I like Jordan Peterson AIBU?

[NeatFreakMama]

With his rise to fame recently it seems like Jordan Peterson is everywhere. Personally I really enjoyed his book and I find his lectures fascinating largely, I think for me, because he's a great orator.

I know he has his detractors and I'd be really interested to hear their opinions on him. I don't really see much not to like about his rhetoric; it feels like he tends to speak mostly on universal truths but just in a really engaging way?

His fans don't seem to be very familiar with his work.

This.

And arguably a parenting forum is a good place to discuss his work, given what he has written about discipline. In his book, Peterson describes force-feeding his own toddler son by poking him in the chest and holding his mouth shut. The passage ends: "There was outrage. There was some wailing. My wife had to leave the room. The stress was too much. But food was eaten by the child. My son collapsed, exhausted, on my chest."

If that's empathy, I'll leave it.

His interview with Cathy Newman on the gender pay gap showed little empathy for the reasons there are a gender pay gap.

He explained about different jobs paying more and some of the statisitical issues about the pay reporting. But he didn't bother or seem interested in any of the fundamental issues about why certain roles paid more, why women were more likely to end up in certain roles and about gender expectations.

I suspect he doesn't care much about women and women's rights.

@UpstartCrow I'm not sure it matters in the one example you've given me; I disagree with your premise that if I state a fact to you then somehow you can derive that I want certain events to happen.

X causes Y is not the same as me saying X causes Y so we should do X. It's just an observation and maybe Z also causes Y and thats better than X, we don't know. You being annoyed that X causes Y doesn't make it not true, it just potentially means we shouldn't do it.

I think your response shows cognitive bias.
Enforced monogamy is not a cure for male pattern violence. It just hides it in the home.

UpstartCrow
Can anyone who says they really like JP remember anything he has said

Yes

Several of the 12 Rules... are so delightfully simple - clear and achievable but backed up with a wealth of historical, scientific, evolutionary, political, philosophical, psychological, rationale behind them...
1 Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2 Treat yourself like a person you are responsible for looking after
4 Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
7 Set your own house in order before criticising the world
8 Tell the truth or at least don't lie
9 Assume the person you are listening to might know something you don't
10 Be precise in your speech

Many of the 12 rules are pinched from assertiveness training.

I went to see him at the 02 last night, in discussion with Sam Harris and Douglas Murray. (Terrible venue incedentally). I do like JP but SH actually came across better.

He’s not stating facts though. He’s making hypotheses. It’s not possible to prove that “giving” a woman to a violent sexually frustrated man would do anything, firstly because the research would be deeply unethical and impossible to prove, secondly how would you do a control for that and thirdly because women aren’t chattel to be doled out to fix men and their violent urges. His analysis, as you can see from some of the quotes in linked articles above basically comes down to even only women couldn’t pick between men and were just picked by men there would be less violence. It’s bollocks and it’s bad science. His other advice, young men should shower and clean up and be disciplined is broadly good advice and I suppose delivered charismatically if you like dimestore philosophy but it’s about a million miles from any kind of original thought.

manateeandcake
His fans don't seem to be very familiar with his work.

I have the audio version of the book and I vividly remember this passage. I remember thinking - wow... he has far more persistence than I might have had with my children when they were little.

The subsequent story of how they got a "problem" child to calm down, smile and play (rather than scream and be violent) was heartwarming. I actually think he his highly empathetic. Just watch any video of him speaking on the topic of young men taking their own lives. Invariably his voice is cracking with emotion. He is frequently close to tears in the audio version of his book when he tells of his daughter's illness.

You find those rules Profound?
Set your own house in order.....what if you don’t have one; what if you are being foreclosed because of the bank’s greed; what if you are suffering trauma; what if you live in a war zone. And by this individualist stress.
Alll relates to this highly biased idea about winners and losers; pseudo Darwinian crap.
It is just homilies.
What the hell does no. 2 mean?
No. 10 begs a lot of questions. When? What is precision. Is language per se precise. Often in speech we come to develop ideas dialogically. Not here. You go in knowing what you think, despite the assumption someone else might know something you don’t.
Oh yeah, and the rules are lol for men too, how to be alpha man.

DrowsyDragon
He’s not stating facts though
Are you saying there no facts in his book, his lectures from Harvard or the University of Toronto?

