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

Jordan Peterson

maximus otter said:
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
Click to expand...
For the teachers figure I think you’ll find that is the figure for England, not the U.K. In Scotland 93.3% of primary teachers are female.
 
gordonrutter said:
For the teachers figure I think you’ll find that is the figure for England, not the U.K. In Scotland 93.3% of primary teachers are female.
Click to expand...

lt was the most accurate/recent figure l could find, but it referred to Full Time Equivalent positions, so...

:dunno:

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
lt was the most accurate/recent figure l could find, but it referred to Full Time Equivalent positions, so...

:dunno:

maximus otter
Click to expand...
First and third set of figures easy to find for U.K. but not teachers for U.K, possibly as it’s a different registration system? To be a teacher in a state school you have to be registered with the GTC and there are separate organisations for England and Scotland and presumably Wales and Northern Ireland. I guess no one has sat down and collated the figures between these groups to get a U.K. figure.

Full Time equivalent is just looking at combining numbers who are part time so two people who are employed for 50% of the time would be one FTE. So for example a school might employ 200 teachers but if they were all only 50% then it would be a school that employed 100 FTE.
 
Min Bannister said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where has he said this?
 
Sgt Girth said:
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!
Click to expand...
However, the Aegean-set, Yanis Varoufakis-featuring 'The Olive Grower's Daughter & The Radical Economist' is available on Kindle.
 
SketchyMagpie said:
Peterson just casually guessing that medicine kills more people than it saves in this clip.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1371888864076369926
Click to expand...

Yes, tired, stressed-out doctors and nurses kill a lot of people. It's not necessarily the overall treatment that is wrong, it's mostly the mistakes that are made. Sort out shift work and the ridiculous hour's doctors and nurses have to work - you will see a massive reduction in deaths.

Unfortunately, health doesn't have the same will that the airline industry has in fixing the problems of fatigue. There isn't the same exposure when someone dies due to a medication error compared to when a 747 goes down,

Anyone interested should check out this as to how we got junior doctors working such stupidly long hours when sleep deprived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stewart_Halsted

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/health/27zuger.html

So yes medicine kills people but not for the reasons Peterson is suggesting in this confusing clip.
 
Last edited:
Quote "medical error is the 3rd leading cause of death"

420px-Leading_cause_of_death_world.png


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

Umm...
 
Naughty_Felid said:
It's mistakes - not whether treatment is right or wrong which kills people.

We just can't explore that or deal with it.
Click to expand...

Or whether those people might have died anyway...
JP is great for the occult and his film interpretation. I actually found and enjoyed his lectures a little before he blew up over the pronouns issue. I think it's too bad he got famous as a political commentator or life coach when I think he was far better at what he originally talked about (Jung religion and film). I don't think it was good for him either. He ended up addicted to anti-anxiety meds and his daughter (who is legitimately weird) got him into some alt health stuff (medically induced coma in Russia?) and now he looks like a train wreck. It's too bad. I think he's been misrepresented by both sides and didn't know of enough to avoid it.

As for his old school views on sex and marriage... dude is an Orthodox Christian. Whaddaya want? I feel like you can appreciate some of what someone says and disagree with the other stuff. I definitely wouldn't take his medical advice.
 
Last edited:
Just been reading 'Men Who Hate Women' by Laura Bates which has an interesting section on how Peterson's beliefs tie into the Incel community and 'manosphere' in general. He only makes up a small part of the book, but I'd definitely recommend it if you're interested in understanding current forms of misogyny, sexism and violence against women (and men).
 
SketchyMagpie said:
Just been reading 'Men Who Hate Women' by Laura Bates which has an interesting section on how Peterson's beliefs tie into the Incel community and 'manosphere' in general. He only makes up a small part of the book, but I'd definitely recommend it if you're interested in understanding current forms of misogyny, sexism and violence against women (and men).
Click to expand...
Are we ok to do Culture Wars again then?
 
The book is a study of men's rights groups (and beyond) in the internet age and tracking world events as they relate to them.

If you think that writing objectively about things that people have said or done is a "culture war", then I don't know what to tell you, other than not to resort to meaningless euphemisms that distract away from the point (though that was your intent, obviously).
 
Last edited:
Regarding Jordan Person: I have not read any of his books or attended his classes. I have watched hours (and hours!) of him teaching or being interviewed on youtube.

I have never heard nor seen anything which indicates to me that he dislikes, hates, disrespects, or ignores women. In fact, just the opposite. I do not agree with all of his opinions, and I have much sympathy for him and his family for his recent health problems.

