Jordan Peterson

[Coal]

I read his Wiki page again......he says he's a 'classical liberal' (though others call him conservative or traditional), but I'm not sure what classical liberal means. At any rate I didn't read anything there that is overly worrisome. It seems like the 'left' and 'politically correct crowd' want to villify him because he doesn't believe the same things they do. I'm not defending Petersen btw...but it seems like 'much ado about nothing'.

Caveat: this is off the top of my head and while I believe that I’ve got JP’s view on the below right, based on following his work, I may have missed something or got it wrong. If you want to check you’ll have to do the damn reading yourself.

As I understand it:
JP’s stance is not ideological and he views ideologies and the blind adherence to them as a bad thing.

(Ideology: “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.”)

JP’s advice to people and stance in general is to oppose ideological arguments as they are based, broadly speaking, on the notion that ‘our’ ideology is good and right, therefore ‘your’ ideology must be wrong. Therefore ‘you’ are wrong and to be ‘right’ you must do what ‘we’ tell you.

It’s worth remembering the steps groups go through on the way to the worst place and that they apply to any group with an ideology:

1. Our ideology is good
2. Our ideology is best
3. Our ideology is better than yours
4. Your ideology threatens us
5. We must destroy adherents of the ‘other ideology’

In JP’s case, he opposes the neo-left or the post-modernist (who are aligned in some respects) with rational arguments showing that:

In the first case, people cannot achieve equality of outcome (the belief of the hard left) as people are demonstrably different;

In the second case post-modernism simply isn’t true (i.e. the belief people are all blank slates at birth and if only everyone was raised proper, people would all be identical equal little soldiers).

As part of this stance, JP opposes the lunatic fringe who insist that it’s ‘right’ to impose patterns of speech and behaviour on others, as this is a form of petty tyranny.

It can be hard to argue with one who thinks they can self-identify as ‘some construct’ today and insist on a special form of address for it. However, if one is to translate that form of address from e.g. ‘che’ to one like ‘my lord’, the goal of the ‘term of address’ becomes quite clear and this is simply power or dominion.

JP’s view is that the world is best run by negotiation and compromise, as once one side is dictating terms the other side must comply with, there is a master and slave in the arrangement (a bad thing).

JP further annoys the ‘equality of outcome’ brigade by showing that some kind of hierarchy is a consequence of being human – i.e. once a person has a skill or quality in demand that another person does not possess, a hierarchy is formed.

The actual issue with hierarchies is less to do with them existing, but with the transmission of privilege from those who merit a place to those who do not, much like inherited wealth providing a privileged education, access to fabulous jobs or other such. Removing such transmitted privileges and providing equality of opportunity is the best we can hope for. And as Primo Levi pointed out, we all have a duty to oppose unearned privilege, but that is a never ending battle.

That JP defends his stance with calm reasoned debate that is almost un-answerable (unless you’ve done the reading and the studying) is an anathema to the neo-left Violet Elizabeth Bott (VEB)* arguer.

To them, if JP opposes their ideology, he must be aligned with the ‘other’ ideology and that must mean the far right, as they are ‘the evil’.
The far right on the other hand are happy to cheer along, as JP is opposing the more politically adept neo-left, so some of them assume he is ‘one of them’. They too are incorrect, as JP has frequently said that he has no time or alignment with the far right either. It’s just another ideology, albeit one based on a stance of authoritarianism and some kind of ‘superior group’ and the more overt view that other groups must be exterminated or enslaved.

This ideology-free stance is hard for some to grasp – the notion that one can be opposed to ideologies and still offer constructive advice to an individual on how to live their lives well.

The difficulty some have in seeing this stance, is in part a function of education and in part a function of being human – lot of studies show political views are heavily correlated with our personality traits (ask Facebook and Cambridge Analytica...).

When such advice is centred on taking control and responsibility on an individual basis, inevitably such individuals will tend to reject ideological based arguments.

