Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

[IGotAHugePeckah]

If it takes you 12,000 words to make a point, you probably don't have a good one.

Or if you have to write an entire book on it.




This fella accuses Jordan Peterson of being a charlatan who has nothing to say and is just preaching to his own choir, and here he is pumping out another anti-Trump book into the cesspool.

 

[panamaican]

from little i have read religions did this especially catholicism making up that God is against men having more than 1 wife or concubine. Islam and older real christanity and judaism did not have this. Basically in old times women who say were 4/10 would prefer to share a much higher status men then to get stuck with 4/10 husband.

Is that sound right? If women hypergamous like some say. If anything enforced monogamy by like catholic church or islam in some countries which only let upper class men have up to 4 wives but most men get there 1 wife. If anything that benefits lower status men at expense of women who if not for enforced social and economic condition would prefer to NOT have sex and be with lower status men of their same looks range but rather hold out and share higher value male. If you look at it from the darwinian view point this enforced monogamy may pacify society but it is dygenic because it allows the lowest men to reproduce which is counter to the view so many these alt right guys seem have about redpill might make right.

Maybe men insecurity in this department causes them and people certain people to get all religious about women being whores and needing men control etc. It these type of guys who talk about end of world because promiscuity even though that is the human normal.

It's interesting that I don't think monogamy is in the bible, it's not in the Old Testament. Abraham had at least 2 wives.

But I wrote an earlier post about pseudo monogamy based on economics. Where low income partners (Women) gave up promiscuity in exchange for securing economic security and protective partners (men). The change in the economic prospects of women has taken many women out of the low income section thus ending their need to limit their sexual promiscuity for those reasons.

I agree with you doing this for the benefit of low status men is actually a bad idea.

 

[lfd0311]

The point he made was fair enough, and I can even stand for a bit of lying to get there. In a sense, Peterson's ascension does signal a sense of desperation, to have somewhat intelligent-sounding people speaking in our stead. But I wouldn't necessarily bring up Peterson as an example of intellectual corrosion in the modern day.

If his point was that Peterson is at times long winded and tries to talk about everything, it would be fair, but that's not what his criticism is. The part of his article quoting Peterson on law is done dishonestly, as he claims that Peterson gives no context, when the previous two pages of his book are the context. He's just banking on nobody actually bothering to look to see if that was true.

 

[lfd0311]

Or if you have to write an entire book on it.




This fella accuses Jordan Peterson of being a charlatan who has nothing to say and is just preaching to his own choir, and here he is pumping out another anti-Trump book into the cesspool.

Current Affairs "magazine" is literally just something he started in college a few years ago. This is a kid who was just in college in 2015 and has written like 5 books since. He's apparently a deep well of political knowledge and experience.

 

[TheGreatA]

If his point was that Peterson is at times long winded and tries to talk about everything, it would be fair, but that's not what his criticism is. The part of his article quoting Peterson on law is done dishonestly, as he claims that Peterson gives no context, when the previous two pages of his book are the context. He's just banking on nobody actually bothering to look to see if that was true.

He's bullshitting about a lot, but I was talking about the criticism that the modern society "deserves" intellectuals like Peterson.

I personally believe that Peterson is a bit above what the society truly "deserves". Without Peterson, who else is there? Joe Rogan?

Peterson represents an up-swing from the recent lows. He's not evidence of the society's intellectual corrosion, except in the sense that it is definitely a sign of desperation that Peterson is one of the few guys that we can even point out to as an actual academic, who is involved in the public debate. He was uplifted to where he was at, because of the complete void of intellect in the area of public debate. But still, he's a bit better than what we've had in the last couple of years, pure garbage for the most part.

Peterson shouldn't be hailed as the second coming of Jesus, for having a few half-coherent things to say, but neither should he be discredited because of jealousy and personal agendas. Whether we like to admit it or not, we need more Jordan Petersons, and less of what we've had, comedians portraying themselves as philosophers or political ideologues. Or hack journalists who are paid to say what they are told.

