Jordan Peterson

AllForIt · 24-12-2019 7:42pm

Well, there were a lot of journalist's who were eager to interview and perhaps discredit Peterson but it didn't quite work, like The Guardian interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s. I just get the feeling the interview didn't go quite the way Helen Lewis was expecting or hoping.

I think there are prolly a lot of journalists who now think maybe the better tactic is not to interview him at all leaving him with less media attention as a result. The scale of the media attention he got was always going to diminish anyway.

Black Swan · 25-12-2019 9:11am

AllForIt wrote: »

I think there are prolly a lot of journalists who now think maybe the better tactic is not to interview him at all leaving him with less media attention as a result. The scale of the media attention he got was always going to diminish anyway.

The media attention came close to the publication of his 12 Rules book (16 January 2018), so it probably helped sales.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-12-2019 11:15am

Black Swan wrote: »

The media attention came close to the publication of his 12 Rules book (16 January 2018), so it probably helped sales.

If he's not flogging anything right now it makes sense to keep his powder dry. But his wife was sick during the year so he's probably just taking some time off. Which is fair enough.

He might be cooking up some right wing home remedies like his cure for depression. Didn't he claim he cured his depression with an all beef diet?

Maybe helm claim he cured his wife's cancer by living in a house powered exclusively by fossil fuels.

Some of his stuff is interesting
but it's aimed exclusively at a right wing American audience - religious, Conservative, cross that the world had changed and not able to keep up with that change. And you'll never guess who's to blame... It's only the bloody lefties and the Marxists.

There was a while earlier in the year where the After Hours forum was blaming everything on the Marxists. Since Peterson has gone away the Marxists don't seem to get a look in anymore.

He'll be back with another book and a lecture tour. I wonder who the villain will be in the next book... SPOILER ALERT it's the lefties and probably the Marxists too.

Fathom · 25-12-2019 4:41pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He'll be back with another book and a lecture tour. I wonder who the villain will be in the next book...

Good guess.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-12-2019 5:23pm

Fathom wrote: »

Good guess.

You wouldn't think there's that much Marxism about. Marxists are a very safe enemy to have. They don't really exist as a group so they won't even fight back so they're an ideal nemesis.

WhymeWhynot · 25-12-2019 5:52pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If he's not flogging anything right now it makes sense to keep his powder dry. But his wife was sick during the year so he's probably just taking some time off. Which is fair enough.

Went to rehab for addiction to anti anxiety meds which he was no doubt taking for work schedule and his wife's illness. I'm presuming his next work will feature something regarding addiction.

Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychologist who grew to international fame following his stand against political correctness and refusal to use gender pronouns, has been checked into a rehabilitation facility in New York, his daughter has confirmed.

In an eight-minute video released on her YouTube and social media channels, Mikhaila Peterson said her 57-year-old father was checked into the clinic after experiencing "horrific" physical withdrawal symptoms from trying to take himself off of the drug Clonazepam.

https://www.newsweek.com/jordan-peterson-rehab-wife-cancer-scare-1460399

El_Duderino 09 · 25-12-2019 8:03pm

WhymeWhynot wrote: »

Went to rehab for addiction to anti anxiety meds which he was no doubt taking for work schedule and his wife's illness. I'm presuming his next work will feature something regarding addiction.

https://www.newsweek.com/jordan-peterson-rehab-wife-cancer-scare-1460399

Ah and there was me thinking the all beef diet was the cute to all his ills. In fairness, it's incredible that anyone believed that nonsense and didn’t see it as the lamentations of a man who wasn’t well.

Hopefully he’s getting the treatment he needs and let’s people know he was talking pure brown when he claimed beef cured his metal illness.

He’d have to be careful how he phrased his next book on addiction. It wouldn’t suit to make big business flogging drugs, the enemy. I suspect is was the leftist who addicted him to drugs. The details can be worked out later but I strongly suspect it was the leftists and the Marxists. Here’s no way he can blame any of his core market or anything they already support.

Who knows, maybe supporting Donald trump, believing in god and giving tax cuts to the wealthy will cure his current illness.

