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

Jordan Peterson

I keep looking for my drum of 'troubled water oil' Must have used it all.

Peterson is, like all of us, the sum of his views and beliefs . The problem we appear to be having here is that we fall out because we have different interpretations of what he is saying.

The idea IS to discuss what he says in his videos and what he writes in his books. And to debate the relativity of it with regard to our own views.

Yet a simple thing like the use of a common title has caused much heat and, sadly, not much light.

I fear that it may not be possible to debate anything unless the vast majority are already in agreement on the subject; which seems a bit pointless.

Maybe it is as well that politics is prohibited.

INT21.
 
ramonmercado said:
Maybe just keep the discussion to Jordan Peterson and his stated opinions rather than our own feelings?

I really think the Thread has veered away from it's topic.

I now dread seeing that another comment has been posted on this Thread because usually it is part of interminable arguments.

Find something new by JP and discuss that.
Click to expand...

Ah, but this is the problem.

it is in the discussion of his views that we seem to have the most difficulty. Probably the same would happen if the subject was Karl Marx.

It would seem to me to be pretty obvious that the concept of young men (in fact anyone) standing up and behaving properly in a manner that is good for them and the society around them, would be pretty much the standard ideal. But when we approach this it quickly degenerates; as the 'disturbance' surrounding the 'Titles' showed up.

Is it possible that social behavior is a taboo subject these days ?
 
Possibly we could include Brett and Eric Weinstein in the mix ?

Anyone else here follow the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) ?
 
INT21 said:
Possibly we could include Brett and Eric Weinstein in the mix ?

Anyone else here follow the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) ?
Click to expand...

A mixed bag, a coalition of convenience with little in common other than disdain from the other end of the spectrum.

Ben Shapiro is a non-intellectual who thinks he's an intellectual (the bar is not high to be packaged as one on U.S. cable TV).

Dave Rubin is a talk-show host who seems affable enough (although many loathe him as a turncoat) but he holds no views of note or depth. That sounds cruel because I like his show, but he has been repeating the same sentences, not terribly interesting ones, for a couple of years: as Bob Hoskins and Maureene Lipman told us many years ago, "It's good to talk."

Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein, on the other hand, are very interesting men, academics who can actually support their points with research, although if you can stand his constant political baiting, Gad Saad is more eye-opening in the field of evolutionary biology.

Eric Weinstein seems to have made zero impression on me. I've seen him on stuff, but the only mental note I have under his heading is that he has 'big hair'.
 
Yithian said:
A mixed bag, a coalition of convenience with little in common other than disdain from the other end of the spectrum.

Ben Shapiro is a non-intellectual who thinks he's an intellectual (the bar is not high to be packaged as one on U.S. cable TV).

Dave Rubin is a talk-show host who seems affable enough (although many loathe him as a turncoat) but he holds no views of note or depth. That sounds cruel because I like his show, but he has been repeating the same sentences, not terribly interesting ones, for a couple of years: as Bob Hoskins and Maureene Lipman told us many years ago, "It's good to talk."

Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein, on the other hand, are very interesting men, academics who can actually support their points with research, although if you can stand his constant political baiting, Gad Saad is more eye-opening in the field of evolutionary biology.

Eric Weinstein seems to have made zero impression on me. I've seen him on stuff, but the only mental note I have under his heading is that he has 'big hair'.
Click to expand...

I'm only passably familiar with the IDW and only with those you cite, Gad Saad aside (there seem to be more "members", God help us all) and your views sound about right to me with my marginal experience. My first experience of Peterson was the Cathy Newman interview where he came across well and she came across dreadfully, the main thing that stuck with me was him citing lobsters as having "dominance hierarchies " which set my antenna tingling as surely apes or primates would be a better example? Anyway I googled "lobster dominance hierarchies" and the first page of hits was marine biologists essentially refuting this.

This does not make The Glorious Anointed Chosen One Second Third and Fourth Coming Jordan Peterson wrong about everything, it's just my immediate thought was "if he's got this wrong, what else as he got wrong?" A friend who has political views that I'd imagine are much closer to Peterson's than mine can't stand him and wishes he'd confine his comments to psychology. Apparently he isn't rated that highly by other academics in psychology either.

This doesn't mean he's wrong or that he doesn't have things to say that are value, just that he's a flawed human like everyone else. I'm saying this as I'm disturbed by the cult of personality around him, which does smell a bit like the beginnings of an actual cult to me. I'm not saying that's going to happen or that that's what he wants for himself, though he clearly relishes the attention. Some of his "followers" call themselves "lobsters", people like being part of a club/tribe and they like being lead, though almost none would admit the latter.

JP is probably more intelligent than I am and perhaps more than anyone posting here, though not by much I'd imagine; and from what I've read of IQs, as well being a flawed system for measuring intelligence, differentiating people over 140 or so becomes semi-meaningless. I've seen him say his IQ would be "in excess of 150", he's palpably bright, no idea if he's a "genius" or if such a thing even exists though, in fairness I don't think he'd make such a claim for himself.
 
Ogdred Weary said:
the main thing that stuck with me was him citing lobsters as having "dominance hierarchies " which set my antenna tingling as surely apes or primates would be a better example? Anyway I googled "lobster dominance hierarchies" and the first page of hits was marine biologists
Click to expand...

His point using Lobsters is that as a common ancestor to all life, they display an innate biological response to hierarchy structures that not only predate apes but predate trees.

So rather than hierarchy being a system invented by ‘tyrannical man’ it is an evolutionary construct common to all.

Not sure how this can be disputed by marine biologists?
 
Amoradala said:
His point using Lobsters is that as a common ancestor to all life, they display an innate biological response to hierarchy structures that not only predate apes but predate trees.

So rather than hierarchy being a system invented by ‘tyrannical man’ it is an evolutionary construct common to all.

Not sure how this can be disputed by marine biologists?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I googled it whenever the Newman interview "went viral" but the one article I read along the lines of "we're not entirely sure what he's talking about", full admission: this is my recollection of an online browse from a or more year ago.

For what it's worth, I agree that hierarchies are inevitable and one needn't look outside of the human species to see this, just a passing acquaintance with history is enough.
 
And just to preempt the next usually asked question . . .

Yes of course modern society can rise above base instincts and Jordan writes about within the same chapter of his book.

The Lobster reference was a short example just to address the specific accusation above.

It is now it’s frequently used in attempts to cast derision and doubt on his credibility by those who want to silence him.
 
Amoradala said:
His point using Lobsters is that as a common ancestor to all life, they display an innate biological response to hierarchy structures that not only predate apes but predate trees.

So rather than hierarchy being a system invented by ‘tyrannical man’ it is an evolutionary construct common to all.

Not sure how this can be disputed by marine biologists?
Click to expand...
Lobsters are not a common ancestor of all life. Lobsters have been shown to show a limited amount of dominance hierarchy, there are plenty of other species which show a more comprehensive form and would be better used as an example. Dominance hierarchies are an evolutionary stable strategy but they vary in their expression depending on the group. We do not have evidence of how long dominance hierarchy has been in existence but probably a long time and an example of convergence rather than something passed on from organism to organism so it spreads through the whole tree of life.
 
gordonrutter said:
Lobsters have been shown to show a limited amount of dominance hierarchy
Click to expand...
Then you concede ‘enough’ to make his point.

Frideswide said:
Not all derision and doubt is an attempt to silence.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, I’ll rephrase.
It is now it’s frequently used in attempts to cast derision and doubt on his credibility by some who want to silence him, and some who don’t.
 
You wrote that Lobsters have a dominance hierarchy. That was what Jordan wrote.
Why do you think I saw that as an attack ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top