Jordan Peterson

It must be nice to feel morally justified to walk away from that kind of stuff, but I don't respect people who do and I definitely don't think it makes society better of

Surrounding yourself with people that you actually like doesn't mean not taking responsibility for vulnerable people that you care for. And he's not advocating that people should walk away from their responsibilities is he. That's quite a reach you've made there though. Like so many...

Why not actually only have the people around you who have your best interests.
And if men did this and were happier as a result, then surely we women will benefit from that. And if women did this and were happier then fabulous

Babies and people with dementia and other illnesses, don't necessarily have your best interests at heart but we can't just abandon those people. Or can we? Some people do of course, and those people are disproportionately men. It's women who still do most of the caring. Some of the people who need care have the carers' best interests at heart and some don't.

It must be nice to feel morally justified to walk away from that kind of stuff, but I don't respect people who do and I definitely don't think it makes society better off.

[quote MuggleStudiesResearchProject]@gurufloof

I don't have the time to go searching right now, but lobsters are the perfect example of this. He uses them to justify our current hierarchies, which is an enormous and unjustifiable leap. It sounds like science because the lobster physiology is based on reproducible science, but linking it in the way he does just feels like grasping.[/quote]
Well I dunno when I can hunt it down but so I'm ready, is that it, a lobster analogy? Or is there more arbitrarily linked stuff?
Is there some other references outcome that I should look for.
Cos so far if just one random lobster related I'm not sure I can be arsed, and while I'm here asking, is this an old talk?

*put up

I've never seen him present any studies, are they on YouTube somewhere?

There's loads of lectures on YouTube. They're quite long though. Obviously just watching the snapshots people out up, out of context, are not the best way to actually find out what he's about

would you like to start by telling us what exactly you know about him?
You views seem a bit random, tbh.

Your clam of 'antisemitic cultutal Marxism' is interesting - I'd like to hear more, seeing as I've never come across it in what he says. But I'm not an expert, so please tell me more.

As he presents and endorses so many views, some basic common sense, some awful (antisemitic cultural Marxism for example) I'd love to know what exactly you're referring to.

I'd love to see the evidence of what you are referring to here....

But you don't have time right.

I don't have the time to go searching right now

No. Of course you don't....

but lobsters are the perfect example of this. He uses them to justify our current hierarchies

He uses lobsters as an explanation, not a justification

To those who say their lives have been changed because of him, what specifically do you mean? Which of his points? As he presents and endorses so many views, some basic common sense, some awful (antisemitic cultural Marxism for example) I'd love to know what exactly you're referring to.

@gurufloof

I don't have the time to go searching right now, but lobsters are the perfect example of this. He uses them to justify our current hierarchies, which is an enormous and unjustifiable leap. It sounds like science because the lobster physiology is based on reproducible science, but linking it in the way he does just feels like grasping.

He is right that men have absconded from their responsibilities as fathers. This is because a single mother can now manage without them, either by earning her own living or subsidies from the State.

He doesn't exactly present studies as much as references outcomes or "known facts" and link them arbitrarily, poor phrasing on my part.

I also notice the way he presents some studies and evidence upholding a viewpoint, but then at the last moment swerves to a similar but logically unrelated conclusion that seems to follow on, but doesn't

I've never seen him present any studies, are they on YouTube somewhere?

I love him. He changed my life with his views and not only helped empower me but helped me leave an abusive marriage.

I think those who seek to put down his ideas, without actually spending the time and energy to really understand them, instead relying on opinions and snapshots, are those who lack deep critical thinking skills imo.
yes to this, in spades.

I think those who seek to put down his ideas, without actually spending the time and energy to really understand them, instead relying on opinions and snapshots, are those who lack deep critical thinking skills imo.

From what I've seen and heard of him he seems to see everything in the world now as an evolutionary inevitability. Which I cannot get on board with, as society can and does change and is not consistent around the world. I also notice the way he presents some studies and evidence upholding a viewpoint, but then at the last moment swerves to a similar but logically unrelated conclusion that seems to follow on, but doesn't. He does seem to believe his logical leaps are true, and portrays them convincingly. It is only when you really stop and think that you can see what he's doing.

The person I know who is very into him is a proper misogynist (actual PUA), and repeats his views as if they were his own. It's very easy to pick flaws in his arguments, and see the misogynistic biases and the right wing/Christian roots.