He’s flogging a very specific product. The man could do with a break form his self promotion role.

jackboy · 25-12-2019 8:32pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Marxists are a very safe enemy to have. They don't really exist as a group so they won't even fight back so they're an ideal nemesis.

They are just as dangerous as the far right wingers. They are the useful fools that have been used throughout history by lunatics to gain power.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-12-2019 8:40pm

jackboy wrote: »

They are just as dangerous as the far right wingers. They are the useful fools that have been used throughout history by lunatics to gain power.

Turn on Fox News for an hour of opinion and say the far right don’t exist. The right wing is extant and dangerous. The Marxists as a group are mostly an imaginary nemesis.

jackboy · 25-12-2019 8:51pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Turn on Fox News for an hour of opinion and say the far right don’t exist. The right wing is extant and dangerous. The Marxists as a group are mostly an imaginary nemesis.

The far right does exist. The far left also exists. They are equally dangerous, as history shows. Strict definitions of far left, far right and Marxism are outdated. Principles are rapidly evolving and sometimes don’t even seem to make sense.

It’s all basically extremism.

El_Duderino 09 · 25-12-2019 9:07pm

jackboy wrote: »

The far right does exist. The far left also exists. They are equally dangerous, as history shows. Strict definitions of far left, far right and Marxism are outdated. Principles are rapidly evolving and sometimes don’t even seem to make sense.

It’s all basically extremism.

Yeah and Peterson sells a narrative where Marxism is the enemy and Marxism was the enemy for a while when he was flogging it. Marxism's not being relevant was not relevant to the narrative. Th narrative was necessary to sell the books and lectures. It didn’t need to be real to sell books and lectures.

AllForIt · 26-12-2019 9:41pm

Black Swan wrote: »

The media attention came close to the publication of his 12 Rules book (16 January 2018), so it probably helped sales.

Well, he was prolly doing a media tour, as all people who have a book to promote do. I'm sure that's why he did the now infamous C4 interview. I'd imagine it was in his contract with his publisher to participate in media interviews, no?. It's as much the publisher that wants the sales if not more so than the author.

Are there many authors that publish books who don't expect a return? Can't image why one would bother otherwise. Unless your Jesus.

Black Swan · 26-12-2019 10:45pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You wouldn't think there's that much Marxism about. Marxists are a very safe enemy to have. They don't really exist as a group so they won't even fight back so they're an ideal nemesis.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

...I strongly suspect it was the leftists and the Marxists.

In this day and age discussing "Marxists" has become passé in the West. The "leftists" label has been confounded by many things, and has not been the clear cut nominal, either/or definition that many think can be treated as a given. For example, what is left in America may be considered to the right in Ireland, depending upon your point of view. Personally, I don't know what "leftists" are from a generic standpoint, or from that of Jordan Peterson position accordingly.

AllForIt wrote: »

Well, he was prolly doing a media tour, as all people who have a book to promote do. I'm sure that's why he did the now infamous C4 interview. I'd imagine it was in his contract with his publisher to participate in media interviews, no?. It's as much the publisher that wants the sales if not more so than the author.

To what extent did Jordan Peterson exploit a gender controversy to sell 12 Rules? If he was merely following his publisher's direction, can he claim ignorance on the way to the bank? Or if such things are common among authors when their book has been released, does this excuse such behavior? It certainly does not build a foundation for a higher moral ground to Peterson's arguments in books and vids.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-12-2019 10:55pm

Black Swan wrote: »

To what extent did Jordan Peterson exploit a gender controversy to sell 12 Rules? If he was merely following his publisher's direction, can he claim ignorance on the way to the bank? Or if such things are common among authors when their book has been released, does this excuse such behavior? It certainly does not build a foundation for a higher moral ground to Peterson's arguments in books and vids.

I would think Marxists are completely irrelevant in this day and age but Peterson went on about them as if they were a big problem. But people followed suit and you could see it on boards where the Marxists wee blamed for loads of the world's leading perceived ills.

