• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Jordan Peterson

Analogue Boy said:
Sweeping generalisation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, probably, but there's an awful lot of confirmation bias involved in how people react to these self-proclaimed social commentators. Mind you, "confirmation bias" is a buzzy phrase, too, isn't it?
 
GNC said:
Seems like he's all things to all men. And I do mean men.
Click to expand...
He has quite a large following among younger women too, mostly those that have aspirations and want to define their own path, rather than be defined, judged or treated purely because they happen to be women.
 
GNC said:
Yeah, probably, but there's an awful lot of confirmation bias involved in how people react to these self-proclaimed social commentators. Mind you, "confirmation bias" is a buzzy phrase, too, isn't it?
Click to expand...
My initial introduction to him was through people that disliked him, based on a reputation that had been created by others that hadn't read or listened to him.
Reading the headlines I thought I was going to dislike him, listening to him I was proved wrong. he speaks a lot of common sense.
He doesn't discriminate, or judge, he advocates for individuals to see their own self worth but not to be arrogant and hateful towards others.
He points out that life isn't about women vs men, historically we have partnered together to make things more bearable for all of us.
I'm glad I gave him a chance, there are so few people we can look up to these days.

An interesting exercise would be to see what he has said that you disagree with?
 
Interesting definition of "interesting". Maybe it's more the unquestioning, obsessive fans that turn me off. But he'll be forgotten one day when some other guru takes his place, maybe someone just starting now. The wheel turns.
 
GNC said:
Interesting definition of "interesting". Maybe it's more the unquestioning, obsessive fans that turn me off. But he'll be forgotten one day when some other guru takes his place, maybe someone just starting now. The wheel turns.
Click to expand...
We'll all be replaced eventually, but his time is now.
 
dream_decoder said:
An interesting exercise would be to see what he has said that you disagree with?
Click to expand...

I could name a few things - but that would require me to enter into politics, which we don't do here.

Briefly, he's a Conservative and is so in both in the cultural and political sense of that word. More lately he seems to have taken to peddling some kind of Christian Conservatism at that.

This is in itself allowable: other thinkers have come from the same place and have had valid things to say.The trouble with Peterson is that his internet lead fame has encouraged him to step outside of his area of expertise (psychotherapy) and to start to pontificate on all manner of subjects and often ending up sounding like any old geezer down the `Dog and Duck` in the process. (I hope that this is not the `common-sense` to which you refer!)

In particular he sets up straw men to caricature those who he sees as ranged against him - variously characterised as `the Left`, `Postmodernists` and - a word of dubious lineage - `Cultural Marxists`. He even tends to sling these terms around as though they are interchangeable! It becomes clear that he has not done a great deal of research ionto any of these trends (or even if that last one is in fact a real thing).

Thus in his lame head-to-head with Slavo Zizeck - IIRC - he let slip that he had never read `The Communist Manifesto` (or was it just that he had only recently read it to preoare for the debate?)

I really did think that his recent...er..difficulties might have lead to a more nuanced and humble Peterrson. but no, there he is again - still flogging his `18 rules for Life` - or however many there are now,

When you boil it down, he is just the Tony Buznan/Desmond Morris/Alvin Toffler// Herbert Marcuse of our day plus internet glitz (and if you are saying: `Who they/` - the point is made).
 
Well put, @Zeke Newbold - I do remember Desmond Morris, though!

Peterson has told women that they should not be allowed to choose their sexual or romantic partners in case men get mad when they turn them down. Apparently this will reduce violence. Sounds like a recipe for violence to me. Besides, his apparent supermind powers have sent him around the bend just like Icke and Shayler and so on before him. We'll see if he recovers, I suppose.
 
GNC said:
Well put, @Zeke Newbold - I do remember Desmond Morris, though!

Peterson has told women that they should not be allowed to choose their sexual or romantic partners in case men get mad when they turn them down. Apparently this will reduce violence. Sounds like a recipe for violence to me. Besides, his apparent supermind powers have sent him around the bend just like Icke and Shayler and so on before him. We'll see if he recovers, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Has he?

Source would be welcome.
 
Yithian said:
Not what it says on the tin.
Click to expand...

In what way is "forced monogamy" and spreading the attractive women around the men (so to speak) not forcing women not to choose their partners (for life!)?
 
GNC said:
In what way is "forced monogamy" and spreading the attractive women around the men (so to speak) not forcing women not to choose their partners (for life!)?
Click to expand...

The original article is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

The word 'enforced' is introduced by the author, not Peterson.

He's talking about the shape of societies and how to maximise outcomes; societies do not mould people solely (or even most effectively) by coercion.
 
Can't read it, it's behind a paywall, but from the headline it's not flattering.
 
Yithian said:
The original article is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

The word 'enforced' is introduced by the author, not Peterson.
Click to expand...
From the article:-
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Click to expand...
Yith:-
He's talking about the shape of societies and how to maximise outcomes; societies do not mould people solely (or even most effectively) by coercion.
Click to expand...
He wants a society that "moulds" women into marrying creepy and violent men that they wouldn't go anywhere near by personal choice? How is that not coercion?
 
Could someone post the section where Peterson “...wants a society that "moulds" women into marrying creepy and violent men that they wouldn't go anywhere near by personal choice..”, because that seems to be a long jump from “...enforced monogamy...”

l haven’t read his stuff, but from the little l have read, it seems to me that JP has been damned mainly because of an association - real or perceived - with recent people and attitudes in public life.

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
Could someone post the section where Peterson “...wants a society that "moulds" women into marrying creepy and violent men that they wouldn't go anywhere near by personal choice..”, because that seems to be a long jump from “...enforced monogamy...”
Click to expand...
I am struggling to understand where your difficulty is here but sure, here you go:-

Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels.
The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
Click to expand...
 
