Jordan Peterson WOW

[Secret Chief]

This. His Twitter also has numerous embittered, ill-thought-out comments that seem bizarre coming from a man who so often talks about self-improvement.

Between his views on climate change that multiple scientists have debunked, his overgeneralizations about women choosing not to have children, and his misrepresentation of Bill C-16--to name a few things--he strongly seems more motivated by ideology and traditionalism than facts or science.

He may have some good content on psychology, but it's often clear that he's not an expert on religion, politics, social issues, etc.

Well, he's a psychologist by trade. His reactionary views are just his hobby.

 

[Secret Chief]

Antifa, being anti-fascist, scared of Peterson makes sense. He lends academic credence to views that may be best suited to 1940s guys with small mustaches. ;-)

He's the poster boy of the alt-right.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And I am also sure I would agree with him in some places. I am a fan of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, both of whom inspired him. I feel he tends to cast mythological symbolism and archetypal imagery as a more solid form than Campbell, whose central theme was around modern man needing to develop his own mythology due to human progress. Peterson fears the end of humanity from the feminization of men because chaos is traditionally typified by cultural feminine symbols, ignoring that his own gender associations are highly influenced by his own culture and environment.

Personally I have notvyet heard enough of his talks to coment on it, but this video i added has a lot of good thoughts

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, he's a psychologist by trade. His reactionary views are just his hobby.

Yeah, much like when Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, et al. talk about religion and politics, they're often giving their personal opinions that don't necessarily have any more expert backing than those of the average person. The idea that just because someone is an expert in one area their opinions on unrelated topics are correct opens a Pandora's box of misinformation and poor arguments.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Personally I have notvyet heard enough of his talks to coment on it, but this video i added has a lot of good thoughts

I will check it out. I often RF from my phone, meaning videos and such can be problematic for me. (I have a ten year old phone.)

 

[Altfish]

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have read his Twelve Rules book, and have this below, apart from seeing many videos of his, but this last mentioned book seems to break the Reading/Reward ratio - so still sat on the shelf:

In 1999, Routledge published Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, in which Peterson describes a comprehensive theory about how people construct meaning, form beliefs, and make narratives. The book, which took Peterson 13 years to complete, draws concepts from various fields including mythology, religion, literature, philosophy, and psychology, in accordance to the modern scientific understanding of how the brain functions.

I suspect it might take 13 years to read it as well.

 

[Father Heathen]

I did watch his debate with Slavoj Žižek and found it hilarious that he spent much of his time berating Marx as a poor academic then admitted he couldn't debate Žižek because he had prepared only by rereading Marx and had not read any of Žižek's work.

That's an all too common tactic among those on the right; misrepresent your opponent's views and then attack said misrepresentation.

 

[MyM]

I have heard a bit of his talks and debates, he does have some good thoughts. But I don't think they are all that different from what other religious people are saying, to me its mostly comes down to him being good at presenting or a good speaker.

The foundation or his approach I think is flawed. Clearly the man is emotional and he does seem to be very concerned about the wellbeing of humans, which is good. He have chosen to base this on God, which in it self is fine, but he does not provide an argument for this, besides from how I understand him, "have chosen to live as if God exist" which is flawed reasoning in my opinion. Almost all atheists which are also concerned about the wellbeing of humans are humanist, we don't choose to pretend that this is guided by a higher power, but that it is driven by humans and our own interest in treating each other good.

Adding religion to this as a guidance is simply to throw gravel in the machinery for no good reason. Like the fear of hell and that one will be punished, that there are things like sins etc. None of that is needed in order to value the wellbeing of all humans, the only thing it potentially adds, is that another group of people also throwing gravel into the machinery claim that their gravel is better than the other ones and then they start focus on the gravel rather than on the machinery itself.

So he say a lot of good things, but to me nothing new really.

I have however over time, wondered whether religious people and atheists are even remotely understanding each other. Because from seeing this video, its obvious to me, that he is driven by emotions rather than the interest in truth. Whereas atheists prefer it the other way around, truth comes first and in many cases we simply can't obtain it, but that doesn't mean that we can't be emotional or want to achieve the same things as religious people want.

