Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Options
1…102103105107108…201

Comments

  • Options
    #3122
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Yep, historically, but modern western music and art has almost nothing to do with religion apart from some genres like gospel music or 'christian rock'

    But then Jordan Peterson can define 'spirituality' or 'the divine' to mean anything he wants to fit whatever argument he wants to make. It's the same thing Deepak Chopra does all the time.

    Can't disagree with that


  • Options
    #3123
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I get angry whenever any celebrity uses his/her fame to promote pseudo science. And Climate change denial is the most dangerous of all the anti scientific movements out there. Everything else is temporary, delays to action on climate change will have long term consequences for generations to come, and for the mass extinction of countless species of plants and animals.

    And while Ireland isn't a big greenhouse gas source on our own, we are part of the EU, so under that block, we are a major part of the problem just like Oklahoma might not produce much greenhouse gasses, but the USA does, or Yunnan Province in China is small on its own, but as part of China, it's big.

    Global climate change requires every administrative level doing it's part from local government, right up to global blocks of nations.

    Policy changes are required, and these will only be deployed once public sentiment supports action on climate change. As long as there is climate change denial, politicial action will be slow because there will be organised resistence to any measures strong enough to be effective.

    I agree with you that the efforts to mitigate climate change need to be science and evidence based, but we largely already know what the first steps need to be. There are lots of people working on mitigation and adaptation projects, it's an entire IPCC working group. We should accept their recommendations without having back seat 'skeptics' spreading conspiracy theories about how they're all motivated by greed instead of the need to address climate change.

    Statistics, lies, damn lies etc. It's important to note that, per capita, China produces less than half the amount of CO2 that the US produces.


  • Options
    #3124
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »
    Can't disagree with that

    I can and I'm not religious in the slightest. It's been a fundamental part of our artistic output for a long time. It's not going to disappear overnight. Art is built on what's come before, so even if todays artists aren't drawing directly from religious themes, they're being inspired by and drawing from work that was.
    People get too self-congratulatory for scorning religion these days. I actually (loosely) agree with Peterson that there's wisdom in a lot of the teachings that are in danger of being lost with this kind of thinking. Extremism in either direction is where the danger is.
    In saying that, his book has far more references to biblical stories than I expected or wanted. He could dial it back a bit.


  • Options
    #3125
    DickSwiveller Returns
    Closed Accounts Posts: 752 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller Returns


    xckjoo wrote: »
    I can and I'm not religious in the slightest. It's been a fundamental part of our artistic output for a long time. It's not going to disappear overnight. Art is built on what's come before, so even if todays artists aren't drawing directly from religious themes, they're being inspired by and drawing from work that was.
    People get too self-congratulatory for scorning religion these days. I actually (loosely) agree with Peterson that there's wisdom in a lot of the teachings that are in danger of being lost with this kind of thinking. Extremism in either direction is where the danger is.
    In saying that, his book has far more references to biblical stories than I expected or wanted. He could dial it back a bit.

    Good point. Hadn't thought of that.


  • Options
    #3126
    kubjones
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Except it's not a term used widely. Monagamy is commonly referred to, 'enforced monagamy' isn't.

    Except it is in anthropology. Its a common, factual term in a field of study that the subject relates to.

    Again, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3127
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    xckjoo wrote: »
    I can and I'm not religious in the slightest. It's been a fundamental part of our artistic output for a long time. It's not going to disappear overnight. Art is built on what's come before, so even if todays artists aren't drawing directly from religious themes, they're being inspired by and drawing from work that was.
    People get too self-congratulatory for scorning religion these days. I actually (loosely) agree with Peterson that there's wisdom in a lot of the teachings that are in danger of being lost with this kind of thinking. Extremism in either direction is where the danger is.
    In saying that, his book has far more references to biblical stories than I expected or wanted. He could dial it back a bit.

    Religious imagery has been a part of art for millennia, and religious symbolism and themes will always be a part of art. The problem is that Peterson says that without religion, there would be no art at all and any artist that claims to be an atheist is not actually an atheist at all.


