• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

labx

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,326
Medellín, Colombia

Yes sir, but I think he isn't teaching the class anymore? Anyways I always despite the fact the the man only talks about what HE thinks was right about personality and left aside Allport's, Eysenck's and Cattell's work.

peterson1-768x701.jpg


This is halfway to Time Cube-level nonsense.

As a former student of his lectures, yes the man loves diagrams about you becoming a more
Conscientiousness human being. The thing with him is that he mix a lot of Jungian stuff with neuroscience. So he makes a Jungian interpretation of everything and put his "twist" the procedural, episodic and semantic terms are used in the psychology of memory jargon. And he puts this jargon to work with his views of the world that is Chaos Vs Order. And in the end the premise of this fellow is that you have to embrace your shadow to be a better person. So if you play any Persona game, you pass his class ;)
 
Last edited:

Branu

Banned
Feb 7, 2018
1,029


This is the clip from PSA. Dismissing the existence of things like Racial Inequality and Systemic Racism makes me question this guy. He does the same thing in a couple of the videos I watched. It involves downplaying ideas that White Nationalists and the Alt-Right vehemently oppose (Identity Politics) and pandering to specifically men.

Now this clip in its entirety is actually interesting. He basically says the society is responsible for attacking masculinity and starts making points that people who have underachieved (the most susceptible people to movements like the Alt-Right) can blame. So this immediately allows vulnerable men to insert themselves and say "Yea, see. He gets it. It's not my fault. Society is preventing me from being myself!" He then makes this logical leap after being guided by the Human Question Mark that is Tucker Carlson, of saying that expressions of masculinity are apparently prevented because it reinforces the idea of the patriarchy--which makes no fucking sense but whatever dude.

Next he does something kind of insane. He flatly denies that human history is rife with women being oppressed by men. His claims basically go from questionable to being factually inaccurate at times, and paint a rosier picture of previous generations--a go-to move of modern Conservatism. This serves multiple purposes. It's intended to defang arguments that center around equality, while also painting Feminism as being inherently misleading and inaccurate. He goes on to say Men and Women have lifted themselves out of the mire over a millennia. The irony here, is that it was only after the Women's Suffrage Movement that women were lifted up--the movement which basically proves his entire preamble to this statement to be false. Men and Women were not always equal, history is filled to the brim with centuries if not millennia of Men subjugating Women. He describes the idea that human history is full of the subjugation of Women by Men, as reprehensible, and goes on to attack Academia and the Public School system for representing that idea as fact.

He then goes off on another silly monologue saying that society places a "burden" on young Men, making them worry about contributing to things like Rape Culture and Toxic Masculinity. Not sure how that's a bad thing, but apparently it makes it just oh so hard for young Men to be confidant if they are worried they might be doing things that contribute to the Rape of Women. We should remove these barriers he says! Tucker then asks him why if Men were in control they would cede power like this. Peterson laughs it off but he knows the answer. Men didn't give up control, equality was fought for. Women fought hard for equality, and eventually they started to make progress. He goes on to subtly describe Feminism, the years of effort that went into getting Women some level of equality, as an "insidious ideology". Then when asked what parents should do to protect their boys, we get this amazing response:



If this guy isn't Alt-Right, he's pushing people towards the Alt-Right, and there's no way he doesn't notice it. There was a video linked to one of his describing the "Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline", and it made some valid points, and that concept makes Peterson a perfect candidate for pushing young men in that direction. His insistence on embracing "Personal Responsibility" and focusing on individuals is a core concept of Libertarianism, and also a concept within the Far Right. He may not actively hold Right Wing views, but he definitely encourages people to reject more Progressive thinking by trying to constantly reject the idea of educating people on diversity and racism. I would characterize him as a Libertarian that advocates sticking your head in the sand when it comes to the issue of Race. He's not openly attacking minorities, but he's saying they're basically just complaining because they can't take responsibility for their own lives--which resonates with the White Nationalists.