I’m saying facts are a lot more debatable, especially in the fields that he works in than you seem to think they are. In philosophy and psychology you aren’t debating facts so much as you are pitting different bits of evidence and different interpretations together and trying to make the best case for that. There are very few neutral incontravertible facts outside of science. I could say it’s a a fact that we are in the year of our lord 2018 and it is, but only to people using the same dating system as us. Scientist passionate argue that you can see difference between male and female brains and others argue that you can’t, then eis some evidence from studies either way. peterson’s Facts are his interpretation of data and they are not incontrovertible. If he’s a good academic and any kind of scientist, he would acknowledge that himself if asked.

What the hell does no. 2 mean?
2 Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for looking after

He starts the chapter with a lot of data (yes factual, numerical data), that the average pet owner is far more likely to ensure that their pet completes the course of any medication prescribed by a vet than they are to comply with medical advice relating to their own body.

To treat yourself as if you were someone you are responsible for helping is, instead, to consider what would be truly good for you. This is not “what you want.” It is also not “what would make you happy.”

Also bad academia can come out of some of the best universities, I attended two of the best universities in the U.K. and hold postgraduate degrees from them but you still think I am wrong and you may prove me so.

Sorry for typos. Lack of precision due to autocorrect. Should be rules are only for men....

JP didn’t get his professorship because of what he is doing now.
But even so, there are plenty of crap psychologists and in the Esther universities, as for example the one in which I am prof. It is a problem of the discipline; as in various social sciences.

Also I tend to think profound advice can’t also be summed up in song lyrics. The first bit just makes me think of this
“Walk tall, walk straight and look the world right in the eye
That's what my mama told me when I was about knee high
She said son, be a proud man and hold your head up high
Walk tall, walk straight and look the world right in the eye”
And Val Doonican is catchier.

Best universities
Ah Fock!

Yeah, gimme Val any day over him. More deep.

Quite like the idea of Esther universities, specialising in saving their people from corrupt leaders.

There are certain things I like about him. He has a nice manner but essentially he’s just a conservative saying the same old shit with a smattering of science to make his followers feel good about themselves.

I would say he is deeply anti-woman for the following reasons:

• when it comes to the gender pay gap he believes it exists for a reason. He doesn’t stop to think what those reasons are and if they are fair.

He says he believes in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome yet offers no insight into how that should come about.

When it comes to something that might benefit women he is adamantly against any redistribution of wealth or fixing of outcomes ....

YET..

when it comes to something that benefits men then fixing outcomes is A Ok. And the commodity to be passed around is women. Lovely.

He believes, probably correctly, that monogamy emerged as a way to dampen men’s violence but sees no problem with that.

His views on monogamy and marriage for life are all very well for someone who met their wife at 7. It doesn’t work like that for most people.

He does say some good stuff about men having to present themselves well. But ultimately he hasn’t done his homework. His idea of women naturally going for a few high status men is contradicted by studies on hunter gather societies.

Nah, he’s too simplistic, conservative dressed up in science for gravitas. He loves himself, along with the other men of the Alt Right congratulating themselves on being mavericks against political correctness when really they, and political incorrectness ARE the mainstream.

And to top it all off, he believes in God, something his adoring atheist alt right fans find uncomfortable so conveniently gloss over.

Matt Dillahunty sorted him out on that one.

Wow! Sorry for the rant. But I’ve been bingeing him since a thread a while back to see what the fuss is about.

This is a good video on him by Ana from Young Turks.

I cannot stand him ! I find him arrogant and egotistical. Not my cup of tea at all..

Oh and his ideas about more egalitarian societies leading to natural divisions between men and women widening because evolution is so simplistic and ignores backlash.

Legal barriers may go but social barriers intensify in their place. The UK has never been so gendered in the social norms it places on young children.

TheWizardofWas
Set your own house in order.....what if you don’t have one?
He is using the term "house" metaphorically as well as literally. When he was a practising clinical psychologist, he would get many of his patients to start each day with a small achievement (getting up at a set time everyday, washing, tidying / cleaning something for even just a few minutes). This has shown to be a very powerful treatment.

What if you are being foreclosed because of the bank’s greed?
Do you think that a bank that lent you money to buy a house decides to foreclose the loan because it suddenly gets "greedy"? Foreclosure is the term used to describe the process initiated by a bank or building society when they see no indication that you can continue to pay a loan or mortgage they have lent to you. In essence this means that they are about to start proceedings to reclaim your home or other property as a substitution for the outstanding amount of money. If you have borrowed money from either a bank, building society or other mortgage lender and are behind with the payments, the lender can decide that they have made all reasonable attempts to (a) contact you regarding your arrears or (b) have no reasonable chance of recouping the loan amount from you.

Is that greed?

Fortune cookie philosophy. YABU.