  • Options
    #3128
    kubjones
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    xckjoo wrote: »
    I can and I'm not religious in the slightest. It's been a fundamental part of our artistic output for a long time. It's not going to disappear overnight. Art is built on what's come before, so even if todays artists aren't drawing directly from religious themes, they're being inspired by and drawing from work that was.
    People get too self-congratulatory for scorning religion these days. I actually (loosely) agree with Peterson that there's wisdom in a lot of the teachings that are in danger of being lost with this kind of thinking. Extremism in either direction is where the danger is.
    In saying that, his book has far more references to biblical stories than I expected or wanted. He could dial it back a bit.

    He does go hard with the religion references, I agree. I think its probably because it has been one of his primary focuses throughout his career, so its what he's most well-versed in.

    Again though, good post. I like that you can disagree with the man and not dismiss him as a "charlatan." Its a breath of fresh air from the old-man-fist-shaking.


  • Options
    #3129
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Religious imagery has been a part of art for millennia, and religious symbolism and themes will always be a part of art. The problem is that Peterson says that without religion, there would be no art at all and any artist that claims to be an atheist is not actually an atheist at all.


    Ya it's a strange one. I don't fully get his thinking there. I'm not really sure how to differentiate them either since religion/spirituality/whatever is probably around in some form since humans became human. Maybe that's what he's getting at. It's a bit of a pointless argument if it is. Bit like saying there's be no art without nature.

    Edit: Maybe that's the point? That religion (or whatever you want to call humans trying to make sense of our existence) is as fundamental a part of being human as anything else? Or maybe I'm stretching things a bit too much and putting words in his mouth :D


  • Options
    #3130
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Ya it's a strange one. I don't fully get his thinking there. I'm not really sure how to differentiate them either since religion/spirituality/whatever is probably around in some form since humans became human. Maybe that's what he's getting at. It's a bit of a pointless argument if it is. Bit like saying there's be no art without nature.

    Edit: Maybe that's the point? That religion (or whatever you want to call humans trying to make sense of our existence) is as fundamental a part of being human as anything else? Or maybe I'm stretching things a bit too much and putting words in his mouth :D

    http://stu-topia.blogspot.com/2018/05/transcript-of-jordan-peterson.html
    Dillahunty: “For years I had this thing going where people would say, ‘Oh,’—and this is kind of from where we’re getting from a different angle—I would say, ‘They [religious people] would be afraid of what we lose if we did without religion.’ And I basically said, ‘Demonstrate to me any benefit—’”

    Peterson (interrupts): “—You’d lose art and poetry and drama and narrative and story . . .”

    Dillahunty: “Why? Are there no godless artists and poets?”

    Peterson: “There are artists and poets who [only] think they’re godless . . .”

    Dillahunty: “So we’ve might’ve crossed over into a problem area—”

    Peterson (over Dillahunty): “Yeah . . . No doubt.”

    Dillahunty: “I can’t draw for crap, although I do draw during the show. But one of the individuals who came to the show the other night handed me something she had spent a great deal of time drawing. She’s a wonderful artist and I was grateful to get it. And while I pretend to read minds on stage, I constantly acknowledge that I can’t actually read minds, so I can’t tell you whether or not she actually believes in a god, but I can tell you that I actually don’t believe in a God, and I can write poetry.”

    Peterson (before Dillahunty finishes with “—and I can write poetry”): “But you act like you do [believe in God].”

    Dillahunty: “Huh?”

    Peterson: “But you act like you do [believe in God]. That’s why you didn’t throw Sam [Harris] off the stage.”

    Dillahunty: “No, now you’re making a claim— . . . OK, I’m telling you I don’t believe there’s a God—”

    Peterson (before Dillahunty finishes): “Yeah . . .”

    Dillahunty (continuing): “—and your response is to that is: I [Dillahunty] really do, because I have a moral sense. But my moral sense is utterly without any appeal to a God.”


  • Options
    #3131
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    kubjones wrote: »
    Except it is in anthropology. Its a common, factual term in a field of study that the subject relates to.

    Again, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

    No it isn't. I've searched and can't find any.

    Give me some examples of where it's used in published anthropology papers?

    Just because Jordan Peterson says it's a common term doesn't mean that it is, and it certainly doesn't mean that it is used in the context that he used it with Sam Harris

    There are studies in biology where animals are artificially forced into monogamous sexual behaviour by keeping them in captivity and only allowing them to mate with one partner. Is this the kind of 'enforced monagamy' JP refers to?
    I feckin hope not.