I really don't care for the term alt-right. He's a white supremacist. Look at his speeches, read some of his most incendiary work, and take notice of who he associates with. He's a racist, through and through. That he gussies up his views in language that dupes the impressionable makes him even more dangerous than someone like Richard Spencer, whose views are naked and unambiguous in their intent, which is the to rile up white people for a white supremacist uprising. Peterson is a vile and dishonest propagandist whose work is typical of this new wave of "open minded" academics professing to hear both sides and entertain a "marketplace" of ideas.
 

Brakke

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,798
Closer examination, however, reveals Peterson's ageless insights as a typical, if not archetypal, product of our own times: right-wing pieties seductively mythologized for our current lost generations.

Yup, and people are falling for these myths and hearkening back to older times where equality wasn't a thing.

People call this Jordan Peterson dude a "liberal" when he spouts order = male, chaos = female Jungian stuff? Apart from his yearning that we don't follow religion as much anymore, he really loves the evopsych neuro pseudoscience.

jordan_peterson_chaos_order_sexist_by_bondgeek-dc6fi5j.png

jordan_peterson_scared_of_females_1_by_bondgeek-dc6fi5c.png

jordan_peterson_scared_of_females_by_bondgeek-dc6fi56.png

jordan_peterson_pseudoscience_brain_by_bondgeek-dc6fi5e.png


These passages are from both of his books "Maps Of Meaning" and "The 12 Rules Of Life", of course he repeats his key points.

It always comes down to dating and lonely rejected men with conservative reactionaries.
jordan_peterson_dating_lol_by_bondgeek-dc6fi5t.png


Has Jordan Peterson done any PUA courses for the insecure white men that are his main audience?

Damn. I would've eaten this shit up when I was fourteen.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,382
I might read this article later but from the quotes in the OP it seems like the author is saying everything Peterson has ever done academically is worthless - which is pretty dumb. One can be upset with Peterson's hot takes on certain aspects of masculinity and femininity and culture but his textbook about mythologies and systems wasn't based on that - and many of his interpretations of Biblical myths are pretty damn interesting in relation to psychological ideas that humanity has used to create a cohesive society. The author's claim that Peterson contributed nothing of value seems deeply motivated by the current things Peterson is saying rather than his actual body of work. I'd call the argument blatantly opportunistic due to the audience that will receive it with open arms.

His "body" of published work that is addressed in the article is a twenty year old book and a self help book, the latter of which I don't even think Peterson himself would pretend is academic. This stuff and his amateurish engagement in politics is what made him famous, and what Johnson is concerned about, not whatever academic work Peterson has published. And Johnson spends much of the article criticizing Maps of Meaning. So your attack on Johnson makes no sense and is pretty dishonest, however neat you may think Peterson's drawings of dragons are.
 

Pantaghana

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
1,221
Croatia
This is complete pretentious gobbledygook!
  • "Meaning is manifestation of the divine individual adaptive path"
  • "Meaning is the ultimate balance between… the chaos of transformation and the possibility and…the discipline of pristine order"
  • "Meaning is an expression of the instinct that guides us out into the unknown so that we can conquer it"
  • "Meaning is when everything there is comes together in an ecstatic dance of single purpose"
  • "Meaning means implication for behavioral output"
  • "Meaning emerges from the interplay between the possibilities of the world and the value structure operating within that world"

I'm reminded of this study:

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit
 

I Don't Like

Member
Dec 11, 2017
14,918
I might read this article later but from the quotes in the OP it seems like the author is saying everything Peterson has ever done academically is worthless - which is pretty dumb. One can be upset with Peterson's hot takes on certain aspects of masculinity and femininity and culture but his textbook about mythologies and systems wasn't based on that - and many of his interpretations of Biblical myths are pretty damn interesting in relation to psychological ideas that humanity has used to create a cohesive society. The author's claim that Peterson contributed nothing of value seems deeply motivated by the current things Peterson is saying rather than his actual body of work. I'd call the argument blatantly opportunistic due to the audience that will receive it with open arms.

