.

That’s a really important part of the Peterson sermon. Don’t attempt to change the world/society/anything except yourself. Young people know nothing ‘literally nothing’.

“Get your own house in PERFECT order before you criticise the world” - Peterson, adnausium.

Mountainsandh · 14-09-2018 5:34pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s a really important part of the Peterson sermon. Don’t attempt to change the world/society/anything except yourself. Young people know nothing ‘literally nothing’.

“Get your own house in PERFECT order before you criticise the world” - Peterson, adnausium.

Not really, it's get your house in order before you can change the world, usually he uses the phrase "to be a force for good"in the world.

Looking at it cynically and doubting the person's good faith is the easy, conspiratorial way out of this conundrum for people who feel threatened by his attempts to make people think.

You can choose to look at the world that way, or maybe just to present the world that way, or you can actually try and listen, and learn.

The man is a lecturer. His purpose is to make people think.

Evidently he's failing with some.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 6:06pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The man is a lecturer. His purpose is to make people think.

He used to be a lecturer, but this new celebrity self-help for dudes who don't need help and want to believe no-one else does either gig pays much better.

Mountainsandh · 14-09-2018 6:36pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

He used to be a lecturer, but this new celebrity self-help for dudes who don't need help and want to believe no-one else does either gig pays much better.

Well yeah. So ? I don't understand what the big deal is, about him making money. Would you like him to lecture for free, or live like a recluse ?
He's still lecturing, not full on myths, religion and psychology anymore, but actually, using all of that still. Making great money, and not so shackled by uni anymore.
How is that a problem ? He's not stealing money from people, he's not fooling them into buying something. He's selling a book, and explaining the contents of the book to lots of people who are happy to pay a ticket to hear him.

The book is only part of what he's at by the way. The talks with Russel Brand are not about the book at all. He had debates with Sam Harris, an example of a theme was "what is the nature of truth?". There are many talks in universities, and since it appears that it's the unis who decide what the theme will be, it's not necessarily his book that he discusses.

Look, it's fine to be cynical, I'm cynical on some things too,; and the guy cannot be everyone's cup of tea but I would highly recommend listening to other talks before anyone making their minds up, the book stuff is just the book stuff, breadwinner sort of thing.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 6:47pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

he's not fooling them into buying something.

Of course he is. The 3 arena full of the poor saps.

Mountainsandh · 14-09-2018 7:52pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course he is. The 3 arena full of the poor saps.

Fooling them into what ? Please explain.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 8:27pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Fooling them into what ?

Paying him for inane advice their mother gives them free. Pick up your room. Stand up straight. Stop your moaning.

But by sprinkling some own the libs magic on it and using big words, he gets them to pay to hear advice they have no notion of following simply because it makes them feel superior.

He is putting his psychology expertise to good use.

On the suckers who pay him.

Professor Moriarty · 14-09-2018 8:35pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Paying him for inane advice their mother gives them free. Pick up your room. Stand up straight. Stop your moaning.

But by sprinkling some own the libs magic on it and using big words, he gets them to pay to hear advice they have no notion of following simply because it makes them feel superior.

He is putting his psychology expertise to good use.

On the suckers who pay him.

You're having a very good day.

alaimacerc · 14-09-2018 9:12pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

“Get your own house in PERFECT order before you criticise the world” - Peterson, adnausium.

There's a whole lot of Lobsterians out there with perfectly ordered houses, then.

By their own assessment, at least.

alaimacerc · 14-09-2018 9:14pm

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Can you define concretely any institutional discrimination you're referring to?

This'll be the passage of the play where you expect everyone else to do Feminism and Racism 101 for you, while you fold your arms and mutter how you're not buying any of it.

backspin. · 14-09-2018 9:28pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not banned, just not his intended audience.

His message is all about individuals taking control of their own lives and forging their own path. This is a message aimed at your single white male, playing life at the easiest setting. He is absolutely able to take control of his own stuff, stand up straight, clean his own room and find himself on top of the world.

Because he was born on top of the world, and only his own screw-ups put him anywhere else.

Black women, facing all sorts of personal and institutional discrimination, are not so receptive to the message that if they just sort out their own crap they'll succeed.

Life at the easiest these days is if you are born a middle class white western woman. Peterson is not afraid to highlight this along with so much of the other modern feminist victimhood nonsense. He is also not afraid to highlight the excesses and dangers of identity politics and the attacks on so called white privilege. Its these things that have attracted people to Peterson and not the clean your room stuff. He had a large following on youtube long before his 12 rules for life book.

Btw your post above highlights fairly well why he has a good following of white men. This idea that men have it made and don't have any real problems, they should just shut the hell up because a black woman has it harder.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2018 9:47pm

backspin. wrote: »

Btw your post above highlights fairly well why he has a good following of white men

Since my entire point was to explain how he has a good following of white men, this is not By The Way. You make Peterson sad.

backspin. · 14-09-2018 10:46pm

I don't have his book and don't intent to get it. I'm not really interested in the self help angle. I'm just glad he has an audience that gets to listen to him deconstruct modern feminism, political correctness and identity politics. There aren't many journalists or public figures brave enough to broach the subject so its down to a few people like Peterson to put into words what many men already know in their marrow.

Anyone who thinks his popularity is down to clean your room and stand up straight stuff is really missing the point.

Mountainsandh · 14-09-2018 11:10pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Paying him for inane advice their mother gives them free. Pick up your room. Stand up straight. Stop your moaning.

But by sprinkling some own the libs magic on it and using big words, he gets them to pay to hear advice they have no notion of following simply because it makes them feel superior.

He is putting his psychology expertise to good use.

On the suckers who pay him.

You can look at it this way, or simply you can acknowledge that people may be happy and willing to pay to hear things that they find valuable. Never mind that your granny or your mother told you that, how is that relevant ?

Do you go around admonishing people for paying for traditional cuisine recipe books ? Do you scoff at people in Eason's who are browsing the self help aisle ?

Just thinking out loud here, and I think just as I typed that I thought well yeah, alright, we all do a bitta that, a bit of wtf wondering about others' choices.
That's not what I've a problem with actually.
What I think is nonsensical is that you there and then decide that these people are being "fooled" into something. They're simply not : they like to hear/read what he says, they are happy to pay for it.

I don't get "fooled" into buying a Taylor Swift album. I don't get "fooled" into buying a "Grandma's best sponges" recipe book. They don't get "fooled" into buying a ticket to a talk, or a book.

There is simply no manipulation or evil intent there. The guy wrote a book, people like it, people buy it. He does talks, people are interested, they buy a ticket. Where's the catch ? Simply that you think he's talking BS. Ok, it's your prerogative, isn't it great that you are not being tricked into paying for these.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments