Jordan Peterson

What I like is that they both take time to unpick it. An hour and a half is a long interview to watch, but I believe it repays the effort.

MaMaLa321 I'm watching it right now. It's a really good discussion.

@waltzingparrot "none of us are going to do a damn thing about it" - except all the people who work in the green energy and innovation industries who are doing loads and we as consumers are increasingly switching to electric cars and plant based diets. And even more behaviour change to come as the choice of consumer products change. And the governments changing policies to help the green industries along... 🙄

Excellent post, floof.

As we're on the subject of JP interview with Abigail Shrier, out this evening, is worth watching, IMO. JP at his best.

And having said all of that, does JP posit himself as God? Because if he does then you've got a point how dare he speak for us all the loon, if he doesn't think he's God, then cant we all just take what we need from his stuff and ignore the rest. I dont think every word he utters is profound, but I think he talks sense, especially in the get your own house in order before fixing anything else.

Heard his Cambridge Union talk about climate change recently, when he said it doesn't matter anyway because 'none of us are going to do a damn thing about it. You're not going to give up your car or your mobile phone'.....

True and true.

He talks a lot of common sense.

He doesn’t believe extreme social change would be good for democracies, which most people agree with.

He isn’t trying to blame people for all their own problems but pointing out that if you want to transform your life you have to look realistically at what you are capable of doing and the situation you are in. Sometimes the problem is another person and your only option is to leave that person. That isn’t blaming you.

LOVE him

I do think that Peterson very much has a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" view point, which is helpful on an individual level but less so society wide.

I'm not sure I would consider him as being in the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" tradition. He's a clinical psychologist by background, so he recognises that life can be a struggle for people. But he sees the solution to those struggles as being more therapeutic in nature than political.

This is why I think criticism of him from the left often fails to land. He is not an orthodox social conservative blindly advocating for the status quo because that's what's always been. Nor is he a quasi-Thatcherite 'bootstraps' conservative. He's more of cross between a self-help guru and a Dawkins-style rationalist.

Yes, really.

I haven't gone into Peterson's stuff in as much depth as some on here, but what I have seen certainly gave me the impression that he is skeptical of the prospects of radical social change. That radical change is more likely to usher in tyranny than making things better for people.

This is the usual (little c) conservative view though, isn't it? That social change should be incremental rather than a wholesale change.

I do think that Peterson very much has a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" view point, which is helpful on an individual level but less so society wide. I don't think a focus on self improvement precludes working for social change, except you then tend to get people who think "I succeeded, everyone else should be able to too".

Is Peterson saying we shouldn't aim for radical social change because self-improvement is needed?

I haven't gone into Peterson's stuff in as much depth as some on here, but what I have seen certainly gave me the impression that he is skeptical of the prospects of radical social change. That radical change is more likely to usher in tyranny than making things better for people.

I'm also sure I've seen him say words more to the effect that you need sort yourself out on a personal level before you can even begin to think about trying to change things at a societal level. So not saying that they are mutually exclusive per se, but certainly encouraging people to prioritise self-improvement over social change.

Two different approaches, sure, but opposed?

I think they're only opposed if one attempts to deny one in order to justify the other.

If you genuinely want to see other perspectives on this there's plenty out there already. But you just want to disparage me as an individual. Which says more about you than me.

If you feel disparaged maybe you don't have much conviction in your position. I don't care about opposing views about JP. As long as they are rooted in evidence based fact. And I'm just not seeing that here. 🤷
But I have no wish to fall out with you over it. Let's just agree to disagree.

That does of course make perfect sense.

I can see why there would be tension, if either side thought the other was arguing in bad faith.

Are radical feminists saying women shouldn't aim for self-improvement because radical social change is needed?

Is Peterson saying we shouldn't aim for radical social change because self-improvement is needed?

It's not clear to me that self-improvement and societal improvement are mutually exclusive.

Two different approaches, sure, but opposed?

Just different angles of attack, surely?

NotDavidTennant

Thanks for your explanation. That does of course make perfect sense.
I think really his idea is for people to focus on the things that they can do something about. And accept that not everything is perfect. There's no reason why the two groups can't speak or consider each others ideas in order to seek the truth and bring about change.

Why is he problematic for Feminists?

Well he is problematic for radical feminsts, given that their wordlview is that we live in a patriarchical society that systematically oppresses women and that women's liberation can only come about by radical social change that gets rid of the patriarchy.

Peterson's view is more or less that most problems people face in life are not due to systematic oppression but are psychologucal in nature, and therefore cannot be solved by radical social change but instead by personal self-improvement along the lines set out in his books.

It's hard to imagine two approaches to life that are more diametrically opposed.

@Erkrie then just reread what I've already written where I state examples. Or many of the other opinions on this thread. Or read articles by others describing how he is problematic for feminists, especially radical ones. Trying to exhaust me by being obtuse and belligerent is working. If you genuinely want to see other perspectives on this there's plenty out there already. But you just want to disparage me as an individual. Which says more about you than me.

Oh @Erkrie when I said to Google I don't just mean look on Wikipedia! I mean do some wider reading. Dear me. It's a contested theory, it's not fact however plausible you think it sounds

I can see clearly that's where you got your facts from. Which is why I referenced it.
My research is from actually listening to him myself. Which you have barely done, instead seeking biased secondary resources. And then claim your opinions are nuanced. They're not.
I don't care if you agree with him or not. But if your going to disagree so passionately, than at least have a little evidence to back that up.
Why is he problematic for Feminists? I'd love to hear your nuanced analysis on this.

Seems like the Jordan Peterson bots have been attracted to the thread and no matter what is said against him it will be dismissed. Anyone who is interested/of healthy skepticism can spend time reading around these issues, reading multiple viewpoints, and come to their own conclusion, as is your right. The feminism boards do seem a bizarre place for this exultation though.

Oh @Erkrie when I said to Google I don't just mean look on Wikipedia! I mean do some wider reading. Dear me. It's a contested theory, it's not fact however plausible you think it sounds.

Just because JP has spoken out on pronouns and interviewed Abigail Shrier and I am a so-called TERF, it does not mean I'm going to agree with him on all points or align myself with him indiscriminately. He's still problematic overall for radical feminists in spite of his GC views.

MuggleStudies is making a lot of noise but not much else.

No evidence so far.

How can it possibly be a conspiracy theory when it's something that's clearly observed?

I'd stay off wiki if you actual want to really get to the truth. Wiki has a history of including men in the definition of adult human female. Unless of course you agree that too.