He appeals to those who already share his views or who are not deeper critical thinkers from my experience. That's not to say none of his view points bear any weight (though the arguments he uses to support them often lack rigour), but as a package his followers have an almost cult-like feel. One man justifying his ideology by couching it in selected science. The more I hear and read his works the more I feel this to be true.

He's a throwback to the previous century, when we appreciated interesting people, and didn't expect them to be paragons of virtue or conformism.

Yes to this.

I would be interested to know how many people who dislike him have engaged with his work directly, rather than at second hand.

This is the feminist board so I'm assuming we are discussing his views is the context of feminism. The idea that if men were more noble then women would do better seems very regressive to me

I wasn't particularly discussing his views with feminism in mind, but he has said some insightful things, one being only be friends with those who will be happy for you (I'm paraphrasing) which makes sense to me for women or men. Why not actually only have the people around you who have your best interests.

And if men did this and were happier as a result, then surely we women will benefit from that. And if women did this and were happier then fabulous, if nothing else people will be nicer to live around.

It's not like these are the rules after all, if one wishes to associate with people who wont be pleasant , nothing stopping them.

I'm surprised he gets away with ascribing so much to biological differences. My understanding is that the brains of new born babies don't show sex based differences but due to the plasticity of infant brains, socialisation subsequently creates differences between the brains of boys and girls.

I wonder if JP has seen the studies that measure levels of oxytocin in new dads who engage in a lot of close contact with their babies? It turns out that men have an increase in oxytocin similar to new mums. It may not be that women are biologically more adapted than men to be carers, except in so far as only women can carry, deliver and breastfeed babies.

My experience of men citing evolution is that they're usually trying to excuse bad behaviour. Apparently men can't possibly be expected to multitask because they've evolved to concentrate intently on hunting, blah blah. It's frankly ridiculous.

For me he has stimulated and opened up thinking and understanding of history, psychology and philosophy in a way no one else has ever done. And I've read a lot of psychology and philosophy over the years.

I listen to him mostly rather than read him.

There are concepts his talks about which I'm only now beginning to understand after several years of listening to him. Such as the biological nature of values.

I think he is utterly briliant and extraordinary, and like no-one else in the public sphere currently.

His guidance is for individuals, so a group analysis using feminism is not going to work. His principles could help every individual women, but they are not aimed at group based interventions. (Which he is wary of on all counts as a social scientist due to the multi variance factors of all problems, and unless we can truly understand the problem why would we think we can enact policies to address them?)

This is where I think Cathy Newman and feminists go wrong with him. They posit an argument that discreapancies in outcomes for women must all be accounted for through the sexist culture of the patriarchy. He resposnds, no, there is also substantial evdience for biological differences and reproductive roles leading to different choices. So yes there will be sexism, historically there has certainly been oppresion but we (in the West) have consistently moved towards overcoming this in our laws and culture, but that is not the only factor, and if we pretend it is and only focus on that it does not support all the individual women as they make choices in thier lives.

I think feminism has badly let woemn down in the dogmatic refusal to enage in the multi factorial nature of the diffrent outrcomes and roles of men and women, and the insistence on sexism and oppression as the only reasons that can be considered.

To the poster above who asked about if we were feminists and gender critical on here:

Yes I'm a feminist. I'm interested in the issues that effect women and girls but I don't ascribe all the reasons for this to just sexism and hatred of women.

And I'm not gender criticla in the way it's used on these boards, as I think there is a lot of evdience that there are some behavioural and personality differences between men and women (statistically not individually) that cannot be explained just by socialistion.
And that doesn't worry me. Or suprise me.

What does worry me is when that fact is used to constrain individual choice or opportunity, or when it is used to define people, or override the concept and language of biological sex.

And when doing the above has negative impact on women and girls.

This is the feminist board so I'm assuming we are discussing his views is the context of feminism. The idea that if men were more noble then women would do better seems very regressive to me. For centuries we've had the idea that men can vote on behalf of women, represent women, act in women's interests. Feminism is not about hoping men will behave better, in my opinion!

The behaviour of men clearly an issue for Feminists. Thus if someone is actively trying to tackle the behaviour of men, then that does impact on women. Thus, it has every place on this board.

Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping is great feminist advice because women are pressured into putting their needs last, and so many young women engage in self harm.

I think he's a right wing nut job, beloved of conspiracy theorists.