Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

[Devout Pessimist]

This is the thing I find most interesting about how we speak of reason and logic as as a society. We speak of it like it is a very reliable way to go about thinking about the world. It is.

However the glaring problem with it is that logic and reason are seldom what we use to actually come to conclusions.... Peterson can think and have the opinions he does. I do not begrudge him those. But since I happen to know a lot about Christianity in particular it is really easy to see how his opinion on many political issues and social issues drives how he goes about perceiving Christianity.

So even though he is above average in the IQ department I dont think he is likely to be right about issues as often as someone who is less intelligent but more honest with themselves about bias and or who is less invested in certain perspectives.

I find all of this very facinating.

You have a background in theology is that correct?

 

[tonni]

What's wrong with evopsych?

It is in general extremely ignorant of anthropology and from what I've seen, the supporters of it resort to stereotypes and falsehoods like "men hunted the mammoths that's why we chase women" or something.

 

[Supereem]

I don't really go searching for esoteric, unknown intellectuals, so yeah.

So you never went to university?

 

[Higus]

So you never went to university?

For engineering and later an MBA. I didn't major in liberal arts if that's what you're hinting at.
Do you want to just get to the point?

 

[franklinstower]

You have a background in theology is that correct?

Some yes.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Some yes.

 

[Phisher]

 

[Devout Pessimist]

The Atlantic:

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.


There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind.

 

[franklinstower]

The Atlantic:

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.


There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind.

Ok that's your opinion. I dislike him because he ties Christianity to his take on politics. I dislike him because he speaks as an authority on Christianity when he is obviously only giving his personal take on things. I dislike him because he mixes opinion with scholarly information too often without making it clear to people which is which. I also dislike him because he just barely got his own shit together and is preaching already. I dislike him because I think he greatly exaggerates the dangers of the left-- often conflating them with communism. I dislike him ( and this is part compliment) because he sometimes is so engaging and rich that it seems cheap that he is concerned with the drama of left right thinking and I think his mind could better serve humanity on a higher level.

 

[Phisher]

The Atlantic:

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.


There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind.

Excellent rebuttal to that horseshit article.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...of-jordan-peterson-is-perfectly-rational.html

 

[loyalyolayal]

I like Jordan B. Peterson. He's awesome.

 

[TheGreatA]

The Atlantic:

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.


There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind.

For decades, left-wingers in North America feasted on dumbass redneck hillbilly conservatives who could barely put two coherent sentences together, not ones that weren't borrowed from the Bible, anyway. So when a man like Peterson appeared to the public debate, he obviously came off as a fearsome prospect, capable of potentially rousing the right-wingers to furious resistance. Not so much because he was necessarily a world-class challenger with all the potent abilities of a golden prospect at his disposal, but because they had built their undefeated record by feasting on tomato cans and journeymen for so long, that they had forgotten how to truly fight, outside of shutting down conversations with words that seemed meaningful enough when engaging the KKK or Neo-Nazi types.

If the "intellectual left" has any sense left to them, they should welcome the prospect of a "conservative" like Peterson, even if they completely disagree with where he stands. Atleast you can engage the man on an intellectual level. But when you keep engaging people at a not-so-intellectual level, by yelling, screaming, scratching and clawing, you eventually get taken down to those same sub-par standards, if by nothing else but the process of conditioning. Or perhaps you already resided there, you just didn't know it because your so-called opposition made you feel intelligent and civilized by comparison.

In either case, to a left-winger, there should be nothing to fear of, from a Peterson. There should be more to fear of, from a lack of Petersons. Not everybody's bound to agree with you, but you'd probably prefer that the people who disagree with you, aren't total morons who are only concerned with pandering to their own circle, without even trying to engage your ideas.

The public debate cannot be allowed to devolve to the level where it appears to be at, in many universities. Screaming contests between tribes, which form their own languages and rituals to separate from the rest. These tribes see a man like Peterson as an "interloper", but the truth is that he has merely been trying to form a dialogue where there isn't one. Has he done a perfect job at it? Nope, but atleast he has tried.

To the people outside the university bubble, he may seem whacky and alarmist at times, but I'm quite certain that within his environment, the things he speaks about are very, very real.

