Jordan Peterson

cdgalwegian · 29-11-2018 12:08am

In one of his videos he says it took him 15 years to formulate his philosophy, which is contained in his book and youtube lectures; Maps of Meaning. I watched the lecture series on youtube (skipped through a lot of the last ones, didn't bother with the last one). It's basically Jungian archetypes- as manifested in the world, and how to utilize them to be a competent human i.e. well-balanced in a complex world. He uses diagrams in them as he goes along.
He's undoubtedly erudite, and fills his lectures with loads of pertinent information, some of it suspect, so that even if you think it's hokum, it's still entertaining and thought-provoking. I've read a lot of criticisms, and agree with most of them, but I still enjoyed the lectures (they did become a bit repetitive though).

Black Swan · 04-12-2018 10:22pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

It's basically Jungian archetypes- as manifested in the world, and how to utilize them to be a competent human i.e. well-balanced in a complex world.

I do not see Peterson as advocating a "well-balanced" relationship between men and women today. Jung had been criticized for his paternalistic ideas, as has Peterson. Jung was consistent with his bygone era in this regard, whereas Peterson today is behind times, and has failed to recognize the evolution and increased participation of women in society today. Consequently Peterson's appeal to some men has been high, while at the same time many women reject his positions as archaic.

cdgalwegian · 04-12-2018 11:44pm

Black Swan wrote: »

I do not see Peterson as advocating a "well-balanced" relationship between men and women today.

I only heard of Jordan Peterson about a month ago, and in watching his stuff found it quite interesting, though flawed. I see your point, however would bet that he would consider the dominance hierarchy, as the major natural structure of society (as a corollary of being part of the animal kingdom), and hence optimally balanced, as being well-balanced. That's not to say he doesn't think it is a frictionless system, just the optimal system for any animal society, as 'proven' by its genetically based ubiquity.

Obviously, as Peterson himself might (or maybe might not) say- "yes, but well-balanced for who?", in a postmodern way (while decrying a postmodern stance). In other words, from what I've seen, I think he justifies male dominance in hierarchical systems as part of the natural order, just the way a slave-owner might have found justification for the slave system due to supposed 'natural' superiority. Foucault would have been proud.

Black Swan · 07-12-2018 12:26am

cdgalwegian wrote: »

In other words, from what I've seen, I think he justifies male dominance in hierarchical systems as part of the natural order, just the way a slave-owner might have found justification for the slave system due to supposed 'natural' superiority. Foucault would have been proud.

Methinks you have captured a part of Peterson's point-of-view here.

Fathom · 16-12-2018 6:14pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

I only heard of Jordan Peterson about a month ago, and in watching his stuff found it quite interesting, though flawed.

Peterson's appeal to science was outdated.

cdgalwegian · 20-12-2018 5:32pm

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson's appeal to science was outdated.

I was kinda waiting for an expansion of what you meant (in response to my vague/unexplored use of ‘flawed’ i presume).

I’m not quite sure what you meant though- did you mean his appeal to science was outdated, or that he was appealing to an outdated science? I would assume the latter, because an appeal to science per se in a scientific thesis is hard to imagine as being outdated. Which begs the question, what outdated science do you mean?

Fathom · 13-03-2019 2:14am

cdgalwegian wrote: »

I was kinda waiting for an expansion of what you meant (in response to my vague/unexplored use of ‘flawed’ i presume).

This was also covered by others in the above discussions. Peterson's science in Maps was outdated. For example, Peterson uses the left-brain vs right-brain literature to support his positions, including the differences between men and women. In the first place, this bilateral distinction when discussing the brain was intended as metaphor, and not to be taken literally as Peterson does. Garth Morgan has suggested that metaphors were useful to foster discussions, but he cautions that metaphors tend to be distortions of reality and should be considered thus. Furthermore, the literature in cognitive science that I have read suggests that this bilateral distinction has not been supported today, and that the brain is not so simplistic, but rather extraordinarily more complex, with much to be still discovered.

Hobosan · 13-03-2019 3:36am

cdgalwegian wrote: »

In other words, from what I've seen, I think he justifies male dominance in hierarchical systems as part of the natural order, just the way a slave-owner might have found justification for the slave system due to supposed 'natural' superiority. Foucault would have been proud.

Indeed, men dominate at every level, from General to cannon fodder. Lots and lots of cannon fodder. Hopefully women will gain more opportunities to order the cannon fodder around. It would make the spectacle more palatable.

Fathom · 15-03-2019 9:53pm

Hobosan wrote: »

Indeed, men dominate at every level, from General to cannon fodder. Lots and lots of cannon fodder. Hopefully women will gain more opportunities to order the cannon fodder around. It would make the spectacle more palatable.