Min Bannister said:
I am struggling to understand where your difficulty is here but sure, here you go:-
Click to expand...

A reference by a third party to a thumbnail perception of what said third party thinks JP means, is not necessarily what JP means.

“...society needs to work to make sure those men are married.” is a long way from “... a society that "moulds" women into marrying creepy and violent men that they wouldn't go anywhere near by personal choice...”

lf indeed JP actually says “...society needs to work to make sure those men are married.”

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
maximus otter said:
society needs to work to make sure those men are married.” is a long way from “... a society that "moulds" women into marrying creepy and violent men that they wouldn't go anywhere near by personal choice...”
Click to expand...
No it isn't. It is exactly what it means. The huge majority of men do not commit mass murder whether married or not. The reason these men (edit- meaning incels) are single is exactly because they are the kind of man that would do that and women, quite rightly, want nothing at all to do with them.
lf indeed JP actually says “...society needs to work to make sure those men are married.”
Click to expand...
He does say that. Here it is again.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Click to expand...

These are direct quotes in quote marks.
 
Min Bannister said:
No it isn't. It is exactly what it means. The huge majority of men do not commit mass murder whether married or not. The reason these men (edit- meaning incels) are single is exactly because they are the kind of man that would do that and women, quite rightly, want nothing at all to do with them.

He does say that. Here it is again.


These are direct quotes in quote marks.
Click to expand...

Here is a three-minute video which l have just found on YouTube in which JP is asked directly, “What do you mean by “enforced monogamy?”


His verbatim, in-context, straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth reply begins:

“Well, we could start by what l don’t mean. l don’t mean “taking innocent women at gunpoint and handing them over to useless men”, which is, essentially, the accusation.”

He goes on to amplify that by “enforced monogamy” he means encouragement by society of valuable, desirable, acceptable norms.

Here is a link to the New York Times interview from which the Minassian reference was lifted.

Edited to add the video l was supposed to link to 20 minutes ago. D’oh!

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
maximus otter said:
“Well, we could start by what l don’t mean. l don’t mean “taking innocent women at gunpoint and handing them over to useless men”, which is, essentially, the accusation.”

He goes on to amplify that by “enforced monogamy” he means encouragement by society of valuable, desirable, acceptable norms.
Click to expand...
I watched the video but to address your quotes:-
"I don’t mean “taking innocent women at gunpoint and handing them over to useless men”

I am sure he doesn't. But although I am not a towering intellect like Mr Peterson, even I can see that:-

" by enforced monogamy” he means encouragement by society of valuable, desirable, acceptable norms."

-in order to get men like the Toronto murderer married off, means essentially the same thing. Of course monogamy is a good thing and should be desirable but to link it in the way he does, himself, in the video to men who commit violent acts like that is exactly saying that society ought to compel women to marry men like that. It is disgusting.
 
Min Bannister said:
I watched the video but to address your quotes:-
"I don’t mean “taking innocent women at gunpoint and handing them over to useless men”

I am sure he doesn't. But although I am not a towering intellect like Mr Peterson, even I can see that:-

" by enforced monogamy” he means encouragement by society of valuable, desirable, acceptable norms."

-in order to get men like the Toronto murderer married off, means essentially the same thing. Of course monogamy is a good thing and should be desirable but to link it in the way he does, himself, in the video to men who commit violent acts like that is exactly saying that society ought to compel women to marry men like that. It is disgusting.
Click to expand...

I still feel that:

Society encouraging people to get married, in order perhaps to remove one potential future rationale for a tiny minority of men to commit ghastly crimes...

≠

...Forcing unwilling women to marry men who have committed, or are considered to be imminently about to commit, said ghastly crimes.

Having said that, l feel we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this, and l’ve devoted enough of the board’s bandwidth to it.

This whole thread has, however, made me more inclined to buy JP’s book. Perhaps that will change or inform my opinion.

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
Min Bannister said:
I watched the video but to address your quotes:-
"I don’t mean “taking innocent women at gunpoint and handing them over to useless men”

I am sure he doesn't. But although I am not a towering intellect like Mr Peterson, even I can see that:-

" by enforced monogamy” he means encouragement by society of valuable, desirable, acceptable norms."

-in order to get men like the Toronto murderer married off, means essentially the same thing. Of course monogamy is a good thing and should be desirable but to link it in the way he does, himself, in the video to men who commit violent acts like that is exactly saying that society ought to compel women to marry men like that. It is disgusting.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he is suggesting that 'society' ought to produce the sort of men that women want to marry, rather than 'allow' them to become resentful misogynists.? People often dwell on the qualities they want in a partner, if they spent more time working on themselves then they might not have to settle for somebody that doesn't suit them, or meet their 'standards'.
I could never understand what drives anyone, mostly men, to invest in destruction and hate, rather than being kind and considerate to those around them; possibly a combination of bad parenting, sensationalist mainstream media, and toxic, dishonest social media.
 
GNC said:
Ah well - I'll be honest, I'm not that interested anyway.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem that so many of JP's opponents have - you have an opinion of something that you don't want to review, because you've already made your mind up based on things other people have said.
I was initially the same, until I listened to him.
 
dream_decoder said:
And therein lies the problem that so many of JP's opponents have - you have an opinion of something that you don't want to review, because you've already made your mind up based on things other people have said.
I was initially the same, until I listened to him.
Click to expand...

That is quite an assumption. People really can have better things to do or simply not enough interest.
 
Min Bannister said:
-in order to get men like the Toronto murderer married off, means essentially the same thing. Of course monogamy is a good thing and should be desirable but to link it in the way he does, himself, in the video to men who commit violent acts like that is exactly saying that society ought to compel women to marry men like that. It is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Where does he say this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top