Peterson was just selling a product. He had a market which was mostly the American conservatives your Fox News supporters for example. His message is Amoral. He's just selling a product these people want to buy. The problem was the fact of the world changing and the villains were the other crowd - the left, the feminists, the Marxists.

Honestly I don't expect him to behave morally. He's just selling a product so morals don't really come into it.

Black Swan · 26-12-2019 11:26pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I would think Marxists are completely irrelevant in this day and age but Peterson went on about them as if they were a big problem.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Peterson attempts to offer "Ozzy & Harriet" outdated solutions to the confusion that some males may be experiencing due to changing gender roles and expectations. This was consistent with Peterson's passé McCarthy Era comments about Marxists.

Fathom · 27-12-2019 12:47am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He might be cooking up some right wing home remedies like his cure for depression. Didn't he claim he cured his depression with an all beef diet?

Was this diet advocated by Jordan or his wife Mikhaila Peterson?

Fathom · 27-12-2019 1:14am

jackboy wrote: »

The far right does exist. The far left also exists.

Far right of what? Far left of? Is there a universal definition that holds globally? Or varies by geopolitical region? Please define. Especially in terms of our discussion of Jordan Peterson's positions.

jackboy wrote: »

Strict definitions of far left, far right and Marxism are outdated.

How? Problems with strict definitions? Left or right were dichotomies. Marx's two main classes (bourgeoisie and proletariat) were dichotomies. Jacques Derrida saw dichotomies as problematic. They were not independent of each other. Not clearly opposite. Practically and typically they occurred in hierarchical fashion; one favored over the other. Thus confounded. Not strictly differentiated. Without universally accepted definitions. Varying geopolitically. Too often separated into two categories; lacking multi-dimensions frequently occurring in the nature of phenomena.

jackboy wrote: »

Principles are rapidly evolving and sometimes don’t even seem to make sense.

Change is/was a constant.

Fathom · 27-12-2019 1:24am

AllForIt wrote: »

Well, he was prolly doing a media tour, as all people who have a book to promote do. I'm sure that's why he did the now infamous C4 interview. I'd imagine it was in his contract with his publisher to participate in media interviews, no?. It's as much the publisher that wants the sales if not more so than the author. Are there many authors that publish books who don't expect a return? Can't image why one would bother otherwise. Unless your Jesus.

Jordan Peterson in the C4 interview. Also in Maps and 12 Rules rides his high horse. Further... to challenge him was to misunderstand him. His defense and those of his followers. Typical defense used by Donald Trump apologists; the new normal in North America.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-12-2019 2:30am

Black Swan wrote: »

As mentioned earlier in this thread, Peterson attempts to offer "Ozzy & Harriet" outdated solutions to the confusion that some males may be experiencing due to changing gender roles and expectations. This was consistent with Peterson's passé McCarthy Era comments about Marxists.

I had to goole Ozzy & Harriet but that sound about right. And I think some people really do struggle with the way the world had changed. The world is always changing and lots of people always struggle with it.

"They don't make them like they used to" is something people have said throughout the years. It's just something some people feel and Peterson is tapping into that urge. It’s a fairly substantial market. Just look on boards.ie, at how many people struggle with change in society. I just don’t assume he actually believes any of the stuff he’s talking about. He’s just selling a product he knows some people who can’t keep up with the world, want to buy.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-12-2019 2:38am

Fathom wrote: »

Was this diet advocated by Jordan or his wife Mikhaila Peterson?

He talked about it as if it was real and didn’t have the skepticism or integrity to say it was nonsense. It was just something that played well to his people so he ran with it. An all beef diet, FFS. That should have been a pretty big red flag that he’s a spoofer or is unwell but you’d be surprised at how many of his supporters on boards.ie were talking about it as if it might have been real.

tuxy · 27-12-2019 2:43am

Mikhaila is his daughter. Did you think his wife was 26 years old?

Scuid Mhór · 27-12-2019 2:46am

Fathom wrote: »

Was this diet advocated by Jordan or his wife Mikhaila Peterson?

That's his daughter just FYI.

