Dr Jordan Peterson

And on that note, you'll excuse have to excuse me from further interaction, Fella.

You didn't just disagree then flounce did you?

#cancelculture

Equally awful in the sense that it is expecting women to adjust their freedom and rights because of the behaviour of others.

In this narrative:

Men are told they are all violent criminals that no-one should trust

Women are told they must have their freedoms curtailed

As any psychologist would tell you, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle

I did read your post. I simply disagree with it.

I don't think the world benefits from pompous long-winded arseholes pontificating without evidence because they get off on the sound of their own-voice.

And on that note, you'll excuse have to excuse me from further interaction, Fella.

You didn't read the post you quoted from, did you? Reciting a list of evidence for an hour isn't a lecture. Teaching is a different skill from academic essay-writing. His job is to make students examine their own thinking. First he has to grab their attention and then he has to make a statement which provokes discussion. It doesn't have to be 'evidence-based'.

What do you mean by both are equally awful?

In context I'm reading it as "wearing lipstick is just as awful as sexual harassment" but in charity I'm assuming that's not what you intended!

His stupid fucking statements about wearing lipstick being the equivalent of sexual harassment in the workplace, and his implications that women should have to get involved with awful men to make them less awful, are enough for me to want to consign him to the bin

I know what you mean about these points, they are really really tough.

However I do get what he was saying when he was talking about make-up at work. It was in a discussion about 'me too' and he was asking the question about how men and women work together without there being sexual harrassment. He kept saying "it is not entirely clear how men and women can work together" without this existing.

He is as much slating men there as he is women. He is saying men are inherently violent. He is saying women shouldn't 'entice' sexual admiration.

I think both are equally awful, but maybe that is what we have to have honest conversations about. He never said women shouldn't wear make up, he was trying to dissect the factors that are present in workplace sexual harrassment.

How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

This is the exact type of closed minded "I know everything already" attitude that riles me at the moment.

What you are showing with this post is that you have absolutely no knowledge of any psychological literature, but worse, you are putting a motive onto something in line with a fixed ideology you have.

It's barely even deserves a response such is the ignorance of the statement you have made here.

*No it isn't about 'evidence base', or at least it shouldn't be.

Yes, it should be. That said I'm sure Peterson has evidence for his statements about disagreeableness; Big Five personality traits are his area of actual expertise.

His stupid fucking statements about wearing lipstick being the equivalent of sexual harassment in the workplace, and his implications that women should have to get involved with awful men to make them less awful, are enough for me to want to consign him to the bin, but it's hard to completely hate someone who persuades angry young men to do the cleaning on the grounds that it's a way of expressing their masculinity.

The Guardian is a leftist version of the Daily Mail. It's all well and good as long as you read it critically.

Few of its regulars do.

Surely you would know just by glancing at that diagram that Stephen Yaxley Lennon doesn't belong in the same sphere of influence as a Harvard professor?

I’ve actually enjoyed going through some you tube long form interviews with various people the Guardian labels problematic lately

The Guardian is like a supermassive black hole into the alt right. The Event Horizon is so enormous that everybody gets sucked in eventually.

This is the best one:

www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation#img-2

Notice the aforementioned Mr Peterson’s name appears right there on the list.

The average bod would take a look at that scary looking diagram and think there’s definitely got to be something suspicious about anyone whose name appears on it and thus avoid them like the plague. You’ve really got to know who some of these people are to realise how ridiculous much of it actually is.

@growinggreyer
It's not about hurting people's feelings, for God's sake. It's about evidence base. What evidence does he have for this assertion? I would wager that he has none. Show me the studies. How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

No it isn't about 'evidence base', or at least it shouldn't be.

Time was when great lecturers were provocateurs. Provoking students to think and challenge their own received opinions, or formulate a stronger argument in support of them. Now such a lecturer would be 'cancelled'.

It's a wonder Jonathan Swift is still in print.

I am no physicist. And I'm guessing neither is Amrou.

twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/1279344800865701890

The comments below this tweet are entertaining. Even Krishna Guru Murthy was laughing in the interview.

Show me the studies.

😂 Research it yourself or ask him if you want his evidence. Why would I take time out of my day to do that for you? It's not my job to seek out the evidence and deliver it to you. After all, I don't really care whether you agree with him or not.

