Jordan Peterson

There is a sex health gap though, whereby science has seen women as mini men. That's the sort of patriarchy feminists are trying to tackle; though I'm sure many men are too.

Yes, and because JP is a man he doesn't understand that, or if he does he doesn't prioritise it, and he needs to try harder.

I'm also going to try harder by dropping my simplistic, dualistic left = good, right = bad assumptions and start looking at both sides more carefully. This has been forced on me by the left's authoritarianism. They've pushed me so far I can no longer take the lazy route and have to start thinking for myself.

Shed I've had the time to read that article now, thanks. Yes I agree with it. And a better use of the lobster analogy.

The point about technology that helped emancipate women, skips the fact that education for women is and was discouraged, difficult to achieve or even in some countries illegal.

And I like the description of the maternity pay gap.

There is a sex health gap though, whereby science has seen women as mini men. That's the sort of patriarchy feminists are trying to tackle; though I'm sure many men are too.

if every man in the world were to shoulder responsibility, become the man they wished their fathers had been, stop watching porn, control their urge to violence and so all the other things JP advocates, the feminists could pack up and go home

Absolutely this.

Readers interested in Peterson’s struggle with benzodiazepine addiction and l withdrawal and who cannot access the interview behind the paywall may be interested in checking out a video discussion between Jordan and his daughter Mikhaila in which they share details of the family problems they faced.

It seems that the entire family experienced a number of catastrophic challenges with Jordan’s addiction being only one, the other significant problem being Jordan’s wife and Mikhaila’s mother Tammy had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

In the interview Jordan describes a situation several years previously when he was poisoned by a shellfish meal and became extremely unwell and could not sleep. He was prescribed benzodiazepines by his doctor and says he did not know that it was a very seriously addictive drug and continued taking it.

His doctor increased the dose on Jordan’s request when the family was struggling with Tammy’s diagnosis. He attempted to come off the benzodiazepines by using ketamine and went “cold turkey” which is a very dangerous thing to do having used them for years.

I have to say that I have very serious concerns about a doctor who would prescribe benzodiazepines long term to a patient without at leats discussing the potential for addiction and providing advice on the dangerous and horrifying withdrawals symptoms associated with with benzodiazepine withdrawal.

Anyway, here’s the video

Erkie I agree with his point, I find it simplistic.

But I find nature and anthropology very interesting.

I want to thank Necessary, upthread, for providing the link to this Louise Perry article:

thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2020/the-feminist-case-for-jordan-peterson/

which helped me consolidate my own response to him. I've seen perhaps half-a-dozen interviews and lectures, not read the books. I think I've been very alienated from him by his combative, ready-for-an-intellectual-fight demeanour while also seeing that some of what he says is very useful. And as Perry says in the article, he shines a very bright light on some of the weaker, less rigorous areas of feminist thought which is uncomfortable to acknowledge. He tells uncomfortable truths and because he's socially so conservative it's easy to say 'Nah, right-wing bigot'. That's foolish, because as Perry says, if every man in the world were to shoulder responsibility, become the man they wished their fathers had been, stop watching porn, control their urge to violence and so all the other things JP advocates, the feminists could pack up and go home.

He chose a lobster and not a bee or a bonobo.
Chimps and bonobos and macaques would be more interesting comparisons

Yes. Because our last common ancestor was 550 million years ago. Demonstrating hierarchical behaviour is part of our genetic 'program'. That's the point he's making. Whether you don't like the point, or find it dull, or uninteresting, or maybe don't actually understand the point, doesn't make it less true.

I only skimread the article, but it doesn't really explain anything, it just lists a couple of examples where it's different, not sure what that "proves". I mean the existence of mostly solitary-living species like polar bears, or snow leapords, can't be used to disprove that there are species that form highly structured hives.

He chose a lobster and not a bee or a bonobo.

Chimps and bonobos and macaques would be more interesting comparisons.

therefore to draw these parallels from lobster societies to the limits of human societies is too much of a stretch.

It's not to the limits. Human society is organised in hierarchical structures. Most social animals are hierarchical.
Humans may have to use their intelligence to overcome this. But I know of no examples of where it has truly happened.
Do you?

Doona yes that article explains why the lobster idea is misdirected.

Smoked I think US universities may be further ahead and worse than here? I watched a lot of the evergreen films by Benjamin Boyce. I'd also stumbled across the issue in a weird way via researching pedagogies in primary schooling; a professor in the states who writes well about what I was looking at had been entangled in what ever the hell is going on there.

I Actually thought hierarchy in nature and us was obvious though. But there's many 'types' of hierarchy. Bees for example, or bonobos or macaques.

He talks about competence over power a lot and a don't think that recognises other types of intimidating power that humans do to each other, especially males. But I've not read all his stuff.

Basically though it's always worth listening to a wide range of people. Doesn't mean we agree.

Consider, a lot of people love how he tells young men to clean their rooms, like he's the first person in the world ever to say that (he claims in the interview he's the "only" person talking about responsibility). Really? Like their mothers would never have suggested that? But that's a joke, because nobody could expect men to listen to their mothers lol

Well, the state of young men these days ... one can never be sure.

Here's a good criticism of the lobster argument from an evolutionary biology student. Summary: hierarchies exist in nature, but not all animals behave hierarchically, therefore to draw these parallels from lobster societies to the limits of human societies is too much of a stretch.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/04/jordan-peterson-needs-to-reconsider-the-lobster/

You got dangerously close to self awareness for a minute there

I don't think you have any self awareness here at all.

the American evangelical religious right has issues with gender ideology and so feminist who have issues with gender ideology are also suspect.

You got dangerously close to self awareness for a minute there.

I thought it was interesting in the interview that when they were talking about universities, Lewis pretty much said that the problems he mentioned - poor quality offerings, increasing expense, identity politics ideologues, gender ideology, postmodernism - were only a problem in a handful of courses and departments around the country.

I was quite surprised by that assessment from her.

He's made the same points with things like principles of physics.

If people want to talk about a non-hierarchical society, or see this as a goal, or hierarchy itself as a problem - he's suggesting that actually that might be impossible, because hierarchy is not only embedded in nature, but nature is hierarchical right down to the mathematics.

He's a faux intellectual with flawed arguments. I think the interview with Helen Lewis reveals this very well.

I didn't feel that. He's just extremely on the ball. And v good at debating a point.

And she turns some things back on him too later on. Definitely a couple of things he couldn't answer.

I get the hierarchy evolutionary thing, completely. Tribalism etc. And that antidepressants work on lobsters - I just find it lacking a bit. Antidepressants don't work on all people. But 'happy' people are more competent, yes. People and cultures etc are more complex than lobsters.

I was pleased to hear that he denounces stuff like TWAW.

Then I watched a YT video of him being interviewed by Helen Lewis.

I was shocked by his behaviour towards her. She is highly intelligent, educated and informed and this seems to have infuriated him because he mocks and belittles her, turns her questions to him back onto her, and was generally arrogant, snooty and overbearing.

There's a reason his writings and words attract MRAs, incels etc. He thinks women should know their place

Seems to me you don't really have much understanding about his work at all.

the American evangelical religious right has issues with gender ideology and so feminist who have issues with gender ideology are also suspect.

Lobsters: from an evolutionary perspective, animal species organising themselves in hierarchies where some are higher up the social ladder than others, is a trait found in all animal species between us and lobsters on the evolutionary "family tree". Because our last common ancestor with lobsters was about 550 million years ago or more, that means that the origins of hierarchical behaviour go back even further. It's part of our genetic "program" and an inevitable part of human behaviour. The fact that we can question or even sidestep it in specific circumstances also speaks to our evolutionary history but we can't simply avoid it.

Some things are extremely insightful

People keep saying this. But then, when people ask what, there's a link to a 90 minute video. Maybe there's something about him that makes his brilliant insights impossible to paraphrase, summarise or quote?