 

[Trotsky]

The Atlantic:

Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson

The Canadian psychology professor’s stardom is evidence that leftism is on the decline—and deeply vulnerable.


There are plenty of reasons for individual readers to dislike Jordan Peterson. He’s a Jungian and that isn’t your cup of tea; he is, by his own admission, a very serious person and you think he should lighten up now and then; you find him boring; you’re not interested in either identity politics or in the arguments against it. There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind.

Jordan Peterson would always (always) be unpopular with his contemporaries - persons who have the sophistication to see that he's a reductive weirdo hack - and popular with those less equipped or less willing. Of course, the internet age has assisted with his popularity, since credible networks and publications would be ashamed to provide him a platform, but the tiered reception would remain.

Also, @GearSolidMetal was your only like on this post. Contemplate that.

 

[TheGreatA]

Jordan Peterson would always (always) be unpopular with his contemporaries - persons who have the sophistication to see that he's a reductive weirdo hack - and popular with those less equipped or less willing. Of course, the internet age has assisted with his popularity, since credible networks and publications would be ashamed to provide him a platform, but the tiered reception would remain.

Also, @GearSolidMetal was your only like on this post. Contemplate that.

You certainly expose your socialist hive-mind tendencies with remarks such as that.

A lot of us don't feel the need to "empower" each other with likes.

 

[Trotsky]

For decades, left-wingers in North America feasted on dumbass redneck hillbilly conservatives who could barely put two coherent sentences together, not ones that weren't borrowed from the Bible, anyway. So when a man like Peterson appeared to the public debate, he obviously came off as a fearsome prospect, capable of potentially rousing the right-wingers to furious resistance. Not so much because he was necessarily a world-class challenger with all the potent abilities of a golden prospect at his disposal, but because they had built their undefeated record by feasting on tomato cans and journeymen for so long, that they had forgotten how to truly fight, outside of shutting down conversations with words that seemed meaningful enough when engaging the KKK or Neo-Nazi types.

If the "intellectual left" has any sense left to them, they should welcome the prospect of a "conservative" like Peterson, even if they completely disagree with where he stands. Atleast you can engage the man on an intellectual level. But when you keep engaging people at a not-so-intellectual level, by yelling, screaming, scratching and clawing, you eventually get taken down to those same sub-par standards, if by nothing else but the process of conditioning. Or perhaps you already resided there, you just didn't know it because your so-called opposition made you feel intelligent and civilized by comparison.

In either case, to a left-winger, there should be nothing to fear of, from a Peterson. There should be more to fear of, from a lack of Petersons. Not everybody's bound to agree with you, but you'd probably prefer that the people who disagree with you, aren't total morons who are only concerned with pandering to their own circle, without even trying to engage your ideas.

The public debate cannot be allowed to devolve to the level where it appears to be at, in many universities. Screaming contests between tribes, which form their own languages and rituals to separate from the rest. These tribes see a man like Peterson as an "interloper", but the truth is that he has merely been trying to form a dialogue where there isn't one. Has he done a perfect job at it? Nope, but atleast he has tried.

To the people outside the university bubble, he may seem whacky and alarmist at times, but I'm quite certain that within his environment, the things he speaks about are very, very real.

I'll try to remember to respond to this more thoroughly later, but the main problem with your proposition is that Peterson doesn't present a logic or theoretical underpinning beyond the hillbillies or rednecks that you refer to. It's the same reductive and reactionary arguments, devoid (perhaps purposefully now in his case) of information that are already used. Only now you have to overcome this manufactured presumption of credibility, and then perform the same laborious task of thereafter explaining why what might seem obvious or be amenable to "common sense" is actually reductive bullshit.

You certainly expose your socialist hive-mind tendencies with remarks such as that.

A lot of us don't feel the need to "empower" each other with likes.

This is a thread made to aggregate otherwise inept Peterson defenders: it should be telling that even the marginally competent ones did not cosign a point on his behalf - and that the one that did is a notorious moron.

Also, please tread lightly with the "socialist hive-mind" insults. It's fairly insulting, both to my character and to your intelligence, since I am the only socialist on this forum.