Jimmy Bottlehead · 27-12-2019 11:37am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He talked about it as if it was real and didn’t have the skepticism or integrity to say it was nonsense. It was just something that played well to his people so he ran with it. An all beef diet, FFS. That should have been a pretty big red flag that he’s a spoofer or is unwell but you’d be surprised at how many of his supporters on boards.ie were talking about it as if it might have been real.

It is real in the sense that he follows it, or claims to do so, as does his daughter. In any interviews I've heard, he doesn't advise anybody else to follow it, but said it helped considerably with his mental health issues (specifically, long term depression), psoriasis and his weight gain issues. He acknowledged he is not a dietary expert, his positive experiences were anecdotal but that it worked for him and his daughter.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-12-2019 12:36pm

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

It is real in the sense that he follows it, or claims to do so, as does his daughter. In any interviews I've heard, he doesn't advise anybody else to follow it, but said it helped considerably with his mental health issues (specifically, long term depression), psoriasis and his weight gain issues. He acknowledged he is not a dietary expert, his positive experiences were anecdotal but that it worked for him and his daughter.

Ah yeah so it's an old wives tale about a 'cure'. There are loads of 'cures' in folk tales from holy wells for skin problems to looking through a gold ring to cure eye trouble. And Peterson has a 'cure' for a whole list of ailments which you mentioned in your post above.

But it wasn't just his musings - it fit with his narrative. An all beef diet lol. It's literally throwing red meat to his conservative audience. It's sticking it to the vegetarians and vegans and environmental 'PC gone mad' people, all rolled into one folk tale about a 'cure'.

It was just marketing his product to his target audience. If he has any integrity he'll regret that particular marketing ploy. It was pretty cynical, even his supporters will surely admit it's a nonsense 'cure'.

Fathom · 31-12-2019 3:09am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

An all beef diet, FFS. That should have been a pretty big red flag that he’s a spoofer...

How about his existential lobster diet? Or would that be metaphorical cannibalism?

tuxy wrote: »

Mikhaila is his daughter. Did you think his wife was 26 years old?

My bad.

tuxy · 31-12-2019 3:12am

His daughter does look great on the all meat diet but it's probably just eating the correct amount of calories plus exercise and good genetics. Right?

Fathom · 31-12-2019 3:14am

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

It is real in the sense that he follows it, or claims to do so, as does his daughter.

Is this an example of the Thomas theorem: "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences?"

Fathom · 31-12-2019 3:23am

tuxy wrote: »

His daughter does look great on the all meat diet but it's probably just eating the correct amount of calories plus exercise and good genetics. Right?

Jordan uses pseudo science to support his arguments; e.g. Left brain - right brain in Maps; or lobsters and humans in 12 Rules. I would be cautious about his (or her) all meat diet. Overtime it may be hazardous.

jackboy · 31-12-2019 10:18am

Fathom wrote: »

I would be cautious about his (or her) all meat diet. Overtime it may be hazardous.

Yep, just like veganism.

Fad diets can be useful if a lot of weight needs to be lost very fast but beyond that they probably do more harm than good.

El_Duderino 09 · 31-12-2019 10:47am

tuxy wrote: »

His daughter does look great on the all meat diet but it's probably just eating the correct amount of calories plus exercise and good genetics. Right?

I don't believe they ate an all meat diet just because they said they did. Nor do I believe an all meat diet would cure depression, erectile disfunction, or bring about world peace or whatever the Petersons claim.

Where did they even claim to hear about this miracle cure or did they invent it themselves?

All meat diet FFS. Can you imagine him coming out and saying an all kale diet was a miracle cure? Or saying a vegan diet was a miracle cure? An all meat diet is just a little in-joke for conservative Americans because they already dislike proponents of vegetarian diets because they're associated with environmentalists and liberals. It's nonsense and there's absolutely no reason to even believe he ate an all meat diet.

Black Swan · 31-12-2019 7:26pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was just marketing his product to his target audience. If he has any integrity he'll regret that particular marketing ploy. It was pretty cynical, even his supporters will surely admit it's a nonsense 'cure'.

