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

Jordan Peterson

I have to say, i have never heard of this guy, but having read this thread, anyone who is this devisive is not good for any society, i really dont get how people can become so enamoured with a personality, why do people need someone else to tell them how to think, how to behave, it is what religion has been doing for millenia, and it still doesnt work, all it does is lead to division, bloodshed and warfare and it always will, the sooner people start thinking for themselves the better, if you dont know right from wrong by now you are beyond help. -END-
 
Patrick30 said:
lol. You guys still arguing over this creepy nerd?
Click to expand...
You still looking at the thread about him?
Souleater said:
I have to say, i have never heard of this guy, but having read this thread, anyone who is this devisive is not good for any society,
Click to expand...
The thread is this long and polarised because Peterson is that divisive. That said, I would question the wisdom of basing any judgement on reviews alone when they're this mixed. Read (or probably easier) watch some of his prodigious output for yourself then you may be better placed to judge.
 
dream_decoder said:
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'.
Click to expand...
Well that would be the way forward IMO. A societal culture of mutual respect between men and women. But that is not what he advocated. He advocated "enforced monogamy". A culture where women are forced - not at gunpoint no - but by shame and stigma to marry someone. Anyone. Even if the only man left is a man like the Toronto murderer. That is the only possible way that men like that could get married. If he is unable to work through that logical conclusion himself then he simply can't be that clever.
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...
You don't seem to be doing that though, otherwise how could you have extrapolated "a culture which produces the kind of men women want to marry" from one of "enforced monogamy"?

He already stated earlier on in the NYT article that women are not competent to be in positions of power. Once again a direct quote from Peterson.

The left, he believes, refuses to admit that men might be in charge because they are better at it. “The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence,” he said.
Click to expand...

Hardly going to encourage mutual respect now is it?

Patrick30 said:
lol. You guys still arguing over this creepy nerd?
Click to expand...
Yes, because people keep cheerleading for the misogynist shit he keeps coming out with by claiming that he didn't say it or that his words meant something entirely different and someone needs to point out why it is wrong.
 
Analogue Boy said:
In that case ‘People’ should not feel obliged to comment.
Click to expand...

This isn't a place that demands that people have an all consuming passion in a topic. That would mean the same few people in an echo chamber on each thread.

Nobody is obliged to comment but all are welcome to, indeed, it's rather expected people will.

What's not expected or welcome are comments that come across as snide in a manner that might inhibit people from posting.

Frides
 
People also take Peterson’s quotes out of context, trim them to make them appear more outrageous than they really are and then, like Cathy Newman disastrously did on her Channel 4 interview add a ‘so what you’re saying is....’ which actually isn’t but does support the reporter’s thrust of a personal opinion they wish to promote.

I’ve just started reading about the effects of monogamy and polygamy on society and civilisation. As there’s material going back to before the Ancient Greeks, there’s lots to study but it does appear that studies show monogamy is advantageous and produces a less violent, more balanced and stable society and culture.

Of course there are many papers and huge tracts of research dedicated to this idea and I think it’s fair to say Peterson knows far more on the backstory than his seemingly simplistic answer - designed to answer the question in a way that our soundbite-enfeebled attention spans can accommodate.
The reason Peterson gained so much traction is precisely because he was placed in the middle of a culture war shitstorm and stuck to his guns. His deeply-researched analysis meant his lectures were packed and his videos were viewed by the million. His books were, and still are, best sellers.
Some would rather view the truncated quotes (with disparaging asides) and come to the conclusion the reporter or interviewer intends...he is against the good and right principles they represent. I suspect few will look further into the concept of an emerging monogamy being demonstrably better for society than polygamy.
Some may not even have heard of him or a word he has uttered and still dislike him.
 
Analogue Boy said:
People also take Peterson’s quotes out of context, trim them to make them appear more outrageous than they really are and then, like Cathy Newman disastrously did on her Channel 4 interview add a ‘so what you’re saying is....’ which actually isn’t but does support the reporter’s thrust of a personal opinion they wish to promote.

I’ve just started reading about the effects of monogamy and polygamy on society and civilisation. As there’s material going back to before the Ancient Greeks, there’s lots to study but it does appear that studies show monogamy is advantageous and produces a less violent, more balanced and stable society and culture.

Of course there are many papers and huge tracts of research dedicated to this idea and I think it’s fair to say Peterson knows far more on the backstory than his seemingly simplistic answer - designed to answer the question in a way that our soundbite-enfeebled attention spans can accommodate.
The reason Peterson gained so much traction is precisely because he was placed in the middle of a culture war shitstorm and stuck to his guns. His deeply-researched analysis meant his lectures were packed and his videos were viewed by the million. His books were, and still are, best sellers.
Some would rather view the truncated quotes (with disparaging asides) and come to the conclusion the reporter or interviewer intends...he is against the good and right principles they represent. I suspect few will look further into the concept of an emerging monogamy being demonstrably better for society than polygamy.
Some may not even have heard of him or a word he has uttered and still dislike him.
Click to expand...
I have no opinion of the man myself, but why does it have to be a monogamous or polygamous society at all? Surely a society that has a diverse mix is always advantageous? In a world where the divorce tate is rising every year there surely is a better way?
 
Souleater said:
I have no opinion of the man myself, but why does it have to be a monogamous or polygamous society at all? Surely a society that has a diverse mix is always advantageous? In a world where the divorce tate is rising every year there surely is a better way?
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I can’t help you there.... probably better to research the answer yourself rather than rely on my opinion....

the sooner people start thinking for themselves the better...
Click to expand...
 
Analogue Boy said:
People also take Peterson’s quotes out of context, trim them to make them appear more outrageous than they really are and then, like Cathy Newman disastrously did on her Channel 4 interview add a ‘so what you’re saying is....’ which actually isn’t but does support the reporter’s thrust of a personal opinion they wish to promote.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I do wish journalists would stop doing that kind of thing. It's not only lazy, it's unethical.
I appreciate that in this fast-moving world, it is difficult to take in a lot of information and make sense of it in a brief space of time, but people who make a good living from journalism and social commentary need to stop using shortcuts (i.e. taking another journalist's sketchy opinion piece and creaming off the juicy soundbites that could cause 'trouble' in a later interview).
 
Always a bit suspect when he complains about censorship and no platforming at universities and then cosies up to people like Victor Orban!
 
Min Bannister said:
Well that would be the way forward IMO. A societal culture of mutual respect between men and women. But that is not what he advocated. He advocated "enforced monogamy". A culture where women are forced - not at gunpoint no - but by shame and stigma to marry someone. Anyone. Even if the only man left is a man like the Toronto murderer. That is the only possible way that men like that could get married. If he is unable to work through that logical conclusion himself then he simply can't be that clever.
Click to expand...
Did you even watch the video , and give any thought to what he said?
Not what you want to think he said but what he actually said.
He observed that monogamy is the preferred societal norm, he never once said anybody, male or female should be forced to do anything.

Incels don't represent the vast majority of men, neither do women that steal babies because they can't get pregnant, they are driven to extreme anti-social behaviour by their inner desires, anything we can do to prevent them has to be a good thing, but this isn't to be achieved by any means necessary as you imply.
If we don't look into why people behave in certain ways then we stand no chance of preventing that behaviour.
It's not compulsory, it's the start of a dialogue to create a better society for everyone.

Min Bannister said:
You don't seem to be doing that though, otherwise how could you have extrapolated "a culture which produces the kind of men women want to marry" from one of "enforced monogamy"?
Click to expand...
Because 'enforced' monogamy isn't a literal thing, no-one is being forced to do anything, men or women alike.
He describes how most of us willingly take part in 'enforced' monogamy because it works for both parties.
I'm saying that one sex blaming the other sex for their own dating woes is wrong, learn to be a better person and you'll stand more chance of attracting someone you like.
You see the word 'enforced' and you cry misogyny, without thinking that it could equally apply to men, surely that's misandrist...?


Min Bannister said:
Hardly going to encourage mutual respect now is it?
Click to expand...
Maybe, just maybe, power and authority aren't automatically given to men over women, perhaps it could be that those men got where they were because they were the best people for the job?
Instead of asking why so few women occupy certain positions, we should ask why do so many men get those jobs, with the exception of the old boys network which excludes both men and women.
It's not misogynistic, or misandrist, to observe that men and women have different skillsets, and generally may both be suited to different roles, but if anyone chooses to push beyond that then good luck to them.
No-one is saying that we shouldn't all have equal opportunities but it should be about the best person, not playing the victim and relying on identity politics to force our way into a position .
Men and Women have worked together throughout history to survive, their lives were short, they didn't have the opportunities and advantages we have today, they fell into their 'roles' because it was mutually beneficial in their environment, not because of patriarchal oppression.
Some marriages are like that today because it suits both partners, and if it doesn't then they need to have a conversation.