Can anyone can post a link to JP himself saying or writing anything anti-women? If so, I would be grateful. I am not interested in second-source materials dissecting his psychology or cultural/social/religious orientation. I prefer to decide for myself from primary sources.
 
SketchyMagpie said:
The book is a study of men's rights groups (and beyond) in the internet age and tracking world events as they relate to them.

If you think that writing objectively about things that people have said or done is a "culture war", then I don't know what to tell you, other than not to resort to meaningless euphemisms that distract away from the point (though that was your intent, obviously).
Click to expand...
I’m picking up on the word ‘objectively’ here. I haven’t read the book but is Laura Bates claiming Peterson is a misogynist, sexist and violent towards women? Is Peterson actually a misogynist, sexist and violent towards women? Or is it all about guilt by association?
The thing about Peterson is that a lot of what he says is taken out of context and used as ‘evidence’ against him. In interviews, he usually deals with this technique by pointing out he never said what the interviewer claims or is only half the quote and makes sure he gets his full point across clearly.
 
Analogue Boy said:
I’m picking up on the word ‘objectively’ here. I haven’t read the book but is Laura Bates claiming Peterson is a misogynist, sexist and violent towards women? Is Peterson actually a misogynist, sexist and violent towards women? Or is it all about guilt by association?
The thing about Peterson is that a lot of what he says is taken out of context and used as ‘evidence’ against him. In interviews, he usually deals with this technique by pointing out he never said what the interviewer claims or is only half the quote and makes sure he gets his full point across clearly.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is a misogynist but he definitely has a proportion of misogynistic followers. I attendee a Jordan Peterson group and was dismayed by the small but loud number of openly racist members it attracted (like pro kkk). Online mgtow has an on again off again love of him. I think he's neither racist nor misogynist but he attracts them because he's a traditionalist. It's unfortunate and he really should have been more ok with alienating that crowd. He never should have apologized for calling mgtow man babies (paraphrase) imo

In the interest of fairness I've seen plenty of online accusations that he's secretly Jewish from racists who hate him so it's complicated like most public figures. I think that's why he ended up on meds lol
 
Last edited:
Get Kraken said:
I don't think he is a misogynist but he definitely has a proportion of misogynistic followers.
Click to expand...

Surely a non-misogynist having a (I suppose you mean larger than average) proportion of misogynistic followers is a good thing? If they digest his ideas about the crucial roles of love, marriage and parenthood, their misogyny can only be reduced.

If one thinks (and I'm not suggesting you do) that traditional family structures promote or are products of misogyny (which I do not), then you may disagree, but I'd still ask:

Would it be better for misogynists to follow only misogynist creators?

Personally, I'm in the business of changing minds.

SmartSelect_20210809-123238_Gallery.jpg
 
Yithian said:
Surely a non-misogynist having a (I suppose you mean larger than average) proportion of misogynistic followers is a good thing? If they digest his ideas about the crucial roles of love, marriage and parenthood, their misogyny can only be reduced.

If one thinks (and I'm not suggesting you do) that traditional family structures promote or are products of misogyny (which I do not), then you may disagree, but I'd still ask:

Would it be better for misogynists to follow only misogynist creators?

Personally, I'm in the business of changing minds.

View attachment 43314
Click to expand...

I'm a bit of a traditionalist myself so obviously I don't think all traditionalists are nazis anymore than all vegans are nazis although they come closer imo ... :) (I joke)

Peterson might be changing minds either way. I don't think he should have apologized for stating the truth. Mgtow and radfems are both avoiding a major life experience out of fear of the opposite sex which is immature some people benefit from hearing truths they don't like. An interesting topic is how much alike radfems and mgtow are they basically mirror eachother to the point of parody (sometimes I think trolling may be afoot!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did anyone see his interview with the North Korean refugee?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Endlessly Amazed said:
Regarding Jordan Person: I have not read any of his books or attended his classes. I have watched hours (and hours!) of him teaching or being interviewed on youtube.

I have never heard nor seen anything which indicates to me that he dislikes, hates, disrespects, or ignores women. In fact, just the opposite. I do not agree with all of his opinions, and I have much sympathy for him and his family for his recent health problems.

Can anyone can post a link to JP himself saying or writing anything anti-women? If so, I would be grateful. I am not interested in second-source materials dissecting his psychology or cultural/social/religious orientation. I prefer to decide for myself from primary sources.
Click to expand...