 

[TheGreatA]

I'll try to remember to respond to this more thoroughly later, but the main problem with your proposition is that Peterson doesn't present a logic or theoretical underpinning beyond the hillbillies or rednecks that you refer to. It's the same reductive and reactionary arguments, devoid (perhaps purposefully now in his case) of information that are already used. Only now you have to overcome this manufactured presumption of credibility, and then perform the same laborious task of thereafter explaining why what might seem obvious or be amenable to "common sense" is actually reductive bullshit.

He has said plenty of logical things. But because of your negative disposition towards him, due to not sharing your ideas, you only focus on the potentially illogical ones which you can pick apart.

As usual, people don't want to focus on a person's strengths, but their weaknesses. But you'll give credit to a complete dumbass as long as they share some of your fine ideas. No need to deny, I've seen it plenty of times.

I'll admit that Peterson has plenty of weaknesses which I already noted the first times he came on the scene, part of which is that he shares a lot with those whom he criticizes. He criticizes them because he empathizes with them. Because he, too, could easily be driven purely with emotion rather than logic. He can get shaken up by things that seem menial to others, and made to respond in anger. And he has spent his whole life trying to battle his natural tendency to be moved by emotions and outrage, as a man prone to depression, nervousness, and such things.

I disagree with him on a number of subjects, but I give him credit for having worked to achieve the position where he is at. It is not undeserved. He's not merely a mouth for outdated, illogical conservative ideas. If he was, nobody (particularly on the left) would care about him. He has had plenty to add to the modern debate. But as with many people who operate in public for a prolonged period of time, he is starting to suffer from over-exposure.

It is probably time for him to look back on the experiences he has had, from a distance, and try to make sense of them. Otherwise it will be easy for him to get caught in a loop, and become a talking head for ideas that aren't even necessarily his own anymore. That's the inevitable fate for a lot of people who become a public persona, pressured to operate within certain expectations.

 

[TheGreatA]

This is a thread made to aggregate otherwise inept Peterson defenders: it should be telling that even the marginally competent ones did not cosign a point on his behalf - and that the one that did is a notorious moron.

I've made plenty of posts which got zero likes, but not due to a lack of content or quality, I'd say. It's just that not every post gets read, or gets buried under others, or people just don't feel like clicking the "like" button. In either case, you probably shouldn't base your judgments of a post, on how many likes they are getting.

Some of the worst posts I've read are the ones that got the most likes.

Also, please tread lightly with the "socialist hive-mind" insults. It's fairly insulting, both to my character and to your intelligence, since I am the only socialist on this forum.

That's rich. I poked fun at you, after you poked fun at somebody else. If you don't want to play the game, then don't fire the first shots. And you're far from the only socialist on this forum. You've got plenty of dudes who cheerlead for your cause, so lets not start with the "lone wolf" bullshit. Just because they can't write a post worth crap to defend their stuff unlike you can, doesn't mean they don't agree with you.

It just happens to be a fact that many socialist systems devolve down to being echo chambers of thought, which hinder their further development, after the people have been made dependent on receiving validation by the system through "correct" forms of social signaling. And based on what I've seen of how left-wing circles still continue to operate, I don't think the thinking process regarding that has changed any, in the past decade or so.

 

[Trotsky]

I'm intentionally not responding to your post before this to save if for when I am not drunk.

I've made plenty of posts which got zero likes, but not due to a lack of content or quality, I'd say. It's just that not every post gets read, or gets buried under others, or people just don't feel like clicking the "like" button. In either case, you probably shouldn't base your judgments of a post, on how many likes they are getting.

Some of the worst posts I've read are the ones that got the most likes.

You ignored the entire qualifying part of my post.

That's rich. I poked fun at you, after you poked fun at somebody else. If you don't want to play the game, then don't fire the first shots.

There's a difference between calling a dumb person dumb and insinuating that my opinion derives from a consensus that verifiably does not exist.

And you're far from the only socialist on this forum. You've got plenty of dudes who cheerlead for your cause, so lets not start with the "lone wolf" bullshit. Just because they can't write a post worth crap to defend their stuff unlike you can, doesn't mean they don't agree with you.