How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

There's nothing wrong with disagreeableness. He doesn't think there's anything wrong with disagreeableness. It can help women progress up the career ladder if it's done in the right way. Again, you misunderstand him.

My concern about him and I have watched endless hours of his lectures etc is that he does make claims that may not be evidenced based or are based on evidence which he favours. He claimed on his most recent podcast/ you tube that the medication he has been detoxing from increases
dementia. I had a little look in to that claim and there seems to be some studies that prove that not to be the case. I dont think this is Peterson's fault I think it's the danger of putting anyone on a pedestal. I think he has almost become someone who people ask about any subject under the sun, Brexit, Marxism, etc. and again this isnt his fault but stretched very thin I think.

At the end, Amrou suggested Laurence read a number of books. Laurence then suggested that Amrou read The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray. His response was “I’m not reading anything by that transphobe”

McKenna

Quite. The paradigm is denounce the person as a bigot without bothering to engage with any of Murray's argument. This is a recurrent theme in cancel culture. It isn't about argument or philosophical positions or rational discourse at all. It's about denunciations and unperson status. The corollary to this is that you either agree with the entire canon of someone's political beliefs or none of them have any validity at all. It's ludicrous.

I’ve actually enjoyed going through some you tube long form interviews with various people the Guardian labels problematic lately (eg Melanie Phillips and Claire Fox).

BaronessBrighterThanYou I think a lot of people still instinctively feel that when the Guardian labels someone as ‘problematic’ in some way then it must be true and thus refuse to engage.
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

Fascinating discussion.

Been lurking Mumsnet for ages, but had to sign up to post just to add these two excellent articles by Louise Perry which are both 110% relevant to this thread, but no-one has managed to link yet as far as I can see:

Are contemporary feminists too agreeable?

The feminist case for Jordan Peterson

I’m not sure that’s entirely true as Peterson has done a lot of work with female clients to help them increase their trait disagreeableness in order to better negotiate position/wages in context of their professional life. So whilst he may believe there may be an innate component, women can certainly learn skills to improve it.

Some of the posts here which explain what JP is about are very interesting.

However,

The gist of what his detractors here say seems to boil down to - I just don't like him or, he said this that I didn't like (with no links to where he said it for context). Like I said upthread that strikes me as exactly like the level of debate we have come to expect from TRAs. That is to say, a bit rubbish.

Please could someone give an actual example (with link, please!) of something JP has said that is anti-women or troublesome in some way?

Thank you.

On FWR it has often been observed that women are socialised to be nice, kind, put other first, ect. These are all qualities of high trait agreeableness.

So the observation that women tend on average to be high in agreeableness is the same observation that has been made here many times, the only difference is that Peterson doesn't attribute it to socialisation but instead believes there is an innate element to it.

The evidence re: marriage making men more stable is two fold:

• Testosterone measurably lowers in men when they become fathers (and engage in nurturing behaviours). Testosterone levels correlate with violence.
• There is a period of a number of years in a man’s life they are most likely to engage in criminal behaviour which I believe starts in the teens and lasts until the late 20s. Men in that cohort who marry and start families are less likely to engage in criminality.

Hope that helps.

Given the subject matter of what he discusses, it is rather easy to think Peterson is attempting to be some sort of guru, but if one actually views his lectures, they are from his university modules, and practically everything is academically referenced. This isn't to say its infallible, but it is important to note that much of what he says is academic consensus, such as the observations around how the most aggressive person will always be a man, and have been proved many times over.

On a personal level, Peterson has done far more for me in aiding me with my depression and anxiety than the NHS has, again this wasn't due to some unique truth he magically has, but by laying out the physiological and medical consensus, he didn't create many of the ideas put forward, but he certainly explained some of the better routes to take. He did not just aid myself, and if one looks at the comment section of any YouTube video, the man must be congratulated for the amount of human misery he has been able to ease, even if you disagree with some of the other views.

This may be unfair but Jordan Peterson just makes me think of Rasputin and gurus 😳

The concept of agreeableness comes from the Big 5 personality model that's been used by psychologists since the 80s. It's not something that Peterson has personally invented.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits