Dr Jordan Peterson

[12boo]

I believe I am a feminist
But I seem to be a fan of Jordan Peterson. Are these states totally incompatible?

For instance, I saw a lecture where he claimed that women who truly didn't want children were rare and tended to be disagreeable. Poisonous nonsense to say it to a room full of students, even if you think it.

Why? In case it hurts the students feelings? Our great future academics must be protected from opinions / observations and facts? Would you prefer a world full of science denial, lies, compelled speech and no debate?

Maybe disliking someone for the conclusions he has reached from the data he has seen, because we dislike the data and the conclusions that they lead to, is a sort of shooting the messenger reaction?

Yep this. This is where cancel culture steps in. To try and silence these messengers.

*He also said marriage makes men less violent.

Well, yes, of course marriage makes a violent man less likely to attack people in public when he has a wife and kids to take his abuse out on*

Or, alternatively, it is possible to think about it from a socio-psychological point-of-view and reason :

Men who are married are more often at home than single men, rather than out on the piss, alcohol being a factor in plenty of violent activity.

Men who are married have attained the status of "stable couple", meaning they don't have to (literally) fight for a position in a hierarchy for women's attention (I know it's not smart, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

Men who are married more often have much greater responsibilities - maintaining their contribution to a mortgage, helping in raising children and setting a good example for them - so would reasonably be less prone to using violence and the risk of prison, physical impairment, or death that could result.

But sure, jump to DV being the only reasonable explanation, assuming that you have accepted that a prof of psychology could even be correct such psychological data in the first place...

@Eveta

For instance, I saw a lecture where he claimed that women who truly didn't want children were rare and tended to be disagreeable. Poisonous nonsense to say it to a room full of students, even if you think it.

Why? In case it hurts the students feelings? Our great future academics must be protected from opinions / observations and facts? Would you prefer a world full of science denial, lies, compelled speech and no debate?

It's not about hurting people's feelings, for God's sake. It's about evidence base. What evidence does he have for this assertion? I would wager that he has none. Show me the studies. How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

It seems to me that the current approach to arguing against someone’s views for many is to effectively enter a sword fight with one arm tied behind their backs.

Jordan Peterson is outright dismissed by some as a misogynist and By others as ‘alt-right adjacent’ and his views are simply not engaged with. It’s clear that many with this opinion actually don’t know his opinions because they haven’t read any of them. It’s as if he’s considered so ‘beyond the pale’ that merely reading his opinions will lead to some sort of deadly infection.

I listened to a podcast with Laurence Fox recently where he discussed meeting up with Amrou the Quantum Physicist Drag Artist. At the end, Amrou suggested Laurence read a number of books. Laurence then suggested that Amrou read The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray. His response was “I’m not reading anything by that transphobe”.

It's about evidence base. What evidence does he have for this assertion? I would wager that he has none. Show me the studies

I'd wager that a tenured prof at a senior Canadian university, who has also taught at Harvard, has a lot more evidence of this assertion than you. I'd also wager that if it weren't true, there would be plenty of people lining up evidence to the contrary - it's not like he has been short of detractors in the media.

How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up

He did an interview with a senior editor at the Economist who expressed incredulity about "how can you measure X? (unfortunately I forget what it was)" and in a bout 30 seconds, the psychologist explained to the lay person (economist/journalist - and one who was almost painfully stupid throughout the entire interview) exactly how they do it. It's not too much of a blow to the ego to recognise that there are plenty of educated people out there who know plenty more about plenty of subjects than you or I do...

The concept of agreeableness comes from the Big 5 personality model that's been used by psychologists since the 80s. It's not something that Peterson has personally invented.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

This may be unfair but Jordan Peterson just makes me think of Rasputin and gurus 😳

Given the subject matter of what he discusses, it is rather easy to think Peterson is attempting to be some sort of guru, but if one actually views his lectures, they are from his university modules, and practically everything is academically referenced. This isn't to say its infallible, but it is important to note that much of what he says is academic consensus, such as the observations around how the most aggressive person will always be a man, and have been proved many times over.

On a personal level, Peterson has done far more for me in aiding me with my depression and anxiety than the NHS has, again this wasn't due to some unique truth he magically has, but by laying out the physiological and medical consensus, he didn't create many of the ideas put forward, but he certainly explained some of the better routes to take. He did not just aid myself, and if one looks at the comment section of any YouTube video, the man must be congratulated for the amount of human misery he has been able to ease, even if you disagree with some of the other views.

The evidence re: marriage making men more stable is two fold:

• Testosterone measurably lowers in men when they become fathers (and engage in nurturing behaviours). Testosterone levels correlate with violence.
• There is a period of a number of years in a man’s life they are most likely to engage in criminal behaviour which I believe starts in the teens and lasts until the late 20s. Men in that cohort who marry and start families are less likely to engage in criminality.

Hope that helps.

On FWR it has often been observed that women are socialised to be nice, kind, put other first, ect. These are all qualities of high trait agreeableness.

So the observation that women tend on average to be high in agreeableness is the same observation that has been made here many times, the only difference is that Peterson doesn't attribute it to socialisation but instead believes there is an innate element to it.

Some of the posts here which explain what JP is about are very interesting.

However,

The gist of what his detractors here say seems to boil down to - I just don't like him or, he said this that I didn't like (with no links to where he said it for context). Like I said upthread that strikes me as exactly like the level of debate we have come to expect from TRAs. That is to say, a bit rubbish.