The persons who most agree with me on this forum can write as well as, or in some cases better than, I can. Hell, the posters with whom I most get along on this forum are an anti-communist, a Clintonian neoliberal capitalist, and a John Kasich supporter, respectively.

I honestly do not know who would comprise the "hive" to which you refer.

It just happens to be a fact that many socialist systems devolve down to being echo chambers of thought, which hinder their further development.

Now you're moving from rhetoric, to ideology, and now to system. Can you elaborate on what a socialist system of political discourse entails? Does that just refer to authoritarian suppression of thought?

 

[TheGreatA]

There's a difference between calling a dumb person dumb and insinuating that my opinion derives from a consensus that verifiably does not exist.

I'll give you enough credit to say that your opinions probably don't derive from any consensus formed in the War Room. But I never claimed they did, either.

That doesn't mean that your opinions don't form from a consensus somewhere else, though.

The persons who most agree with me on this forum can write as well as, or in some cases better than, I can. Hell, the posters with whom I most get along on this forum are an anti-communist, a Clintonian neoliberal capitalist, and a John Kasich supporter, respectively.

I honestly do not know who would comprise the "hive" to which you refer.

Currently, you're getting along with those people because you've found a common enemy. As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If there were any political stakes, I can easily tell that you would not necessarily be getting along well at all. Such is the nature of competition, I suppose.

For now, you're not engaging in competition with these people, so you're not overtly negatively disposed towards them.

I'm sure you'll explain that it's because they are such great posters with such great content, but I doubt those attributes would matter that much, if it were down to your ideology prevailing, or theirs. Socialists, after all, are quite competitive for a people that abhor competition.

Now you're moving from rhetoric, to ideology, and now to system. Can you elaborate on what a socialist system of political discourse entails? Does that just refer to authoritarian suppression of thought?

Authoritarian suppression of thought has been outdated in leftist circles in the West, since Stalinist times. No, what I'm talking about are the generally agreed-upon means with which the modern socialist system along with its "progressive" ideals can be enforced, "humanely", on the citizens.

Even DDR had already abandoned pure authoritarianism, and moved onto social engineering from the top, utilizing its state-controlled institutions as the tools.

In a modern socialist system, free speech and political discourse are seen as important rights, when it comes to progressive media or progressive intellectuals and the continued advocacy of their ideals, a right that shall not be infringed upon. Not so much when it comes to opposite ideas, which are quickly labeled hate speech, or merely speech that goes against "commonly agreed upon political discourse", and thus not to be spoken at the risk of denouncement by others, often leading to a firing from their job.

I see this every day in my country so I don't really need explanations on how this or that could happen under "different circumstances". What is there, is what is there. The socialist system utilizes collectively cultivated social pressure as its tool to achieve its end goals, while pretending to appear as a protector of people's liberties. The people have a "right to speak", but the consequences of speaking up are so dire socially, that no one ever will. That was already part of DDR agenda by the 1980's, and while the modern left does not necessarily directly draw its influences from those "experiments", they have gradually adopted this type of thinking as their own, as the best possible way of enforcement that they can have, without resorting to violence.

The only reason we have as much room to intellectually operate as it is, is because the worst of the left-wing nuts never get voted into power. Because, oh boy, do those people hope to put an end to any sort of a "deviant narrative" from their own. You wouldn't be seeing any Jordan Peterson's hanging about if these people had their say. No chance.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

If he's not advocating for forcing marriage for incels, his little "enforced monogamy" spiel sure was a shitty way of showing it.

How exactly do you plan to "enforce" monogamy without infringing on free choice? I gotta hear this, especially when people go on about racial preferences being totally legitimate and all that. Why doesn't status preference come into play?

Enforced monogamy is a widely understood term used in the social sciences to refer to monogamous couples being the norm which is reinforced by societal standards. In recent history, essentially every man could get married at a young age and have his sexual needs fulfilled that way. These days, that is no longer universal and there are "Chads" that are drowning in pussy while incels are dying of thirst. Enforced monogamy would help reestablish that dynamic. Whether you personally support that or not, that is a clear argument with evidence to support it.