Jordan Peterson

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?

Fathom · 16-05-2019 8:47pm

In 12 Rules Peterson claims that lobsters and humans exhibit hierarchies, and that there is an evolutionary explanation for this link because they both have serotonin in their systems. Peterson claims that increasing serotonin in lobsters and humans increases dominance hierarchies. Ergo, according to Peterson, hierarchies are natural. Nature not nurture locks in both lobster and human behavior to some extraordinary extent. Unfortunately, this oversimplistic, misleading, and to some extent spurious leaps by Peterson from comparative anatomy to behavior between species fails to account for the extraordinary differences between lobsters and humans in terms of evolution, physiology, neurochemistry, environment, behavior, etc., so typical of his simplistic arguments in 12 Rules. Peterson wraps a superficially scientific appearing cloak about his arguments, which would fail a rigorous scientific method examination, much less a face value review, where Peterson exhibits scientifiction rather than valid and reliable science in his arguments. Both lobsters and bees evidence serotonin, and bees have a stronger hierarchical structure than humans. And guess what gender rules bees? Not the males, who are killed off after mating with the queen. But I will not attempt, like Peterson does, to pseudo-scientifically do a comparison between bees and humans, and how bee or lobster behavior should serve as a guide for human behavior.

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.

Fathom · 20-05-2019 2:56am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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

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.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

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.

"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).

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.

Fathom · 28-05-2019 6:10pm

Black Swan wrote: »

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

Good question.

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

Fathom · 06-06-2019 4:19am

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

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.

Fathom · 06-06-2019 4:28am

Hobosan wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

victor8600 · 06-06-2019 6:31pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

...There is a superficial depth to them...

Thank you, this matches very well with what I think about JP. Since I am not a psychologist, nor a philosopher, I cannot prove it, but I *feel* that JP bends the truth, or rather selects facts, to match his agenda. He does not state his agenda straight either! Probably he tries to defend the conservative American style Christian patriarchy, but he is too slippery to declare his views.

Fathom · 08-06-2019 7:37pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

There is a superficial depth to them...

Very superficial.

cdgalwegian wrote: »

In terms of psychology, I was quite interested in Jung’s approach, even though I have always viewed it as hokum.

Peterson likes Jung. Peterson also calls himself a clinical psychologist. Clinical typically means case studies. Case studies are qualitative. Not representative and cannot be generalized to a population. But he often does generalize in Maps and 12 Rules. You cannot jump from one unit of analysis (case studies) to other units of analysis (populations). When he does take these leaps, he commits an ecological fallacy.

cdgalwegian wrote: »

despite being mystical pseudoscience.

Examples of pseudoscience: Left-brain and right-brain in Maps; Recommending that humans take behavioral guidance from lobsters in chapter 1 of 12 Rules.

Fathom · 08-06-2019 8:01pm

victor8600 wrote: »

I *feel* that JP bends the truth, or rather selects facts, to match his agenda.

Peterson's self-fulfilling prophecies?

victor8600 wrote: »

Probably he tries to defend the conservative American style Christian patriarchy

About halfway through Maps he suggests patriarchy was part of the natural order and should be followed. In 12 Rules he claims that males were symbolic of order, and that females were symbolic of chaos. Order was good and chaos was bad. Not much for women in Peterson's self-help agenda, provided that they wish to be more than just a Biblical rib or apple giver.

jackboy · 08-06-2019 8:10pm

Fathom wrote: »

About halfway through Maps he suggests patriarchy was part of the natural order and should be followed. In 12 Rules he claims that males were symbolic of order, and that females were symbolic of chaos. Order was good and chaos was bad. Not much for women in Peterson's self-help agenda, provided that they wish to be more than just a Biblical rib or apple giver.

This is a misinterpretation of what he said. He has clearly said that chaos is not necessarily bad.

cdgalwegian · 08-06-2019 9:03pm

jackboy wrote: »

This is a misinterpretation of what he said. He has clearly said that chaos is not necessarily bad.

The trouble with pseudoscience is that you can bend anything to your theory, so one can say what one wants without contradiction. This also means one can change a theory to accommodate criticisms or weaknesses, which I think is what he has done there i.e. it is a sop, to deflect from the anti-feminine basis of his theory.

jackboy · 08-06-2019 9:08pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

The trouble with pseudoscience is that you can bend anything to your theory, so one can say what one wants without contradiction. This also means one can change a theory to accommodate criticisms or weaknesses, which I think is what he has done there i.e. it is a sop, to deflect from the anti-feminine basis of his theory.

I can’t think of anything he has said that is anti feminine.

Fathom · 08-06-2019 9:16pm

jackboy wrote: »

This is a misinterpretation of what he said. He has clearly said that chaos is not necessarily bad.

If you have his 12 Rules book, can you cite a page where he "clearly" says this?

jackboy · 08-06-2019 9:20pm

Fathom wrote: »

If you have his 12 Rules book, can you cite a page where he "clearly" says this?

Don’t have his book. There are some of his interviews on YouTube where he was questioned about this.

cdgalwegian · 08-06-2019 9:21pm

jackboy wrote: »

I can’t think of anything he has said that is anti feminine.

I think that's because you don't see the woods for the trees; there is nothing specifically anti-feminine in what he says, being deliberately metaphysical. The 'feminine' is always painted negatively-until it's criticised; then it can be bent to make it sound positive. But at root, its negative- not to be trusted, where evil lies etc. i think that's anti-feminine. Don't you?

jackboy · 08-06-2019 9:50pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

But at root, its negative- not to be trusted, where evil lies etc.

From what I have heard him say, I don’t think this is what he has meant or believes. He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad. They just have significant differences. Such opinions make a lot of people apoplectic in the modern world (which probably means that deep down they believe him but don’t like it).

cdgalwegian · 08-06-2019 11:42pm

jackboy wrote: »

He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad.

No, women aren't portrayed as bad. So the 'feminine' in this metaphysics is merely symbolic; which means either it's not actually cashed out in real life, so that it's meaningless, or the differences are based on the metaphysics of the masculine/feminine principles i.e. feminine as negative.

Black Swan · 21-06-2019 4:15am

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves (Jordan Peterson), and wiser people so full of doubts” (Bertrand Russell).

Fathom · 22-06-2019 5:45pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

No, women aren't portrayed as bad. So the 'feminine' in this metaphysics is merely symbolic; which means either it's not actually cashed out in real life, so that it's meaningless, or the differences are based on the metaphysics of the masculine/feminine principles i.e. feminine as negative.

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (subtitle). In his book Peterson symbolically associates males with order, and females with chaos. To what extent does such a gender categorization appear to be pejorative for females? That female behavior needs an "Antidote?" 12 Rules falls into the self-help genre, is advertised as such, and is not a profound, indepth exploration of metaphysics or symbolism.

Black Swan · 22-06-2019 6:53pm

"An Antidote to Chaos." Is this a cure, remedy, neutralizer, neutralizing agent, or counteragent for chaos (symbolised by females) in Peterson's 12 Rules?

cdgalwegian · 23-06-2019 2:03pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

No, women aren't portrayed as bad. So the 'feminine' in this metaphysics is merely symbolic; which means either it's not actually cashed out in real life, so that it's meaningless, or the differences are based on the metaphysics of the masculine/feminine principles i.e. feminine as negative.

Fathom wrote: »

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (subtitle). In his book Peterson symbolically associates males with order, and females with chaos. To what extent does such a gender categorization appear to be pejorative for females? That female behavior needs an "Antidote?" 12 Rules falls into the self-help genre, is advertised as such, and is not a profound, indepth exploration of metaphysics or symbolism.

Fathom- I'm a bit confused as to who this post is directed, considering the way it's worded. It lists a statement, a seeming rhetorical question, and a pronouncement- after quoting my post. Is it an endorsement or criticism of my post, or both?
I'm just a bit befuddled by it, so I'm not sure how to respond, if it is indeed for me to respond to.

Fathom · 23-06-2019 7:08pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Fathom- I'm a bit confused as to who this post is directed, considering the way it's worded. It lists a statement, a seeming rhetorical question, and a pronouncement- after quoting my post. Is it an endorsement or criticism of my post, or both? I'm just a bit befuddled by it, so I'm not sure how to respond, if it is indeed for me to respond to.

Your post stimulated thought. That's all.

jackboy wrote: »

He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad. They just have significant differences.