Please could someone give an actual example (with link, please!) of something JP has said that is anti-women or troublesome in some way?

Thank you.

I’m not sure that’s entirely true as Peterson has done a lot of work with female clients to help them increase their trait disagreeableness in order to better negotiate position/wages in context of their professional life. So whilst he may believe there may be an innate component, women can certainly learn skills to improve it.

Fascinating discussion.

Been lurking Mumsnet for ages, but had to sign up to post just to add these two excellent articles by Louise Perry which are both 110% relevant to this thread, but no-one has managed to link yet as far as I can see:

Are contemporary feminists too agreeable?

The feminist case for Jordan Peterson

BaronessBrighterThanYou I think a lot of people still instinctively feel that when the Guardian labels someone as ‘problematic’ in some way then it must be true and thus refuse to engage.
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

I’ve actually enjoyed going through some you tube long form interviews with various people the Guardian labels problematic lately (eg Melanie Phillips and Claire Fox).

At the end, Amrou suggested Laurence read a number of books. Laurence then suggested that Amrou read The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray. His response was “I’m not reading anything by that transphobe”

McKenna

Quite. The paradigm is denounce the person as a bigot without bothering to engage with any of Murray's argument. This is a recurrent theme in cancel culture. It isn't about argument or philosophical positions or rational discourse at all. It's about denunciations and unperson status. The corollary to this is that you either agree with the entire canon of someone's political beliefs or none of them have any validity at all. It's ludicrous.

My concern about him and I have watched endless hours of his lectures etc is that he does make claims that may not be evidenced based or are based on evidence which he favours. He claimed on his most recent podcast/ you tube that the medication he has been detoxing from increases
dementia. I had a little look in to that claim and there seems to be some studies that prove that not to be the case. I dont think this is Peterson's fault I think it's the danger of putting anyone on a pedestal. I think he has almost become someone who people ask about any subject under the sun, Brexit, Marxism, etc. and again this isnt his fault but stretched very thin I think.

Show me the studies.

😂 Research it yourself or ask him if you want his evidence. Why would I take time out of my day to do that for you? It's not my job to seek out the evidence and deliver it to you. After all, I don't really care whether you agree with him or not.

How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

There's nothing wrong with disagreeableness. He doesn't think there's anything wrong with disagreeableness. It can help women progress up the career ladder if it's done in the right way. Again, you misunderstand him.

@TheRealMcKenna

It seems to me that the current approach to arguing against someone’s views for many is to effectively enter a sword fight with one arm tied behind their backs.

Jordan Peterson is outright dismissed by some as a misogynist and By others as ‘alt-right adjacent’ and his views are simply not engaged with. It’s clear that many with this opinion actually don’t know his opinions because they haven’t read any of them. It’s as if he’s considered so ‘beyond the pale’ that merely reading his opinions will lead to some sort of deadly infection.

I listened to a podcast with Laurence Fox recently where he discussed meeting up with Amrou the Quantum Physicist Drag Artist. At the end, Amrou suggested Laurence read a number of books. Laurence then suggested that Amrou read The Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray. His response was “I’m not reading anything by that transphobe”.

Amrou thinks that everyone is gender fluid because sub atomic particles are fluid and can be in different places at the same time. Particles are therefore non binary. So it makes sense for humans to be non binary.

I am no physicist. And I'm guessing neither is Amrou.

twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/1279344800865701890

The comments below this tweet are entertaining. Even Krishna Guru Murthy was laughing in the interview.

@growinggreyer
It's not about hurting people's feelings, for God's sake. It's about evidence base. What evidence does he have for this assertion? I would wager that he has none. Show me the studies. How do you rate 'disagreeableness' in women? Is there a Peterson scale of disagreeableness where 1 = will suck dick for truckers and 10 = will shank you if you mention the washing up?

No it isn't about 'evidence base', or at least it shouldn't be.

Time was when great lecturers were provocateurs. Provoking students to think and challenge their own received opinions, or formulate a stronger argument in support of them. Now such a lecturer would be 'cancelled'.

It's a wonder Jonathan Swift is still in print.

I’ve actually enjoyed going through some you tube long form interviews with various people the Guardian labels problematic lately

The Guardian is like a supermassive black hole into the alt right. The Event Horizon is so enormous that everybody gets sucked in eventually.

This is the best one:

www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation#img-2

Notice the aforementioned Mr Peterson’s name appears right there on the list.

The average bod would take a look at that scary looking diagram and think there’s definitely got to be something suspicious about anyone whose name appears on it and thus avoid them like the plague. You’ve really got to know who some of these people are to realise how ridiculous much of it actually is.

The Guardian is a leftist version of the Daily Mail. It's all well and good as long as you read it critically.

Few of its regulars do.

Surely you would know just by glancing at that diagram that Stephen Yaxley Lennon doesn't belong in the same sphere of influence as a Harvard professor?

*No it isn't about 'evidence base', or at least it shouldn't be.

Yes, it should be. That said I'm sure Peterson has evidence for his statements about disagreeableness; Big Five personality traits are his area of actual expertise.

His stupid fucking statements about wearing lipstick being the equivalent of sexual harassment in the workplace, and his implications that women should have to get involved with awful men to make them less awful, are enough for me to want to consign him to the bin, but it's hard to completely hate someone who persuades angry young men to do the cleaning on the grounds that it's a way of expressing their masculinity.