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

I'm 45 min into the Munk Debate and the Dyson dude is yet to present anything of value. While it could be my style preference, he appears more concerned with connecting to the audience on an emotional level and going for some pretty low-hanging fruit nobody is even arguing against, than actually engaging anything the other team is arguing. Will edit when done with the whole debate.

P.S. Bringing Stephen Fry in was a masterstroke.

 

[dontsnitch]

Who was the most prominent intellectual before Peterson got on the scene? Joe Rogan? Bill Maher? John Oliver? In that sense, I think Peterson represents an upwards movement. Atleast he's an academic of some merit. Not just a random guy with a podcast and a huge audience.

I'd say it's Sam Harris.

 

[lfd0311]

He's bullshitting about a lot, but I was talking about the criticism that the modern society "deserves" intellectuals like Peterson.

I personally believe that Peterson is a bit above what the society truly "deserves". Without Peterson, who else is there? Joe Rogan?

Peterson represents an up-swing from the recent lows. He's not evidence of the society's intellectual corrosion, except in the sense that it is definitely a sign of desperation that Peterson is one of the few guys that we can even point out to as an actual academic, who is involved in the public debate. He was uplifted to where he was at, because of the complete void of intellect in the area of public debate. But still, he's a bit better than what we've had in the last couple of years, pure garbage for the most part.

Peterson shouldn't be hailed as the second coming of Jesus, for having a few half-coherent things to say, but neither should he be discredited because of jealousy and personal agendas. Whether we like to admit it or not, we need more Jordan Petersons, and less of what we've had, comedians portraying themselves as philosophers or political ideologues. Or hack journalists who are paid to say what they are told.

You do realize the title is snarky, don't you? This guy clearly doesn't think Peterson is an intellectual by any means.

 

[Gandhi]

I've never seen such a movie, usually they're about the boy getting the girl in the end.

In the case of Frozen I like that they ended up making it about love between siblings but Boss Baby did it way better.

I think we disagree here, I do think its a symptom of a larger problem in society and its one that's worth addressing beyond the individual level though of course the individual level is the best place to start. I don't think it can be done at the level of policy, its something even deeper.

To that end I do agree with some form of "enforced monogamy" in the sense that marriage and parenthood should be seen as universal milestones, not personal choices. Consider education as something similar in the present society. Graduating high school and going off to college are milestones that are expected of young people. If they fail to achieve those milestones then it reflects poorly on them even if its by choice and they're left having to justify it.

The problem is our society and economy are structured in a way that stack the deck against family and marriage. Our society encourages women to commit the years of their peak fertility to one's education and career. Not only that but our families have become very atomized. The West now deals with a problem of senior isolation while mothers struggle to balance childcare and their careers. Few seem to consider that the solution to both problems is to strengthen the extended family, we instead believe that the solution is to send some Wheels on Meals stranger to talk about the weather with the former and have some anonymous wannabe teacher who may or may not neglect or abuse children take care of the latter.

So when people do choose to have a family, its in spite of society and the economy and not because of it as evidenced by the fact that young families have appallingly low levels of wealth.

That's not it at all. Of course the specific men who have these toxic beliefs are disdained for that reason but male virgins and incels in general, regardless of whether or not they have these beliefs, are also disdained.

As I alluded to earlier its because they're the male equivalent of sluts. Traditional norms valued chastity among women which is why sluts are maligned. Those same norms valued sexual success in men and needless to say the incels fall short of that. Both fall short of the old gender ideals in their own way. The difference is our culture of liberated sex has soften the stigma against sluts but also sluts choose to go against those older norms while incels most certainly do not.

Yeah we may not agree here. There will always be the unwanted guy and girl. As far as the guys are concerned the internet has been used to give them a voice to advocate a crazy agenda. That's what is being reviled. The normal course ridicule that your individual incel faces seems to me at least to be more akin to the "no fat chicks" stuff we see all the time than the gendor based slut shaming. Normal course social bullying/stereo typing or an assymetrical result of the decline of the traditional family unit. It’s going to be really difficult to definitively prove it out either way though

As far as the problems of the modern family faces, especially with regards to the article. It was interesting to note that the biggest and most consistent contributing factor (the one item that had a line moving in just one direction since the 90s rather than a W around the GFC or a less prominent slope ), was student debt. That and the more broad question of income distribution amidst the backdrop of upper tier tax cuts and globalization suggests to me that policy is a big part of the problem.