    I can't find any anthropology papers that use the term enforced monogamy, but I can find lots of people trying to defend JP citing references to papers that have both the word Enforced, and 'Monogamy' (or some derivitive of these words) in the same paper, but not together as one concept.
    Here's an example that was misrepresented by one such JP Peterson fan on reddit as
    'Enforced Monogamy: Defined for us by the NCBI'
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8kibs8/enforced_monogamy_defined_for_us_by_the_ncbi/
    when in fact, it was not a definition of 'enforced monogamy' it was a part of a paper called 'The puzzle of monogamous marriage' and the only mention of the word enforced anywhere in the entire paper is in this context
    Today, however, with absolute wealth gaps greater than any seen in human history, monogamous marriage is both normative and legally enforced in most of the world's highly developed countries.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/8kibs8/enforced_monogamy_defined_for_us_by_the_ncbi/
    The words don't even appear beside each other.

    I've checked the references in that paper, and the papers that cite this paper, and there's no talk of 'enforced monogamy' that I can find.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3132
    kubjones
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    Akrasia wrote: »
    No it isn't

    Give me some examples of where it's used in published anthropology papers?

    Just because Jordan Peterson says it's a common term doesn't mean that it is, and it certainly doesn't mean that it is used in the context that he used it with Sam Harris

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=enforced+monogamy+anthropology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    There's this website online called "Google".
    Its this mad yoke they created there a few years ago, group of lads that wanted a decent way to search for things on the internet.

    Turns out, they did it! Mad tings. Anyway, I hope that link helps you bud. It was the first result that came up on this "Google" thing anyway.

    Good luck!


  • Options
    #3133
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    No it isn't

    Give me some examples of where it's used in published anthropology papers?

    Just because Jordan Peterson says it's a common term doesn't mean that it is, and it certainly doesn't mean that it is used in the context that he used it with Sam Harris

    There are studies in biology where animals are artificially forced into monogamous sexual behaviour by keeping them in captivity and only allowing them to mate with one partner. Is this the kind of 'enforced monagamy' JP refers to?
    I feckin hope not.

    I can't find any anthropology papers that use the term enforced monogamy, but I can find lots of people trying to defend JP citing references to papers that have both the word Enforced, and 'Monogamy' in the same paper, but not together.
    Here's an example that was misrepresented by one such JP Peterson fan as
    'Enforced Monogamy: Defined for us by the NCBI'
    when in fact, it was not a definition of 'enforced monogamy' it was a part of a paper called 'The puzzle of monogamous marriage' and the only mention of the word enforced anywhere in the entire paper is in this context

    The words don't even appear beside each other.


    Another area I'm finding difficult to see his point of view in. I wish he'd at least give better explanations of what he means when he uses such terms. Even if every single anthropologist in the world is familiar with the term, that's still a vanishingly small percentage of people (something I feel he'd be the first to point out in a different context).

    He usually mentions that monogamous societies are far less violent than ones where monogamy is the exception, but I haven't looked into the validity of this statement. Anybody else get around to it?


  • Options
    #3134
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    kubjones wrote: »
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=enforced+monogamy+anthropology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    There's this website online called "Google".
    Its this mad yoke they created there a few years ago, group of lads that wanted a decent way to search for things on the internet.

    Turns out, they did it! Mad tings. Anyway, I hope that link helps you bud. It was the first result that came up on this "Google" thing anyway.

    Good luck!

    Don't be a dick.


  • Options
    #3135
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Just for to be extra sure, I've searched online for Anthropology dictionaries and encyclopaedias and looked for the entries that talk about monogamy.

    Not one mention of 'enforced monogamy' that I could find.

    When I googled "encyclopedia of anthropology enforced monogamy" still no results other than some references to christians using violence to enforce native peoples into monogamous relationships, which is what peterson insists he doesn't mean by that term.
    There are references in a Chicago law school paper to enforcement of Monogamy because some states have laws prohibiting adultery, but again, this is not what Peterson insists he meant in his use of this term he plucked out of his ass and then scoffed at others when they didn't immediately know that he meant something other than the literal meaning of the words he used.


