The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[Prefect]

You say this but so much is unsubstantiated. He has a lot in common with Tony Robbins, a life coach.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

You say this but so much is unsubstantiated. He has a lot in common with Tony Robbins, a life coach.

Was Tony Robbins ever a researcher and an associate professor at Harvard?

 

[panamaican]

Just because I can't tell WHAT is wrong with my car, I can certainly tell there is SOMETHING wrong with my car.

Also it is easier to maintain the car than to fix it after it is broken.

Not always. Sometimes, you can't even tell that something is wrong until it gets so bad that significant repairs are needed. And maintaining the car still requires a basic understanding of what type of maintenance is needed.

His analogy cuts both ways. Sure, the uninformed aren't in a great position to properly diagnose what's wrong and fix it. But the uninformed aren't in a great position to properly diagnose if everything is still operating properly and maintain it either.

And if we're going to say that even if you don't know what is wrong, you still know that something is wrong - that goes both ways. Isn't this what activists are arguing - that SOMETHING is wrong with the car? Even if they don't know WHAT exactly it is?

The "clean your room" and "helicopter mechanic" analogies can be applied in both directions. I'm critiquing the analogies themselves.

 

[panamaican]

Yes, but the amount of iterable games are very very very limited.

He says that but he doesn't state what the limitation is. Is it 10, 10000 or 10,000,000? In a world of inifinite possibilities, even 10 million can be considered very limited.

 

[Prefect]

Was Tony Robbins ever a researcher and an associate professor at Harvard?

The portion he is known in the public for isn't research or substantiated. It is broad unfounded generlizations.

 

[Prefect]

The appeal of Jordan Peterson is his practical life lessons. Life is tough so toughen up, take responsibility for your life, look at yourself before condemning others, get married and have a family. He is not saying anything new, but it is timely and, tragically, something many young men have not heard before.

If you pay attention to his fan-base, most of the males who follow Peterson are making an honest effort to turn their lives around for the better.

How the heck what you just described isn't someone being a life coach?

 

[panamaican]

Who is saying Peterson's message is unique? It is timely.

Why wouldn't you pay attention to Peterson's fanbase to see the influence of his message?

That's like saying I should evaluate David Koresh's message by his influence on his followers. If I looked at his followers and their devotion to his message, I should conclude that David Koresh is the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. If I evaluate Koresh's message then I might be skeptical of his claims. I evaluate the message, not those who adhere to it.

It's no different than false prophets or snake oil salesmen. They always convince someone to follow them. If you only look at if they had followers, you too might get misled. But if you evaluate them then you're in a better position to determine if they're selling you the truth or a lie. Even the best of people get mislead sometimes.

I'm not calling Peterson a false prophet or a snake oil salesman, it's just the analogy for why you evaluate the person and not their followers.

 

[panamaican]

Peterson is by no means against change/adaptation. From Maps of Meaning:

P. 177: "The spirit forever willing to risk personal (more abstractly, intrapsychic) destruction to gain redemptive knowledge might be considered the archetypal representative of the adaptive process as such."

P. 179: "A new manner of dealing with (that is, behaving with regard to or classifying) an emergent unknown is the gift of the hero."

P. 181: "The most fundamental presumption of the myth of the hero is that the nature of human experience can be (should be) improved by voluntary alteration in individual human attitude and action. This statement … constitutes the truly revolutionary idea of historical man."

PP. 186-187: "We use stories to regulate our emotions and govern our behavior. They provide the present we inhabit with a determinate point of reference – the desired future. The optimal ‘desired future’ is not a state, however, but a process: the (intrinsically compelling) process of mediating between order and chaos; the process of the incarnation of Logos – the Word – which is the world-creating principle. Identification with this process, rather than with any of its determinate outcomes (that is, with any ‘idols’ or fixed frames of reference or ideologies) ensures that emotion will stay optimally regulated and action remain possible no matter how the environment shifts, and no matter when."

P. 275: "He is therefore the agent of change, upon whose actions all stability is predicated. This capacity – which should make him a welcome figure in every community – is exceedingly threatening to those completely encapsulated by the status quo, and who are unable or unwilling to see where the present state of adaptation is incomplete and where residual danger lies. The archetypal revolutionary hero therefore faces the anger and rejection of his peers."

P. 285: "This arrogant traditionalism, masquerading as moral virtue, is merely unexpressed fear of leaving the beaten path, of forging the new trail – the entirely comprehensible but nonetheless unforgivable shrinking from destiny, as a consequence of lack of faith in personal ability and precisely equivalent fear of the unknown."



Similar to my response to Caveat, it's not that Peterson is against change. His emphasis is on the conditions of possibility for effective change.