You too, have fallen into the trap of quoting the journalist rather than the man himself, as she puts her own spin on what he says, in order to push her own agenda rather than listen to the real message.

Life isn't about Men vs Women, or Black vs White etc, it's about people being treated as valued individuals, and not being dismissed based on traits that are out of their control just so that random quotas can be met.
 
dream_decoder said:
Maybe, just maybe, power and authority aren't automatically given to men over women, perhaps it could be that those men got where they were because they were the best people for the job?
Click to expand...
This is a jaw-dropping opening statement. To be clear, is this a rhetorical device of your own, or are you paraphrasing JP with this question? Far from being an example of radical insight, it very much reads like an apologia for the status quo; it's the sort of thing I'd expect to hear if I ever set foot in a golf clubhouse.
dream_decoder said:
we should ask why do so many men get those jobs, with the exception of the old boys network which excludes both men and women.
Click to expand...
If only anyone had thought of asking this before. We could have had a whole body of scholarship on the subject by now. Maybe even successive waves of it. Thank god a man has finally got around to it.
dream_decoder said:
It's not misogynistic, or misandrist, to observe that men and women have different skillsets, and generally may both be suited to different roles
Click to expand...
Whatever other labels may or may not be applicable here, it's certainly extremely reductive. Could it in fact be the case that different people have different skillsets, but systemic obstacles prevent that being recognised in certain groups?
dream_decoder said:
Men and Women have worked together throughout history to survive, their lives were short, they didn't have the opportunities and advantages we have today, they fell into their 'roles' because it was mutually beneficial in their environment, not because of patriarchal oppression.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to substantiate this assertion.
dream_decoder said:
Life isn't about Men vs Women, or Black vs White etc, it's about people being treated as valued individuals, and not being dismissed based on traits that are out of their control just so that random quotas can be met.
Click to expand...
That's a bold statement. I'd tend to agree, with caveats, if you said "should be", rather than "is". Unfortunately, if you insist on ignoring these traits - and some people, bizarrely, actually pride themselves on doing so - you also insist on ignoring the life experiences common to many of the people with such traits. And many of the voices I hear coming from less privileged groups are saying that these experiences need at the very least to be acknowledged if not redressed before we can truly move closer to this idealised state of equality.
 
Jordan-Peterson-Rules-Amazon-Fortean.jpg


14.3.2021, US Amazon chart.

maximus otter
 
Both appear to be rather popular authors! That said, I don’t think that Mr Peterson is particularly appreciated for his little known forays into the romantic novel market!
 
Sgt Girth said:
Both appear to be rather popular authors! That said, I don’t think that Mr Peterson is particularly appreciated for his little known forays into the romantic novel market!
Click to expand...

I shudder to think about it! Maybe the romantic Vampire sub-genre?
 
Sgt Girth said:
I don’t think that Mr Peterson is particularly appreciated for his little known forays into the romantic novel market!
Click to expand...
"...Chardonnay gazed into his eyes.
'But, but.. it's always been you.'
Jordan met her stare with his own. He whispered:
'The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don't want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.'
'Oh.' said Chardonnay.

from "The Girl Named After A Grape & The Canadian Clinical Psychologist", 1976
 
stu neville said:
"...Chardonnay gazed into his eyes.
'But, but.. it's always been you.'
Jordan met her stare with his own. He whispered:
'The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don't want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.'
'Oh.' said Chardonnay.

from "The Girl Named After A Grape & The Canadian Clinical Psychologist", 1976
Click to expand...

Chardonnay moaned, “Help! Help! l’m being repressed!” Jordan’s eyes pierced her soul as he growled, “Bloody peasant!” An involuntary spasm convulsed her very essence, and she sank back exclaiming, “Ooh, what a giveaway!”