Atheists will reach the conclusion that humans exist, humans gets hurt, humans have emotions and that these things in many cases are caused or influenced by ourselves or other humans. So to fix it or improve it, we can do it based on what we know, which are those things. There is no reason to include a higher power, when such thing is not known to exist and therefore irrelevant in regards to solving the issues, the blame is on us.

Whereas many religious people, seem to argue that we have to live up to some standards issued by a God or we will be punished for not doing so. We have to seek the solutions through the faith in a God and hope that he will help or solve things for us, if we simply pray or improve ourselves enough in the eyes of this moral judge. Problem is that no one know if such being even exist and even if one did, which one it is, because everyone just assume that they chose the right one.

So in many cases, I think atheists and religious people on a fundamental level are on completely different pages when it comes to even engaging in conversations with each other.

Then again, his wife has been diagnosed with terminal kidney cancer, has undergone surgeries as well as takin care of their foster children and he has gotten on anti-depressants and also admitted into rehab for them....

when someone's loved ones starts to decline, one gets a bit depressed and anxiety kicks in.

Although he isn't a Muslim as I am, I feel sorry for the man and his situation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

He has some interesting thoughts, and some compelling ideas - even if his evidence for them amounts to nothing more than specious flimflam that, by all appearances, works as very plausible explanation.

He does have a distinct weak-spot for religious ideas, however, which I feel gets him into trouble sometimes.

There was a debate I watched featuring Peterson where at one point his opponent (Matt Dillahunty) was expressing and explaining something about how one cannot simply assume that things people label "spiritual" or "mystical" experiences have supernatural foundations, and Jordan Peterson comes back with (basically cuts the opponent off) "Stops people from smoking." Then goes on to try and express the virtues of these "spiritual" experiences, without, in any way, tying them to anything "supernatural." I think ultimately he was referencing the replacement of "bad" or detrimental principles with new/upgraded ones due to religious adherence. It was pretty comical, but at the same time sad that the man would allow himself to sound so foolish, when he is obviously very intelligent. Religion or "spiritual" notions apparently crippling his ability to only talk about what one might be able to know definitively about a particular situation or circumstance, rather than what one would like that situation or circumstance to be.

 

[Heyo]

This man has some serious good thoughts

And apparently, he's an atheist:

 

[Spirit of Light]

And apparently, he's an atheist:

In the video i added he says he is no longer an atheist

 

[Nimos]

Then again, his wife has been diagnosed with terminal kidney cancer, has undergone surgeries as well as takin care of their foster children and he has gotten on anti-depressants and also admitted into rehab for them....

when someone's loved ones starts to decline, one gets a bit depressed and anxiety kicks in.

Although he isn't a Muslim as I am, I feel sorry for the man and his situation.

So do I, but not really sure what that has to do with anything?

 

[MyM]

So do I, but not really sure what that has to do with anything?

Some are sayin he's been a bit loopy indirectly

 

[Nimos]

Some are sayin he's been a bit loopy indirectly

I see, don't know him that well. It does however seem based on what he is saying in the video as if it is something he had decided a long time again, even when he were an atheist, that he would live as if God exist. Besides that people do change their religious views, we know that. And also in defense of religion, we have to be careful not assuming that when people are facing rough or loopy times as you say, that they turn religious as a result, because that doesn't really speak in favor of religion I think, despite that you might actually be correct.

I simply don't know him well enough, that I would jump to a guess about that.

 

[Kooky]

Peterson certainly knows how to pander to young conservative men, especially on topics where his own knowledge is profoundly lacking, such as Marxism, postmodernism, gender identity, or basic dietary advice.

 

[Kooky]

I did watch his debate with Slavoj Žižek and found it hilarious that he spent much of his time berating Marx as a poor academic then admitted he couldn't debate Žižek because he had prepared only by rereading Marx and had not read any of Žižek's work.

That debate was both profoundly disappointing and very enlightening to watch. It revealed how little substance and grounding there actually is to Peterson's thoughts outside his chosen academic field.