I'd also argue - and Peterson has argued this many times - that your conception of righteous activists drastically overestimates the ethical nobility of that activism. In his book The Undiscovered Self, Jung asked the following question: "Who is [protesting, for the sake of this example]? Is it, perchance, someone who jumps over his own shadow in order to hurl himself avidly on an idealistic program that promises him a welcome alibi? How much respectability and apparent morality is there cloaking with deceptive colors a very different inner world of darkness?”

That's what Peterson is trying to get at. He's trying to ensure that activism isn't just a means of escaping one's shadow while at the same time demonstrating when (and the consequences that have stemmed and will likely continue to stem from when) activism is used as such a means of escape.

I obviously haven't read Maps of Meaning so I'm in no position to debate its contents or Peterson at a deeper level.

But I have no "conception of righteous activists". A portion of the interview was about activism and under what criteria it should be occurring. The later portion of the video regarding logos seemed to add an element that somewhat contradicted his earlier position on activism.

And I completely got his point about activism. I didn't get into it because I think the interviewer raised solid critiques of his position and I don't think Peterson responded well (for example, his statement "when the faculty of the Toronto college stop doing X then I'll stop doing Y," struck me as decidedly childish given the scope of what they were discussing but I gave it a pass because it's just one interview) as I said elsewhere. I certainly don't have larger critiques of his position since I'm not familiar with the bulk of his work but I do have critiques of this interview.

So, when you reference Maps of Meaning to clarify a point, I certainly respect it but it also underscores that these weren't points coming from the interview itself.

Would you say that a person can properly understand Peterson's positions without reading Maps of Meaning?

 

[panamaican]

You made it clear that you do not care about what happens in Canada in a previous thread which is a big reason you are not understanding the following Peterson has gained. The main reason Dr. Peterson became popular in Canada is because he stood up to the tyrannical left and argued against the passing of problematic Bill C-16 which compels people to use made-up gender pronouns. He also gets more popular because leftist academics and the mainstream media relentlessly attacks and smears him. The more he is attacked the more support he gains. You need to look at more than what he is saying. There is a David vs. Goliath story at play here.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I don't understand his following. I don't care if or why he's popular. If we're going to debate ideas, lets debate the ideas themselves.

I critiqued a singular video posted within this thread. I critiqued the content of that video. You keep talking about "fan bases" and popularity and followers. But you've not spent a moment actually addressing the specific Peterson video that I referring to.

I'm sorry but I have no interest in praising or castigating a man based on how much other people do/don't like him. Either address the specific video's content or move on.

 

[sangreporsangre]

You say this but so much is unsubstantiated. He has a lot in common with Tony Robbins, a life coach.

Can we get your definition of "academic"? Twice you've said in this thread that Peterson isn't one.

 

[panamaican]

I don't believe he says that new games cant emerge, it's just that the most successful games/archetypes/paths have repeated themselves for millenia and are essentially emergent from our own biology.


The activist types are children that do not even have their own domains/houses in order and have little to no experience in the real world, and demand that we fundamentally rearrange how society functions (biological sex doesnt exist/gender is fluid and you can change back and forth at will/give small children hormones and blockers for transitioning). And on top of that, any activist child on a college campus is a member of the 1% that they protest against and hate so much. If you are living in America, and attending university, you are in the 1% of the world. They themselves are the ruling class that they protest.

I got all of that. But it seems incomplete.

For example - activists overthrowing existing government/social structures to create new more free/expressive versions has repeated itself for millenia. Then, per the above argument, that is also essentially emergent from our own biology.

And that dovetails into the second point about the activists being a part of the 1% they are protesting. That also has repeated itself for millenia.

His argument about the limitations of the activists contradicts his argument about a limited number of successful games. Because the activists are repeating the same limited archetypal patterns of forcing change that have always been successful.

I don't see how anyone can support his argument about "successful games/archetypes/paths have repeated themselves for millenia and are essentially emergent from our own biology" but then argue that modern activists have diverged from that when they are identical in action to previous successful games/archetypes/paths.

 

[Bullitt68]

I have no "conception of righteous activists".

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Maybe I should've said your implicit conception. What you posted struck me as the glass half full view of activism and I wanted to juxtapose that with Peterson's glass half empty approach to clarify where he was coming from.

I completely got his point about activism. I didn't get into it because I think the interviewer raised solid critiques of his position and I don't think Peterson responded well (for example, his statement "when the faculty of the Toronto college stop doing X then I'll stop doing Y," struck me as decidedly childish given the scope of what they were discussing but I gave it a pass because it's just one interview) as I said elsewhere.

I thought Peterson responded very well and every example that he brought up (particularly the manta ray guy) either clarified and/or bolstered his position against what he described in that interview as "compassion masking uselessness."