In 12 Rules Peterson discusses the importance of order, which he symbolizes with men. Why is "Chaos" symbolized with women needing "Antidotes."

cdgalwegian · 23-06-2019 8:04pm

Fathom wrote: »

Your post stimulated thought. That's all.

Sound as a pound.

The use of women as a symbol of negative forces is a common thread in Abrahamaic religions, which Peterson perpetuates. Older chthonic/nature goddesses had both negative and positive attributes, to varying degrees- but mostly positive. The serpent (female, as it represents fertility) in Eden becomes transformed into a wholly negative symbol in Abrahamic faiths, who tempts the woman, not the man. This narrative must be true, according to Peterson, because Christian mythology is the best exemplar of how Truth is played out across humanity.
At a casual glance, Peterson's work is intellectually interesting, but this soon fades. The more I think of it, his agenda is to warp the strongly positive feminine symbolism of Jung as an intellectual underpinning, to fit the Christian conservative value of male dominance.

Black Swan · 23-06-2019 8:50pm

jackboy wrote: »

He talks about he differences between men and woman a lot. Not that men are good and women are bad.

Fathom wrote: »

In 12 Rules Peterson discusses the importance of order, which he symbolizes with men. Why is "Chaos" symbolized with women needing "Antidotes."

cdgalwegian wrote: »

The use of women as a symbol of negative forces is a common thread in Abrahamaic religions, which Peterson perpetuates...

The more I think of it, his agenda is to warp the strongly positive feminine symbolism of Jung as an intellectual underpinning, to fit the Christian conservative value of male dominance.

When authoring Maps and 12 Rules, Peterson superficially cherrypicked things to fit his biased agenda from conservative paternalistic Christianity, the Jungian "second personality" (i.e., the genius-demon that lies in a woman’s soul), comparative biological pseudo-science of advocating that humans be guided by lobster behavior, and Joseph Campbell's archetypal heroes that were predominantly male to woo men that were experiencing an identity crises to buy his self-help books. Added to this were outdated and often spurious left-brain, right-brain foundation arguments in several pages of Maps, where he takes something that was originally intended as a metaphor and treats it as if a scientific fact. All of which symbolically associates women with chaos in need of antidotes, and not placing women in the best light vis-à-vis men.

jackboy · 23-06-2019 9:36pm

Black Swan wrote: »

comparative biological pseudo-science of advocating that humans be guided by lobster behavior

I haven’t read his 12 rules book but from watching his videos I don’t think he meant that we should be guided by lobster behavior. I think he was trying to demonstrate that hierarchies are inherent in nature going very deep into the past. Maybe the lobster stuff is nonsense. I know nothing about that but I think there is little doubt that any group of humans will form hierarchies quickly. In other words, formation of hierarchies is due to our biology rather than due to culture or learned behavior.

Black Swan · 23-06-2019 10:32pm

jackboy wrote: »

I haven’t read his 12 rules book but from watching his videos I don’t think he meant that we should be guided by lobster behavior.

Peterson's use of lobsters to compare with, and offer guidance to human behavior was rather clear in the first chapter of 12 Rules. This would be a huge comparative leap of faith, not science.

jackboy wrote: »

I think he was trying to demonstrate that hierarchies are inherent in nature going very deep into the past. Maybe the lobster stuff is nonsense.

Peterson in 12 Rules proclaimed that choice in lobster mating demonstrated that females were irresistibly attracted to (serotonin and octopamine concentrated) dominant males in "machine-like calculations," and comparatively, such was the case to a large extent with chimpanzee and human female mating hundreds of millions of evolutionary years later. This represented just another comparative pseudo-scientific "lobster argument" by Peterson to justify human male dominance over females today.

Fathom · 24-06-2019 7:58pm

jackboy wrote: »

I haven’t read his 12 rules book

The "lobster argument" is in 12 Rules. You should read it. Then perhaps decide?

jackboy wrote: »

but from watching his videos I don’t think he meant that we should be guided by lobster behavior.

Look at vids where Peterson was debated. He frequently says he was being misinterpreted. Jacques Derrida would be proud. Peterson's "signature" was known to himself. Confounded by others.

jackboy wrote: »

I think he was trying to demonstrate that hierarchies are inherent in nature going very deep into the past.