It must be galling for the self-righteous to discover a clinical psychologist of many years standing and with actual professional experience of helping people in real difficulty, understands how to help people better than them, but ‘eh’.

The issue is complicated by the current and broad belief that ‘right-wing’ is ‘in the wrong’ and somehow if one is ‘left-wing’ that this by default means one is ‘in the right’ so is entitled to force one’s views on others as these views are ‘not evil’.

This is of course, complete and utter cock.

That’s in the smallest nutshell I can be arsed to write down.

If one steps away from one’s own ideology for a moment it becomes clear.

*VEB - Violet Elizabeth Bott: “I'll scweam and scweam until I make mythelf thick and I can.”

 

[INT21]

Coal,

I pretty much agree with all of that. One point though, you write..

...In the second case post-modernism simply isn’t true (i.e. the belief people are all blank slates at birth and if only everyone was raised proper, people would all be identical equal little soldiers)...

Peterson is very much in favour of an approach to very young children that stops them from getting their own way simply by harassing and 'bullying their parents. He definitely wants the children to know who is boss. This is reasonable. And as he points out, if you haven't got control of your child by the time it is four, the (to use his phrase) it will probably end up in jail.
And he also tempers this by stating 'never let you child do anything that will make you dislike it'.

His hints for 'getting yourself together' are very sensible.

INT21

 

[dr wu]

Caveat: this is off the top of my head and while I believe that I’ve got JP’s view on the below right, based on following his work, I may have missed something or got it wrong. If you want to check you’ll have to do the damn reading yourself.

As I understand it:
JP’s stance is not ideological and he views ideologies and the blind adherence to them as a bad thing.

(Ideology: “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.”)

JP’s advice to people and stance in general is to oppose ideological arguments as they are based, broadly speaking, on the notion that ‘our’ ideology is good and right, therefore ‘your’ ideology must be wrong. Therefore ‘you’ are wrong and to be ‘right’ you must do what ‘we’ tell you.

It’s worth remembering the steps groups go through on the way to the worst place and that they apply to any group with an ideology:

1. Our ideology is good
2. Our ideology is best
3. Our ideology is better than yours
4. Your ideology threatens us
5. We must destroy adherents of the ‘other ideology’

In JP’s case, he opposes the neo-left or the post-modernist (who are aligned in some respects) with rational arguments showing that:

In the first case, people cannot achieve equality of outcome (the belief of the hard left) as people are demonstrably different;

In the second case post-modernism simply isn’t true (i.e. the belief people are all blank slates at birth and if only everyone was raised proper, people would all be identical equal little soldiers).

As part of this stance, JP opposes the lunatic fringe who insist that it’s ‘right’ to impose patterns of speech and behaviour on others, as this is a form of petty tyranny.

It can be hard to argue with one who thinks they can self-identify as ‘some construct’ today and insist on a special form of address for it. However, if one is to translate that form of address from e.g. ‘che’ to one like ‘my lord’, the goal of the ‘term of address’ becomes quite clear and this is simply power or dominion.

JP’s view is that the world is best run by negotiation and compromise, as once one side is dictating terms the other side must comply with, there is a master and slave in the arrangement (a bad thing).

JP further annoys the ‘equality of outcome’ brigade by showing that some kind of hierarchy is a consequence of being human – i.e. once a person has a skill or quality in demand that another person does not possess, a hierarchy is formed.

The actual issue with hierarchies is less to do with them existing, but with the transmission of privilege from those who merit a place to those who do not, much like inherited wealth providing a privileged education, access to fabulous jobs or other such. Removing such transmitted privileges and providing equality of opportunity is the best we can hope for. And as Primo Levi pointed out, we all have a duty to oppose unearned privilege, but that is a never ending battle.

That JP defends his stance with calm reasoned debate that is almost un-answerable (unless you’ve done the reading and the studying) is an anathema to the neo-left Violet Elizabeth Bott (VEB)* arguer.