  • Options
    #3136
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Just for to be extra sure, I've searched online for Anthropology dictionaries and encyclopaedias and looked for the entries that talk about monogamy.

    Not one mention of 'enforced monogamy' that I could find.

    When I googled "encyclopedia of anthropology enforced monogamy" still no results other than some references to christians using violence to enforce native peoples into monogamous relationships, which is what peterson insists he doesn't mean by that term.
    There are references in a Chicago law school paper to enforcement of Monogamy because some states have laws prohibiting adultery, but again, this is not what Peterson insists he meant in his use of this term he plucked out of his ass and then scoffed at others when they didn't immediately know that he meant something other than the literal meaning of the words he used.


    I've taken it to mean "culturally" enforced; marriage encouraged, long-term monogamous relationships the norm, affairs being taboo, etc. But I don't know if I heard him say that or if it's me putting words in his mouth again. I know he says that marriage should be encouraged for sake of children (won't someone think of the children!! :D) but anecdotally I've seen far more harm done to people from the stigma of being raised by a single parent or, even worse, parents staying together for appearances sake.


  • Options
    #3137
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    kubjones wrote: »
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=enforced+monogamy+anthropology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    There's this website online called "Google".
    Its this mad yoke they created there a few years ago, group of lads that wanted a decent way to search for things on the internet.

    Turns out, they did it! Mad tings. Anyway, I hope that link helps you bud. It was the first result that came up on this "Google" thing anyway.

    Good luck!

    So even though you searched for anthropology papers, most of the results are in ecology and biology, or evolutionary biology and have absolutely nothing to do with JP's use of the term. If enforced monogamy is a term used in any scientific discipline, it looks like it applies to evolutionary biology relating to studies that experiment on animals forcing them to be monagamous by restricting their partner choice. Is this the commonly accepted use of the term that JP meant to use?
    I hope not.


  • Options
    #3138
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,243 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    xckjoo wrote: »
    I've taken it to mean "culturally" enforced; marriage encouraged, long-term monogamous relationships the norm, affairs being taboo, etc. But I don't know if I heard him say that or if it's me putting words in his mouth again. I know he says that marriage should be encouraged for sake of children (won't someone think of the children!! :D) but anecdotally I've seen far more harm done to people from the stigma of being raised by a single parent or, even worse, parents staying together for appearances sake.
    Peterson loves marriage, hates divorce and when he says he wants enforced monogamy, I am fairly sure he actually meant legally, as in, making it harder for people to get divorced and socially, as in slut shaming for people to engage in extra marital sex. But he can't say this out loud, because he has to appeal to libertarians who are a big part of his base, so he says 'cultural' or 'social' enforcement and something about being opposed to Polygamy (a practise that's not even worth talking about these days because it's illegal in almost every state)

    So in the same statement, he can appeal to his conservative audience, and his libertarian audience by claiming to be against any actual enforcement of his enforced monogamy, but still being in favour of enforcing monogamy.


    My point was that JP used a provocative term in a way that was bound to produce confusion and instead of admitting that he used the wrong words, he blames everyone else for not understanding him properly, and his supporters are now saying that he used a technical term that has a use in anthropology that makes his meaning clear and obvious, but it looks like this is another obfuscation.

    Its not the public's fault for taking him literally and for someone who constantly says how precise he is in his choice of words, he has a history of using provocative language and then claiming that his words don't actually mean what everyone else thinks it means.


  • Options
    #3139
    kubjones
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    Akrasia wrote: »
    So even though you searched for anthropology papers, most of the results are in ecology and biology, or evolutionary biology and have absolutely nothing to do with JP's use of the term. If enforced monogamy is a term used in any scientific discipline, it looks like it applies to evolutionary biology relating to studies that experiment on animals forcing them to be monagamous by restricting their partner choice. Is this the commonly accepted use of the term that JP meant to use?
    I hope not.

    You haven't read any of the papers then.

    A lot of them deal with evolution because anthropology ALSO deals with evolution.

    There are several papers in the link I have provided that note the way in which groups of animals act and react with sexual partners or lack thereof.

    For instance, female Chimps will enforce monogamy by becoming aggressive with other female chimps when they come close to the male partner. Polyamorous male chimps were more regularly, under study, attacked or driven from the group.