What's dumb is how people like you fall for his pseudo-intellectual, babbling bullshit.
 

Hubologist

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,119
That Jordan is popular surprises me to no end, dude is just a self help guru, which there is nothing wrong with it and i guess some people do need that kinda help, but dude is biting more that he can chew.

Now a funny pic
I read that entire thing in his voice, too good. Only thing missing was "Clean your room, bucko!"
 

CopperPuppy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,636
I feel like Peterson says alot of great stuff, but also tends to be wrong about alot of stuff (i.e his usage of cultural marxism)

many people, (and i know this is going to make alot of people mad but it must be said), feel threatened by him because he is really the first true academic to come out and really challenge the established orthodoxy of the left
Peterson is the stupid person's smart person and you are Exhibit A.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,189
UK
I might read this article later but from the quotes in the OP it seems like the author is saying everything Peterson has ever done academically is worthless - which is pretty dumb. One can be upset with Peterson's hot takes on certain aspects of masculinity and femininity and culture but his textbook about mythologies and systems wasn't based on that - and many of his interpretations of Biblical myths are pretty damn interesting in relation to psychological ideas that humanity has used to create a cohesive society. The author's claim that Peterson contributed nothing of value seems deeply motivated by the current things Peterson is saying rather than his actual body of work. I'd call the argument blatantly opportunistic due to the audience that will receive it with open arms.
His interpretations of Biblical myths being "pretty damn interesting" to you, would they happen to be coming from the Old Testament//New Testament that is "a hate-filled holy book...also a motherlode of bad ideas" according to you?
I would call the Old Testament a hate-filled holy book as well (and a few bits from the NT too), and that the Old Testament is also a motherlode of bad ideas (Maher would likely agree). Maher is, for the vast majority of these quotes, speaking about Muslims in theocratic states and are indoctrinated into this typically unethical fundamentalist theology. The culture of theocratic states (most of which happen to be Islamic) is worse than America's culture at this point in time by most measures of equality, whether it be gay rights or women's rights or freedom of religion or something else. "Desert stuff" is referencing the Islamic theocratic countries that have extreme measures of punishments. He might say he was referencing the desert to emphasize the unethical/uncivilized nature of punishments there but I would agree it could be easily viewed as racist, and that's on him. As for dating an Arab man, this was a low blow joke meant to reflect a lack of women's rights and high levels of abuse in these countries/FGM, but I also agree this can be viewed as racist due to the sloppy tone/purpose.
He is vehemently opposed to atheism btw, and that it "makes you prone to totalitarian ideology" and that he'll bring up the mass deaths under Stalin were down to atheism. He's all about the importance of religion and faith or you become a sociopath mass murderer.

Peterson: Hang on a second! You know, you guys are into, you know, rational thinking, forget all the time
that – rational thinking can go in a variety of directions. It depends on your initial presuppositions. If you believe that life is worth living – which, by the way, under some conditions, is highly debatable – you're gonna come up with a pretty optimistic conclusion. But if you've looked at life and you think that the suffering of most people is unbearable and life is evil, which is what Stalin thought, you have no problems whatsoever mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can. And if you don't have any faith, like any faith, in an ultimate authority that says, essentially, that life is sacred, what's to stop you from stopping that?
...
The worship of the rational mind makes you prone to totalitarian ideology. The Catholic Church always warned against this. The warning was that the rational mind always falls in love with its own creations. The intellect is raised to the status of highest god. The highest ideal that a person holds - consciously or unconsciously - that's their god. It functions precisely in that manner. It exists forever, it exists in all people, it takes them over and exists in their behavior. That's a god. We have to think about that idea functionally.
...
I have lectured and written for the last thirty years, working on ideas originally laid out by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. In the late 1800's, these two thinkers began to contend with the "death of God" -- the disruption of traditional religious and cultural belief by rationality and science. If God dies, Dostoevsky said, "everything will then be permitted." This is a very frightening idea. As you move forward through time and history from the 19th century and contemplate National Socialism and the horrors of totalitarian communism, Dostoevsky looks positively prophetic.