Big problem. Peterson was not comparing serotonin and octopamine levels from the remains of lobster-like crustaceans that appeared approximately 372-409 million years ago. Nor was he able to examine lobster behavior long dead from way back then. Did he have an H. G. Wells time machine? The serotonin and octopamine levels and behaviors he cited were from today's lobsters, not those "in nature going very deep into the past." His research citations were cross-sectional (one moment in time and today), not longitudinal (going back millions of years). Consequently, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between ancient lobster serotonin and octopamine levels and dominant lobster behavior today was problematic.

jackboy wrote: »

Maybe the lobster stuff is nonsense.

Peterson tosses claims out as if they were an elaboration of the obvious. Left-brain, right-brain an example. The "lobster argument" another.

jackboy wrote: »

I know nothing about that but I think there is little doubt that any group of humans will form hierarchies quickly. In other words, formation of hierarchies is due to our biology rather than due to culture or learned behavior.

This absolutely takes the Nature side of the Nature vs nurture debate in science. Would you consider a balance between the two? This debate has raged for centuries. Interesting reading.

Black Swan · 20-07-2019 8:56pm

Self-authoring has been part of the Jordan Peterson, et al, self-help genre. Now seeking to review any scholarly peer-reviewed publications that research this topic.

EDIT: Found one. Schippers, MC, Scheepers, A., and Peterson, JB (2015), A scalable goal-setting intervention closes both the gender and ethnic minority achievement gap, Palgrave Communications. It was a quasi-experimental college student cohort study.

Fathom · 21-07-2019 4:26pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Self-authoring has been part of the Jordan Peterson, et al, self-help genre.

Similar to "dear diary?" Except in 3 stages?

Charmeleon · 21-07-2019 4:38pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Peterson's use of lobsters to compare with, and offer guidance to human behavior was rather clear in the first chapter of 12 Rules. This would be a huge comparative leap of faith, not science.

Peterson in 12 Rules proclaimed that choice in lobster mating demonstrated that females were irresistibly attracted to (serotonin and octopamine concentrated) dominant males in "machine-like calculations," and comparatively, such was the case to a large extent with chimpanzee and human female mating hundreds of millions of evolutionary years later. This represented just another comparative pseudo-scientific "lobster argument" by Peterson to justify human male dominance over females today.

Not sure where you got that from. His point, from how I recall it, was that females chose males that were dominant over other males, not over females specifically. I think you are trying to twist his argument here. He is just saying that female choice in sexual selection results in greater assertive and dominant behaviour in successful males. That could result in the total opposite of what you are saying, dominant males may end up showing deference to individual females, females themselves can end up with their own hierarchy that doesn’t overlap and therefore doesn’t endanger the male’s dominance over his rivals.

Lobsters are given as an example to show how far back this dynamic goes in evolutionary terms and how serotonin, common to both us and lobsters, mediates the reaction both lobsters and humans can have to being pushed down the hierarchical pecking order.

Charmeleon · 21-07-2019 4:48pm

Fathom wrote: »

The "lobster argument" is in 12 Rules. You should read it. Then perhaps decide?

Look at vids where Peterson was debated. He frequently says he was being misinterpreted. Jacques Derrida would be proud. Peterson's "signature" was known to himself. Confounded by others.

Big problem. Peterson was not comparing serotonin and octopamine levels from the remains of lobster-like crustaceans that appeared approximately 372-409 million years ago. Nor was he able to examine lobster behavior long dead from way back then. Did he have an H. G. Wells time machine? The serotonin and octopamine levels and behaviors he cited were from today's lobsters, not those "in nature going very deep into the past." His research citations were cross-sectional (one moment in time and today), not longitudinal (going back millions of years). Consequently, establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between ancient lobster serotonin and octopamine levels and dominant lobster behavior today was problematic.

The argument against Peterson’s then has to be that serotonin, and its relationship to social positioning in a hierarchy, evolved independently in much more than two species separated by tens of millions of years since last common ancestor. Whether you believe that it somehow did evolve multiple times independently and its only coincidence that it has the same relationship across species today, or that that relationship goes way back to last common ancestor is essentially irrelevant. His point still stands.