    This is an example of enforced monogamy.
    This also happens to be what Jordan Peterson meant.

    He has respecified in several interviews that this is what he meant.
    Different groups either enforce or don't enforce monogamy, and that in the groups of animals that did enforce monogamy, there was a much smaller inclination towards aggression whereas in the polyamorous groups the inclination towards aggression was higher.

    Again, there are several studies in that link that note it. "Anthropology and Law: A Critical Introduction" is an example of literature that covers it. "Gender Reckonings: New Social Theory and Research" is another.

    I'm done arguing against this moot point now.


  • Options
    #3140
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Peterson loves marriage, hates divorce and when he says he wants enforced monogamy, I am fairly sure he actually meant legally, as in, making it harder for people to get divorced and socially, as in slut shaming for people to engage in extra marital sex. But he can't say this out loud, because he has to appeal to libertarians who are a big part of his base, so he says 'cultural' or 'social' enforcement and something about being opposed to Polygamy (a practise that's not even worth talking about these days because it's illegal in almost every state)
    What's brought you to that conclusion on his opinion?

    Akrasia wrote: »
    So in the same statement, he can appeal to his conservative audience, and his libertarian audience by claiming to be against any actual enforcement of his enforced monogamy, but still being in favour of enforcing monogamy.
    My point was that JP used a provocative term in a way that was bound to produce confusion and instead of admitting that he used the wrong words, he blames everyone else for not understanding him properly, and his supporters are now saying that he used a technical term that has a use in anthropology that makes his meaning clear and obvious, but it looks like this is another obfuscation.
    Its not the public's fault for taking him literally and for someone who constantly says how precise he is in his choice of words, he has a history of using provocative language and then claiming that his words don't actually mean what everyone else thinks it means.


    Ya I agree he could be clearer on what he means when using phrases like this. I'm slow to attribute malice through peoples actions though.


    Edit: Found this on his own website. Not sure if it's been posted in this thread before. Don't have time to read now but I'll have a look later.
    https://jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/


  • Options
    #3141
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Ya I agree he could be clearer on what he means when using phrases like this. I'm slow to attribute malice through peoples actions though.

    Stupidity is much more likely.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3142
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Stupidity is much more likely.


    lol. Dude's definitely not stupid.


  • Options
    #3143
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    xckjoo wrote: »
    lol. Dude's definitely not stupid.

    Oh, I agree, Peterson is far from stupid.


  • Options
    #3144
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Except it's not a term used widely. Monagamy is commonly referred to, 'enforced monagamy' isn't. Marriage might be 'enforced' by law (which means there are legal protections for the rights of married couples, and legal requirements for the dissolution of marriage, but in almost no modern society is monogamy actually legally enforced. It is voluntary, marriage is voluntary, remaining married to ones partner is voluntary everywhere divorce is available (almost everywhere)

    You have been proven wrong repeatedly now. Please stop it. Infidelity is not socially acceptable. Having multiple simultaneous partners is seriously taboo. You should drop the issue as you are trying to spin your argument to make it seem that Peterson said that having affairs and divorce should both be illegal. You will need to produce a quote of his to support that claim if you are going to continue to make it. Monogamy is socially enforced. This is self-evident.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    I get angry whenever any celebrity uses his/her fame to promote pseudo science. And Climate change denial is the most dangerous of all the anti scientific movements out there. Everything else is temporary, delays to action on climate change will have long term consequences for generations to come, and for the mass extinction of countless species of plants and animals.

    I appreciate the sentiment, but I think it might be misplaced.

    There's noone who is 'pro-climate change' just people who are anti-climate change and those who either don't believe it is happening, or that humans aren't the primary cause (climate change ngggghhh 'deniers').

    This essentially means that you have one camp who is positive, and another that is neutral. If a measure to combat climate change doesn't make any discernible difference to somebody who is neutral to climate change, they aren't going to mind either way.

    Besides which the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Trying to shut down concerns give them a spurious validity. If you're going to run a hearts and minds campaign the last thing you want to do is to turn your ideological opponents into victims.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    And while Ireland isn't a big greenhouse gas source on our own, we are part of the EU, so under that block, we are a major part of the problem just like Oklahoma might not produce much greenhouse gasses, but the USA does, or Yunnan Province in China is small on its own, but as part of China, it's big.

