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've gone on a bit of a journey with Peterson. I started off with nasty distaste in my mouth and have slowly come to believe he's a necessary figure in modern culture.

He's pretty much the only person publicly telling young men to sort their shit out, and that the fanciful dreams sold to them by advertising and mass culture are likely to make them terribly unhappy.

He functions as the dad so many young men need who is willing to tell them hard truths about life.

He admits he doesn't understand the female experience, but his point is that women don't achieve parity with men because they tend to score very highly on congeniality. In short, we are too nice. He posits both biological and social reasons for the profusion of this trait amongst women.

I think part of the problem is that he is a Jungian, and Jung seems a bit bonkers when you first come across his work.

I agree with you, but I think the bigger problem is that he is complex, and takes some effort to understand.
Many people seem to decide beforehand that they don't agree with him, but, instead of having the maturity to do what you did packing, prefer to search secondary (usually hostile) sources to find something to back up their prejudice.
Also, as someone said, way back in the thread, what's wrong with viewing him in a nuanced way, as an interesting, but not always right, speaker? So many people can't cope with this.

Look up Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory if you still don't see the problem, and see exactly what he's repeatedly endorsing. The lobster stuff applied the way he does to defend modern day hierarchies is conjecture and pseudoscience. It doesn't prove what he (or you?) thinks it does.

As to the assertion that I can't possibly know about him because otherwise I'd think the same as you, I find that hilarious, and demonstrative of the type of thought process that leads us to this discussion. He's problematic in many ways.

I do agree some of his views are necessary for these times to some people as a pp mentioned. The common sense sort your own life out, take responsibility approach. Great. But attached to some of his other perspectives it's very concerning that he's become one of the go to references for MRA/incel types, who use it as a basis to reinforce their misogyny and disregard actual female perspectives. This does feminists little to no favour. The tenet JP repeats frequently of men and women being different but should be treated 'fairly' all rests on perceptions of fairness. But without talking about big changes to systems, and he's very pro Capitalism, he means treated fairly whilst they 'compete' with men in a system designed by and favouring men. Without valuing care work differently, for a start, this system can never provide an equal 'arena' for women to 'compete' as equals. A feminist perspective would be that the system needs to change so that differences between the sexes do not directly lead to material or opportunity disadvantage. He sees patriarchy in the current day as a nonsense (though accepts it was around as feminists describe it in the past, then some how in some unspecified by him point it becomes a nonsense - not quite got my head around when or how he thinks this happened, but maybe I've missed it). To him, as I see it from his own words across multiple sources, the current hierarchy that I would call patriarchy is a natural product of societal evolution and therefore inevitable. He doesn't support any actions to make it fairer. He denies societal roles in gender stereotypes and that any sociological constructs contribute to this hierarchy. That's a pretty big assertion that I disagree with.

I like him. Mostly because he is incredibly smart and runs rings around the TWAW brigade when they try to take him on. Also though because he doesn't apologize for having an opinion - pretty much everyone else backs down one the TRA's are unleashed on them and he never has.
I don't agree with everything he says but why should you have to to admire someone. He has the courage of his convictions if nothing else

I'm waiting for you to give us more details about JP's antisemitism muggle. That's a pretty serious allegation to make if you can't give any evidence

@mamala321 I would say my position on his is nuanced. I can appreciate some of his viewpoints but have issues with others, and with people who believe everything he says as gospel truth because some of what he says rings true. JP's followers seem to lap up this verisimilitude.

@mamala321 as I said Google Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, and Cultural Marxism Jordan Peterson and you'll see that the phrase he's brought back into popularity has antisemitic roots.

He's a regressive misogynist and I can't believe there are 8 pages of posts defending an openly misogynistic man on a supposedly feminist board. Nuance, complexity and understanding my arse! No one would post that about the TRA stance on women's rights. Peterson does not get a free pass from me.

How can it possibly be a conspiracy theory when it's something that's clearly observed?

I'd stay off wiki if you actual want to really get to the truth. Wiki has a history of including men in the definition of adult human female. Unless of course you agree that too.

MuggleStudies is making a lot of noise but not much else.

No evidence so far.

Oh @Erkrie when I said to Google I don't just mean look on Wikipedia! I mean do some wider reading. Dear me. It's a contested theory, it's not fact however plausible you think it sounds.

Just because JP has spoken out on pronouns and interviewed Abigail Shrier and I am a so-called TERF, it does not mean I'm going to agree with him on all points or align myself with him indiscriminately. He's still problematic overall for radical feminists in spite of his GC views.

Seems like the Jordan Peterson bots have been attracted to the thread and no matter what is said against him it will be dismissed. Anyone who is interested/of healthy skepticism can spend time reading around these issues, reading multiple viewpoints, and come to their own conclusion, as is your right. The feminism boards do seem a bizarre place for this exultation though.

