Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

The nature element is unproven, doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant though.

It is unproven because we have no idea how much falls into which camp.

God fms is everywhere spouting his trash.

Teacup just wanted to say well done for your persistence on this thread and I 100% agree with this analysis:
"Jordan Peterson uses his privilege as a white middle class Male to make absolute assertions then claims that the very social structures that allow him to have such a authoritative voice don’t exist.
Imagine his exact words are being said by a black woman, I don’t think for a second she’d be allowed to get away with claiming her hypothesis are absolute fact. Nor would she have men fawning over her in the way they do Peterson.
Peterson is allowed to have a touch of the woo in his work because he doesn’t have to fight constantly to be taken seriously he can just start talking. This isn’t to take away from Peterson like I’ve said lots on this thread I enjoy his work and he’s obviously a great mind to be taken seriously, but a woman saying we need to go back to ancient texts and myths find meaning would be put straight into the operah box at best, laughed out of academia at middle and actively attacked at worst.

Its frustrating to see a man seeping in privilege and so blind to it.
It’s the ‘I worked hard to get where I am’ mentality. Yes you did, but the fact that you had the opportunity for your hard work to get you where you are is a privilege that not everyone has."

This from CardsforKittens is also spot on

"I find this kind of approach hard to follow. But I think I finally worked out how this style of engagement works:

Make a bunch of observations about the world
Assume they're 'obvious'
Go looking for any research that confirms what you already think
Steadfastly refuse to examine these sources critically
Ignore research that draws alternative conclusions
Insist that people answer your questions but avoid answering theirs
When stuck, speculate wildly - thus avoiding evidence altogether
Indulge in wagers
When others point out implications you hadn't thought of, accuse them of 'straw manning'
Attempt to ridicule others
Make no concessions, and claim that others have missed the point
Move the goalposts as often as possible
If in doubt, SHOUT.

It might make one's readers dizzy but it's not actually an argument. It has some points in common with JP's approach though."

Thanks flowers

"Jordan Peterson uses his privilege as a white middle class Male"

"Imagine his exact words are being said by a black woman"

The irony of using identity politics and theories like white privilege in a thread about Jordan Peterson.

The irony of spouting white privilege - which is an academic theory and not something that can be conclusively proved whilst simultaneously arguing about the credibility of multiple scientific studies.

The irony of claiming in a thread about JP that a black woman would be judged on her group identity and not the quality of her ideas or her individual character. (besides this argument is totally shot down by the recent kerfuffle with Kanye tweeting "I love how Candace Owens thinks, her being a black female conservative)

That's literally one of the core messages of JP - STOP JUDGING PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY, lol

It's not that the people here are doing that, they are pointing out it's happening. But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative.

I mean claiming the baghavad Gita has some important lessons for life is hardly cutting edge stuff, him and every single person who’s ever read it could tell you that.

Of course myths, legends and stories are an important way for humans to navigate the world. It’s hardly groundbreaking science.

Oh ffs.

that's literally one of the core messages of JP - STOP JUDGING PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY, lol

So we’re allowed to do it when it’s ‘males are more aggressive’ but not allowed to do it when it’s ‘males voices are perceived in a certain way’.

Because it’s actually the first one that is judging people on account of their identity. The second one is looking at the judgements that already exist within society because of that identity.

"STOP JUDGING PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR GROUP IDENTITY"

As I understood teacup, she was not judging Peterson based on his group identity, she actually said he is a 'great thinker'. She was noting that his ability to promote is message is enhanced by his white male privilege.

I take it you think that's bollocks fms?

Also, "simultaneously arguing about the credibility of multiple scientific studies", like that's a bad thing? As stated previously on this thread, scientists are fallible (I should know, I am one), and argue with one another about the interpretation of their findings constantly. Once a paper, is published or several papers agreeing with one another are published, that view point doesn't automatically become "Scientific fact". It takes much more than that for paradigms to be established.

It’s actually very clever of Peterson to have created a way to never be able to have his own biases pointed out.
By claiming he’s above identity he’s able to deflect any critique of His position.

Oh that capatalisation of the H in him was an accident, but I like it. It’s fitting.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter what the figures will be when we finally get to equality of opportunity, what matters is that we work towards it by dismantling things like stereotypes and stopping steering people to certain jobs simply because of what’s between their legs.