NASA on TV crawl yesterday reports that the first man on mars may be a woman. What would Peterson say to that?

Black Swan · 17-03-2019 11:43pm

Hobosan wrote: »

Indeed, men dominate at every level, from General to cannon fodder. Lots and lots of cannon fodder. Hopefully women will gain more opportunities to order the cannon fodder around. It would make the spectacle more palatable.

Is Peterson a subtle advocate of Men's Rights Activism (opposite of feminism)?

Fathom · 18-03-2019 2:46am

Black Swan wrote: »

Is Peterson a subtle advocate of Men's Rights Activism (opposite of feminism)?

Feminism real? Other than self-proclaimed? Can one be for women's rights and not be a feminist? Peterson appears to be for men's rights. Hence, more males in audiences of his vid programs.

AllForIt · 18-03-2019 3:15am

Fathom wrote: »

NASA on TV crawl yesterday reports that the first man on mars may be a woman. What would Peterson say to that?

He'd probably point out that the accumulated technology that went into the achievement of creating a craft capable of going to the moon was invented by mostly men because men are more interested in 'things' (physical) than women are, hence higher uptake by men in STEM subjects etc. The first sentient being to reach outer space was a primate and you'd hardly attribute this achievement to the primate.

Black Swan · 21-03-2019 6:26pm

Fathom wrote: »

Feminism real? Other than self-proclaimed?

Good question. There are those that proclaim to be feminists, while there may be many more that do not identify with the label, yet favour advancing women's rights. For example, I doubt that all women in the #Me Too movement label themselves feminists.

Fathom wrote: »

Can one be for women's rights and not be a feminist?

It is very convenient to label someone as a feminist, rather than to acknowledge the complexity of someone's position on women's rights. Such oversimplifications fit with the sensationalism stirred up by Peterson, as well as the childish name calling of Donald Trump towards his political opponents found in America. Labeling someone a feminist can also be damaging to their life and career choices in a McCarthyism fashion.

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson appears to be for men's rights. Hence, more males in audiences of his vid programs.

Peterson openly attacks feminism in 2018 videos (and before), as well as elsewhere. Such attacks were controversial, drawing attention to him, as well as the book he has been selling.

Fathom · 23-03-2019 7:51pm

AllForIt wrote: »

He'd probably point out that the accumulated technology that went into the achievement of creating a craft capable of going to the moon was invented by mostly men because men are more interested in 'things' (physical) than women are, hence higher uptake by men in STEM subjects etc.

Peterson's position.

Fathom · 23-03-2019 7:53pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Peterson openly attacks feminism in 2018 videos (and before), as well as elsewhere. Such attacks were controversial, drawing attention to him, as well as the book he has been selling.

Trump method. Art of Deal. Say "sensationalist" and "outrageous" things. Draws news media. Sells books.

Black Swan · 25-03-2019 3:54pm

Bookstore with 57 stores in New Zealand has pulled Peterson's 12 Rules of Life book from shelves “in light of some extremely disturbing material."

cdgalwegian · 25-03-2019 4:16pm

Fathom wrote: »

This was also covered by others in the above discussions.

Peterson's science in Maps was outdated. For example, Peterson uses the left-brain vs right-brain literature to support his positions, including the differences between men and women.

Hi Fathom,

The left/right brain personality study(s) was originally a tentative study as far as I can recall, but one which the media jumped on and ran with, and which gained a lot of currency in the self-help industry before science properly caught up with it. Iows, I don’t think there was ever much science behind it; Peterson seems to have picked an easily digestible, but only initially and partially confirmed piece of scientific data to use for his own ends- that of promoting his favourite natural order of things here on earth; natural male dominance. Normally, Maier’s Law applies:

If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
-- N.R. Maier, "American Psychologist", March 1960

“Peterson’s Law” seems to be a less subtle technique in how to keep a theory going in the face of countervailing evidence- If the facts don’t conform to the theory, carry on regardless.

The left/right brain personality ‘science’ was the easiest to spot, and so the most obvious to pick.
I must admit, I sped through a lot of it, and skipped some: I do remember lots of generalizations and dubious assertions, but can’t remember (other) specific cases of outdated science. You seem certain of them; can you list them (can others chip in?) ? It would be good to have a go-to list of same.