Oh @Erkrie when I said to Google I don't just mean look on Wikipedia! I mean do some wider reading. Dear me. It's a contested theory, it's not fact however plausible you think it sounds

I can see clearly that's where you got your facts from. Which is why I referenced it.
My research is from actually listening to him myself. Which you have barely done, instead seeking biased secondary resources. And then claim your opinions are nuanced. They're not.
I don't care if you agree with him or not. But if your going to disagree so passionately, than at least have a little evidence to back that up.
Why is he problematic for Feminists? I'd love to hear your nuanced analysis on this.

@Erkrie then just reread what I've already written where I state examples. Or many of the other opinions on this thread. Or read articles by others describing how he is problematic for feminists, especially radical ones. Trying to exhaust me by being obtuse and belligerent is working. If you genuinely want to see other perspectives on this there's plenty out there already. But you just want to disparage me as an individual. Which says more about you than me.

Why is he problematic for Feminists?

Well he is problematic for radical feminsts, given that their wordlview is that we live in a patriarchical society that systematically oppresses women and that women's liberation can only come about by radical social change that gets rid of the patriarchy.

Peterson's view is more or less that most problems people face in life are not due to systematic oppression but are psychologucal in nature, and therefore cannot be solved by radical social change but instead by personal self-improvement along the lines set out in his books.

It's hard to imagine two approaches to life that are more diametrically opposed.

NotDavidTennant

Thanks for your explanation. That does of course make perfect sense.
I think really his idea is for people to focus on the things that they can do something about. And accept that not everything is perfect. There's no reason why the two groups can't speak or consider each others ideas in order to seek the truth and bring about change.

That does of course make perfect sense.

I can see why there would be tension, if either side thought the other was arguing in bad faith.

Are radical feminists saying women shouldn't aim for self-improvement because radical social change is needed?

Is Peterson saying we shouldn't aim for radical social change because self-improvement is needed?

It's not clear to me that self-improvement and societal improvement are mutually exclusive.

Two different approaches, sure, but opposed?

Just different angles of attack, surely?

If you genuinely want to see other perspectives on this there's plenty out there already. But you just want to disparage me as an individual. Which says more about you than me.

If you feel disparaged maybe you don't have much conviction in your position. I don't care about opposing views about JP. As long as they are rooted in evidence based fact. And I'm just not seeing that here. 🤷
But I have no wish to fall out with you over it. Let's just agree to disagree.

Two different approaches, sure, but opposed?

I think they're only opposed if one attempts to deny one in order to justify the other.

Is Peterson saying we shouldn't aim for radical social change because self-improvement is needed?

I haven't gone into Peterson's stuff in as much depth as some on here, but what I have seen certainly gave me the impression that he is skeptical of the prospects of radical social change. That radical change is more likely to usher in tyranny than making things better for people.

I'm also sure I've seen him say words more to the effect that you need sort yourself out on a personal level before you can even begin to think about trying to change things at a societal level. So not saying that they are mutually exclusive per se, but certainly encouraging people to prioritise self-improvement over social change.

I haven't gone into Peterson's stuff in as much depth as some on here, but what I have seen certainly gave me the impression that he is skeptical of the prospects of radical social change. That radical change is more likely to usher in tyranny than making things better for people.

This is the usual (little c) conservative view though, isn't it? That social change should be incremental rather than a wholesale change.

I do think that Peterson very much has a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" view point, which is helpful on an individual level but less so society wide. I don't think a focus on self improvement precludes working for social change, except you then tend to get people who think "I succeeded, everyone else should be able to too".

@MaMaLa321

And I would love to see evidence of antisemitism, because it isn't there.

"Cultural Marxism" is a bona fide anti-sematic conspiracy.

Yes, really.

I do think that Peterson very much has a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" view point, which is helpful on an individual level but less so society wide.

I'm not sure I would consider him as being in the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" tradition. He's a clinical psychologist by background, so he recognises that life can be a struggle for people. But he sees the solution to those struggles as being more therapeutic in nature than political.

This is why I think criticism of him from the left often fails to land. He is not an orthodox social conservative blindly advocating for the status quo because that's what's always been. Nor is he a quasi-Thatcherite 'bootstraps' conservative. He's more of cross between a self-help guru and a Dawkins-style rationalist.

LOVE him

He doesn’t believe extreme social change would be good for democracies, which most people agree with.

He isn’t trying to blame people for all their own problems but pointing out that if you want to transform your life you have to look realistically at what you are capable of doing and the situation you are in. Sometimes the problem is another person and your only option is to leave that person. That isn’t blaming you.