Actually it IS important that we understand what the figures are likely to be otherwise we get situations like at Google where they create an environment that is prejudiced against men and biased towards women based on a dogma that 50% representation is the natural outcome. Without understanding the reasons for career make-up, you're at risk of making counter-productive decisions that reduce equality of opportunity.

Whoever it was the posted the bbc podcast link thank you brilliant to hear JP being pulled back to answer the question he was avoiding asked.

Teacup & reluctant i am admiring your work.

I find JP utterly fascinating as a phenomenon; I think he is a great showman although i find his voice very irritating

This made me chuckle.

.

@flowersonthepiano "She was noting that his ability to promote is message is enhanced by his white male privilege.

I take it you think that's bollocks fms?"

She also implied that a black woman making the same arguments would not be taken seriously - and the whole point about JP's message as I said is to judge people by their ideas and as individuals not on the basis of their group identity.

The argument is that JP is only popular because of his race/sex and not because of the content of his ideas, the way he delivers them and other characteristics/aspects that are separate from group identity.

Plus that argument was debunked with the example of Candace Owens. You could also point to Christina Hoff Sommers who has the title "based Mom" because of the way her ideas have been received.

"So we’re allowed to do it when it’s ‘males are more aggressive’ but not allowed to do it when it’s ‘males voices are perceived in a certain way’."

Your accusation is that JPs voice is elevated above others because he is a white man. This is nonsense.

Your example doesn't work because the nature argument is that males behave differently to females eg more risk taking, more aggressive etc because of testosterone. It's innate, we know males have more testosterone than women. We know some men have more testosterone than others. We know what effects taking extra testosterone has on both men and women.

You can't measure levels of white privilege. You can't even prove it exists. You can theorise, but you can't prove it and you'll never be able to convince people that it exists in the same way you can prove or demonstrate gravity.

I did my dissertation on Orientalism, when I explained my topic to people some understood, some rejected the idea entirely. It took me a while to empathise but I did eventually - Orientalism is an academic theory, just like Patriarchy, Toxic Masculinity, White Privilege, White fragility, Rape Culture, Gender as a social construct etc

These are ideas that start in Universities and spread outwards. Doesn't make them true.

"whole point about JP's message as I said is to judge people by their ideas and as individuals not on the basis of their group identity."

Is it though? I hear some of that from him. I also hear that society has become too feminised, and an assertion that the feminine is innately chaotic and needs to be controlled by the masculine. I feel this part of the message may have more to with his popularity among dissatisfied men.

There is good evidence for white male privIege. Sorry, I don't have links to a battery of pdfs at my fingertips, but I am thinking of those studies about the effects of gendered and names, and names associated with specific ethnicities, on the perception of identical CVs - those considered to be from white men were assumed to be more competent. Good evidence for privilege if you ask me.

" Good evidence for privilege if you ask me."

Asian Americans are the best performing ethnic group in America.

White working class boys are the least likely group to go to University in this Country.

You also are still missing the point re assigning privilege to someone on the basis of their race and not judging them as an individual - everyones journey is different.

A white boy born to a single mother living on a trailer park who is hooked on heroin, who lifts himself out of that situation to go to College, studies Computer Science and then applies for a job at Google - are you really going to claim he got the job because of white privilege, or what if he doesn't even get the interview because Google is going in the opposite direction via (alleged) positive discrimination?

I could also reference the example of that Oxford medical prodigy that attacked her boyfriend and got a suspended sentence

The intersectionalists cried "white privilege!"

The mens rights activists cried "female privilege!"

When actually all the legal analysis said that the Judge had just followed established sentencing guidelines.

So who was right?

" judge people by their ideas and as individuals not on the basis of their group identity."

Another note on this, it's funny how many people assume from my opinions that I must be a man. And the accusations of being a man are used to discredit my opinion.

If my ideas and arguments are sound then what difference does my gender or my race or any other characteristic I can't control make?

Maajid Nawaz recently said it was "left wing racism" to claim that black people have to think a certain way and those that think differently are "Uncle Toms"

It's sexism to assume that women have to think a certain way.