See, I told ya so Gandhiji.

LOL I thought you agreed with me that JP is actually being at least somewhat prescriptive when he described enforced monogamy rather than just restating status quo?

Andway in WR fashion I am going to stick to guns while I move the goal post about my ever changing assertion that JP is kinda having it both ways here. But I am more than happy to discuss his more reasonable ideas through Gandhi approved WR proxies.

 

[TheGreatA]

I'd say it's Sam Harris.

Maybe, although he has been slipping in relevance before Peterson came to the scene, I think. I can't recall him being invited to any "mainstream shows", or being made articles of, in quite a while.

You do realize the title is snarky, don't you? This guy clearly doesn't think Peterson is an intellectual by any means.

Obviously. Still, it's a valid enough point that he raises (even if he has to bullshit his way through it). The problem is that he thinks that Peterson is a sign of intellectual corrosion, even though that corrosion has happened long before Peterson. Peterson represents a return to normalcy, more like.

He might have flaws (although the article doesn't really do a honest job of portraying his flaws), but he is still an academic who knows something. It's the "know-nothings" who have had their say for the past few years. I get the sense that , through all the bullshit, the article's writer would actually prefer a David Duke or a Richard Spencer in charge of "right-wing intellectualism", rather than somebody who actually tries to remain somewhat objective, and compromise when proven to be wrong.

A lot of people seem to actually want Peterson to be the women-hating, rape-apologizing, secretly racist, fascist, sexist, religiously zealous monster that they claim to despise, because it's easier to live with your ideological rivals being irrational and illogical and thoroughly immoral, who can be discredited from a moral high horse, compared to actually having to debate them on a factual basis.

It's one thing to "expose" your enemies as monsters, and another to wish it. In most cases nowadays, the latter is what's happening. People wish that they won't have to deal with other people, as people. Means that they won't have to obey some of the key rules of conversation, such as being civil, rational, objective, open-minded and sticking to the facts.

When you're dealing with monsters, "all bets are off", and suddenly you can lie, cheat, misrepresent, slander, because the "greater good" excuses all of it. Because in the end, you stopped a deemed "monster" from having their say. Not a human being.

That's why people constantly think the worst of their enemies. Because anything else, they believe, would weaken their resolve, to do and say what's "necessary". To these people, Peterson has to be those things, he has to be the worst thing possible, because otherwise they'd have to deal with him in a civil manner. And that's not a chance that they're willing to take, in risk of "losing" the conversation.

 

[unimackpass]

Who bin dumbed down, you say?

Hey look ma, a dweeb that cares about spelling in the wr. Bill Maher fan detected.

 

[luckyshot]

What's lame about wanting society to function better?

Letting it lead you to a comically two dimensional world view.

(Not saying this of you personally, but of Shapiro.)

 

[Andy Capp]

Hey look ma, a dweeb that cares about spelling in the wr. Bill Maher fan detected.

Just noting the comic irony, so I might be, if I ever watched his program.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

It's interesting that I don't think monogamy is in the bible, it's not in the Old Testament. Abraham had at least 2 wives.

But I wrote an earlier post about pseudo monogamy based on economics. Where low income partners (Women) gave up promiscuity in exchange for securing economic security and protective partners (men). The change in the economic prospects of women has taken many women out of the low income section thus ending their need to limit their sexual promiscuity for those reasons.

I agree with you doing this for the benefit of low status men is actually a bad idea.

Monogamy is all over the New Testament. Jesus talks about the immorality of divorce and Paul talks at great length about chastity, monogamy and marriage.