And I generally disliked the interviewer's position because it seemed to boil down to, "Why do you have to be so mean?" He kept going on and on about how Peterson is too mean and dismissive of people who care about stuff like climate change - as if saying you care about something is a free pass when it comes to character. I also have no respect or patience for that annoying tactic of asking, "Who's 'they'?" As if Peterson has to take roll of Antifa jackasses before he's allowed to point out that which is plainly evident to anyone with access to YouTube or Facebook. And then relying for his part on pointing out the exceptions to Peterson's allegedly "gratuitous caricatures" like Gandhi and Buddha...

Would you say that a person can properly understand Peterson's positions without reading Maps of Meaning?

Sure. I understood Peterson's positions before I read Maps of Meaning. Reading Maps of Meaning just amplified certain points, added context or additional information to others, etc. My offering portions of Maps of Meaning was in response to your repeated claims of ignorance regarding the "bulk" of Peterson's work. I figured some added information would help you to fill in the picture of Peterson's philosophy since by your own admission you're working off of a crude outline.

I don't see how anyone can support his argument about "successful games/archetypes/paths have repeated themselves for millenia and are essentially emergent from our own biology" but then argue that modern activists have diverged from that when they are identical in action to previous successful games/archetypes/paths.

Not to speak for anyone who wants to try to maintain this contradiction, but, as far as I can tell, you're equating Peterson's position on activism inspired by/anchored in postmodernist neo-Marxist dogma - that it's pathological nonsense which, if unchecked, has the potential to take us to very dark places that we've already visited (viz. the gulags and concentration camps) - with a position against activism as such. In short, you seem to be making the same mistake that that interviewer was making, despite Peterson saying explicitly in that interview that he's not denying that there never has been and never will be justification for activism.

 

[panamaican]

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Maybe I should've said your implicit conception. What you posted struck me as the glass half full view of activism and I wanted to juxtapose that with Peterson's glass half empty approach to clarify where he was coming from.

Fair enough. I don't have a glass half full view of activism. More that some activists succeed and some fail and to pass judgment on their goals or their approach while they are still in the act of pursuing them is premature. The criticisms that he and others bring against modern activists are the same criticisms that every generation brings againsts the activists of their era. Then you fast forward 150 years and one or two of those activists has an enshrined place in the history books. I tend to take a longer view on their actions while I view most of their naysayers as judging them, the activists, within the moment.

I thought Peterson responded very well and every example that he brought up (particularly the manta ray guy) either clarified and/or bolstered his position against what he described in that interview as "compassion masking uselessness."

And I generally disliked the interviewer's position because it seemed to boil down to, "Why do you have to be so mean?" He kept going on and on about how Peterson is too mean and dismissive of people who care about stuff like climate change - as if saying you care about something is a free pass when it comes to character. I also have no respect or patience for that annoying tactic of asking, "Who's 'they'?" As if Peterson has to take roll of Antifa jackasses before he's allowed to point out that which is plainly evident to anyone with access to YouTube or Facebook. And then relying for his part on pointing out the exceptions to Peterson's allegedly "gratuitous caricatures" like Gandhi and Buddha...

I thought he responded well to some things and poorly to others.

Sure. I understood Peterson's positions before I read Maps of Meaning. Reading Maps of Meaning just amplified certain points, added context or additional information to others, etc. My offering portions of Maps of Meaning was in response to your repeated claims of ignorance regarding the "bulk" of Peterson's work. I figured some added information would help you to fill in the picture of Peterson's philosophy since by your own admission you're working off of a crude outline.

I've watched a significant amount of Peterson videos but they are mostly of the lecturing to college students variants. And, as another poster stated, they seem to consist primarily of the common sense vein with philosophical and historical references for "why". Things that a well-read person can pick up from almost every self-help guru out there. So, I've always assumed that the really deep part of his work is to be found elsewhere and that what I've seen is just layman's stuff put out to build interest and broaden appeal.

Not to speak for anyone who wants to try to maintain this contradiction, but, as far as I can tell, you're equating Peterson's position on activism inspired by/anchored in postmodernist neo-Marxist dogma - that it's pathological nonsense which, if unchecked, has the potential to take us to very dark places that we've already visited (viz. the gulags and concentration camps) - with a position against activism as such. In short, you seem to be making the same mistake that that interviewer was making, despite Peterson saying explicitly in that interview that he's not denying that there never has been and never will be justification for activism.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Peterson's attempt to draw a distinction between good and bad activism while it is occurring is itself flawed. Activism has always had its good and its bad and that is itself the successful games/archetypes/path that the limited number of viable iterable games have always taken.