To them, if JP opposes their ideology, he must be aligned with the ‘other’ ideology and that must mean the far right, as they are ‘the evil’.
The far right on the other hand are happy to cheer along, as JP is opposing the more politically adept neo-left, so some of them assume he is ‘one of them’. They too are incorrect, as JP has frequently said that he has no time or alignment with the far right either. It’s just another ideology, albeit one based on a stance of authoritarianism and some kind of ‘superior group’ and the more overt view that other groups must be exterminated or enslaved.

This ideology-free stance is hard for some to grasp – the notion that one can be opposed to ideologies and still offer constructive advice to an individual on how to live their lives well.

The difficulty some have in seeing this stance, is in part a function of education and in part a function of being human – lot of studies show political views are heavily correlated with our personality traits (ask Facebook and Cambridge Analytica...).

When such advice is centred on taking control and responsibility on an individual basis, inevitably such individuals will tend to reject ideological based arguments.

It must be galling for the self-righteous to discover a clinical psychologist of many years standing and with actual professional experience of helping people in real difficulty, understands how to help people better than them, but ‘eh’.

The issue is complicated by the current and broad belief that ‘right-wing’ is ‘in the wrong’ and somehow if one is ‘left-wing’ that this by default means one is ‘in the right’ so is entitled to force one’s views on others as these views are ‘not evil’.

This is of course, complete and utter cock.

That’s in the smallest nutshell I can be arsed to write down.

If one steps away from one’s own ideology for a moment it becomes clear.

*VEB - Violet Elizabeth Bott: “I'll scweam and scweam until I make mythelf thick and I can.”

Not sure I 'get' all of that, but it seems like his not having an 'ideology' is his 'ideology'.

But ...at any rate I definitely see traditional or conservative ideology in the things he says....but to me that's not automatically a bad thing.

 

[Coal]

Not sure I 'get' all of that, but it seems like his not having an 'ideology' is his 'ideology'.

I note the winky face...but his views as far as I am able to ascertain are based on multitudinous studies and experiments and the well documented examples of history. That means they are not beliefs and ideas (cf. ideology), but rather 'true'.

 

[dr wu]

I note the winky face...but his views as far as I am able to ascertain are based on multitudinous studies and experiments and the well documented examples of history. That means they are not beliefs and ideas (cf. ideology), but rather 'true'.

Ok..fair enough but psychology and much of psychiatry also is a 'soft science' and I'm sure you now what that means.
Studies and experiments in those aeras are not that... well, scientific at times. Much of it is opinions and extrapolation.
Unless you know something I don't.

 

[INT21]

At a practical level there are many parallels to his behavioral teachings.

There is a chap on tv who's catchphrase is 'the only way to get a job done is to do it', Rico Daniels (no relation to Stormy). and PJ takes this a bit further by trying to instill the motivation to actually do what you know you really should be doing.

A good example is myself. a chronic procrastinator. I have had a bad water leak through the roof of my workshop for about two years. It never caused any damage, but prevented the workshop from ever drying out properly.
The cure, at least the temporary cure was simple; just cover the bad area with viscuene. (a plastic sheeting).
But it was awkward. The roof is fragile.
Anyway, yesterday I was sat looking at the roof, it was a fine dry windless day. And I though 'Just do it. stop looking at the damn thing and do it'

Three hours later it was fixed. Peterson (and Rico) would have been pleased.

 

[dr wu]

At a practical level there are many parallels to his behavioral teachings.

There is a chap on tv who's catchphrase is 'the only way to get a job done is to do it', Rico Daniels (no relation to Stormy). and PJ takes this a bit further by trying to instill the motivation to actually do what you know you really should be doing.

A good example is myself. a chronic procrastinator. I have had a bad water leak through the roof of my workshop for about two years. It never caused any damage, but prevented the workshop from ever drying out properly.
The cure, at least the temporary cure was simple; just cover the bad area with viscuene. (a plastic sheeting).
But it was awkward. The roof is fragile.
Anyway, yesterday I was sat looking at the roof, it was a fine dry windless day. And I though 'Just do it. stop looking at the damn thing and do it'

Three hours later it was fixed. Peterson (and Rico) would have been pleased.

