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

Jordan Peterson

To be clear, I had no idea that it was not their book. I watched a segment on a popular political YouTube channel that said it was and lampooned it.

I'd say that the Petersons had a good case for legal action in many jurisdictions. Given that they are Canadians and the book is available worldwide, they have a great number of options.

Apologies for falling for and propogating a hoax.

'Johnny Rockermeier' seems to be responsible for other similar cash-ins:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=Johnny+Rockermeier&i=stripbooks&ref=mw_dp_a_s

No apologies required! Great fun and entertainment provided by you!
 
Damn, I also assumed it was genuine.

By coincidence I watched a few of Jordan's YouTube videos today.

It was particularly amusing to watch one in which he was discussing !Q. He listed a range of occupations suited to people of different IQ levels. But it stopped at 80.

Someone asked him 'What do the people with IQ ratings of 80 or less do '

His answer...

Take drugs. He did give a brand name, but I can't remember it.

His point was that, particularly in the modern age, there is little chance of someone with that low a level being able to get a job. Let alone a meaningful job.

So they probably will become depressed and fall back on opiates.

With his recent problems, I find it particularly ironic.

But he still makes a lot of sense. And everyone is entitled to the occasional slip.

I would recommend 'One of the impediments to enlightenment is attachment'. It is one where he ties in his psychology with a Biblical reference. But it works.

INT21.
 
A sort of serendipitous strangeness.

... I had intended to look on Amazon for a copy of the book 'The power of Now' By Eckhart Tolle. I went into the shop to see what they had, and there it was on a shelf. Price £1.50.

A follow up.

I started to read the book. And instant disappointment.

I managed to get through the introduction, and a couple of pages, then had to give up on it. It seems to be just a mash-up of Buddhism and Jesus.

Stars out where he declares he had a kind of epiphany. And spent the next two years in a kind of happy trace sat on park benches.
No job, no home, etc.

So, how did he live ? Sounds like the kind of life Bhudda and Jesus lived. Freeloading. He says people were coming up to him and asking how 'they could get what he had'. Possibly attracted by his beatific smile. What these people missed is that, as he had no income, he must be relying on donations from these same people to survive.

So, the book goes back to Oxfam tomorrow. I'll stand the lose.

Sorry, Eckhart. I'm of back to Jordan Peterson.
 
This should provoke some discussion.

A Chapter from Our Forthcoming Book Critiquing Jordan Peterson
Matt McManus

Alongside Chapter One, the most important political ruminations in 12 Rules for Life appear in Chapter Six “Set Your House in Perfect Order Before You Criticize the World.” This is a theme Peterson comes back to quite consistently, particularly with regard to youthful social justice advocates. This is also the Chapter where Peterson’s inclinations towards a Burkean-style ordered liberty approach to politics become most transparent. He continuously insists that the complexity of the world is so vast that individuals who do not fully even have their own lives in order have no right to assume they can improve it. Thus, it is far better to adopt the cautious approach of conforming to the expectations of the external social world, while working to develop one’s self worth and success from within.

Peterson’s justification for this position is, in fact, highly consonant with the cautious and even pessimistic conservative philosophies articulated by figures like Leo Strauss, Russell Kirk, and others. Though as always, political dimensions of such inclinations are less explicitly brought to the surface than in the work of those seminal thinkers. Chapter Six opens with a chilling analysis of the Columbine killers motivation, echoing the concluding sections of Maps of Meaning on the problem of evil. He points out how the killers appointed themselves judges of existence itself (and the human race in particular) and found them wanting. Their response was to take revenge against existence through a spectacularly impotent act of violence. Peterson points out that these figures (and evil in general) emerge because life in the world is invariably hard. Like the pessimistic conservative Schopenhauer before him, at points, Peterson comes very close to accepting the wisdom of Silenus: that the best thing in life would be to have never been born—and the next best thing would be to die quickly. As Peterson puts it early in the Chapter:

“Life is in truth very hard. Everyone is destined for pain and slated for destruction. Sometimes suffering is clearly the result of a personal fault such as willful blindness, poor decision-making or malevolence. In such cases, when it appears to be self-inflicted, it may even seem just. People get what they deserve, you might contend. That’s cold comfort, however, even when true. Sometimes, if those who are suffering changed their behavior, then their lives would unfold less tragically. But human control is limited. Susceptibility to despair, disease, aging and death is universal.”

Given all this, it is understandable that some people may come away from the evils of life with a desire to do great evil themselves. But Peterson also points out that some may emerge from even tremendous tragedy without being defined by resentment and anger. They may come away with the conviction to do good, though what that means is not necessarily clear.