More pointedly, that there's a hubristic blindness in attempting to claim that some modern expression of activism is wrong and that some other modern expression of activism is right. And that we can make that determination while the activism is still occurring. Maybe 20 years after we can apply hindsight and say "That was bad" or "That was good" but not while it is actually happening and evolving.

I've recently been becoming familiar with the rampant revolutionary period of the 1700's and 1800's that swept through Europe and its colonies and I find interesting parallels between the criticisms brought by the monarchists, the liberals, and the extremists about each other and what people are saying now about modern activists. Yet, we frequently look back at that era as one of Enlightenment when it was largely driven by the same type of activists that we see now. The goals were different but activism's goals are always going to be era specific. So, I judge the methods and the criticism of the methods as much as I judge the goals.

For example - the divine right of rule was considered the type of repeatedly successful iterable game that we'd be crazy to monkey around with. Those activists that argued against it were met with the same type of "it's historically successful" argument that Peterson seems to be advancing. Now, no one believes that. Maybe Peterson's right, maybe he's wrong. I just don't think we can make that judgment while it's happening.

 

[Der Eisbär]

I got all of that. But it seems incomplete.

For example - activists overthrowing existing government/social structures to create new more free/expressive versions has repeated itself for millenia. Then, per the above argument, that is also essentially emergent from our own biology.

And that dovetails into the second point about the activists being a part of the 1% they are protesting. That also has repeated itself for millenia.

His argument about the limitations of the activists contradicts his argument about a limited number of successful games. Because the activists are repeating the same limited archetypal patterns of forcing change that have always been successful.

I don't see how anyone can support his argument about "successful games/archetypes/paths have repeated themselves for millenia and are essentially emergent from our own biology" but then argue that modern activists have diverged from that when they are identical in action to previous successful games/archetypes/paths.

I'm not aware of college/young person activists restructuring society and overthrowing things being a successful game/pattern that has repeated itself over millenia. I guess I would need some more substantiation for this claim.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not aware of college/young person activists restructuring society and overthrowing things being a successful game/pattern that has repeated itself over millenia. I guess I would need some more substantiation for this claim.

Civil Rights Era. Europe in the 1700's and 1800's that led to the end of dynastic rule in many countries. That's just recent stuff.

 

[Bullitt68]

I'm saying that Peterson's attempt to draw a distinction between good and bad activism while it is occurring is itself flawed.

This sounds too much like Derridean "undecidability" for my liking (http://www.iep.utm.edu/derrida/#H5). Hindsight is always 20/20 but the game of life isn't played sitting in an armchair watching SportsCenter on Monday morning. Any position that promulgates moral neutrality and that encourages people to just sit on the sidelines and hope for the best is worrisome to me.

Additionally, I think Peterson actually has history on his side, as the endgame for the activists at whom Peterson has taken aim, as he has persuasively argued, is totalitarianism the likes of which we've already seen in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Given the outcomes there, a "wait and see" attitude strikes me as the opposite of pragmatic.

Civil Rights Era.

Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr. weren't teenagers. Who are the leaders/spokespeople for today's nonsense? Who are the extraordinary minds and orators standing opposed to the Petersons and the Shapiros of the day? Who are the singular individuals communicating profound truths to galvanize the activists?

To equate what's happening today with the Civil Rights era is an insult to the people who lived and fought through that era. Today, it's just vague, directionless disaffection and resentment. Even acknowledging good intentions doesn't change the fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the fact that we've already seen the hell to which this road leads - and not centuries ago, but just a few decades ago - makes the insistence of people eager to go right back down it all the more difficult to comprehend.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Civil Rights Era. Europe in the 1700's and 1800's that led to the end of dynastic rule in many countries. That's just recent stuff.

Fair enough. And then you have like, the followers of Socrates going back to ancient Greece. As another poster pointed out Peterson isn't against change and he's not against young people being activists fundamentally.

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

Exactly. The great irony in this is that the SNL cast will continue to propagate radical feminism.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

 

[Islam Imamate]

I don't pay attention to his fan base. Why would I pay attention to his fan base when evaluating the quality of his message?

I'm not criticizing anyone who is an adherent of his philosophy. But if you're telling me that his appeal is that he preaches practical life lessons then I don't see what makes him any different from anyone else that preaches practical life lessons. Wait before you jump...that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it, only that there's nothing unique about it either. Some people turn to religion for their practical life lessons, others listen to Tony Robbins. Whatever works for someone is part of their personal journey, I don't judge.

What makes him different is that he's a clinical psychologist with the kind of training and experience and evidence based techniques to distinguish him from hack life coaches like Robbins. IIRC he even designed a program to help students perform better that has had good results. So its true that on some level hes a life coach but not all life coaches are equal just like the legal advise of of an intern at a law a office isn't necessarily equal to that of the lawyer running the law office.