The relationship is not random and either evolved very similarly in many species for the same purpose, or it has been that way for tens of millions of years. Either case demonstrates his argument.

Fathom · 24-07-2019 4:47pm

Charmeleon wrote: »

The argument against Peterson’s then has to be that serotonin, and its relationship to social positioning in a hierarchy,

Peterson takes a leap of faith to argue paternalism as the appropriate form of hierarchy in Maps, which is Judeo-Christian, not science. A similar leap occurs in 12 Rules with his lobster argument, which makes for great story telling, but was in reality spurious pseudo-science to compare lobster and human behavior. Huff warned about lying with statistics, and Peterson's lobster argument would fit nicely should Huff's book be revised.

Black Swan · 24-07-2019 7:44pm

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson takes a leap of faith to argue paternalism

Patriarchy?

Fathom · 26-07-2019 8:33pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Patriarchy?

Yes, should have been "patriarchy." Peterson's message to men experiencing an identity crises vis-à-vis women's changing education, power, and roles, was to reaffirm that men deserve a return to the 1950's Ozzie & Harriet Era patriarchy, or going back further to Judeo-Christian "Adam's Rib" teachings where women were subordinate to men. When confronted, Peterson has claimed this was a misrepresentation of his position, which has been a talking point for his followers, who conveniently ignore the subtitle of 12 Rules symboling men with (desirable) order, and women with (undesirable) chaos as elaborated later in 12 Rules.

Charmeleon wrote: »

Either case demonstrates his argument.

At face value, Peterson comparing lobster and human behavior in Chapter 1 of 12 Rules based upon one shared chemical was amusing at best, and poor science at worst. Upon closer examination, it was a logical fallacy, in particular exhibiting false equivalence. He compares two species that exhibit extraordinary and obvious biological and intellectual differences. Then Peterson claims that one or two shared characteristics justify the comparison that's way off in order of magnitude, greatly oversimplified, and ignores substantial factors that make them significantly different, and was scientifically ludicrous. Aside from being a gross false equivalence argument, Peterson arguing that both lobsters and humans have hierarchies does not justify support for patriarchies. Peterson also conveniently ignores bees, ants, and other species that were hierarchical but not patriarchies (i.e., yet another fallacy of Peterson, where he cherry picks evidence that favors his position, ignoring cases or data that may contradict that position).

Black Swan · 29-07-2019 8:44pm

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson's message to men experiencing an identity crises vis-à-vis women's changing education, power, and roles...

This is the Peterson male self-help niche.

Fathom · 29-07-2019 11:53pm

Black Swan wrote: »

This is the Peterson male self-help niche.

Target market.

Drumpot · 31-07-2019 4:03pm

Fathom wrote: »

Yes, should have been "patriarchy." Peterson's message to men experiencing an identity crises vis-à-vis women's changing education, power, and roles, was to reaffirm that men deserve a return to the 1950's Ozzie & Harriet Era patriarchy, or going back further to Judeo-Christian "Adam's Rib" teachings where women were subordinate to men. When confronted, Peterson has claimed this was a misrepresentation of his position, which has been a talking point for his followers, who conveniently ignore the subtitle of 12 Rules symboling men with (desirable) order, and women with (undesirable) chaos as elaborated later in 12 Rules.
At face value, Peterson comparing lobster and human behavior in Chapter 1 of 12 Rules based upon one shared chemical was amusing at best, and poor science at worst. Upon closer examination, it was a logical fallacy, in particular exhibiting false equivalence. He compares two species that exhibit extraordinary and obvious biological and intellectual differences. Then Peterson claims that one or two shared characteristics justify the comparison that's way off in order of magnitude, greatly oversimplified, and ignores substantial factors that make them significantly different, and was scientifically ludicrous.

Aside from being a gross false equivalence argument, Peterson arguing that both lobsters and humans have hierarchies does not justify support for patriarchies. Peterson also conveniently ignores bees, ants, and other species that were hierarchical but not patriarchies (i.e., yet another fallacy of Peterson, where he cherry picks evidence that favors his position, ignoring cases or data that may contradict that position).

The following is not meant as a statement about you, this is more a general statement on these kind of discussions. I know you are singling out a specific point and addressing points made by Peterson in what looks like an objective and rational manner.