Instead, we should recognize that life inevitably involves suffering—and do our best to mitigate it for ourselves before we take any significant strides towards eliminating alleged socio-political and economic causes of harm. What does this entail? It means taking care of the “small things” in our life and recognizing the opportunities we have available to us. We should focus on issues such as are you working “hard on you career, or even your job, or are you letting bitterness and resentment drag you down?” Am I treating my loved ones with care? Am I taking care of my responsibilities. Am I trying to “make things around (me) better?” If I am not doing all I can to perfect myself in these local areas, then I have no business attempting to blame anyone or anything else for what I am going through. Am I saying or doing things that make me “weak and ashamed” or am I only saying and doing things that make me “strong”? It also means not just using our judgement—but recognizing the contributions of our “culture” and that the “wisdom of the past” passed on by our “dead ancestors” have useful things to teach us. As Peterson puts it in the conclusion to the short Chapter: ...

https://merionwest.com/2019/11/20/a-chapter-from-our-book-critiquing-jordan-peterson/
 
Good thing Jordan Peterson's house is in perfect order.

1345498dcaef14fbe229ce0b35b0a258.gif
 
I see that Jordan Peterson has put out a short video where he says he regrets calling MGTOW people 'pathetic weasels'.
He concedes they have a valid point.
 
Peterson is now apparently in Russia - most probably Moscow - where he is undergoing emergency specialist treatment for his addiction. The medical staff - if this report is to be believed - felt in necessary to put the guy on an eight day induced coma! If so, that's some problem this guy has https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/10/controversial-scholar-jordan-peterson-treated-for-addiction-in-russia-a69219
Yeah, I didn't think he could "walk the walk".
I see that Jordan Peterson has put out a short video where he says he regrets calling MGTOW people 'pathetic weasels'. He concedes they have a valid point.
People who lack compassion generally haven't suffered enough. JP is a good example. Hopefully he will grow up a bit. I don't hate the guy, but hopefully he will be tempered with a bit more wisdom and compassion now towards humanity in general. I hate PC as much as JP does, but that doesn't mean I reject the notion of a fairer society; I just prefer actual outcomes to the veneer of Orwellian rhetoric the PC Left authoritarians promote in place of outcomes.
 
AlchoPwn,

..but that doesn't mean I reject the notion of a fairer society; ..

But fairer to whom ?

And how is this fairness defined ?

INT21.
 
I hope he recovers soon. Apparently, he's sustained brain damage. Not good.
 
Wonder if the damage was caused by the anti-depression meds.
 
Apparently, he's sustained brain damage
This, if confirmed, is horrible. As an agile and forthright presenter, he has an impressive intellect and a fascinating personality (though, on rare occasions he can be slightly over-bearing in his manner)

This is the first I've heard about any of this.
Ditto snap. Such bad news 8-(
 
What happened to JP:
He got depressed and was put on chemicals. He tried to come off the chems too fast and got a paradoxical reaction.
 
Yeah, I didn't think he could "walk the walk".

Agreed! This story was on CBC a few days ago.

While I was initially sympathetic to JP because of U of T's policy I was soon turned off by his arrogance. Doing a PhD should be an exercise in humility -- or at least it was for me. Students specialise in one area of a much larger field. While we can claim a certain level of expertise in that area it doesn't make us experts in matters outside our discipline. I came away from the experience knowing that I had made a small contribution to the expansion of the knowledge base but at the same time being aware that there was much I did not know, even within my own field. It's a bit like the joke which goes something along the lines of 'the more I learn the less I know.'

JP appears to have gone in the opposite direction. He has a PhD in psychology but seems to think that the notoriety he gained as a result of the U of T controversy makes him an authority on environmental science, nutrition, etc. As other posters have observed upthread, he should stick to his own field of study. That's what academics are supposed to do, after all. JP's inflated ego is quite astounding and I can't help but wonder if that has been a factor in his illness. Nevertheless, I'm sorry that he's ill and I hope he recovers.
 

The good news I'm clinging to from that article is that his daughter says he is "on the mend" but the damage doesn't sound good. I do hope he makes a full recovery if that's possible.


As for the sick idiots who would mock him online at a time like this, shame on them. I have never understood the sort of mentality that could mock someone who is ill / or who has just died, just because they didn't like the person. Utterly childish and stupid.

I make no secret of the fact that I like Jordan Peterson. I like his forthright ideas, he has a lot of common sense and we need more of his attitude in this ever-increasing snowflakey world.