I see....but that's what we would have called 'common sense' in the old days...is a degree and a professorship with studies and experiments necessary to tell us such things? Are we all 'over-educated' when it comes to things like this? Does Petersen really know something we can't figure out for ourselves with a little thought? I suppose it depends on the nature of the issue but most things in our daily lives don't require Mr Petersen's psychological dynamics.....or am I still missing something here?

 

[INT21]

I think he is acting as the voice within. The one you should be listening to, and his gift is to spell out clearly how you should be thinking, and maybe why you are thinking 'badly'. And essentially telling people that they really do need to sit down and look at the way they approach life.

But not everyone is prepared to face their own limitations honestly.

 

[dr wu]

I think he is acting as the voice within. The one you should be listening to, and his gift is to spell out clearly how you should be thinking, and maybe why you are thinking 'badly'. And essentially telling people that they really do need to sit down and look at the way they approach life.

But not everyone is prepared to face their own limitations honestly.

And again we used to call that common sense. Maybe I should write a book.

 

[Amoradala]

And again we used to call that common sense. Maybe I should write a book.

“But not everyone is prepared to face their own limitations honestly.”

With all due respect dr wu - maybe you should read his first.

 

[Mythopoeika]

At a practical level there are many parallels to his behavioral teachings.

There is a chap on tv who's catchphrase is 'the only way to get a job done is to do it', Rico Daniels (no relation to Stormy). and PJ takes this a bit further by trying to instill the motivation to actually do what you know you really should be doing.

A good example is myself. a chronic procrastinator. I have had a bad water leak through the roof of my workshop for about two years. It never caused any damage, but prevented the workshop from ever drying out properly.
The cure, at least the temporary cure was simple; just cover the bad area with viscuene. (a plastic sheeting).
But it was awkward. The roof is fragile.
Anyway, yesterday I was sat looking at the roof, it was a fine dry windless day. And I though 'Just do it. stop looking at the damn thing and do it'

Three hours later it was fixed. Peterson (and Rico) would have been pleased.

I'm a fan of Rico's too.

 

[INT21]

Maybe some of you would like to visit..

https://idw.community/?from=g_keywords&keyword=
intellectual%20dark%20web&adposition=1t1&source=google&device=c&ad=2

(Join the two halves and C&P it into your browser)

Mythopoeika,

I followed Rico from the beginning. But for some odd reason I was surprised when they did the Le Salvageur series in France, and he was shown to speak quite fluent French.
Yet I shouldn't have been.
Maybe the tough biker image lead me to assume that such guys wouldn't bother with more intellectual pursuits like learning other languages.

I feel slightly embarrassed at allowing this view to even cross my mind.

I hope they do another series.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Mythopoeika,

I followed Rico from the beginning. But for some odd reason I was surprised when they did the Le Salvageur series in France, and he was shown to speak quite fluent French.
Yet I shouldn't have been.
Maybe the tough biker image lead me to assume that such guys wouldn't bother with more intellectual pursuits like learning other languages.

I feel slightly embarrassed at allowing this view to even cross my mind.

I hope they do another series.

The same thoughts occurred to me. I'm quite impressed at his level of fluency. I never mastered another language myself - maybe it's just a matter of motivation?

 

[INT21]

The same thoughts occurred to me. I'm quite impressed at his level of fluency. I never mastered another language myself - maybe it's just a matter of motivation?

Possibly.

I can (could) get by in colloquial German. And it has come in useful a few times in my travels.

But I was placed on German Language course when in the Army in Germany. So I more or less had to learn it

Never regretted it though. I can manage the basic greetings and things like please and thank you in seven languages.

 

[dr wu]

“But not everyone is prepared to face their own limitations honestly.”

With all due respect dr wu - maybe you should read his first.