Its funny cause when I was listening to his 12 Rules book I wasn't thinking about male Patriarchy or any sort of "men over woman" narrative. I was generally just listening for interesting ideas/theories or explanations on human behavior. I was thinking there were some good ideas or theories and some poor ones. To be honest I haven't finished it cause it was tedious at times but it wasnt all bad.

Do people have to be for or against a persons ideal ? I mean, is it not OK to think "well not everything he says is wrong or bad" while discarding elements that are not really relevant to me personally ? I see my wife as an equal and I try to self regulate my behavior, so I find these sort of discussions very polarizing at times. When I told my sister I was listening to his book she gasped as if I had joined the nazi party. It is Almost like if you find Peterson interesting and sort of neutral (personally) you are somehow complicit in promoting his ideals.

Perhaps this is more a reflection of me but I find it very difficult to have objective conversations on these things as ultimately peoples prejudices appear to override their ability to judge from a more balanced perspective. That is to say, in my opinion few people are generally 100% wrong or 100% bad and while they may have strong views or ideals (even dangerous ones) you can learn something from everybody.

Black Swan · 08-08-2019 12:41am

Drumpot wrote: »

Do people have to be for or against a persons ideal ? I mean, is it not OK to think "well not everything he says is wrong or bad" while discarding elements that are not really relevant to me personally ?

Please note that I was unaware of Jordan Peterson until the OP (Fox-In-Socks) started this thread many months ago (see my first posts on this thread). To reply I then did a bit of a search and found him in vids, and his 2 books (Maps and 12 Rules).

Jordan really is not a philosopher, per se, lacking a formally constructed philosophy; rather, he is a clinical psychologist that has gained a public reputation in the self-help genre, primarily directed to a male audience. What controversy that has been attached to him has occurred as a result of his challenge of the use of personal gender pronouns recently debated in Canadian law.

Drumpot wrote: »

Perhaps this is more a reflection of me but I find it very difficult to have objective conversations on these things as ultimately peoples prejudices appear to override their ability to judge from a more balanced perspective. That is to say, in my opinion few people are generally 100% wrong or 100% bad and while they may have strong views or ideals (even dangerous ones) you can learn something from everybody.

As noted elsewhere in this Philosophy forum, no one is value free (Max Weber, 1922). Caution should always be exercised when discussing a subject accordingly, but that does not suggest that such discussions cannot be made, or should not be made.

Furthermore, as suggested by Jacques Derrida, the "signature" of a philosopher, or in this case clinical psychologist Peterson, was subject to interpretation, and that such an interpretation may or may not be recognized by the person (Peterson) being discussed, or those that may favour or not such an interpretation. Going beyond a casual discussion, and approaching a debate as to the merits of someone's position (e.g., Peterson), often in debate a side was taken by posters in this thread for-or-against Peterson's positions. I see no problems with this approach.

That's my 2-euros, for what they may be worth for anyone reading this Jordan Peterson thread. Others may disagree, and that's grand too.

Fathom · 17-12-2019 2:04am

Black Swan wrote: »

Furthermore, as suggested by Jacques Derrida, the "signature" of a philosopher, or in this case clinical psychologist Peterson, was subject to interpretation, and that such an interpretation may or may not be recognized by the person (Peterson) being discussed, or those that may favour or not such an interpretation. Going beyond a casual discussion, and approaching a debate as to the merits of someone's position (e.g., Peterson), often in debate a side was taken by posters in this thread for-or-against Peterson's positions. I see no problems with this approach.

Derrida's signature. Excellent point. We should proceed with this in mind in all philosophy discussions.

Black Swan · 18-12-2019 1:06am

With the changing roles of women, Jordan appeals to those men who may feel displaced from the old roles they had assumed were a constant.

I think a lot of men are being told to kind of step out of the way and make space for women, so where does that leave you, and what is your purpose?

Source: WIRED (26 Oct 2019). ‘The Rise of Jordan Peterson’ Doesn’t Tell You What to Think.

Fathom · 19-12-2019 11:39pm

The Canadian political correctness controversy has subsided. So has Jordan Peterson.

Black Swan · 21-12-2019 7:53pm

Went through a couple news cycles, and now is "olds."

Jordan Peterson

Comments