The same is true of Nietzsche. In the aftermath of God's death, he believed humanity, would become entranced, even possessed, by utopian political ideas, such as those of Marx. Nietzsche believed that such possession would kill millions in the twentieth century, as it did. The great German thinker also posited that human beings would have to create their own values, to fill the void left by God's demise. However, it is not clear that we can create values, voluntarily. Individuals who have forced themselves to manifest interest in something that just didn't interest them know the limits of our value-creating capacity. We also don't live particularly long. It's impossibly difficult to self-generate a complete model for being in the span of a single short life.

Dostoevsky, for his part, recommended a conscious revisiting of Russian Orthodox Christian ideas. But it is also not clear that we can return safely to past certainties, real or imagined. There may be much we have to rescue from our damaged traditions, but all of it will have to be viewed in a new light, if it is going to function and live.

I have been working, instead, on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable. This is in part something that Carl Jung discovered, during his forays into the deep past of ideas.
Then he'll bring up cultural marxists and they're the reason why he's opposed to gay marriage.
 

Cocaloch

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
4,562
Where the Fenians Sleep
you know well that was not the reason, they thought it was a legitimate article

No that was the reason, and you're trying to spin this desperately because you almost certainly know basically nothing about the whole affair.

I mean your responses here are consistently just vaguely telling me I'm wrong. There's absolutely no content to this response other than saying that I'm lying about what happened without say how.
 

Brakke

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,798
Oh my that diagram. Dude missed a calling as a political cartoonist.

Has anyone actually seen Peterson and Ben Garrison in a room at the same time?
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
I feel like Peterson says alot of great stuff, but also tends to be wrong about alot of stuff (i.e his usage of cultural marxism)

many people, (and i know this is going to make alot of people mad but it must be said), feel threatened by him because he is really the first true academic to come out and really challenge the established orthodoxy of the left
Stereotypically identitarian leftists aren't "established orthodoxy". You can only really believe that if your only interaction with people on the left are liberals on the internet.
 

I Don't Like

Member
Dec 11, 2017
14,918
Peterson: Hang on a second! You know, you guys are into, you know, rational thinking, forget all the time
that – rational thinking can go in a variety of directions. It depends on your initial presuppositions. If you believe that life is worth living – which, by the way, under some conditions, is highly debatable – you're gonna come up with a pretty optimistic conclusion. But if you've looked at life and you think that the suffering of most people is unbearable and life is evil, which is what Stalin thought, you have no problems whatsoever mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can. And if you don't have any faith, like any faith, in an ultimate authority that says, essentially, that life is sacred, what's to stop you from stopping that?
...
The worship of the rational mind makes you prone to totalitarian ideology. The Catholic Church always warned against this. The warning was that the rational mind always falls in love with its own creations. The intellect is raised to the status of highest god. The highest ideal that a person holds - consciously or unconsciously - that's their god. It functions precisely in that manner. It exists forever, it exists in all people, it takes them over and exists in their behavior. That's a god. We have to think about that idea functionally.
...
I have lectured and written for the last thirty years, working on ideas originally laid out by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. In the late 1800's, these two thinkers began to contend with the "death of God" -- the disruption of traditional religious and cultural belief by rationality and science. If God dies, Dostoevsky said, "everything will then be permitted." This is a very frightening idea. As you move forward through time and history from the 19th century and contemplate National Socialism and the horrors of totalitarian communism, Dostoevsky looks positively prophetic.

The same is true of Nietzsche. In the aftermath of God's death, he believed humanity, would become entranced, even possessed, by utopian political ideas, such as those of Marx. Nietzsche believed that such possession would kill millions in the twentieth century, as it did. The great German thinker also posited that human beings would have to create their own values, to fill the void left by God's demise. However, it is not clear that we can create values, voluntarily. Individuals who have forced themselves to manifest interest in something that just didn't interest them know the limits of our value-creating capacity. We also don't live particularly long. It's impossibly difficult to self-generate a complete model for being in the span of a single short life.

