Jordan Peterson

[Wilsonwilson]

What do people make of him? Watched the triggernometry interview with him yesterday. I have previously seen bits and bobs of his but not taken much notice. In the interview he pointed out that out that his greatest criticism has been because he was lecturing people whilst being a benzo addict, tbh this was my criticism.

I don't know, to me he just seems disingenuous somehow, could be my bias like he says.

@Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud

..So if you are forced to use the term "trans-woman" rather than "trans-identified **" it makes it harder to talk about safety in prisons or fairness in sports

The reason for this it that being trans isn't something people "identify," as. It's something they are or are not. Like being a lesbian.

When I used to get told "liking girls is just a phase," it was because people were viewing being a lesbian as an "identity," and any gay person on these boards should be able to tell you how wrong that bloody is and how harmful it is....and before you tell me it's not the same thing: I'm afraid it really is.

I think he's a decent and thoughtful man with an unfortunately cultish following that leans towards misogyny.

As straight forward as he is in every other area in giving them simple instruction, one would thing a "decent man," would bother to include "don't be a sexist knob," when he sees how his followers are behaving.

He never did that though. He benefitted from it.

Yeah I'm not seeing much of any view pr criticism on misogyny and sexism; he'd probably find a way to say it doesn't exist.

why don't you actually read or listen to him then, warrior?
I'm not saying he's always right, but why not give it a go

I have been? I don't have a huge amount of time for reading at the moment but I watch interviews while doing housework.

I'd actually prefer to read Helen Lewis first based on that interview; she mentioned a number of interesting things that she didn't elaborate on as she was interviewing..

I'd actually prefer to read Helen Lewis first based on that interview

Same. I watched the first few minutes of it only, persuaded by this thread (maybe I had misjudged the poor man based on insufficient evidence!) and she is incisive and logical where he is vague and ridiculous. He doesn't consider what she says with good faith and he rants on about "truth", "responsibility" and "nobility". Those aren't scientific terms. He provides no evidence of any kind for them. 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

@oohmamama

*@Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud*

No one has disregarded his ideas based on having a vulnerability to mental illness.

However, it is perhaps some evidence that his theories are not supporting good mental health.

What?

How the hell do you figure that?

The lobster argument is a bit dense. I see why he makes the comparison about Serotonin and motivation but as Helen points out, they also urinate from their mouths....

I don't think he's ridiculous; it's sorting the wheat from the chaff. Some things are extremely insightful, others are limited to his male vision/ perspective.

What's more worrying are the people who follow and their ability to sort and analysis.

It's interesting he says he really doesn't like conflict; I wonder if it's contributed to his mental health.

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?

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.

@Hibari

*He's not an ally. There's a reason his writings and words attract MRAs, incels etc. He thinks women should know their place.*

Very much so.
You put this much better than I did.

This is basically the same as:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

@WarriorN

The lobster argument is a bit dense. I see why he makes the comparison about Serotonin and motivation but as Helen points out, they also urinate from their mouths....

The point isn't that we should be like lobsters. It's that nature is hierarchical, even if you are a lobster and have almost no brain.

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.

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.

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.

You got dangerously close to self awareness for a minute there

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

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/

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Chimps and bonobos and macaques would be more interesting comparisons.