How would you feel if women posting on Pistonheads had their posts/ideas/arguments immediately dismissed because the predominantly male posters there used their sex against them?

I think everyone can see that fmsfms wants to justify male violence and female oppression anyway he can.

1. First he claims he does not believe humans are completely influenced by their hormones, though he soon makes it clear that he does believe that hormones/puberty are responsible for stereotypical behaviours of the sexes. This can clearly be seen later when someone says they know boys who are nurturing, he says if they are young they haven’t experienced “puberty/hormones” yet. Clearly indicating that he does indeed think that hormones and puberty are responsible for both male’s stereotypical behaviours, likes etc, and female’s, i.e. females are nurturing and males are not due to their “hormones/puberty”, there is simply no other way to interpret his statement there.

1. He states that the male tendency towards violence is innate, but does not want to take the responsibility of what that actually means, i.e. the implication that if men naturally dominate, then those they dominate with their violence are either; a) inherently submissive. Or b) dominated by men by force.

1. When others point out the logical conclusions to his own theory he simply tries to shut them down by falsely claiming they are using a “strawman” argument. Then goes back claiming that is not what he said and he has been unfairly misunderstood.

I think his aims are clear here, he wants to excuse male violence and dominance of women by claiming it is just the natural order of things, but at the same time does not want us to realise that is exactly what he is doing. So he goes into his I have been misunderstood “strawman” phase. Unfortunately for him we can clearly see where his line of reasoning ends up. It does not really matter that he refuses to admit the logical conclusion to his line of argument. It is interesting to see his tactics though. The crux of the matter is men like him want to excuse male violence and their dominance of women by saying it is the natural order of things, i.e. hormones/puberty etc, but do not admit that is what they are doing or take the consequences for their view. So we end up with all these accusations of being misunderstood, “strawmen” etc.

It is very much like when we point out the sexist implications of the male lefts anyone should be able to identify as whatever sex they want nonsense. Those men also argue that it does not mean what we think it does, that they not just reenforcing the stereotypes of the sexes with their ideology, we have misunderstood them etc. Both are plain gaslighting and men trying to avoid taking responsibility for their sexist ideologies.

fms sorry, you're right I have assumed you're a bloke. Although I had it in my head you'd said you were a bloke, or was that Oldman? Either way, I haven't dismissed your arguments because you are a bloke (or I perceive you as one), but your style of arguing, which is very confrontational, makes it difficult to have a productive conversation (which is why I congratulated teacup on their persistence). Anyway, must go do some work.

@Artemis7

I think this will be my last reply to you because as I said earlier, your pseduo intellectual act is ridiculous and it's getting tiring dismantling your posts piece by piece

"First he claims he does not believe humans are completely influenced by their hormones, though he soon makes it clear that he does believe that hormones/puberty are responsible for stereotypical behaviours of the sexes."

The second part of your sentence doesn't disprove the first part. I've said all along that I believe nature and nurture play a role - it's other people eg you trying to claim that nature doesn't play a role.

"but does not want to take the responsibility of what that actually means, i.e. the implication that if men naturally dominate, then those they dominate with their violence are either; a) inherently submissive."

Because I never said anything about women or submissive.

"3. When others point out the logical conclusions to his own theory he simply tries to shut them down by falsely claiming they are using a “strawman” argument. "

If the hat fits: You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Men are innately more aggressive than women, and thus better suited and more likely/viable candidates to join the army.

This does not say anything about women being submissive, men using violence to subjugate women or anything else about women. IT IS A TEXT BOOK STRAW MAN

@flowersonthepiano "which is very confrontational, makes it difficult to have a productive conversation"

Put yourself in my shoes, you're presenting an alternative argument to the commonly accepted line of thinking.

You have multiple people replying to you, you can only reply to one at a time.

You have some people that are just trolls and follow you from thread to thread. These people tend to use ad hominems (insults or attacks on your character rather than replies to your argument)

You have some people that respectfully disagree.

You have some people that flagrantly twist what you are saying.

Of course you're going to come across as confrontational

I've said all along I believe nature and nurture play a role.

I've posted studies, articles and supporting evidence for my opinions.

If people want to keep misrepresenting me and injecting stuff into my opinions which I haven't said then what can I do