Per The Atlantic: "She is not doing sponsored posts for health products, but actively selling one-on-one counseling ($75 for a half hour)..." Riding on the controversial book marketing coattails of her father to advertise her counseling, or what?

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 04-01-2020 2:11am

AllForIt wrote: »

Well, there were a lot of journalist's who were eager to interview and perhaps discredit Peterson but it didn't quite work, like The Guardian interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s. I just get the feeling the interview didn't go quite the way Helen Lewis was expecting or hoping.

I can't imagine that many seasoned academics would be easily discredited by journalists (who typically lack depth of education and knowledge), and that Lewis interview is a case in point. Right from the off, she's hopelessly outmatched in terms of intellect and experience, and things don't improve for her.

cdgalwegian · 04-01-2020 10:53pm

What I've had at the back of my mind,since skimming through a lot of the Maps of Meaning on Youtube a while back, is the nature of the classes that Peterson gives, and what I imagine is the pot luck of who is teaching, and what he/she (or ze?) happens to be be teaching.
I assume when picking the psychology course, Peterson came along as one of a suite of lecturers; or was it an optional standalone that he offered, not as part of any future exam?
Peterson seems to be offering a hypothesis of how to interpret human behaviour, as a blueprint for personal meaning, or how to live a meaningful life, but presented in lecture form i.e. as a course like any other 'standard' psychology course. Does anyone know if this is the case, or was there any prior acknowledgement and 'acceptance' of its idiosyncronous content?

Black Swan · 06-01-2020 10:11pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Peterson... what he/she (or ze?) happens to be be teaching.

I assume when picking the psychology course, Peterson came along as one of a suite of lecturers; or was it an optional standalone that he offered, not as part of any future exam?

Jordan Peterson is a professor of psychology at University of Toronto, Canada. During winter 2017 Peterson was responsible for 3 classes. Two pertained to research hours, where essentially he worked with graduate students towards their degrees in clinical psychology. He taught one undergraduate class Psy 230 H, Personality and its Transformation. It was a review class of 20th Century clinical psychologists and psychiatrists (e.g., Freud, Jung, Adler, and the like), as well as pre-scientific psychological thought. This class fit with his emphasis on clinical psychology at Toronto, and his self-help Maps and 12 Rules books primarily intended for those males having difficulty with today's changing gender roles. The class was attended by both men and women, as it would more than likely satisfy GE credit for a 4-year degree.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 06-01-2020 11:19pm

Black Swan wrote: »

... his self-help Maps and 12 Rules books primarily intended for those males having difficulty with today's changing gender roles.

Are his books really "primarily intended for those males having difficulty with today's changing gender roles"? I have not read Peterson's 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, but flipped through it in a bookstore before Christmas while my children were busy picking out cards and wrapping paper. It seemed to contain homespun and somewhat idiosyncratic advice (he recommends petting cats and not bothering children when they are skateboarding) that could apply to anyone, really.

I'm at a loss to understand why Peterson is so reviled. Besides questioning a number of cultural Marxist precepts, much of his commentary seems quite pragmatic and balanced.

dwayneshintzy · 07-01-2020 6:48am

[url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching[/url]'Cultural Marxism' Catching On[/url]

Southern Poverty Law Center on "Cultural Marxism" back in 2003

El_Duderino 09 · 07-01-2020 9:23am

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Are his books really "primarily intended for those males having difficulty with today's changing gender roles"? I have not read Peterson's 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, but flipped through it in a bookstore before Christmas while my children were busy picking out cards and wrapping paper. It seemed to contain homespun and somewhat idiosyncratic advice (he recommends petting cats and not bothering children when they are skateboarding) that could apply to anyone, really.

I'm at a loss to understand why Peterson is so reviled. Besides questioning a number of cultural Marxist precepts, much of his commentary seems quite pragmatic and balanced.

I think you've got the answer to your own question in that post. Nobody has criticised him for advising petting cats or not bothering children when they are skateboarding. But people have criticised him for the anti Marxist part. He's selling his product to the bloke's who can't keep up with change in the world. So he's creating an enemy and blaming them for everything that's his target market finds wrong with the world.

