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.

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

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 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.

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

But I find nature and anthropology very interesting.

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

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.

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.

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.

*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? *

Human behaviour and thinking is affected by status, for sure.

Igneococcus
The point is that human and lobster hierarchical behaviour emerged separately. It's like saying spiders spin webs and so human spinning mills are natural/inevitable and not socially constructed. The spider example has a conclusion that people are less likely to agree with but the logic of the argument is the same.

But to me the bigger problem with JP's argument is the false dichotomy between natural/genetic on one side and social construction on the other. Social construction is also natural, and its typically human to take action to overcome our limitations, such as create balance of power or make vaccinations etc

I think he’s brilliant. His biblical series is really good and he makes people think instead of spouting mantras.

Social construction is also natural, and its typically human to take action to overcome our limitations, such as create balance of power or make vaccinations etc

Yes humans try. Although obviously it doesn't work overall in terms of reducing hierarchical structures. If it did, we'd be living in a Eutopia where everyone is equal. But we're not. And I doubt we ever will be. We can try to overcome it. But with something so deeply embedded in our genetic coding, it's very difficult. Which is why we need to be aware of this and work with it. I guess this is where the rules for life come in to play. But really these are all ideas to build on and grow.

DH and I watched him in conversation with an evolutionary biologist. I found them interesting, but as a pp has said, he seems to question the notion of the patriarchy with apparently no irony. The two sessions we watched involved 3 men and no women.

He comes across to me as defensive, though it's probably no wonder after the serious attacks on him following his refusal to conform to the Canadian law making mis-gendering illegal. I wonder what his childhood was like.

He seems obsessed with the idea that American universities are overrun with Marxists and with IQ and with 'success' which he seems to define mainly, but not exclusively as financial success. I get the impression that he feels he deserves his financial success is deserved, on account of his work ethic and high IQ. I wonder if it's ever occurred to him to be grateful that he has been able to develop these attributes. I get the impression (possibly wrongly) that although he acknowledges that living in very difficult circumstances, including poverty and having adverse childhood experiences has a seriously detrimental effect on cognitive abilities (cumulative effects of excess cortisol) he wouldn't really be interested in the nitty gritty of day to day life. He claimed that the American homestart programme had little effect on lifting young people out of poverty and seemed to imply that such interventions aren't useful. I was sitting there thinking, they're not useful because they're underfunded and under resourced and far more research needs to be done on the effects of poverty and adverse childhood experiences.

But I think he's an interesting person who deserves to be heard.

My thoughts on Jordan Peterson are provisional as he produces so much material and I am so busy that I only tend to notice him when he intersects with my research into cults and social engineering, which is quite often.

I have not read any of his books and have not listened to all of his interviews or watched all of his TV appearances

From what I have seen and heard I believe he is a thoughtful and intelligent man who cares very much about his wife and his family.

I appreciate his gender critical stance and I agree with him that political correctness can be used as a weapon in the war against thinking.

I cannot help but notice how often he appears alongiside controversial figures associated with cults, false memory therapies and new age beliefs.

I suspect that this is due to his being a Jungian as Jungians tend to be drawn towards mystical approaches to personal development. I have met some highly skilled, professional, clever Jungians, however there is a significant problem with cultic capture within the Jungian field IME.

So Jordan Peterson came to my attention when he and his daughter became enamoured of the Dutch "Ice Shaman" Wim Hof. There are videos of Peterson and Wim Hof all over youtube.

The question about whether immersion in cold water is good for you is a fascinating one as I am a fan of cold water swimming and have been for decades. I have no doubt that cold water immersion can be a wonderful thing if done safely.

Wim Hof advocates a form of "breathwork" (breathing exercises) that anyone familiar with cults will recognise. Breathing can of course be therapeutic but it can also induce a trance like altered state where people are highly vulnerable to suggestion. It can also induce psychedelic experiences and generate visions and hallucinations that can be falsely interpreted as genuine memories.

While Mr Hof is genuinely someone who enjoys immersion in ice cold water, and there are many real benefits to this if done safely, some of Win Hof's claims have been questioned by skeptics.

My concern about Wim Hof is that he has appeared alongside many dubious therapists using false memory therapies and on many controversial youtube channels.

Jordan Peterson is also involved in networks of people using psychedelics and entheogens as a form of psychotherapy. He has appeared briefly in a film on the subject created by the controversial businessman Brian Rose of London Real.

My personal belief, based on personal experience, is that psychedelics and entheogens can be therapeutic for some people some of the time. I am however dismayed by how many ruthless and clueless people are using / misusing these substances within cults and abusive / criminal networks and with dubious psychotherapists who specialise in “recovering” repressed memories.

I also find it astonishing that Jordan Peterson has a fairly extensive knowledge of psychedelics and entheogens and their effects but managed to be completely clueless about the perils of benzodiazepines to the extent that he was dependent on them for many years.

I make this latter point not to criticise Peterson. I found his video about the terrible time that he and his family had experienced to be heartbreaking. I just feel concerned that he may have, at some point, been dependent not just on benzodiazepines but on a person or persons who did not / do not have his best interests at heart.

Jordan Peterson is also involved in networks of people using psychedelics and entheogens as a form of psychotherapy. He has appeared briefly in a film on the subject created by the controversial businessman Brian Rose of London Real.

The film is here, some of the people interviewed are extremely controversial (understatement)

Interesting comments. I agree - he's flawed, but thoughtful, and interesting and worth listening to. Whereas his critics often only manage the first of those.

He's a throwback to the previous century, when we appreciated interesting people, and didn't expect them to be paragons of virtue or conformism.