Fathom · 25-03-2019 8:13pm

Peterson has "built a case on false facts and distortions of general observations from the scientific literature... distorting the evidence" to fit a conservative political agenda in Maps, 12 Rules, videos, lectures, and other media (biologist P.Z. Myers). Examples:

Uses left-brain right-brain as factual argument, ignoring it's only a metaphor not scientifically valid (Maps).
Cites the neurochemistry of lobsters and that of humans treating them as similar in terms of influencing behavior for both. Uses serotonin for behavioral parallels between lobsters and humans.
Directly compares the social behavior of chimpanzees with human behavior.
Peterson claims "The Nature of Nature... it is a truism of biology that evolution is conservative." Misrepresents biology with political position.
Peterson claims humans are wired to a "dominance hierarchy" in an attempt to justify paternalism; the subordination of women to men (Maps).
Peterson claims "Everything I'm saying and thinking about religion is nested inside a evolutionary viewpoint." Confuses religion with science.
Peterson treats archtypical superstitious myths as "objectively true" for his anthropomorphised gods, spirits, and male heroes.

Fathom · 25-03-2019 8:17pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Bookstore with 57 stores in New Zealand has pulled Peterson's 12 Rules of Life book from shelves “in light of some extremely disturbing material."

Cambridge University just withdrew its offer of a visiting fellowship to Peterson after being pictured with his arm around a man wearing an anti-Islam shirt in social media.

cdgalwegian · 25-03-2019 9:49pm

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson has "built a case on false facts and distortions of general observations from the scientific literature... distorting the evidence" to fit a conservative political agenda in Maps, 12 Rules, videos, lectures, and other media (biologist P.Z. Myers).

Examples:
Uses left-brain right-brain as factual argument, ignoring it's only a metaphor not scientifically valid (Maps).

Cites the neurochemistry of lobsters and that of humans treating them as similar in terms of influencing behavior for both. Uses serotonin for behavioral parallels between lobsters and humans.

Directly compares the social behavior of chimpanzees with human behavior.

Peterson claims "The Nature of Nature... it is a truism of biology that evolution is conservative." Misrepresents biology with political position.

Peterson claims humans are wired to a "dominance hierarchy" in an attempt to justify paternalism; the subordination of women to men (Maps).

Peterson claims "Everything I'm saying and thinking about religion is nested inside a evolutionary viewpoint." Confuses religion with science.

Peterson treats archtypical superstitious myths as "objectively true" for his anthropomorphised gods, spirits, and male heroes.

Apart from the left/right brain reference again, the rest of the list concerns Peterson's over-generalizing and plain old misrepresentations. It was his use of outdated science I was looking for.

Point 7 is not outdated science either, but rather pure pseudoscience- Jungian archetypes. It gets negatively mentioned by a lot by people, but is not attacked in the way it should be. Perhaps the misuse of scientific data to further a thesis is more repugnant, so Jungian archetypes aren't front and centre; in the crosshairs. However, his whole thesis of Maps rests on them. Archetypes are nonsense on stilts, having no more scientific import than tarot cards or phrenology. Yet Peterson's re-imagining and re-tooling of them through Campbell's mythical tropes (as pointed out by Black Swan) lends a certain panache that unfortunately is capable of fooling many, in his intellectual sleight of hand.

Black Swan · 26-03-2019 10:44am

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Archetypes are nonsense on stilts, having no more scientific import than tarot cards or phrenology. Yet Peterson's re-imagining and re-tooling of them through Campbell's mythical tropes (as pointed out by Black Swan) lends a certain panache that unfortunately is capable of fooling many, in his intellectual sleight of hand.

Furthermore, Peterson was not original when he claimed his inspirations came in a dream: a hopelessly unscientific approach used by Jung.

Fathom · 26-03-2019 5:35pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Point 7 is not outdated science either, but rather pure pseudoscience- Jungian archetypes. It gets negatively mentioned by a lot by people, but is not attacked in the way it should be.

Agree.

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.

Fathom · 29-03-2019 1:37am

AllForIt wrote: »

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

Not sure he differentiates clearly.

AllForIt wrote: »

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

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

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.

Fathom · 03-04-2019 11:04pm

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

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.

Fathom · 11-04-2019 12:03am

Cyclonius wrote: »

I'm not saying that the description of Peterson is necessarily incorrect, but Vox's slant does need to be highlighted.

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

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

Fathom · 05-05-2019 6:22pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Economy and Society (1922)?

Yes. In translation by Parsons, et al.

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.

Fathom · 09-05-2019 8:35pm

Black Swan wrote: »

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.

Jordan controversies = book sales.

Fathom · 09-05-2019 8:39pm

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.

Lobster metaphor too. Jordan Peterson ContraPoints vid included in ILoveYourVibes post alluded to this. Cool vid!

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.

Fathom · 13-05-2019 11:09pm

Black Swan wrote: »

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.

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?

Jordan Peterson

Comments