• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Jordan Peterson - The Intellectual We Deserve

Status
Not open for further replies.

FIMN

Red Belt
@red
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,585
Reaction score
5,353
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Warning - Long

Rustlemania Incoming

"If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)

Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train."

...

"If Jordan Peterson is the most influential intellectual in the Western world, the Western world has lost its damn mind. And since Jordan Peterson does indeedhave a good claim to being the most influential intellectual in the Western world, we need to think seriously about what has gone wrong. What have we done to end up with this man? His success is our failure, and while it’s easy to scoff at him, it’s more important to inquire into how we got to this point. He is a symptom. He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle. Jordan Peterson may not be the intellectual we want. But he is probably the intellectual we deserve."

It's a good read, whether you agree or not.
 
Some of that criticism is too harsh. I appreciate his careful use of language and his attempts to make his meaning clear.

I also think he's an intellectual for a new, dumb internet audience who have never had much of an intellect or interest in intellectual things. He's where people go when they graduate from Joe Rogan.
 
I don't disagree that JP says some very basic stuff but his audience is very young too.

His message is infinitely better than this era of gender fluid/feminist culture that our schools are teaching.

The fact that JP is so famous is kinda sad...shows me the next generations are gonna officially be the governments cucks.

We seen the best days of American culture behind us. I think it ended in the 80s. No I don't mean when blacks and Indians threatened my job as Hilary would suggest. Rather, it was an era you could talk to one another without risking your job or relationships
 
He's a thought provoking dude, as indicated by that TL/DR dissertation.

I rather enjoy the way he remains calm during debate. I don't understand the dislike. He's a psychologist, and he has opinions that he dissects from within and carefully puts forth. What's the problem with that? Agree or disagree, fine. But he's no dummy, no Steven Crowder.
 
Some of that criticism is too harsh. I appreciate his careful use of language and his attempts to make his meaning clear.

I also think he's an intellectual for a new, dumb internet audience who have never had much of an intellect or interest in intellectual things. He's where people go when they graduate from Joe Rogan.
This was my take for a while too but the more I listened to the guy talk about subjects outside of his expertise the worse he gets. That can be said about literally everyone but he ranges between making obvious statements in an overly complicated way or just cringe worthy. Just listen to him talk about business leaders, he could not be more wrong.

Overall he is a smart enough guy and is a decent person as far as I can tell, but he is spreading some bullshit. When he talks about topics within his expertise he's very good and quite interesting.
 
Some of that criticism is too harsh. I appreciate his careful use of language and his attempts to make his meaning clear.

I also think he's an intellectual for a new, dumb internet audience who have never had much of an intellect or interest in intellectual things. He's where people go when they graduate from Joe Rogan.
I like Peterson, and I agree. And I would describe myself the same way you did.

And if tearing people down for that is what it takes someone to get themselves over, than lol at them. Have fun being miserable.
 
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Warning - Long

Rustlemania Incoming

"If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)

Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train."

...

"If Jordan Peterson is the most influential intellectual in the Western world, the Western world has lost its damn mind. And since Jordan Peterson does indeedhave a good claim to being the most influential intellectual in the Western world, we need to think seriously about what has gone wrong. What have we done to end up with this man? His success is our failure, and while it’s easy to scoff at him, it’s more important to inquire into how we got to this point. He is a symptom. He shows a culture bereft of ideas, a politics without inspiration or principle. Jordan Peterson may not be the intellectual we want. But he is probably the intellectual we deserve."

It's a good read, whether you agree or not.


That reads like a stock rebuttal that could be applied at leisure to any intellectual that any author happens to disagree with.
 
I think they are trying to discredit Jordan Peterson with those who have seen news clips or short excerpts but not listened or read JP’s work.
Jordan Peterson is a God send.
 
This was my take for a while too but the more I listened to the guy talk about subjects outside of his expertise the worse he gets. That can be said about literally everyone but he ranges between making obvious statements in an overly complicated way or just cringe worthy. Just listen to him talk about business leaders, he could not be more wrong.

Overall he is a smart enough guy and is a decent person as far as I can tell, but he is spreading some bullshit. When he talks about topics within his expertise he's very good and quite interesting.
I will say after reading the excerpts in the article that his writing is un-fucking-readable garbage. He's a lot better with conversation. I disagree with damn near everything he says about everything, fwiw. It's just that I can understand what he's saying and I appreciate his attempts to poke at some difficult and subtle cultural things. I wish he was free of his cult of personality so that he could be wrong in peace, because those conversations are worth having.

For example, when he talks about it being difficult to deal with crazy women because there's no underlying threat of violence, that's exactly what he means. Not that he can't deal with them because he's not allowed to hit women, but because the interaction itself is consequence-free for the woman. And that as a man, he doesn't know how to handle that. That's the sort of thing that only standup comics have been successful tapping into, and of course his audience gets him completely wrong. The subtlety goes away and then young men start punching their girlfriends.
 
That reads like a stock rebuttal that could be applied at leisure to any intellectual that any author happens to disagree with.
The article goes a lot deeper.
 
(It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)

<WellThere>
Just another drug dealer.
 
I will say after reading the excerpts in the article that his writing is un-fucking-readable garbage. He's a lot better with conversation. I disagree with damn near everything he says about everything, fwiw. It's just that I can understand what he's saying and I appreciate his attempts to poke at some difficult and subtle cultural things. I wish he was free of his cult of personality so that he could be wrong in peace, because those conversations are worth having.

For example, when he talks about it being difficult to deal with crazy women because there's no underlying threat of violence, that's exactly what he means. Not that he can't deal with them because he's not allowed to hit women, but because the interaction itself is consequence-free for the woman. And that as a man, he doesn't know how to handle that. That's the sort of thing that only standup comics have been successful tapping into, and of course his audience gets him completely wrong. The subtlety goes away and then young men start punching their girlfriends.
I think (hope?) People are smart enough to understand what hes saying when he speaks like that..
 
JP is the man. You can argue about a lot of what he said on various topics, but what got the man to the dance and he’s at his best when he’s tearing the SJW/commies/leftists/cucks/whateveryourehavingyourself apart.
 
A podcast I listen to said he sounds like Kermit the Frog and now I can't take him seriously.
 
I think (hope?) People are smart enough to understand what hes saying when he speaks like that..
I think he could be a lot clearer when it's something that important. The way Peterson complained about the Toronto woman, it sounded very much like he was saying he wished he could beat her up, and was implying that if she were a man, he would have. I can't blame people for taking his comments that way. In fact I'm the one who would have the burden of explaining why I don't think he literally meant what he literally said. He hurts his case because he suggests more blame on the woman and the culture than he does for his own violent emotions. He's conflicted and speaking on more than one level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top