Dostoevsky, for his part, recommended a conscious revisiting of Russian Orthodox Christian ideas. But it is also not clear that we can return safely to past certainties, real or imagined. There may be much we have to rescue from our damaged traditions, but all of it will have to be viewed in a new light, if it is going to function and live.

I have been working, instead, on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable. This is in part something that Carl Jung discovered, during his forays into the deep past of ideas.

Wow, what a load of fucking horseshit.

I'm going to be blunt: anyone in this thread who genuinely considers this guy an intellectual is severely lacking intellect themselves.

"The stupid person's smart person" indeed.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,972
His interpretations of Biblical myths being "pretty damn interesting" to you, would they happen to be coming from the Old Testament//New Testament that is "a hate-filled holy book...also a motherlode of bad ideas" according to you?

He is vehemently opposed to atheism btw, and that it "makes you prone to totalitarian ideology" and that he'll bring up the mass deaths under Stalin were down to atheism. He's all about the importance of religion and faith or you become a sociopath mass murderer.

Peterson: Hang on a second! You know, you guys are into, you know, rational thinking, forget all the time
that – rational thinking can go in a variety of directions. It depends on your initial presuppositions. If you believe that life is worth living – which, by the way, under some conditions, is highly debatable – you're gonna come up with a pretty optimistic conclusion. But if you've looked at life and you think that the suffering of most people is unbearable and life is evil, which is what Stalin thought, you have no problems whatsoever mobilizing everything you can to kill as many people as you can. And if you don't have any faith, like any faith, in an ultimate authority that says, essentially, that life is sacred, what's to stop you from stopping that?
...
The worship of the rational mind makes you prone to totalitarian ideology. The Catholic Church always warned against this. The warning was that the rational mind always falls in love with its own creations. The intellect is raised to the status of highest god. The highest ideal that a person holds - consciously or unconsciously - that's their god. It functions precisely in that manner. It exists forever, it exists in all people, it takes them over and exists in their behavior. That's a god. We have to think about that idea functionally.
...
I have lectured and written for the last thirty years, working on ideas originally laid out by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. In the late 1800's, these two thinkers began to contend with the "death of God" -- the disruption of traditional religious and cultural belief by rationality and science. If God dies, Dostoevsky said, "everything will then be permitted." This is a very frightening idea. As you move forward through time and history from the 19th century and contemplate National Socialism and the horrors of totalitarian communism, Dostoevsky looks positively prophetic.

The same is true of Nietzsche. In the aftermath of God's death, he believed humanity, would become entranced, even possessed, by utopian political ideas, such as those of Marx. Nietzsche believed that such possession would kill millions in the twentieth century, as it did. The great German thinker also posited that human beings would have to create their own values, to fill the void left by God's demise. However, it is not clear that we can create values, voluntarily. Individuals who have forced themselves to manifest interest in something that just didn't interest them know the limits of our value-creating capacity. We also don't live particularly long. It's impossibly difficult to self-generate a complete model for being in the span of a single short life.

Dostoevsky, for his part, recommended a conscious revisiting of Russian Orthodox Christian ideas. But it is also not clear that we can return safely to past certainties, real or imagined. There may be much we have to rescue from our damaged traditions, but all of it will have to be viewed in a new light, if it is going to function and live.

I have been working, instead, on the belief that transcendent values genuinely exist; that they are in fact the most tangible realities of being. Such values have to be discovered, as much as invented, during the dance of the individual with society and nature. Then they have to be carefully integrated and united into something powerful and stable. This is in part something that Carl Jung discovered, during his forays into the deep past of ideas.
Then he'll bring up cultural marxists and they're the reason why he's opposed to gay marriage.
probably the only useful thing he said.

But its still rooted in fear
 

I Don't Like

Member
Dec 11, 2017
14,918
I mean he's making a tone of assumptions about some wild shit about humans, but the logic he follows is clear

"Logic" is generous but yeah what he's saying is clear: rationality is a path to totalitarianism and humans can't survive without god because nothing matters if god doesn't exist.