Again...another statement of common sense...no offense to Mr Petersen but if those are the kind of guotes in his book....then he's making money from rewriting what people have been saying for centuries and simply repackaging it.

Did you ever see Dirty Harry...an old Clint Eastwood film...in it he kills the bad guy and then says..." A man has got to know his limitations." Gee maybe our psychologist watched the same film?

 

[INT21]

Again...another statement of common sense...no offense to Mr Petersen but if those are the kind of guotes in his book....then he's making money from rewriting what people have been saying for centuries and simply repackaging it.

Did you ever see Dirty Harry...an old Clint Eastwood film...in it he kills the bad guy and then says..." A man has got to know his limitations." Gee maybe our psychologist watched the same film?

Maybe a few more Dirty Harry types are needed. Rough justice for rough people.

And agreed that Peterson is repackaging what has always been there. But the principles are of no use if no one is observing them. Peterson's style is bringing them home in a language people can relate to.

Psychology with most of the jargon stripped away.

 

[Amoradala]

Again...another statement of common sense...no offense to Mr Petersen but if those are the kind of guotes in his book....then he's making money from rewriting what people have been saying for centuries and simply repackaging it.

Did you ever see Dirty Harry...an old Clint Eastwood film...in it he kills the bad guy and then says..." A man has got to know his limitations." Gee maybe our psychologist watched the same film?

Actually it was a quote from INT21’s post above your last post.

You are still giving opinions on something you acknowledge you have no knowledge of.
‘Know your limitations’ is something you might consider here.

 

[INT21]

Actually it was a quote from INT21’s post above your last post.

You are still giving opinions on something you acknowledge you have no knowledge of.
‘Know your limitations’ is something you might consider here.

Actually, it is Dr wu's quote. I just used a modification of it.

 

[dr wu]

Actually it was a quote from INT21’s post above your last post.

You are still giving opinions on something you acknowledge you have no knowledge of.
‘Know your limitations’ is something you might consider here.

I think INT 21 corrected you already so ...nuff said.

 

[Amoradala]

In what way did he correct me ?

 

[brownmane]

I watched one documentary on JP on CBC tv a couple of months ago. From what I saw, I think Coal did a fairly good summary of his original message about addressing ideologies and questioning them even if they may be your own.

The doc I saw was "Shut Him Down: The Rise of Jordan Peterson". Watching it I got the impression that he is fairly conservative in his views on family roles and that he tried to address PC (particularly that institutions make the rules as to what is PC language) as an ideology that may be detracting from the idea of free speech.

I neither agree nor disagree with everything that he says he is trying to do, but I do wonder if his original message is being lost as he gets further tangled into gender issues and that he himself is getting further entrenched into ideas that are more radical than what his original stance was.

His statement that he wouldn't address someone by whichever gender s/he preferred is, to me, just being rude and belittling to that person. So that, I see, is sending a "power" message to that specific person. Something that I don't care for, but to me, says a lot more about that person who is doing it.

 

[Amoradala]

His statement that he wouldn't address someone by whichever gender s/he preferred is, to me, just being rude and belittling to that person. So that, I see, is sending a "power" message to that specific person. Something that I don't care for, but to me, says a lot more about that person who is doing it.

He didn't say that - he said he wouldn't be compelled BY LAW. It was this that he refused to do on principle.

That is a huge difference that his detractors miss. The canadian government were tending the idea of making it a criminal offence to not use the 'gender pronouns' prefered by the individual.

That would have unimaginable consequences for free speech in general. It would be a sackable offence and possibly criminal charges would be pressed and compensation for someone who felt 'hurt'.

Could you interview a politician and press them on an possible corruption alligation without 'hurting their feelings'?
Could a police interview a suspect without hurting their feelings ?

 

[INT21]

Let's throw in an example here. No intent to offend anyone, but it may.

Two gay men get 'married' I mean they go through the ceremony.

And the next time you meet them one says 'I would like to be called Mrs(x)'

Because moving from being partners to being married implies a husband and wife situation.