People who lack compassion generally haven't suffered enough.

I would say the people who are currently mocking Mr Peterson online are the ones lacking in compassion.
 
People who lack compassion generally haven't suffered enough.

Fate is far from egalitarian when it comes to the allotment of suffering and I don't think there is anything but the very loosest link between one's own travails and one's concern for others.

If anything, those who suffer remorselessly are just as likely to become inured to the suffering of others--doubly so when they are powerless to ameliorate it.
 
Fate is far from egalitarian when it comes to the allotment of suffering and I don't think there is anything but the very loosest link between one's own travails and one's concern for others.

If anything, those who suffer remorselssly are just as likely to becone inured to the suffering of others--doubly so when they are powerless to ameliorate it.
Strange as it may sound, research suggests the opposite is true.

(Apologies for the link to a popular science digest, but my OH has read a lot about Dacher Keltner, who is quoted in the article, and she suggests the studies are sound. Interested readers can, of course, pick up the references contained within the article.)

The historian Henry Adams was being metaphorical, not medical, when he described power as “a sort of tumor that ends by killing the victim’s sympathies.” But that’s not far from where Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at UC Berkeley, ended up after years of lab and field experiments. Subjects under the influence of power, he found in studies spanning two decades, acted as if they had suffered a traumatic brain injury—becoming more impulsive, less risk-aware, and, crucially, less adept at seeing things from other people’s point of view.
Meanwhile:
Recalling an early experience of powerlessness seems to work for some people—and experiences that were searing enough may provide a sort of permanent protection. An incredible study published in The Journal of Finance last February found that CEOs who as children had lived through a natural disaster that produced significant fatalities were much less risk-seeking than CEOs who hadn’t.
 
Strange as it may sound, research suggests the opposite is true.

(Apologies for the link to a popular science digest, but my OH has read a lot about Dacher Keltner, who is quoted in the article, and she suggests the studies are sound. Interested readers can, of course, pick up the references contained within the article.)


Meanwhile:

Might be true, but the possession of power does not equal the absence of suffering. And the human condition offers a surfeit of pains that render every man equally powerless and defy consolation.

The prince grieves as the pauper.

(Unless one is a dastardly Nietzschean (or worse an 'objectivist' simpleton), in which case you might think that trivial people suffer trivially).
 
Fate is far from egalitarian when it comes to the allotment of suffering and I don't think there is anything but the very loosest link between one's own travails and one's concern for others.
Perhaps you are correct, but in my experience those who have the least compassion for a given ailment are those who haven't suffered something similar.
If anything, those who suffer remorselessly are just as likely to become inured to the suffering of others--doubly so when they are powerless to ameliorate it.
I would agree that those who suffer too much begin to think other people are being wimps. Perspective is an interesting thing, not the least of all because not many align.
 
JP appears to have gone in the opposite direction. He has a PhD in psychology but seems to think that the notoriety he gained as a result of the U of T controversy makes him an authority on environmental science, nutrition, etc. As other posters have observed upthread, he should stick to his own field of study. That's what academics are supposed to do, after all. JP's inflated ego is quite astounding and I can't help but wonder if that has been a factor in his illness. Nevertheless, I'm sorry that he's ill and I hope he recovers.
I thought your post was very fair and I agree with all of it I think. As to JP's flutter with being a generalist, no doubt it is a symptom of too much praise and the belief that one is a philosopher who may speak to generalisms. As you correctly say, "big ego", supported by too much media hype. Hopefully he will be a better and less hubristic person when he recovers. After all, a philosopher lives dangerously specifically so they can learn real life lessons, and it would be a shame if he didn't take stock and learn from what he has been thru.
 
Might be true, but the possession of power does not equal the absence of suffering. And the human condition offers a surfeit of pains that render every man equally powerless and defy consolation.

The prince grieves as the pauper.

(Unless one is a dastardly Nietzschean (or worse an 'objectivist' simpleton), in which case you might think that trivial people suffer trivially).
Well, sure. I'll resist the temptation to go off down a tangent about how much emotional damage is inflicted by the expensive boarding school education many UK politicians undergo... But your thesis seemed to be it was specifically those who were powerless to effect change that were more likely to become indifferent to others' suffering:
doubly so when they are powerless to ameliorate it.
The research seems to suggest that in fact the reverse is true.
 
I could have written a 6 paragraph paper outling the obvious.
Sry, I thought I was conserving pixels.
Carry on.
 
Back
Top