Only just watched the interview with the cringeworthy Cathy Newman (where do Channel 4 find 'em?).
Peterson's point was that women who settle for a petulant, immature man, lacking in confidence, will likely result in a disappointing relationship.
Peterson's core point, that we are all individuals responsible for "growing up" and developing our potential is surely something of a no-brainer? One is reminded of the UK's first female PM giving her famous speech about taking responsibility for your actions and not blaming all your ills on "society". Or indeed, this scene from probably the funniest movie ever made:

 
So then since 'Life of Brian' (1979) predates Peterson's formal studies starting in 1985 we can safely assume he 'borrowed' his core idea from 'Life of Brian' and Monty Python. ;)

(btw....INT21 says he's happy to see that the Peterson thread is still going strong after 3 years.)
 
dr wu said:
So then since 'Life of Brian' (1979) predates Peterson's formal studies starting in 1985 we can safely assume he 'borrowed' his core idea from 'Life of Brian' and Monty Python. ;)

(btw....INT21 says he's happy to see that the Peterson thread is still going strong after 3 years.)
Click to expand...
INT21 is still around? Hope he's OK.
 

How we uncancelled Jordan Peterson​


The last attempt to bring Peterson to Cambridge, in 2019, resulted in his cancellation. Back then Cambridge’s Faculty of Divinity had invited Peterson to take up a visiting fellowship for the autumn.

Jordan-Peterson.jpg


His invitation ought to have been unremarkable. This was a university functioning pretty much as it should. Academics in Cambridge saw intellectual value in collaborating with a colleague from Toronto. They invited him here and he accepted the invitation. Most of us at Cambridge didn’t even know he had been invited at the time.

Then, in March 2019, Peterson’s invitation was rescinded. Not for what he did or for what he said, or even for what he thought, but for who he once stood next to. It turned out that Peterson had been photographed beside someone in a t-shirt criticising Islam. The university’s reasoning for his cancellation was at least original. While everyone knows the concept of thoughtcrime, here Peterson was being punished for standing adjacent to a thoughtcriminal.

The university issued a statement to the effect that Peterson had ‘endorsed by association’ the anti-religious message on the t-shirt, which it felt duty bound to protect us all from.

It was a tiny bit rich for Cambridge to pretend that endorsement-by-adjacency is a thing, when one of its own senior officials had recently been photographed shaking hands with functionaries of the Chinese state.

And so we began a long and at first lonely campaign to realign this ancient and great institution with freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought.

Our battle has borne fruit. In late 2020 Cambridge adopted a new, liberal free-speech policy that protected our right to invite speakers of our choosing, and prevented the university from cancelling an invitation that had been accepted. In May this year, the vice-chancellor took prompt and decisive action to remove a policy aimed at policing ‘microaggressions’. And then in the autumn, Jordan Peterson announced that he was planning to visit the university, at the invitation of Dr James Orr at the Faculty of Divinity.

That visit has now occurred. And thanks principally to the courage and energy of Dr Orr it has been a tremendous success.

I saw Peterson speak twice on his Cambridge visit. He spoke passionately, at length and without notes, to rapt audiences. He engaged the crowd with care and warmth. His seminars were a model of academic engagement. There was a lively, disputatious and often rigorous battle of ideas that ranged from the neuroscience of perception via William Empson and 17th-century counterpoint to Mesopotamian creation myths.

It seemed that everywhere Peterson went in Cambridge there were students who wanted to learn from him, to argue with him and sometimes to be photographed next to him (I advised him to check their t-shirts before posing). There were no protests, unless you count one silly but brave student popping up in a lecture wearing a lobster outfit.

One striking thing about Peterson’s lectures is the contrast between the forcefulness of his speech and the moderateness of the content. He espouses a moderate conservatism focused on self-discipline, on seeing the value in yourself and in others, and on finding meaning in life.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/11/26/how-we-uncancelled-jordan-peterson/

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
Wonderful news. Thanks for posting this for us, Maximus Otter. I have enjoyed how JP has challenged my thinking about various topics.

Channeling my off-track fairy: Many years ago, I attended Indiana University's speakers' bureau-sponsored presentations. This was before PC had infected the university. I heard, in two separate presentations, Margaret Mead (uncontroversial) and the Grand Kleagle of the United Knights of the KKK (controversial). Sadly, I cannot imagine this happening today. I posted elsewhere a link to an old University of Chicago policy position statement about PC nonsense.

https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...ehavior-from-50-years-ago.68986/#post-2130769
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top