Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

[The ScorpioN]

Well you fit into then incel category and you def don't go out in the sun. Peterson sucks and his followers are mostly trash as well. Alt right incels afraid of their own shadow.

Also Harris makes a fool of Peterson every step of the way.

Just another right wing "intellectual" like Buckley Jr.

Peterson sucks and he sucks even more when you see more of him and listen to the absolute stupidity that comes from his mouth.

He is one of the weakest "intellectual" I have ever seen glorified in this manner.

He's perfect for alt right knobs, incels, and unwashed dudes who fear the sun.

Peterson is the “mainstream intellectual” this generation deserves.

Jim really showed what a dishonest hack Peterson is and took down loser far left wingers in one video clip. Classic.

The more I see on Peterson the more I realize how much he sucks. How
Much he contradicts himself and how many times he’s painted himself into corners.

He’s a perfect modern day quasi intellectual for today’s world.

You seem to be rustled.

What do you disagree with? He's very reasonable. Even when he gets things wrong he's willing to listen and figure out how to amend his views.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You seem to be rustled.

What do you disagree with? He's very reasonable. Even when he gets things wrong he's willing to listen and figure out how to amend his views.

Just about everything he says is stupid. And the stuff that makes sense is basic stuff you can get from a Sunday comic strip.


Harris makes a fool of him just about every time they speak.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Just about everything he says is stupid. And the stuff that makes sense is basic stuff you can get from a Sunday comic strip.


Harris makes a fool of him just about every time they speak.

The entire field of psychology is stupid?

Alright.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

Just about everything he says is stupid. And the stuff that makes sense is basic stuff you can get from a Sunday comic strip.


Harris makes a fool of him just about every time they speak.

Haha, this forum and guys like you!
Too funny. I love having a drink and reading your rants.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

The entire field of psychology is stupid?

Alright.

I compeltely disagree. Peterson is not a leader in any field of psychology. There are extremely smart men and women who have dedicated their lives to understand this part of the human being.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I compeltely disagree. Peterson is not a leader in any field of psychology. There are extremely smart men and women who have dedicated their lives to understand this part of the human being.

He doesn't have to be a leader.

He accurately represents the field's knowledge. So "just about everything he says is stupid" in itself is a very stupid statement.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

He doesn't have to be a leader.

He accurately represents the field's knowledge. So "just about everything he says is stupid" in itself is a very stupid statement.

Nah everytime I hear him talk he backs himself into a corner and he's a religious wind bag on top of it all.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Nah everytime I hear him talk he backs himself into a corner and he's a religious wind bag on top of it all.

You must have not heard much.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You must have not heard much.

But he is a religious guy.

Or perhaps like a Christian existentialist

 

[Devout Pessimist]

But he is a religious guy.

Or perhaps like a Christian existentialist

 

[TyranicalTrump]

He doesn't have to be a leader.

He accurately represents the field's knowledge. So "just about everything he says is stupid" in itself is a very stupid statement.

I like how we have an internet moron in kong.. calling a PHD clinical psychologist with multiple books, papers, citations, research, etc...stupid.

Only on the internet.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Well many times I've heard his speak about his belief in aspects of religion. Or spiritual magic

 

[Phisher]

Pretty good points raised in this video about the absurdity of his views RE redistributive politics.

He talked himself into a corner on Rogan's podcast while he was whining about that NYT article that took him to task for being sympathetic to the incel "community."

 

[TheGreatA]

Pretty good points raised in this video about the absurdity of his views RE redistributive politics.

He talked himself into a corner on Rogan's podcast while he was whining about that NYT article that took him to task for being sympathetic to the incel "community."

There's a bit more to the concept of "enforced monogamy" than just equally re-distributing women across the board. It's more of a biological/evolutionary term to describe monogamous relationships between males and females, and what upholding such relations entails to in a species, which patterns of behaviour it encourages, and such:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals#Enforcement

Even Rogan admitted that he kind of misunderstood the meaning of it, during this so-called "obliteration". He was under the impression that Peterson was speaking of a legal solution to distribute women for the men to marry, which is pretty far from his point:



Whenever you steer people to respect partnerships between man and woman (or even man/man or woman/woman, for the "LGBT cases"), you are enforcing monogamy. Encouraging and legalizing gay marriage, was also an act of enforcing monogamy. You are telling the people that there is a superior way of bonding with another person, than merely having a casual one-night stand with them.

When monogamous relationships are respected (and to a degree, socially enforced) in a society, men and women both will benefit in the sense that they can construct long-term, meaningful relationships with one another, without suffering from the low level of trust in one another, as is common in "polygamous" environments.

There's a reason why that system of behaviour was ditched a long time ago historically, and why societies where polygamy was practised, have long since been left behind in the development of civilizations.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Peterson sucks and he sucks even more when you see more of him and listen to the absolute stupidity that comes from his mouth.

He is one of the weakest "intellectual" I have ever seen glorified in this manner.

He's perfect for alt right knobs, incels, and unwashed dudes who fear the sun.

Well you fit into then incel category and you def don't go out in the sun. Peterson sucks and his followers are mostly trash as well. Alt right incels afraid of their own shadow.

Also Harris makes a fool of Peterson every step of the way.

Just another right wing "intellectual" like Buckley Jr.

About as intellectual as that hack Peterson.

Just about everything he says is stupid. And the stuff that makes sense is basic stuff you can get from a Sunday comic strip.


Harris makes a fool of him just about every time they speak.