Not to mention the all beef diet 'cure' which was discussed a few pages back. That's just selling out to the point that should make even his most dedicated followers cringe.

If you find anyone criticising his stance on petting cats or bothering skateboarding teenagers, let me know.

ancapailldorcha · 07-01-2020 10:01am

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Are his books really "primarily intended for those males having difficulty with today's changing gender roles"? I have not read Peterson's 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, but flipped through it in a bookstore before Christmas while my children were busy picking out cards and wrapping paper. It seemed to contain homespun and somewhat idiosyncratic advice (he recommends petting cats and not bothering children when they are skateboarding) that could apply to anyone, really.

I'm at a loss to understand why Peterson is so reviled. Besides questioning a number of cultural Marxist precepts, much of his commentary seems quite pragmatic and balanced.

There is very little advice in the book. The chapters come bearing titles that have all but no indication as to their true contents.

In the prologue, Peterson takes several pages to explain that too much order leads to tyranny while too much chaos leads to anarchy. Therefore, his conclusion is that a balance is required. In the first chapter he waffles on and on about lobsters' sizing up rituals and concludes that women like confident men.

I get the impression that when a publisher offered to publish a book for him, he just started rambling on and on about nothing in particular, going off on several irrelevant tangents about men in academia, Marxism, postmodernism, etc with the result being that the publisher just decided to call it a self help book because they didn't know how else to proceed.

I dislike Peterson because he perpetuates climate change denialism. I couldn't care less about his all beef diet, his Christianity, Conservative views, etc. In the book, he cites the same few sources over and over again, namely the bible, Freud and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Oddly, he never seems to find time to criticise Hitler and the Nazis but there's always time for a bit of Marx-bashing. What that has to do with a self-help book I'll never know.

Greaney · 07-01-2020 10:23am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I dislike Peterson because he perpetuates climate change denialism.

I didn't get the impression that he denies climate change, but that he doesn't think we can come together to solve it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY&t=307s

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 07-01-2020 10:50am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nobody has criticised him for advising petting cats or not bothering children when they are skateboarding. But people have criticised him for the anti Marxist part.

Numerous intellectuals have criticized Marxist thought — including Nobel laureates like Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan — so I'm at a loss to know why Peterson's opposition to it should spark a backlash to the point where the Guardian is publishing articles entitled "How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson?" Have we reached the point where anyone who questions Marxist orthodoxy is identified as "dangerous"?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I get the impression that when a publisher offered to publish a book for him, he just started rambling on and on about nothing in particular, going off on several irrelevant tangents about men in academia, Marxism, postmodernism, etc with the result being that the publisher just decided to call it a self help book because they didn't know how else to proceed.

I haven't read the book, but from what I understand, he presents it as an "antidote to chaos" — meaning that it's a corrective to what he perceives as the wrongheaded thinking being taught in some sectors of universities? I'll take your word for it that it's digressive and rambling, but possibly because he wants to get to the root of this "chaos."

I dislike Peterson because he perpetuates climate change denialism. I couldn't care less about his all beef diet, his Christianity, Conservative views, etc. In the book, he cites the same few sources over and over again, namely the bible, Freud and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Oddly, he never seems to find time to criticise Hitler and the Nazis but there's always time for a bit of Marx-bashing. What that has to do with a self-help book I'll never know.

Since the '60s, many academic departments in the humanities and social sciences have become cultural Marxist fiefdoms. A recent study of American universities found that professors' voting patterns skew far to the left of the general population — in Peterson's own field of psychology, registered Democrat professors outnumber registered Republicans by a ratio of 17 to one, while the ratio goes up to 33 to one in history departments. Around 13 percent of American university professors describe themselves as "far left," versus the 0.4 percent who identify as "far right." So it's not surprising that Peterson criticizes Marxists, given their hegemony over academia and their influence over young people's minds.

