Jordan Peterson

[Krypton]

I don't think that's the case for me across the board. I value individual freedoms. I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to though or how it relates.

But here I simply stated that Jordan Peterson was seen as controversial because he says sexist things. You didn't ask what I thought was sexist or why I might think that. Do you not see it in any of his work? Or his issues with transgender people? I admit I don't own his books and follow him super closely, but I was curious about him some time back because I started to see so many people following him and wanted to see what he was saying.

I think he writes some practical self help that isn't really anything I have found to be ground breaking. Maybe this is the gateway into his ideology. Seems parental enough at first. But then he gets into the whole men= order and women= chaos which I find problematic and regressive. There's more I could say but that's basically the gist of my original comment. Have you read more than 12 Rules?

I'm sure someone's said this before but I do wonder if some of the reason he says stuff like this is because he's trying to reach a demographic that usually doesn't listen to self-help advice by appearing as one of them. His brand is the innovative thing, not the ideas.

 

[Wyote]

Yeah, I think he needs to engage in more discussion/debate with people who disagree with him.

Why tho.
Or to what end.

 

[slant]

Yeah, I think he needs to engage in more discussion/debate with people who disagree with him.

You mean like this

 

[Pin]

You mean like this

Speaking as someone who's also consumed his content...

Sort of, it's more-so an interview format there. It's a productive conversation but I almost never see Peterson directly address his detractors on the specific claims they're making. Outside of psychology he makes a lot of errors. For example, when he's debating Zizek about Marxism it seems like he hardly did any homework at all. He evidently didn't read Das Kapital or acquaint himself with the Labour Theory of Value.

With respect to trans issues he's also lacking. That bill he opposed didn't warrant the excessive reaction it got from him. He lied about the substance of a two-page bill (C-16) and went on a crusade where he upholds flimsy straw-men.

His politics are almost completely misinformed, the exception being his opposition to Stalinsim in the form of his support of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. And despite my agreement with Peterson in this respect, I found his takes with respect to this topic very surface-level and limited.

In my eyes, he's basically a center right-wing Deepak Chopra.

 

[slant]

Speaking as someone who's also consumed his content...

Sort of, it's more-so an interview format there. It's a productive conversation but I almost never see Peterson directly address his detractors on the specific claims they're making. Outside of psychology he makes a lot of errors. For example, when he's debating Zizek about Marxism it seems like he hardly did any homework at all. He evidently didn't read Das Kapital or acquaint himself with the Labour Theory of Value.

With respect to trans issues he's also lacking. That bill he opposed didn't warrant the excessive reaction it got from him. He lied about the substance of a two-page bill (C-16) and went on a crusade where he upholds flimsy straw-men.

His politics are almost completely misinformed, the exception being his opposition to Stalinsim in the form of his support of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. And despite my agreement with Peterson in this respect, I found his takes with respect to this topic very surface-level and limited.

I don't know enough about that to have an opinion either way. I like his book, and the podcasts I've heard him do with Joe rogan. I guess that is as far as I can speak.

 

[Pin]

I don't know enough about that to have an opinion either way. I like his book, and the podcasts I've heard him do with Joe rogan. I guess that is as far as I can speak.

He really rode that YouTube anti-SJW trend to wealth and fame. Most of the time he sincerely believes what he is saying. My problem is though, that he's just wrong too often. Not wrong on everything, but wrong on quite a lot outside of his area of specialty- psychology.

 

[Pin]

On top of that, his book Map's of Meaning is literally nonsensical but that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Pin]

Never oppose ideological orthodoxy if you want a peaceful life.

Peterson will end up on AOC's purge list anyways. Good intentions or not, wrong-thinkers will be punished.

I think that the Western world is gradually becoming less socially conservative. Peterson has definitely found a niche amidst this sea of change.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

He really rode that YouTube anti-SJW trend to wealth and fame. Most of the time he sincerely believes what he is saying. My problem is though, that he's just wrong too often. Not wrong on everything, but wrong on quite a lot outside of his area of specialty- psychology.

I have more to say about JP, but I'll have to leave that to the weekend if I remember, lol.

The thing with him is that he's a speculator, and a very good one at that, I think. It means that he's going to be wrong a bunch, but so what?

On his end, he probably needs to stop presenting most of his ideas with the level of authority that he does, and on our end, we probably need to be a bit more robust about how we engage with speculations like his.

Mostly I think he's just a dude who isn't on board with certain feminist projects of suppressing the truth about biological facts, like Lorraine Code's principles of 'cohabitation' (that scientific data about things like IQ differences between genders or 'races' should be suppressed from public view in order that the greater political good of equity between different groups is served), espoused by her followers like Heidi Grasswick et al.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

He evidently didn't read Das Kapital

Did you read Das Kapital, Pin?

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Mostly I think he's just a dude who isn't on board with certain feminist projects of suppressing the truth about biological facts, like Lorraine Code's principles of 'cohabitation' (that scientific data about things like IQ differences between genders or 'races' should be suppressed from public view in order that the greater political good of equity between different groups is served), espoused by her followers like Heidi Grasswick et al.

If anyone is interested, it's stuff like this:

Code cites Hilary Kornblith's work as an example here: we must ultimately ask what knowledge is good for, in order for epistemological concerns to have any normative pull on us as agents (92). While some will appeal to the importance of generating true beliefs for (human) survival, it is not uncommon to appeal to a richer sense of human flourishing. And with a goal of human flourishing to measure our knowledge practices against, we are well on our way toward an integration of ethical and epistemological concerns such as Code has advocated. If knowledge is of value insofar as it leads to human flourishing, then we must judge our epistemic practices according to how well they (through their generation of true or well-grounded beliefs) contribute to human flourishing.