I've said it before on other topics, and I'll probably say it again, but you really need to learn to start educating yourself and forming arguments that are pertinent to the subject under discussion.

I haven't followed much of Peterson lately, so I'm not sure what exactly has gotten you all riled up, but your ignorant and irrational ad hominem attacks on the man and anyone who likes him actually serve more as an endorsement than a condemnation.
It's just very difficult to read your information-sparse attacks and not assume that you've come to the wrong conclusions about everything you've ever tried to think about.

 

[jimmas99]

There's a bit more to the concept of "enforced monogamy" than just equally re-distributing women across the board. It's more of a biological/evolutionary term to describe monogamous relationships between males and females, and what upholding such relations entails to in a species, which patterns of behaviour it encourages, and such:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals#Enforcement

Even Rogan admitted that he kind of misunderstood the meaning of it, during this so-called "obliteration". He was under the impression that Peterson was speaking of a legal solution to distribute women for the men to marry, which is pretty far from his point:



Whenever you steer people to respect partnerships between man and woman (or even man/man or woman/woman, for the "LGBT cases"), you are enforcing monogamy. Encouraging and legalizing gay marriage, was also an act of enforcing monogamy. You are telling the people that there is a superior way of bonding with another person, than merely having a casual one-night stand with them.

When monogamous relationships are respected (and to a degree, socially enforced) in a society, men and women both will benefit in the sense that they can construct long-term, meaningful relationships with one another, without suffering from the low level of trust in one another, as is common in "polygamous" environments.

There's a reason why that system of behaviour was ditched a long time ago historically, and why societies where polygamy was practised, have long since been left behind in the development of civilizations.

But in that context ,how does forced monogamy help incels like Peterson suggests?
Society use "forced monogamy" (how you explain it) now and incels still can't get a girl.

So what was JPs Point?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Well many times I've heard his speak about his belief in aspects of religion. Or spiritual magic

He tells a story about rustling sounds coming from under the hood of an old car and how they were a form of divine guidance. It's pretty funny. In a sad way.

 

[TheGreatA]

But in that context ,how does forced monogamy help incels like Peterson suggests?
Society use "forced monogamy" (how you explain it) now and incels still can't get a girl.

So what was JPs Point?

Just forget about useless labels like "incel" for a moment, and just think about it from a general, rational perspective.

A society which offers guidance to men and women in regards to how they will be able form meaningful partnerships with one another, will surely have more people happily married, with families, children, long-term relationships, than a society which does not, right? I mean, surely, pretty much anybody would agree with that. A society that offers rewards and encouragement for monogamy, is going to do better in that regard, than one which does not.

Are we, then, as a society, doing a truly good job at "enforcing monogamy", or rather, encouraging people to invest into relationships and becoming productive members of society, establishing families, putting their roots on the ground, and leaving a lasting legacy as human beings, if there's an increasing host of "angry young men", becoming outcasts and lashing out at the society? Probably not.

Administering labels to people such as "incel" and whatever does not really help to solve the problem. It's what a society does when it's on the defensive, against a growing problem of disassociated groups of people, be they black people, gay people, incels, or whatever. But it's more like the reaction of a child than a wise adult. We have no need to discuss this in terms of "incels" or what not.

The reality is that we are seeing a generation of men being raised, who find it increasingly difficult to integrate into becoming part of society. In any case, even without taking a humanitarian perspective into account, that's an enormous loss of productivity. A truly effective, well-functioning society does not look past a loss of productivity on that scale.

My own society is a prime example in the sense that with each generation, we are seeing a greater and greater number of "lost youth", who forsake society, and there is absolutely no desire whatsoever to even discuss about the problem in any sort of rational terms. You can't even begin to approach that discussion without a bunch of labels being thrown at you, basically degenerating the conversation down to nothing. Yet it is a crucial conversation, that at some point, is going to have to be had.

 

[Trotsky]

The entire field of psychology is stupid?

Alright.

He doesn't employ "the entire field of psychology." It's been discussed here before how his narrow area of psychological application is basically considered pseudoscience among practicing psychologists.

As far as his actual philosophy goes, yes, it's moronic. It's reductive naturalist dogma with a veneer of masculinity to pull in insecure and intellectually unmotivated consumers. And he thoroughly exposes his inadequacy when he tries to supplement/explain his philosophy using history or literature, two areas where he's repeatedly uninformed. For instance, his reading of Dostoevsky's Crime & Punishment and attempt to broadcast an existentialist appraisal of it is, frankly, hilarious in its ineptitude.

However, I wouldn't call him any better or worse than Sam Harris. Both are the same brand of charlatan.

 

[The ScorpioN]

He doesn't employ "the entire field of psychology." It's been discussed here before how his narrow area of psychological application is basically considered pseudoscience among practicing psychologists.

As far as his actual philosophy goes, yes, it's moronic. It's reductive naturalist dogma with a veneer of masculinity to pull in insecure and intellectually unmotivated consumers. And he thoroughly exposes his inadequacy when he tries to supplement/explain his philosophy using history or literature, two areas where he's repeatedly uninformed. For instance, his reading of Dostoevsky's Crime & Punishment and attempt to broadcast an existentialist appraisal of it is, frankly, hilarious in its ineptitude.

However, I wouldn't call him any better or worse than Sam Harris. Both are the same brand of charlatan.

What is discredited? Personality traits? Intelligence quotients?

How is Harris a charlatan?