From what I can see, Peterson takes issue with students being encouraged to think of themselves as oppressed victims — of the patriarchy, of capitalism, of colonialism, of the "right," etc. — rather than being empowered through education to become confident, assertive agents in the world. I'd fully agree with that myself, actually.

ancapailldorcha · 07-01-2020 11:01am

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I haven't read the book, but from what I understand, he presents it as an "antidote to chaos" — meaning that it's a corrective to what he perceives as the wrongheaded thinking being taught in some sectors of universities? I'll take your word for it that it's digressive and rambling, but possibly because he wants to get to the root of this "chaos."

It isn't really focused or coherent enough to serve this purpose. I'd agree though that this was maybe his intention.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Since the '60s, many academic departments in the humanities and social sciences have become cultural Marxist fiefdoms. A recent study of American universities found that professors' voting patterns skew far to the left of the general population — in Peterson's own field of psychology, registered Democrat professors outnumber registered Republicans by a ratio of 17 to one, while the ratio goes up to 33 to one in history departments. Around 13 percent of American university professors describe themselves as "far left," versus the 0.4 percent who identify as "far right." So it's not surprising that Peterson criticizes Marxists, given their hegemony over academia and their influence over young people's minds.

Measuring Democrats in Universities would be a poor metric for left-wingers in my opinion. Regardless, this has no place in a self-help book.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

From what I can see, Peterson takes issue with students being encouraged to think of themselves as oppressed victims — of the patriarchy, of capitalism, of colonialism, of the "right," etc. — rather than being empowered through education to become confident, assertive agents in the world. I'd fully agree with that myself, actually.

Everyone is encouraged to think of themselves as victims nowadays. For the left, it's capitalism and imperialism. For the right, it's political correctness and liberalism. Either way, it's not something to be included in a self help book in my opinion. It comes across as Peterson looking to push his own anti-postmodernist and anti-left wing agenda.

El_Duderino 09 · 07-01-2020 11:03am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I dislike Peterson because he perpetuates climate change denialism. I couldn't care less about his all beef diet, his Christianity, Conservative views, etc. In the book, he cites the same few sources over and over again, namely the bible, Freud and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Oddly, he never seems to find time to criticise Hitler and the Nazis but there's always time for a bit of Marx-bashing. What that has to do with a self-help book I'll never know.

That's the brand. It's like Fox News with big words - climate change denial, Christianity, Conservative views and anti feminism, anti liberalism, anti whatever is new and blaming those things for all the problems his target market experiences.

He doesn't have any unique insights to climate change, and as a man of science, he knows the story. He chips in on climate change only to shore up the Conservative branding. I watched him ramble on about climate change and he was careful not to explicitly say it isn't happening or its not man made but it was clear he was on the side of climate deniers. It took ages for him to make his position clear without explicitly denying climate change.

Likewise, he’ll whitter on about Marxism and feminists and liberals for ages. When explicitly asked if he also opposes white suprematists he’ll say “of course, obviously”, and then continue to go on and on about the feminists and liberals and the things his Fox News conservatives want to hear criticised.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 07-01-2020 11:13am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Everyone is encouraged to think of themselves as victims nowadays. For the left, it's capitalism and imperialism. For the right, it's political correctness and liberalism. Either way, it's not something to be included in a self help book in my opinion. It comes across as Peterson looking to push his own anti-postmodernist and anti-left wing agenda.

If the goal of a self-help book is to encourage the reader to stop thinking of him- or herself as a victim, and create a belief in positive change, then I think it's legitimate to start with the kind of thinking being taught in universities. A high percentage of young people go to university nowadays, and so they inevitably come into contact with the strains of thinking that Peterson is criticizing.

I'd note in passing that "rules for living," or the quest for a better, happier, or more ethical life, isn't confined to self-help. It has a long philosophical history, going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle.

ancapailldorcha · 07-01-2020 11:14am

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

If the goal of a self-help book is to encourage the reader to stop thinking of him- or herself as a victim, and create a belief in positive change, then I think it's legitimate to start with the kind of thinking being taught in universities. A high percentage of young people go to university nowadays, and so they inevitably come into contact with the strains of thinking that Peterson is criticizing.

I'd note in passing that "rules for living," or the quest for a better, happier, or more ethical life, isn't confined to self-help. It has a long philosophical history, going all the way back to Plato and Aristotle.