For example, taking cohabitability as our gold standard, one might argue that research into sex differences in cognitive abilities is at this time irresponsible: in our currently gendered society, refraining from such studies will do more to encourage just relations between the genders than undertaking research (and such gender relations bring with them material implications). Similarly, ecological thinking demands that support for (or faith in) the epistemic practices of the big-laboratory science of pesticide production be reconsidered and perhaps withdrawn in light of the environmental and human health damage resulting from pesticide use.

Heidi E. Grasswick, 'From Feminist Thinking to Ecological Thinking: Determining the Bounds of Community', Hypatia 23.1 (2008), pp. 150-60.

I'll come back to this.

 

[Pin]

Did you read Das Kapital, Pin?

Not in full, but I don't speak with authority on Marxian economics like Peterson does because I hardly understand it. The thing is, it's not just the Labour Theory of Value. It's the concept of commodification, theories of exchange, and so much more. It's really dense literature.

Peterson has less of an understanding of Marx than I have and he chose to debate Slajov Zizek, an actual expert on Marx. Like, really? I would have at least read Das Kapital before debating an expert on Marx.

It's like debating Dr. Seuss without getting past Page 2 of The Cat In The Hat.

 

[Pin]

@Deleted member 16771

Do you subscribe to the concept of feminist theory as it relates to sociology?

 

[philostam]

Not in full, but I don't speak with authority on Marxian economics like Peterson does because I hardly understand it. The thing is, it's not just the Labour Theory of Value. It's the concept of commodification, theories of exchange, and so much more. It's really dense literature.

Peterson has less of an understanding of Marx than I have and he chose to debate Slajov Zizek, an actual expert on Marx. Like, really? I would have at least read Das Kapital before debating an expert on Marx.

It's like debating Dr. Seuss without getting past Page 2 of The Cat In The Hat.

The title of the debate was Marxism vs Capitalism. I think the idea was that they both speak for one side.

I agree with you that Peterson is weak on such topics (political economy, history etc) but it doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[Pin]

The title of the debate was Marxism vs Capitalism. I think the idea was that they both speak for one side.

I agree with you that Peterson is weak on such topics (political economy, history etc) but it doesn't bother me one bit.

He's great with respect to psychology but outside of that, I'm very critical of what he has to say on almost every other subject.

I think he's become a grifter now; it profits him to have a centre-right perspective. He'd lose the supporters he's amassed if he actually started to subscribe to Marxism, for example.

I don't expect him to change his opinion because he's got a lot of money invested in not changing.

 

[Pin]

@Deleted member 16771

With respect to the Marxist theory of commodity circulation there's MCM circulation. Money > Commodity > Money. Essentially saying that capitalists use their money to sell commodities for even more money. This is Chapter 3 of Das Kapital.

I assure you, Peterson didn't read it because all he had to say is "That's not the way commodities circulate under capitalism." But he didn't.

In Chapter 4, Marx then says that money stops being capital if it's spent on consumer goods rather than to amass more money. Chapters 1 and 2 are where Marx sets the groundwork for understanding The Labor Theory of Value that even Adam Smith subscribed to, why? Because that's just what Classical economists (Adam Smith, David Richardo) thought, even if they're wrong. At least, in my opinion they're wrong.

Peterson is being lazy, foolish, or intellectually dishonest. He can't even critique Marxism right.

 

[Pin]

@slant

Am I not cutting Peterson enough slack?

Like, I'm not even a Marxist but I could at least properly debate one on the substance of their argument. I watched that "debate" and felt offended because I wasn't getting what I was promised. Peterson blue-balled me.

But seriously, why should I have to sift through dense 19th century economic literature because Jordan Peterson won't?

None of us should have to read Das Kapital. It's too long for no reason and there's lots of math in it.

 

[slant]

@slant

Am I not cutting Peterson enough slack?

Like, I'm not even a Marxist but I could at least properly debate one on the substance of their argument. I watched that "debate" and felt offended because I wasn't getting what I was promised. Peterson blue-balled me.

But seriously, why should I have to sift through dense 19th century economic literature because Jordan Peterson won't?

None of us should have to read Das Kapital. It's too long for no reason and there's lots of math in it.

Eh I mean you're free to like who you like and dislike who you dislike.

To be fair, I'm not some hero worshipper of Jordan Peterson. I would call myself at best a casual fan. I haven't read all of his work and I have not watched every interview or podcast he's been on.

There is actually very few people who I've done that with. Jaron Lanier comes to mind, and even him, I feel that he does lean in too heavily his political views on the sociological topics he discusses.

I think it's a good rule of thumb to try to read source materials but we don't have time to read everything ever written.

What I like about Peterson is his pushback on identity politics and other currently popular social progressive ideas. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says but I do agree with most of his controversial views regarding social issues. I'm not as interested in his philosophical beliefs, lol, my area of focus is cultural anthropology and sociology so that's what I focus on when it comes to him.

 

[Pin]

What I like about Peterson is his pushback on identity politics and other currently popular social progressive ideas. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he says but I do agree with most of his controversial views regarding social issues.

I don't really know if I do or don't agree with him on that topic, to tell you the truth. I'm fairly center right when it comes to ideal economic policy. I caucus with the New Democrat coalition. That said, I can't give you a solid answer about what I think about trans pronouns or fourth-wave feminism because I just don't know.

To be fair, I'm not some hero worshipper of Jordan Peterson. I would call myself at best a casual fan. I haven't read all of his work and I have not watched every interview or podcast he's been on.

I've seen a few and he's actually well-versed in philosophy but his definition of truth is kind of sus to me. Anyway, you're right that we're approaching Peterson from different angles. I used to be a big fan until I looked at the sum of his views.

Tl;dr: In my opinion, he's right on a few things but not most things.

 

[Cornerstone]

Pretty sure Peterson wrote my horoscope today...