Here is one instance of Paul talking about marriage:

Teaching on Marriage

1 Corinthians 7:1-7

1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

http://biblehub.com/context/1_corinthians/7-1.htm

 

[panamaican]

Monogamy is all over the New Testament. Jesus talks about the immorality of divorce and Paul talks at great length about chastity, monogamy and marriage.

Here is one instance of Paul talking about marriage:

Teaching on Marriage

1 Corinthians 7:1-7

1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

http://biblehub.com/context/1_corinthians/7-1.htm

So New but not Old?

I find the religious conversations in the WR all over the place with selective references to Old vs. New T. ideology based on the non-religious preference of the speaker. I'm not denying the New T references btw.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

So instead, you get the brainless attacks - "OMG PETERSON IS A FAVOURITE OF NAZIS!!!" I'm sure Nazis like chocolate ice cream too. Fucking dolts.

First the leftist media aggressively attacked Peterson as a trans-phobe, then it was Nazi, then it was intellectual hero of stupid idiots, then it was the enabler of angry white male alt-right Trump lovers, now it is sexist misogynist who wants to control women for the pleasure of men. I am interested in seeing what smear the lefties will create next.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

So New but not Old?

I find the religious conversations in the WR all over the place with selective references to Old vs. New T. ideology based on the non-religious preference of the speaker. I'm not denying the New T references btw.

There is a reason there are so many denominations of Christianity. I think it is safe to say that almost all denominations believe in chastity, monogamy and marriage.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah we may not agree here. There will always be the unwanted guy and girl. As far as the guys are concerned the internet has been used to give them a voice to advocate a crazy agenda. That's what is being reviled. The normal course ridicule that your individual incel faces seems to me at least to be more akin to the "no fat chicks" stuff we see all the time than the gendor based slut shaming. Normal course social bullying/stereo typing or an assymetrical result of the decline of the traditional family unit. It’s going to be really difficult to definitively prove it out either way though

There will always be unwanted men and women but society should, through social norms and not the law, try to reduce their numbers. Peterson probably didn't have the kind of arranged marriage I described earlier in mind, his idea was likely at a wider level and not at the level of an insular community, but the effect is similar in that men and women, should they meet a certain minimum standard concerning things like education, get paired together regardless of their social skills so that's an example.

As far as the problems of the modern family faces, especially with regards to the article. It was interesting to note that the biggest and most consistent contributing factor (the one item that had a line moving in just one direction since the 90s rather than a W around the GFC or a less prominent slope ), was student debt. That and the more broad question of income distribution amidst the backdrop of upper tier tax cuts and globalization suggests to me that policy is a big part of the problem.

And here policy can help and unfortunately I think Peterson wouldn't be so quick to admit that and suggest the kinds of policy solutions that could alleviate this issue given his appeal to libertarians. I've always believed that parents should get a whole host of benefits that would allow them to go back to school so as to make starting a family before the commitment to an education more viable. Stuff like sole access to favorable loans and grants, housing, admission etc.

LOL I thought you agreed with me that JP is actually being at least somewhat prescriptive when he described enforced monogamy rather than just restating status quo?

Andway in WR fashion I am going to stick to guns while I move the goal post about my ever changing assertion that JP is kinda having it both ways here. But I am more than happy to discuss his more reasonable ideas through Gandhi approved WR proxies.

He is prescriptive but not at the level of policy. He'd like to see a change in our culture not unlike what I described before, where marriage and parenthood are considered rites of passage for a normal, balanced adult life instead of optional, personal choices. No one would technically force men and women to get married but they'd have these norms internalized. Its socially and implicitly enforced monogamy, not legal and explicitly enforced monogamy as was implied in the NYT article.

 

[panamaican]

There is a reason there are so many denominations of Christianity. I think it is safe to say that almost all denominations believe in chastity, monogamy and marriage.

I know that almost all of them believe in it (there are always a few sects that choose otherwise) but it's also one of those areas where the OT is more permissive than the NT. I think it's worth digging into whenever religion is used as a reference point for modern decision making on a large social scale, as opposed to an individual scale.

 

[Brazilian HKD]

Darn, people in both sides of the spectre are really obsessed with Peterson