The book makes a clear case for men and conservatives to see themselves as victims though. You can't have it both ways. Nor does it offer any advice for dealing with the alleged victimhood either.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 07-01-2020 11:24am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The book makes a clear case for men and conservatives to see themselves as victims though. You can't have it both ways. Nor does it offer any advice for dealing with the alleged victimhood either.

I'm just looking at table of contents on Amazon, but several of his "rules," such as "Stand up straight with your shoulders back," "Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping," "Make friends with people who want the best for you," and "Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)" would seem at first glance to be good antidotes to the perpetual victimhood that seems to afflict many young people these days.

If you're a confident person pursuing something meaningful, and you have friends who want the best for you, you're much less likely to whinge and moan your way through life, claiming that men, whites, capitalists, conservatives, or [insert oppressor of choice] have stacked the deck against you. On the contrary, if you believe that your race, gender, sexual identity, etc., are rate limiting factors, you'll probably create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

ancapailldorcha · 07-01-2020 11:29am

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I'm just looking at table of contents on Amazon, but several of his "rules," such as "Stand up straight with your shoulders back," "Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping," "Make friends with people who want the best for you," and "Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)" would seem at first glance to be good antidotes to the perpetual victimhood that seems to afflict many young people these days.

If you're a confident person pursuing something meaningful, and you have friends who want the best for you, you're much less likely to whinge and moan your way through life, claiming that men, whites, capitalists, conservatives, or [insert oppressor of choice] have stacked the deck against you. On the contrary, if you believe that your race, gender, sexual identity, etc., are rate limiting factors, you'll probably create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The titles of the chapters are all but completely and utterly meaningless. They sound wonderful but the first chapter contains much more about lobsters (pages and pages worth) than posture (a few mentions and none about seeing professionals or exercise advice).

El_Duderino 09 · 07-01-2020 11:50am

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

If you're a confident person pursuing something meaningful, and you have friends who want the best for you, you're much less likely to whinge and moan your way through life, claiming that men, whites, capitalists, conservatives, or [insert oppressor of choice] have stacked the deck against you. On the contrary, if you believe that your race, gender, sexual identity, etc., are rate limiting factors, you'll probably create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The oppressors of choice for Peterson's market are feminists, liberals, leftists and Marxists. He tells his fans they're being portrayed as oppressors but they're actually the victims - and they need to buy his book to find out what to do next.

The books seem to take a different tone to when he's in marketing mode. The book sounds like normal enough self help whereas Peterson’s marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it’s controversial and chimes with his conservative market’s preconceptions.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 07-01-2020 12:00pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Peterson’s marketing persona will say almost anything as long as it’s controversial and chimes with his conservative market’s preconceptions.

What has he actually said that is so controversial?

El_Duderino 09 · 07-01-2020 12:09pm

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

What has he actually said that is so controversial?

Climate denial, loads about Christianity, all the transgender stuff, the Marxists are coming to get you, an all beef diet is a 'cure' for whatever ails you.

It's not all controversial in and of itself (nothing controversial about Christianity) what's controversial is pretending there are great academic reasons to believe all the stuff his target market already believes. The climate change denial and all beef diet are 2 things which he must personally struggle to support given his supposed reliance on science and reason.

Watching him discuss Christianity is embarrassing. It's so vague and convoluted and I guarantee the average Christian doesn't understand half of what he says but can agree with it regardless because he arrives at the 'right' conclusion.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 07-01-2020 12:32pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Climate denial, loads about Christianity, all the transgender stuff, the Marxists are coming to get you, an all beef diet is a 'cure' for whatever ails you.

Any specific statements you would identify as especially controversial? I'm more interested in particulars than vague gesturing towards "all the transgender stuff."

It's not all controversial in and of itself

So his statements are controversial but not controversial at the same time?

Watching him discuss Christianity is embarrassing. It's so vague and convoluted and I guarantee the average Christian doesn't understand half of what he says but can agree with it regardless because he arrives at the 'right' conclusion.

What has he said about Christianity that is embarrassing and/or controversial?

Jordan Peterson

Comments