    You're conflating different things there. Ireland is small, but as part of the universe it's big.

    Ultimately if measures to combat climate change are not sufficiently cost effective, to either consumers or the government, or necessitate a significant change in peoples' lifestyles, it simply isn't going to work. It doesn't really matter if 1% of the world's population break themselves attempting to be carbon neutral if such measures are ignored by everyone else.

    For people to use electric cars there must be sufficient power outlets established. There may be financial incentives for consumers (tax reduction) and for governments (vehicle production, reduction of fossil fuel imports, improved public health). This sort of campaign can be run irrespective of climate change 'denial'. The people here you should be concerned about are Big Oil conglomerates, vested OPEC political interests, etc. not an average person on youtube being swayed by a nefarious climate change denier!

    People would switch over to electric vehicles overnight if it was seen as profitable to do so. Turning it into an ideological struggle is a smokescreen.


  • Options
    #3145
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Edit: Maybe that's the point? That religion (or whatever you want to call humans trying to make sense of our existence) is as fundamental a part of being human as anything else? Or maybe I'm stretching things a bit too much and putting words in his mouth :D

    He relies on his followers putting words in his mouth to fill in the blanks favourably

    Putting words in his mouth is his entire schtick. When those words someone else puts in his mouth don’t suit him he reverts to the precise language guff. All the talk of being precise in language is just a cover for the very obvious fact that his language is anything but precise and relies on favourable interpretation by the reader.

    Didn’t A poster a few pages back invent the narrative that Peterson isn’t explicit because he doesn’t want to be a cult of personality. Lol.

    His whole schtick is fairly well aligned with the right wing in America. Any issue he sticks his oar in has a right/left divide and guess which side he always agrees with.

    Religion, climate change, beef only diet cured his depression (I sh1t you not), white men are victims, young people know nothing and shouldn’t protest, transgenderism.

    He would fit in as a Fox News contributor except he uses too many big words. It’s the same message for a different audience. It starts with the right wing conclusions and works back from there.


  • Options
    #3146
    kubjones
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    He relies on his followers putting words in his mouth to fill in the blanks favourably

    Putting words in his mouth is his entire schtick. When those words someone else puts in his mouth don’t suit him he reverts to the precise language guff. All the talk of being precise in language is just a cover for the very obvious fact that his language is anything but precise and relies on favourable interpretation by the reader.

    That he offers not a black and white, but grey to what he talks about seems to make a lot of people furious.

    I also feel that people who complain about his convoluted ways of explaining things have probably also never read anything by Nietzsche, Jung, Descartes, Kant, Rousseau or Voltaire.

    Again I'm trying to figure out what his detractors actually want from him.
    I'm not sure anybody that approves of what he has to say actually argues he offers concrete proof of existence. But how much more do you want somebody to go into why one should clean one's room? Or stand up straight with your shoulders back?

    I don't understand. Will you please explain what he would have to do for you to at least agree that what he speaks about is worth listening to?


  • Options
    #3147
    xckjoo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,349 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    He relies on his followers putting words in his mouth to fill in the blanks favourably

    Putting words in his mouth is his entire schtick. When those words someone else puts in his mouth don’t suit him he reverts to the precise language guff. All the talk of being precise in language is just a cover for the very obvious fact that his language is anything but precise and relies on favourable interpretation by the reader.

    Didn’t A poster a few pages back invent the narrative that Peterson isn’t explicit because he doesn’t want to be a cult of personality. Lol.

    His whole schtick is fairly well aligned with the right wing in America. Any issue he sticks his oar in has a right/left divide and guess which side he always agrees with.

    Religion, climate change, beef only diet cured his depression (I sh1t you not), white men are victims, young people know nothing and shouldn’t protest, transgenderism.

    He would fit in as a Fox News contributor except he uses too many big words. It’s the same message for a different audience. It starts with the right wing conclusions and works back from there.

    It kinda looks like both "sides" are guilty of that. From the page on his website I linked to yesterday:

    So, let’s summarize. Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation. That’s all.
    No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).
    No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.
    Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)
    Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.

    That looks pretty clear to me.