I'd like a lot more interesting people, and I'd like to see them debate.But apparently we've reached the point we're having to crowdsource to bribe them. (Currently ongoing to try to get Robin DiAngelo to debate Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

Anyway, Peterson has an upcoming interview with Abigail Shrier. Seems he's getting more involved in the GC fight.

@Erkrie

Social construction is also natural, and its typically human to take action to overcome our limitations, such as create balance of power or make vaccinations etc

Yes humans try. Although obviously it doesn't work overall in terms of reducing hierarchical structures. If it did, we'd be living in a Eutopia where everyone is equal. But we're not. And I doubt we ever will be. We can try to overcome it. But with something so deeply embedded in our genetic coding, it's very difficult. Which is why we need to be aware of this and work with it. I guess this is where the rules for life come in to play. But really these are all ideas to build on and grow.

One of the points that comes out of this, I think, is that if we acknowledge that we inevitably build hierarchies, and see them in very subtle ways, and really can't not see them, we can control them and their consequesnces, or stand a chance of doing so.

Whereas if we imagine that somehow we can truly overcome them or wipe them out, or create a situation where we don't see them in society, we end up asking people to affirm outwardly something that they know is not true inwardly. And we no longer can create social or political mechanisms to control how the various hierarchies are expressed or mitigate their more unsavoury effects.

It also means we can't use them in ways that are helpful. Lots of social hierarchies exist because they are effective.

I cringe a bit about his obsession with universities and he doesn’t really speak to me as a woman but I think he is beneficial for a lot of men. The men who follow him tend to be improved after tidying their rooms etc 😂

@Mumofgirlswholiketoplaywithmud

This was his actual 12 rules:

"Stand up straight with your shoulders back"
"Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping"
"Make friends with people who want the best for you"
"Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today"
"Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them"
"Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world"
"Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)"
"Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie"
"Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t"
"Be precise in your speech"
"Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding"
"Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street"
Now those seem pretty random- it makes me want to buy the book to find out more (but I'm still on team Helen)

Jordan Peterson was one of the reasons that I started to feel really alarmed about the trans stuff about 3-4 years ago. There were lots of other concurrent issues that were contributing to me moving away from the mindless 'be kind' camp. But I'm big on free speech because I actually know what it's like not to have it.

I had zero idea of who Jordan Peterson was but knew all the lefties and progressives seemed to foam at the mouth upon hearing his name. I assumed he must be like some sort of BNP character based on the awful things being said about him.

Think my partner mentioned something about him and this issue in Canada about compulsion of pronouns. I watched a clip of JP talking about it and grasped the problem immediately. No way should the State ever force citizens to use pronouns like that. JP was clear he would always be polite and use the pronouns as requested by his students. But this is an interpersonal issue and not something governments should be legislating on.
I was firmly on JP's side and thought wtf is going on in Canada?! I need to look into this more deeply ........... And the rest is history.

I felt so embarrassed for Cathy Newman in that interview. She really encapsulated the issues I have with some aspects of feminism. The slavish adherence to blank slatism. It was so obvious she was motivated by ideology and not actually listening to what JP was saying, putting words in his mouth. So unprofessional. I laughed out loud when he pointed out her clear lack of agreeableness which has contributed to her success.

I've never actually seen the 12 rules, so thanks for posting it. As another poster said, I can see why the TRAs and other types hate him based on that list alone.

"Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street"

Maybe I should buy the book and read it after all. 😸

He seems to have had tangible success in getting more men to sort themselves out than all the feminist and progressive rhetoric over the years. I don't agree with everything he says, but he has contributed to positive changes in many individuals and has taught some women useful skills in being assertive and successful at work.

I've just discovered him and I love him. He speaks so much sense.

Jordan Peterson was one of the reasons that I started to feel really alarmed about the trans stuff about 3-4 years ago

Same here. He was the beginning of all this for me.

Just out of curiosity, I have two questions for those of you who say that you love Jordan Peterson, that he talks so much sense etc.

1. Where you active feminists prior to becoming gender critical?

1. Did you seek out this board for it's gender critical views or it's feminist views?

I am genuinely trying to understand.

I am genuinely trying to understand.

I suspect neither you nor I could, as far as the "love" goes. When someone "loves" something/someone, it speaks to them in a personal way. Yet it can leave others totally cold.

I generally approve of Peterson, as I described above, because he's on what I believe to be on the correct side of the woke/anti-woke fight. But no, he leaves me as cold as Mrs Brown's Boys or The Big Bang Theory that many seem to like but just make me roll my eyes.

But clearly he is addressing a need for a lot of people. And with his large audience, he's an effective potential ally.

I think understanding why people on a feminist board at least could not hate him, or even respect him, is possible. I found that Louise Perry article I posted above ("the feminist case for JP") helpful.

I understand the "hate" more - it seems to be a projection, rather than about him as a person or what he actually says. (The "so what you're saying is..." response)

Oh, and answering your questions, I'm here for the gender-critical/anti-woke stuff primarily, and its impingement on women's rights is one aspect. Feminism suddenly seems more relevant.

1. Where you active feminists prior to becoming gender critical?

If I were to label myself I would describe myself to be a second wave feminist. I've been interested in feminism since I was old enough to understand the issues. A very long time.

1. Did you seek out this board for it's gender critical views or it's feminist views

I discovered MN in 2007 and have been here ever since through different accounts and many name changes. I'm sure that answers your question.

I am genuinely trying to understand.

Why will those questions help you understand?

Although I will also add, that if all men did follow JPs rules for life, the world would be a much better place for women. And surely, as feminists, this is what we want. Isn't it?