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

Jordan Peterson

I’ve posted a couple of Jordan’s videos here and find his views in turn interesting, provocative, challenging but always well researched and well thought out. I bought a relative who has studied psychology the hefty Maps of Meaning and will get around to reading it myself soon.
One of the videos I posted was his review of Disney’s Pinocchio, a film that even as a child, I found oddly disturbing and in some parts terrifying. Peterson describes the archetypes and the contained esoteric narrative and it goes way deeper than I could have imagined. That’s really worth a watch.

Critics will dismiss him as a poster boy for the alt-right but I think this is a handy simple badge placed on him so his opinions can be safely ignored by the groupthinkers who aren’t even on the same playing field to engage in a debate with him. For example, his appearance with Kathy Newman on Channel 4 news became a worldwide talking point and propelled his book into the number one slot for weeks. Yes, even though he did the ‘Lobster’ material.
Newman floundered as Peterson made his case with well-studied and carefully-practised analytical precision.

He’s his own man and he knows his stuff, that’s for sure. He railed against those who told him what terms he should use. While a lot of those you’d call right wing see him as the best hope of calling out PC madness, he also draws admiration and respect from some of those on the left who see beyond the ‘Poster Boy for the Patriarchy’ badge stuck on him.
 
He is very, very familiar with not just the work but Solzhenitsyn himself, and often cites the latter on a psycho-sociological level.

I like Peterson. I don't always agree with him politically, but I do think it is unfair to describe him as extremely right-wing: the fact that some on the right find things in his work which chime with their opinion should hold no more importance than the fact that he says things that chime with mine - it doesn't mean he holds identical values to mine, either.

As someone with a lifelong interest in archetypes, repeating narratives and their influence on human discourse I found Maps Of Meaning a startling work, and his 12 Rules are stimulating and sensible. He knows his stuff, can argue his case, and he's well worth the effort.
Yep, spot on. "Maps of Meaning" is also, a rare thing, a book that's written and laid out to actually help the reader study it.
 
Perhaps the best way to judge Peterson is to watch one of his YouTube offerings, then comment upon the content.
Not whether the man appears to come from a particular part of the political spectrum, but on the actual observations he makes and the suggestions he makes.

I would suggest that every one one (every serious one) take half an hour out of their busy schedules and watch '30 minutes for the next 30 years'.

(Google is your friend)

You may take notes.

Are you up for the challenge ? If not, perhaps half a page on 'why not' will start the ball rolling.

INT21.
 
Perhaps the best way to judge Peterson is to watch one of his YouTube offerings, then comment upon the content. You may take notes. Are you up for the challenge ? If not, perhaps half a page on 'why not' will start the ball rolling. INT21.

SRSLY? Embedding yourself in an endless YouTube comments section rant? There are more productive forms of masochism. :dhorse:
 
AlchoPwn,

Not so.

Dissecting a presentation by analyzing the contents would show up whether people were genuinely against the stuff he is saying, or simply against the man himself.

If you look at everything he says (in a particular video) and at the end are forced to accept that his arguments are correct, then there is nothing left but a personal dislike of the person.

Sort of 'shoot the messenger'.

More productive forms of masochism ? Well, I'm married. Does that count ?

INT21.
 
I've seen lots of clips and longer videos of him in the last month or so on the basis of one thing leading to another. I can certainly see that he's misrepresented or over simplified...or at any rate he seems to spend most of his time correcting or questioning the terms in which other people put his words.

As for being right wing or not as an overview he strikes me as someone who has old fashioned mainstream conservative views and values in social and economic matters and who seeks out academic/psychological evidence to justify his preferrred political outlook - rather than the other way round, as he tries to suggest. But since that's true of pretty much every body its not that much of a criticism.

Where I do start to think his detractors have a point that he really is a cheerleader for a particular political tribe is that the more ive seen of him the less varied and subtle his arguments seem...absolutely everything he even slightly disapproves of (which is a lot of things) is "outrageous" "unspeakable" "intolerable" "reprehensible" etc. He appears to go to the far end of the dictionary of upsets to categorize everything.

Recently - it may have been mentioned earlier in this thread but ive not read all the posts - he (a climate change denier) denounced the term "denier" in such phrases as reprehensible/outrageous/grotesque as it deliberately tries to smear people by association with the term "holocaust denier"...a claim that came as a surprise to, well, everybody on earth who'd ever heard the term. Apart from the ludicrous and extreme nature of the statement itself, he was immediately pulled apart when people pointed out his own tweets in which he accused another academic of being a "biological sex denier". With remarkable timing he then quietly had a clear out of old tweets that happened to include that one.
 
Last edited:
Gattino,

I do agree that there are aspects of his lectures that reflect a particular personal viewpoint. That makes it all the more important when referring to what he says to be quite specific.

I understand he is pro-gun. But haven't yet come across the talk where he justifies his stance.

One or two 'fringe hard line' beliefs in a book or talk do not negate the overall value.

INT21.
 
I do agree that there are aspects of his lectures that reflect a particular personal viewpoint. That makes it all the more important when referring to what he says to be quite specific.

I understand he is pro-gun. But haven't yet come across the talk where he justifies his stance.

One or two 'fringe hard line' beliefs in a book or talk do not negate the overall value.
No doubt ..but then I think my point, if i have one, is that in the individual clips and passages he's very convincing. He may indeed be very right in any given matter. But when you see more and more of them the persuasive nature starts to wear off when a fixed world view and personality becomes apparent. You're less sure that what he presents as superior academic knowledge and insight isn't in fact highly selective in its nature to back up what he wants to be true about the world. I also suspect the following he has gained can't help but have a damaging effect on his own self awareness. If a sufficient number of people hang on to your every word on every subject then all your detractors can be dismissed rather than taken account of in your assessment of the rightness of your own conclusions, no matter what the subject. The same can be said of Richard Dawkins. Celebrity and academia don't necessarily sit well together.
 
Where I do start to think his detractors have a point that he really is a cheerleader for a particular political tribe is that the more ive seen of him the less varied and subtle his arguments seem...absolutely everything he even slightly disapproves of (which is a lot of things) is "outrageous" "unspeakable" "intolerable" "reprehensible" etc. He appears to go to the far end of the dictionary of upsets to categorize everything.
i am not quite sure why but I find him pretty annoying and it is possible that this is the reason. He seems rather smug to me too which doesn't help. I am curious about his book which has the internet in a lather but I am pretty sure I would end up shouting at the pages..
 
AlchoPwn, Not so.Dissecting a presentation by analyzing the contents would show up whether people were genuinely against the stuff he is saying, or simply against the man himself. If you look at everything he says (in a particular video) and at the end are forced to accept that his arguments are correct, then there is nothing left but a personal dislike of the person. Sort of 'shoot the messenger'. More productive forms of masochism ? Well, I'm married. Does that count ?
INT21.

My issue is with some of JPs political ideas, and by no means with all of them. I have no problem with JP giving the Regressive Left conniptions, and I can even stomach him being a bit of an Alt-Right poster boy (because he gives the Regresive Left conniptions), but when he starts talking about environmentalism, suggesting that it is all too political for him to trust it, he is playing to a straight up conspiracy theorist audience.

He cannot be honest and say he understands climate science, so he says "it's all to political for me to trust now". Does that sound like an apolitical statement? It sort of does, but it is the single most loaded political statement JP has made, as he has said that he trusts the fossil fuel lobby's counter-propaganda more than he trusts the meteorologists who are trying to get the world to do something about a looming threat that is already taking lives.

I can understand his distaste for the fact that many environmentalists are regressive leftists, but refusing to say, "Yeah, but forget those nobends, let's look at the actual science." is intellectually dishonest, as he has effectively allowed his opinion to be swayed by siding with one group who don't understand the science against a group of people who don't actually understand the science either. Having devoted over a month of study to coming to terms with all the climate science data myself, I understand all to well how hard it is to grasp, but the case the meteorologists and climate scientists make is good, and all but 1 counter argument I have read are foolish, and the single argument that isn't, is a pretty 70/30 proposition (favoring the probability that it is a serious problem, not a temporary glitch in solar output, but the CO2 argument is much stronger in terms of evidence). I think that a public intellectual who is prepared to make such a loaded comment on the subject of such importance from a position of admitted personal ignorance, that is quite so politically loaded, while deliberately seeking to appear neutral, but being far from neutral in his neutrality, is an unacceptable act of intellectual dishonety from someone I had hoped was above such shabbiness.

Pardon me if I don't debate the merits of your marriage INT21, but yes, without evidence, I will play the odds and say I am sure your marriage is a more productive form of masochism than commenting on YouTube.
 
Last edited:
At least in his books and the other products (lectures; appearances; etc.) for which he's popularly known, Peterson's focus is on the collective - more specifically, on collective / public discourse. This is consistent with the fact his original university work was in political science rather than psychology.

So long as he's addressing collective discourse / beliefs per se (e.g., railing against PC-speak), he's in his element.

He falters - or at least seems to falter - when the subject shifts from discourse about topic X to topic X itself, where topic X is not something wholly manifested in terms of collective discourse (e.g., a matter of physical and systems science).

I have yet to reach a firm opinion on whether he can justifiably be blamed for conflating the 'map' (of discourse on, e.g., climate change) and the actual 'territory' (climate change per se). It's clear to me a number of folks citing him blur these two distinct things together, but I haven't convinced myself he's truly the source of this confusion.
 
Pardon me if I don't debate the merits of your marriage INT21, but yes, without evidence, I will play the odds and say I am sure your marriage is a more productive form of masochism than commenting on YouTube.

Sorry for the unproductive comment but that gave me a good laugh right there. many people would certainly disagree, in terms of marriage in general. but not necessarily me.
 
Last edited:
I understand he is pro-gun. But haven't yet come across the talk where he justifies his stance.
Pushed for time but to address this - he has said he regards guns as a neutral issue, it's the relationship that individual societies have with them that's the problem. As a rural Canadian he grew up with guns and hunting so completely understands that mere possession and use of them is not the primary motivator for gun-related violence, but rather that this is a sociological issue of which gun-violence is a symptom.
 
I sometimes feel there's an implication that if one doesn't agree with JP it's because one is not intelligent or educated enough to understand what he's saying. I dispute that. Either that or that he argues using only cold, unbiased facts (laughable).

He's pledged to debate with any leftists, only to renege when faced with the likes of Zizek and Richard Wolff – anyone who might make him look a little bit silly by being, well, smarter than him and being able to call out his false rhetoric. He looks better against those who come unarmed to the battle of wits, like Cathy Newman.

Richard Wolff rather concisely lays to rest a couple of Peterson's misapprehensions/misrepresentations (delete according to your preference) in a video you can find on Youtube.

By the way, 'cultural marxism' is an old conspiracy theory originating from fascist groups – one which JP is helpfully bringing into mainstream discourse.
 
Last edited:
He's pledged to debate with any leftists, only to renege when faced with the likes of Zizek and Richard Wolff – anyone who might make him look a little bit silly by being, well, smarter than him and being able to call out his false rhetoric.

I think something is in the offing with Zizek. I don't have it to hand, but I'm sure Peterson said they're trying to set up a talk.

I hope so because Zizek is intensely interesting. Even when I end up disputing his conclusions, the journey to reach them is frequently glorious.
 
I think something is in the offing with Zizek. I don't have it to hand, but I'm sure Peterson said they're trying to set up a talk.

I hope so because Zizek is intensely interesting. Even when I end up disputing his conclusions, the journey to reach them is frequently glorious.
I think he's a bit mad and I certainly don't agree with much of what he has to say, but as you say, he's intensely interesting.
 
How many of you folks have read any of JP's books, journal articles, or say, watched his (undergraduate) psychology lecture series?
 
How many of you folks have read any of JP's books, journal articles, or say, watched his (undergraduate) psychology lecture series?

I've watched odd lectures that have appealed to me: a couple of the Biblical ones and several of these (you could probably skip the first if you were pressed for time):

Personality & Its Transformations:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQApSdW8X71Ihe34eKN6XhCi

I tend to listen to them while shaving, tidying the house and washing dishes.

I've read enough of Maps of Meaning to realise that I don't have time to read all of Maps of Meaning. As far as there is a 'programme', it might be said to bear a resemblance to Nietzche's in The Birth of Tragedy: Peterson's Chaos & Order are wider versions of the Dionysian & the Apollonian, but he brings in a lot of material from theoretical and clinical psychology and non-Classical mythologies to outline (some of) the mechanisms we utilise to survive the powerful forces that blow through our own psyche and the structured societies we have inherited.

It would be pointless just to 'read' it in a sitting or three. You'd need to sit down, chapter by chapter and make notes, which is very time-consuming and not something I've done for a good number of years now.
 
It would be pointless just to 'read' it in a sitting or three. You'd need to sit down, chapter by chapter and make notes, which is very time-consuming and not something I've done for a good number of years now.
I'm working through MoM, as you say it requires studying, I've watched his undergraduate lectures (the whole series, I forget which year's) as they were more engaging and had a far wider scope than my MSc lectures and quite a few of the Biblical ones which are certainly interesting. I've read a few of his journal articles, as they pertained to my own studies mostly ones that deal with individual differences.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that JBP has taken off in his role as social commentator in a way that Richard Dawkins hasn't, though their views are not dissimilar.
 
I find it interesting that JBP has taken off in his role as social commentator in a way that Richard Dawkins hasn't, though their views are not dissimilar.

I respect Dawkins, but I'm not sure I like him much from his public persona.

He seems affable enough when he's lecturing or being interviewed, but then he comes out with something really arrogant (not always uttered in arrogant tones, but breathtakingly presumptuous nonetheless) and I cringe at him. Not an ironic 'cringe', but a genuine "Please don't say that, I don't want to think of you as the kind of person who would say that kind of thing without a consciousness of how badly it comes across" cringe. That whole 'Brights' movement thing is one example (scientific fundamentalists?), but his dismissal of some genuinely thoughtful believers as (merely) deluded is probably just as bad.

Peterson, I concede, displays some arrogance at times, but it comes across--to me at least--as that of a man who has forced himself to grow thicker skin as a) he has done enough work to find that in his field he can speak with authority, and b) he knows he'll be dragged down and his message (and it is evangelical at times) won't be heard if he doesn't talk tough when required and push past the norms and niceties of conventional discourse to say unfashionable/unpalatable things while he has an audience.

I can imagine the explanation in his own words:

I don't want to be a bastard, nobody wants to be a bastard. Well, apart from those people who are bastard enough not to care what other people think, and you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not one of those. But if I went about bloody caring all day, spending my time as a public carer, you'd all be watching an empty stage because I wouldn't able to say anything helpful to you--to tell you what you need to know--because--you know--the truth hurts. And I'm up here to give you some clues about that, not pat you all on the back and buy you a beer. 'Cos life's a struggle, man, and if you spend your time seeking out people who tell you only nice things, well, you do so at your peril, because you're just not going to get anywhere. The fact that some people tell you unpleasant things, things that let you know how you really are, not how you'd like to imagine you are, that's actually all the evidence you need that those people really do care. If they didn't care, they'd just ignore you, or use you, or kill you and eat you or something--and until about five thousand years ago that's all you'd have had the right to expect from them. Civilisation: it's all in the blink of an eye, man. But what it's built of--what it's composed of--the bedrock beneath the social architecture, well, that's the deepest thing we have--that's where it's at! Do you want me to point to where you can find it, or not?​
Tongue firmly in cheek.
 
I can imagine the explanation in his own words:

I don't want to be a bastard, nobody wants to be a bastard. Well, apart from those people who are bastard enough not to care what other people think, and you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not one of those. But if I went about bloody caring all day, spending my time as a public carer, you'd all be watching an empty stage because I wouldn't able to say anything helpful to you--to tell you what you need to know--because--you know--the truth hurts. And I'm up here to give you some clues about that, not pat you all on the back and buy you a beer. 'Cos life's a struggle, man, and if you spend your time seeking out people who tell you only nice things, well, you do so at your peril, because you're just not going to get anywhere. The fact that some people tell you unpleasant things, things that let you know how you really are, not how you'd like to imagine you are, that's actually all the evidence you need that those people really do care. If they didn't care, they'd just ignore you, or use you, or kill you and eat you or something--and until about five thousand years ago that's all you would have had the right to expect from them. Civilisation: it's all in the blink of an eye, man. But what it's built of--what it's composed of--the bedrock beneath the social architecture, well, that's the deepest thing we have--that's where it's at! Do you want me to point to where you can find it, or not?
He does discuss the difference elsewhere between 'nice' and 'agreeable'. The latter is more about conflict avoidance and the former is more doing what is right (or best). Of course there are times when being agreeable is the smart thing to do and there are those who are adept at dangling a confrontation in front of agreeable types to get their own way (do you mind if I pop in the queue in front of you as I'm in a hurry? Now you have to mind to say no...).

Think in terms of a screaming child in a supermarket that isn't being allowed the desired sweeties. Agreeable is providing the sweeties. Nice is teaching your child that's not the way to behave as unchecked tantrums will blight the grown up child's life. Really nice is to carry said child out of the supermarket to scream their way to enlightenment in the comfort and sound proofing of one's car.
 
Coal, Yithian,

Those last two posts just about sum up what Peterson is.

They do not, however, address the subject of 'is he right' ?

To do that you have to take each individual argument and analyse it on it's own merit.

I tend to watch his motivational stuff. Possibly because I am inherently lazy and need a kick up the backside occasionally. He's very goos at digging into why you are not heading in the direction you aught to be heading into.

As for his persona. I suppose that as one becomes more recognised and asked to address more audiences then a mantle of superiority (however slight) will settle on one. And having given the same lecture on many occasions must make one think that they know best; sometimes they do.
The people who run the venues appear to make a point of trying to find those who virulently disagree with him just to see how far they can push him.

..Of course there are times when being agreeable is the smart thing to do and there are those who are adept at dangling a confrontation in front of agreeable types to get their own way ...

Indeed, the world rotated around people who tend to be agreeable. Often it is the only way to get anything done. The option is to live in a permanent semi-aggressive situation that is very uncomfortable to all involved. I have daily experience of this, not nice. I shall use it in my defense when I flip and go berserk with a chain saw; but only in a small area as it is an electric saw.

Dawkins really is well known only for his stance on atheism. He is a very well written scientist. But his anti religion stuff overshadows it. His attempts to get hard line religious fundamentalists to see his point of view is doomed from the start.

INT21.
 
To do that you have to take each individual argument and analyse it on it's own merit.
IMHO one can't do that easily or quickly without watching/reading a lot of his more formal material and the surrounding reading matter (that is, the background reading), otherwise it's not easy to see precisely where he's coming from. I not saying I do, but I'm working on it.

I note though:

In JP's world (as it were) one is free to hold any opinion or belief. This can be debated and argued (in a civilised way) and good luck. But this is allowed, as debate and compromise is the natural enemy of tyranny and oppression.

Many of his detractors want to ban, 'no platform' and restrict freedom of speech, and diversity of ideas and beliefs, because they're 'wrong'.
 
....In JP's world (as it were) one is free to hold any opinion or belief. This can be debated and argued (in a civilised way) and good luck. But this is allowed, as debate and compromise is the natural enemy of tyranny and oppression. ...

One can allow a platform for any person to give a point of view.

And if one disagrees then just walk out. There could be few more things more disheartening than having your whole audience stand up and walk away.

Even taken to extremes, say a meeting of Nationalists, (the old Nazi kind, not the new kind) it can be more useful in the long term to let them speak while taking note of all the people who attend. after all, they are where the problem will come from.
I could give a contemporaneous analogy. But we don't allow no politics here, boy. Oh No.

Hard to be an effective subversive if everyone lets you speak your piece.

INT21.
 
One can allow a platform for any person to give a point of view.
It's notable that certain types of political parties avoid this kind of debate as their views don't stand rational examination.
 
Sorry for the unproductive comment but that gave me a good laugh right there. many people would certainly disagree, in terms of marriage in general. but not necessarily me.

In terms of it being a learning experience, I would still suggest that even most failed marriages are, with perhaps a few exceptions, still more productive as a form of masochism than commenting on YouTube. I would also point out that I am not married, as I have observed many marriages and definitely decided that they seem like masochism. I appreciate that others may disagree, and I welcome that as the world would be boring if everyone thought alike, wouldn't it? I am glad you enjoyed my joke though.
 
Just my random tuppeny worth's responses to this one:

When Jordan stays within his specialism - Clinical Psychology - he is very very convincing and worth hearing. In particular his focus on depression and suicide among young men stemming from their lack of self woth is something I very much appreciate. Full credit to the guy for raising this one, and doing so with the right kind of emotional passion too.

Otherwise he just strikes me as a fair-to-middling academic of the kind of which there used to be many - and it is a real sign of our times that such a person has been elevated to the status of a demi-God. (And that's not an exaggeration!)

I think a lot of his success owes to three happenstance things: (1) He's a Canadian ( and not a stuffy old Brit or an annoying Yank) and (2) he's good looking (tall, dark, handsome). So, by serendipity, he has two big things working for him before he even opens his mouth. Then (3) you have a rudderless younger generation of (mostly) males who are seeking an Obi Wan Kennobi to ideaslise/idolise and seems, almost anyone will do providing they look like a father/ grandfather and can spout a few generalisations (cf Jeremy Corbyn).

Much has been made of his entertaining set-to with Cathy Newman, as though this showcases his oratorical brilliance. Instead it just highlights the mediocrity of the Cathy Newman's of this world - those public school educated, overpromoted shallow thinkers that the media/journalism world currently seems to churn out. Plenty of writers could have taken her on to the same effect - Brit journalist Neil Lyndon, for instance.

Some of you seem impressed by his use of Jungian psychology - as though it were something new! I would refer you to the poet Robert Bly who was loooking at Jungian archetypes over 20 years ago to great effect, and much more convincingly.

I did give `30 minutes for 30 years `a watch and, really, there was nothing there that I hadn't heard from Tony Robbins many many years ago (and, no, that didn't work for me either).

A lot of the time he is just lazy. His manner of lecture delivery is notably rambling and meandering, without signposts and clear structure (if I were his student I would feel very frustrated by this). He gets lost in abstract generalisations - `alpha male`, `agreeable/disagreeable` and so on. His arguments from nature - the notorious lobster parallel - can be, and has been, given short shrift (like much of the `evolutionary psychology` guff from which it originates) by naturalists and zoologists who actually know of what they speak. Then we have his recycling of the old conspiracy theory about `cultural Marxism` which is quite easy to dispose of. (I did once try to post a detonation of this on this site - but it was disallowed on grounds of political sensitivity. Fair does. But check out Three Arrows on youtube about this).

He seems to genuinely believe that most of the Left desire `equality of outcome` - which is a real Aunt Sally if ever there were one. He is fond of saying that the Left has no self-limitations such as the Right has (ie racism and Nazism). He seems to be unaware of the inpact that the exposure of Stalinism following the 20th Congress of the USSR had on the left - and how pretty much all of subsequent left wing thinking has been a response to fears of reproducing the kind of bureaucratic centralised state socialism that Stalin represented.

And on that theme, like Krepestnoi, I am not at all pleased to learn that he is to write an introduction to a forthcoming reprint of a Solhenitsyn work. That job should go to one of the many able Russian commentators around - or at least to a Russophone, or someone who has spent some time in Russia.

In short: at best he is merely the Marshal Mc Luhan/Germaine Greer/Desmond Morris/Tony Buzan et al of our day. At worst he is one of the new breed of hard right Youtube demagogues in the Stephan Molyneaux mould.

If only he would stick to counselling depressed young men and giving them a sense of self-worth - here is where he really excells.

In fairness, I should add that I haven't read any of his books. This is all based on his youtube lectures and interviews and media appearances.
 
Otherwise he just strikes me as a fair-to-middling academic of the kind of which there used to be many - and it is a real sign of our times that such a person has been elevated to the status of a demi-God. (And that's not an exaggeration!)

Hey, haven't you heard that statistically the millenials are the most intelligent generation ever?:rofl2::glum:
 
Back
Top