    People are too quick to jump to the attack instead of asking him to explain what he means and how it could possibly be applicable in modern society. All well and good him pointing this out but it's not too useful if we've no way of leveraging it to societies benefit (assuming decreased violence and increased stability for children being a social positive).


  • Options
    #3148
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    kubjones wrote: »
    Again I'm trying to figure out what his detractors actually want from him.
    I'm not sure anybody that approves of what he has to say actually argues he offers concrete proof of existence. But how much more do you want somebody to go into why one should clean one's room? Or stand up straight with your shoulders back?

    I don't understand. Will you please explain what he would have to do for you to at least agree that what he speaks about is worth listening to?

    If all he said was stand up straight, shoulders back and clean your room, then I wouldn’t object. It’s all the other stuff that goes along with it. It’s either a coincidence that he aligns so closely with the American right wing, or it’s by design.

    I mentioned a few right wing issues he points to in the last post. Guess which side of the gay matriage debate he stands on?

    I would make a prediction without googling, that he is pro 2nd amendment in the US. I bet he is in favour of some gun control in principle but almost no control in practice.

    It’s just a product designed for the American right wing. From god to gays, he’s careful to be on the right side of the debate.


  • Options
    #3149
    Redpatio
    Site Banned Posts: 34 ✭Redpatio


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    If all he said was stand up straight, shoulders back and clean your room, then I wouldn’t object. It’s all the other stuff that goes along with it. It’s either a coincidence that he aligns so closely with the American right wing, or it’s by design.

    I mentioned a few right wing issues he points to in the last post. Guess which side of the gay matriage debate he stands on?

    I would make a prediction without googling, that he is pro 2nd amendment in the US. I bet he is in favour of some gun control in principle but almost no control in practice.

    It’s just a product designed for the American right wing. From god to gays, he’s careful to be on the right side of the debate.

    He obviously gets under your skin, I disagree with countless people but they don't bother me, why does Jordan Peterson bother you so much, does everyone have to agree with your beliefs?


  • Options
    #3150
    kubjones
    Registered Users Posts: 157 ✭✭kubjones


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    If all he said was stand up straight, shoulders back and clean your room, then I wouldn’t object. It’s all the other stuff that goes along with it. It’s either a coincidence that he aligns so closely with the American right wing, or it’s by design.

    I mentioned a few right wing issues he points to in the last post. Guess which side of the gay matriage debate he stands on?

    I would make a prediction without googling, that he is pro 2nd amendment in the US. I bet he is in favour of some gun control in principle but almost no control in practice.

    It’s just a product designed for the American right wing. From god to gays, he’s careful to be on the right side of the debate.

    That's a fair point.

    His career isn't in the domain of politics though. If right wing people align with his views, it would be because he has fairly conservative views, though has labelled himself as Classical Libertarian in the past (which I guess modern left would currently identify as right-from-center).

    When asked about gay marriage in a recent interview, he said that he couldn't consider it a bad thing, however it is a recent social milestone and we would have to wait to see whether it was a good idea or not in regards to results.
    He's not wrong.
    In saying this I couldn't see how gay marriage could possibly be a negative and I'm not sure what negatives could come of it, but that's fair enough. Again, his domain isn't in politics save for his objection to Bill C16, which is arguably more of a sociological matter anyway.

    And even if he does align more with the political right, all this means is that he has slightly different opinions to ours. He has raised concerns about mass immigration in the same way people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have, but clearly from a statistics standpoint and hasn't flat out denounced it, unlike the latter two.

    He's shared some opinions that I personally wouldn't agree with, but his opinions and lectures are completely different matters.

    EVEN to take it to the extreme, he came out demonstrably and fervently against gay marriage, would it not be worth listening to considering his background?
    For him to hold such a reasonable opinion on many issues which are backed by peer-reviewed studies, and rarely does he give opinions without backing them up with evidence, why does this man inspire resentment?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3151
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Redpatio wrote: »

    He obviously gets under your skin, I disagree with countless people but they don't bother me, why does Jordan Peterson bother you so much, does everyone have to agree with your beliefs?

    That’s a bit of a cop out and not even an attempt to address anything I said.

    Do you think it’s a coincidence that his positions on so many topics align with the American right? -Apart from stand up straight, shoulders back and tidy your room.


Advertisement