Now, this person is clearly male.

How do you respond ?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Let's throw in an example here. No intent to offend anyone, but it may.

Two gay men get 'married' I mean they go through the ceremony.

And the next time you meet them one says 'I would like to be called Mrs(x)'

Because moving from being partners to being married implies a husband and wife situation.

Now, this person is clearly male.

How do you respond ?

Safest response is to not bat an eyelid if you can and just say 'that's nice'.
It's an odd situation, because technically speaking, they are both husbands.

 

[Frideswide]

How do you respond ?

say "sure." WTF would you do anything else?

If you are equals then courtesy demands you comply. If they have more power than you you would be stupid to let something so unimportant jeopardise your position. If you have more power than them then you would be abusing it if you did other wise.

The point is that it isn't important - until some tosser decides that courtesy doesn't matter and /then/ it becomes very important indeed.

 

[INT21]

say "sure." WTF would you do anything else?

If you are equals then courtesy demands you comply. If they have more power than you you would be stupid to let something so unimportant jeopardise your position. If you have more power than them then you would be abusing it if you did other wise.

The point is that it isn't important - until some tosser decides that courtesy doesn't matter and /then/ it becomes very important indeed.

On the contrary, it is very important.

Someone is wishing to override my common sense definition of what is male and what is female.

 

[Frideswide]

No, you /believe/ it is important because you /think/ this has an impact on you.

Why is your sense of "what is male and what is female" so fragile that it needs all this thought and defence?

Have a look at the sex and gender posts, for example this one.

What you are getting all excited about is a change in gender - and this is known to have been fluid and changing as far back as pharonic egypt and very possibly before.

 

[INT21]

No, you /believe/ it is important because you /think/ this has an impact on you.

Why is your sense of "what is male and what is female" so fragile that it needs all this thought and defence?

Have a look at the sex and gender posts, for example this one.

What you are getting all excited about is a change in gender - and this is known to have been fluid and changing as far back as pharonic egypt and very possibly before.

Not really,

I am relating to hundreds of years of tradition and legal rulings that say a husband is male and a wife is female.

Let me give another example.

This couple wish to go on holiday. and when it comes to filling in the forms for new passports, the one who wishes to be called Mrs (x) enters 'Mrs' as title.

What do you think is going to happen when the passport office looks at the application and sees that Mrs (x) has a neatly trimmed beard ?

No, the whole thing is getting out of hand.

 

[Frideswide]

Not really,

I am relating to hundreds of years of tradition and legal rulings that say a husband is male and a wife is female.

That is gender. Which is flexible. There is no scientific basis to gender being unchanging because it is defined otherwise. You are talking about which country? It's not as monolithic as you think.

Given the changeability of law, it isn't a good basis for issuing ineffective wee fiats either

This couple wish to go on holiday. and when it comes to filling in the forms for new passports, the one who wishes to be called Mrs (x) enters 'Mrs' as title.

What do you think is going to happen when the passport office looks at the application and sees that Mrs (x) has a neatly trimmed beard ?

I think that this couple can probably manage very well to organise and run their own lives without you attempting to ride shotgun to smooth out every difficulty for them. It's very sweet you want to infantilise them (what am I saying, no it isn't) but this is there problem. By the way, I celebrate my 30th wedding anniversary later this year. Neither of us changed names. It's never been an issue, even in 1990 in super rural greece with crucifixes and icons in three corners of each room. For most of my married life I had two passports - legitimately and without problem - one that said I was married and one that said I was single. It made travelling on business on my own much easier sometimes, depending on where you were going. A friend had two, one of which had he married name and the kids, the other didn't - again for business.

The world manages very well without you trying to me its moral guardian. Relax, take a deep breath. Repeat to yourself "this is not my business."

No, the whole thing is getting out of hand.

What whole thing? Imagining hypothetical situations and then getting all hot under the collar about them?

 

[Amoradala]

How do you feel about men identifying as female and participating in Female sporting events ?
( not hypothetical )