Jordan Peters on "One night stand" people (60s)

[libre]

Meh... I'm not really a fan of Jordan Peterson, personally. He kind of reminds me of Dr. Phil. Lots of grand standing. Lots of opinions. Lots of grifting

I've met the guy and think that comparing him to Doctor Phil is an insult to Doctor Phil.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Meh... I'm not really a fan of Jordan Peterson, personally. He kind of reminds me of Dr. Phil. Lots of grand standing. Lots of opinions. Lots of grifting

Not to mention exploiting people for entertainment and personal profit like Dr Phil does who doesn't respect doctor/ patient confidentiality and privacy.

 

[Isabella Lecour]

Looks like I'm the only one who agrees with Peterson so far. He's describing a very specific subset of individuals who engage in chronic one-night stand relationships. He is not discussing individuals who have engaged in one night stand relationships before settling down in long-term relationships.

My own relationship experience informs me there is enough evidence for me to trust without verification that he is correct. And I am sure plenty of relationship studies have found this as Peterson has a tendency of humanizing dry studies.

I do not understand what is so controversial about what he said. A person who exclusively engages in one night stands is definitely a person who has an exploitative personality and leans towards what is called the dark triad of personalities. This is no different than what makes up the personality of a pimp. How is what he said controversial?

 

[libre]

. A person who exclusively engages in one night stands is definitely a person who has an exploitative personality

I don't think that not wanting a long-term relationship but enjoying sex is evidence of psychopathy or narcissism and Peterson has suggested.
It's not the first time Peterson has tried to pathologize deviation from western societal norms, but I'd need to see scholarship stating otherwise not to write him off here.

 

[Isabella Lecour]

I don't think that not wanting a long-term relationship but enjoying sex is evidence of psychopathy or narcissism and Peterson has suggested.
It's not the first time Peterson has tried to pathologize deviation from western societal norms, but I'd need to see scholarship stating otherwise not to write him off here.

Why did you add so much more that he never said? He didn't mention anything about enjoyment of sex. He didn't associate enjoyment of sex with any pathology. If anything it is you who is assuming that individuals who chronically participate in one night stands also enjoy sex, which there is no evidence of. Sex is often engaged for other reasons than pleasure yet you have dismissed those reasons in favor of a reason you have propped up. He was rather very specific about what group of individuals he was describing.

The scholarship is there. It would take a couple years at least to be able to discuss these things off the cuff like Peterson does. It kind of does suck that he's not providing citations but it's a discussion, on video, out of an interview, with a 60 second clip.

Is it because people assign good or bad to personality types as why everyone most everyone is upset with Peterson when he starts discussing Machiavellian types?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Jordan Peters on "One night stand" people (60s)

Lol, Jordan Peterson never makes any sense. He talks in long, incoherent, illogical, rambling sentences and is seemingly incapable of making a logical point or answering questions directly. He also pretends to be a self-help guru and role model but apparently doesn't have enough self-control to avoid getting severely addicted to drugs.

 

[McBell]

Jordan Peters on "One night stand" people (60s)

um...
Who is Jordan Peters and why should I give a fleas hiccup what he thinks?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The scholarship is there. It would take a couple years at least to be able to discuss these things off the cuff like Peterson does. It kind of does suck that he's not providing citations but it's a discussion, on video, out of an interview, with a 60 second clip.

It's not there.

Is it because people assign good or bad to personality types as why everyone most everyone is upset with Peterson when he starts discussing Machiavellian types?

It's because he's very wrong and things like narcissistic personality disorder and a Machiavellian personality and psychopathy are potentially a danger to other. He's saying if you're the tyoe to have one night stands you have very serious psychopathology that oftens a danger to others.

If anything it is you who is assuming that individuals who chronically participate in one night stands also enjoy sex, which there is no evidence of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol, Jordan Peterson never makes any sense. He talks in long, incoherent, illogical, rambling sentences and is seemingly incapable of making a logical point or answering questions directly. He also pretends to be a self-help guru and role model but apparently doesn't have enough self-control to avoid getting severely addicted to drugs.

Way back in the day when he was just a professor, I'd sometimes see him on this show called "Big Ideas" on TVO (my local public television network) - they would record university lectures and debates and air them on TV. At that point, he struck me as a pompous blowhard. When he started getting famous as an author, I was genuinely surprised.

I guess misogyny and anti-trans attitudes sell to enough of the population to make someone like Jordan Peterson a lot of money.

 

[stvdv]

If we had the whole video he hopefully would back up his claims with some facts, so we'd have something other than his intuition to go on.

I also would prefer it if the cited video could be confirmed to be Jordan Peterson and not a fake, since its not on his channel but on some other channel called 'Growth'. It looks like him, but I always tell ytube not to recommend no-name channels that spam me with advice from famous talking heads. Deep fakes are easier these days what with Nvidia and AMD cranking out AI chips.

If you want to make your own deep fakes take at look at the 2-minute-papers channel and track down the technology from there. You can be anybody you want to be. That is why the FCC recently put out a competition (too late to submit an entry) for people to give them a way to resolve such issues.

Actually the FCC is looking for a way to protect citizens from fake voices on telephone calls, but the problem is bigger than that. Its entire videos. You can make your political opposition say anything.

Thank you for the reminder. Indeed, I have seen a few faked videos. We better be careful.

I put the bigger (15min) video where it came from here, I can't edit my first post anymore (I think). He did say all that for real (I was amazed he said this).

 

[stvdv]

Thank you for the reminder. Indeed, I have seen a few faked videos. We better be careful.

I put the bigger (15min) video where it came from here, I can't edit my first post anymore (I think). He did say all that for real (I was amazed he said this).

And for the real Jordon fan, here is the 3hour video where it seems he said it
@Brickjectivity (here is the full video, you asked for)

 

[stvdv]

If there is a moderator who would add below links to my first post, I would appreciate that

Short clip: 60sec

Medium version: ca. 15 minutes

Long version: ca. 03 hours

 

[stvdv]

Looks like I'm the only one who agrees with Peterson so far

I agree with many things he says. He does make some good and useful points; many obviously won't like.

In the short clip he was a bit generalizing, hence it seemed wrong, but when I watched the 15min clip (is now in post#1) he did choose his words careful, saying at 2:40 "I do not want to generalize", and he added "I believe".

Hearing that, I liked it better.

 

[Isabella Lecour]

I agree with many things he says. He does make some good and useful points; many obviously won't like.

In the short clip he was a bit generalizing, hence it seemed wrong, but when I watched the 15min clip (is now in post#1) he did choose his words careful, saying at 2:40 "I do not want to generalize", and he added "I believe".

Hearing that, I liked it better.

That's the funny part to this for me in particular, he clarified what he was talking about because it was clearly pretty specific in his head. But like I had mentioned, it takes years of study to be able to discuss things off the cuff like he did. I don't think he's wrong. I know it ****** off people because they clearly see themselves in his words, even when they aren't who he's discussing.

My own relationship experience says he's more right on this than wrong. If he said cheaters, everybody would be nodding in agreement.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's the funny part to this for me in particular, he clarified what he was talking about because it was clearly pretty specific in his head. But like I had mentioned, it takes years of study to be able to discuss things off the cuff like he did. I don't think he's wrong. I know it ****** off people because they clearly see themselves in his words, even when they aren't who he's discussing.

The main problem I see with what he's saying is that he doesn't provide any evidence for it, generalizes about everyone who has one-night stands, and assigns sinister motives to people who simply choose to live differently than he does.

This is not unusual for Peterson: He has injected ideology and inaccuracies into much of his content about different topics, including climate change, trans issues, and voluntary childlessness. He has also overgeneralized about groups he disagrees with, such as feminists, trans people, and Marxists, and sometimes talked about them as if they all had the same or similar views. There's nothing impressive about talking off the cuff about any of these topics or groups when what one is saying is riddled with resentful prejudice and unsubstantiated claims. Ideologues are a dime a dozen, and it doesn't take years of study to become one.

I'm strictly monogamous and have zero interest in casual sex or one-night stands, mainly due to personal concerns about health, discipline, and commitment. The idea that people who are upset with Peterson's claims "see themselves" in his words is both incorrect and downright impossible to substantiate given that it is an assumption about the intentions of a large number of people. Many people simply disagree with him primarily due to his judgmental attitude. Despite my heavily monogamous orientation, I don't relate to what Peterson is saying, nor do I think that resentfully generalizing about others and judging their intentions in such a sweeping manner is healthy or conducive to understanding.

My own relationship experience says he's more right on this than wrong. If he said cheaters, everybody would be nodding in agreement.

A person's relationship experience is anecdotal evidence, so it can't be used as rigorous evidence for a trend or psychological traits among a given group of people (e.g., those who have one-night stands). It's one's prerogative to base their views on personal experience, of course, but if one tries to sweepingly judge others based on those and ascribe negative intentions to them, many people are going to object and find that both harmful and judgmental.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is not unusual for Peterson: He has injected ideology and inaccuracies into much of his content about different topics, including climate change, trans issues, and voluntary childlessness. He has also overgeneralized about groups he disagrees with, such as feminists, trans people, and Marxists, and sometimes talked about them as if they all had the same or similar views. There's nothing impressive about talking off the cuff about any of these topics or groups when what one is saying is riddled with resentful prejudice and unsubstantiated claims. Ideologues are a dime a dozen, and it doesn't take years of study to become one.

Atheism is another he's tried to misrepresent.
He also compares us to lobsters way more than what is actually reasonable to do and beyond what is realistic (12 Steps was interesting due to learning the bits about them, but our nervous systems don't melt down and reform so why that was mentioned is lost on me).
And hes a paternalistic, patronizing wanker.
Personally I think he does a lot of it because it pays him more than teaching and being a shrink and comes with far less stress.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jordan Peters on "One night stand" people (60s)

Medium version: ca. 15 minutes

Long version: ca. 03 hours

"One night stand" people are in the wrong.

People should get two night stands for their bed, particularly if they're bringing a lot of people home. It's just common courtesy; making sure your short-term hookup has a place next to the bed to put their glasses, phone, etc., is part of being a gracious host.

 

[stvdv]

That's the funny part to this for me in particular, he clarified what he was talking about because it was clearly pretty specific in his head. But like I had mentioned, it takes years of study to be able to discuss things off the cuff like he did.

I don't think he's wrong. I know it ****** off people because they clearly see themselves in his words, even when they aren't who he's discussing.

My own relationship experience says he's more right on this than wrong. If he said cheaters, everybody would be nodding in agreement.

He made one clear mistake when saying:
"You can't be mentally healthy in the absence of a longterm relationship ... you have to be married" (that was before talking about 1 night stands)

But, he did say "I think ...". So, phrased as his opinion, it's fine with me he if believes this, though it's incorrect.

 

[Shaul]

I see a lot of people attacking Peterson personally but not making any arguments about what he actually said.

 

[Yerda]

I see a lot of people attacking Peterson personally but not making any arguments about what he actually said.

I see quite a few people stating that he makes generalised and unsupported claims, which is very precisely an argument about what he actually said.