From “Monty Peterson and the Golden Rivet”, 1969

maximus otter
 
dream_decoder said:
Did you even watch the video , and give any thought to what he said?
Not what you want to think he said but what he actually said.
He observed that monogamy is the preferred societal norm, he never once said anybody, male or female should be forced to do anything.
Click to expand...
Yes I did and yes I did.
A lot of stuff about how monogamy is good and polygamy is bad and what reasonable person would argue against that? Only polygamy is already banned in Canada (and the UK and the US) where incel culture is alive and well so how does that compute?
He apparently wants to go back to the good old days where unhappy couples were forced to stay together until divorce law reforms sorted out "societal preferences" pretty darned quick.. Because nothing produces stable and well balanced adults like a mummy and daddy who hate each other very much.

UK data on divorce rates.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jan/28/divorce-rates-marriage-ons?
Note the point where divorce rates soared. Is this a sudden collapse of societal norms in the early 70s? No, it was a reform of divorce laws.

So lets have a quick look at some statistics on murder and divorce rates across the world.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/divorce-rates-by-country

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

Some of the most violent societies in the world have very low divorce rates. Honduras, El Salvador, South Africe. Some of the safest have fairly high ones. Some of them even allow polygamy such as Qatar and UAE.

It is almost as if there is no correlation whatsoever.

Anyway, I have spent enough of my time on this nonsense. I am going back to Fortean stuff.
 
Krepostnoi said:
This is a jaw-dropping opening statement. To be clear, is this a rhetorical device of your own, or are you paraphrasing JP with this question? Far from being an example of radical insight, it very much reads like an apologia for the status quo; it's the sort of thing I'd expect to hear if I ever set foot in a golf clubhouse.
Click to expand...

I'm not apologetic for the current status quo, it has many faults but it is constantly in a state of flux and occasionally the status quo is what it is because that's how it works most efficiently at any given time.

Men and Women are very similar but we have undeniable differences, and if you only ever look at us as two separate, divided groups then you'll see that some positions are dominated by either group. Is that wrong, is there a patriarchal conspiracy to keep it that way, or is it because we're naturally drawn to what we feel most comfortable/capable at?

If you look at any profession/role, and pigeonhole the different types of people in those positions, you probably won't see a random spread of gender/race. One set will dominate, because they have the attributes required for those positions.
Those attributes will sometimes be what we'd traditionally recognise as masculine or feminine.

There are positions that I know I'm unsuited for, sometimes due to the systemic demands that I couldn't keep up with i.e. excessive hours/travelling/working away from home/being too 'aggressive' and highly driven, but some people thrive in those positions.
There are other roles that don't suit my personality, I know I'd feel uncomfortable in that particular environment, I recognise that I don't have the social skills.
There's nothing stopping me from going for the above if I'm willing to adapt to the roles.

There are other jobs that will never be open to me because of individual bias.
It could be that I'm interviewed by a female that has a bias, or somebody that went to a particular university, it could be based on individual racial bias, or I may look like somebody that the interviewer doesn't like.
It's wrong but I'm not sure how we change that.
I was actually offered a job a few years ago, then told a week later that they'd rather have a woman in the role.
I moved on and found a better job.

If you look at us as people, you'll see that people with the same temperaments, the same drive, the same skillsets thrive in similar roles, regardless of gender, and trying to put the wrong people into roles just to meet quota's is inefficient.

We should all have the opportunity to go for anything but we also have to recognise that we might not get the role because someone else was better suited, not because we are a victim.

I hate to spoil the myth but there is no patriarchal conspiracy to prevent women from doing anything.
Identity politics, and everyone being a victim because of some imaginary cabal, is tedious and it's tearing society apart.
 
dream_decoder said:
If you look at any profession/role, and pigeonhole the different types of people in those positions, you probably won't see a random spread of gender/race. One set will dominate, because they have the attributes required for those positions.

Those attributes will sometimes be what we'd traditionally recognise as masculine or feminine.
Click to expand...

99.6% of UK midwives are female.

84.6% of UK primary school teachers are female.

84.1% of the UK armed forces are male (even higher in combat units).

These numbers aren’t random, nor do they indicate repression; they represent biology.

maximus otter
 
stu neville said:
"...Chardonnay gazed into his eyes.
'But, but.. it's always been you.'
Jordan met her stare with his own. He whispered:
'The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don't want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.'
'Oh.' said Chardonnay.

from "The Girl Named After A Grape & The Canadian Clinical Psychologist", 1976
Click to expand...
I’m quite disappointed that this is out of stock according to Amazon UK...... I guess I’ll just have to hope that it gets reprinted...... I do like a good psychological based bodice ripper of a story!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top