We've heard this bullshit a million times before from guys like William Lane Craig and it's as intellectually dishonest coming from Peterson as it was from Craig.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,972
"Logic" is generous but yeah what he's saying is clear: rationality is a path to totalitarianism and humans can't survive without god because nothing matters if god doesn't exist.

We've heard this bullshit a million times before from guys like William Lane Craig and it's as intellectually dishonest coming from Peterson as it was from Craig.

Nah that's incorrect.

He's saying that humans need morality to live appropriately and he believes that humans need some kind of faith in something other than themselves that allow them to better understand what makes us who we are. Good or bad.

Aka its a flawed assumption but its logically sound if you take that flawed assumption to its logical conclusion.

Isn't that the exact thing he's talking about tho. If you start with batshit nonsense, then whatever you deduce from it will also be batshit nonsense?

So what's the virtue in "clear logic"?

The virtue is that if you change someone's basic assumptions then they can be rehabilitated.

It becomes more problematic when those assumptions are tied to someone's acquired self identity. Which happens to alot of old people. They develop fixed mindsets and fixed personalities and then experience mid life crises when they realize that the world is not static.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
"Logic" is generous but yeah what he's saying is clear: rationality is a path to totalitarianism and humans can't survive without god because nothing matters if god doesn't exist.

We've heard this bullshit a million times before from guys like William Lane Craig and it's as intellectually dishonest coming from Peterson as it was from Craig.
William Lane Craig has said that "rationality is a path to totalitarianism"? That's not likely. And also no one, not even Peterson says that humans can't survive without god - that's a strawman.
 

Arkage

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
453
His "body" of published work that is addressed in the article is a twenty year old book and a self help book, the latter of which I don't even think Peterson himself would pretend is academic. This stuff and his amateurish engagement in politics is what made him famous, and what Johnson is concerned about, not whatever academic work Peterson has published. And Johnson spends much of the article criticizing Maps of Meaning. So your attack on Johnson makes no sense and is pretty dishonest, however neat you may think Peterson's drawings of dragons are.

He criticizes the book by saying he doesn't understand the terms and that this is a problem, despite this being largely a work of philosophy. I've read plenty of philosophy books that are much more navel gazing and obtuse than Peterson ever gets. Peterson also pulls a lot of his language and concepts from Jung. The fact that he doesn't explicitly define every term he uses in the book is likely due to assumptions about the reader being familiar with some of the general concepts already. Peterson also uses poetic language in place of direct language to make it more interesting (in his opinion), but the intent and purpose of the word is still pretty clear. I mean I can literally define the words this guy is so confused about, if you would like me to do so. It's really not that hard.

Peterson's diagrams are trying to connect summarized ancient myths (like, yes, DRAGONS) with evolutionary psychology concepts. You actually have to read part of that 600 page book to understand it, believe it or not. Pulling out chunks of quote and some pictures with literally no context surrounding and then bitching "What does it all mean? Who knows! It's made-up jibber jabber with a DRAGON!" it is a shit way to make your argument against a philosophical framework on the value of ancient mythology.

And instead of addressing Peterson's framework he makes a bunch of conflicting statements about Peterson's use of language:

1) Peterson never really says what he means
2) Peterson uses language that nobody understands
3) Peterson says stuff that everybody already knows


These propositions combined are a mess of irony. The stuff Peterson says is simultaneously incomprehensible while also being blatantly obvious. OK then. This dudes entire article could be summarized in this one sentence:

The harder people have to work to figure out what you're saying, the more accomplished they'll feel when they figure it out, and the more sophisticated you will appear.

That way we could just get all of the mind-reading armchair analysis out of the way and understand the actual motivation for this critique - to trash everyone who enjoys any of his work in any capacity. I mean, is he saying Peterson's fans only feel accomplished after they figure out what he means (which generally happens with every philosophy book written)? So therefore his concepts do have actual meaning? Who knows, as this guy is literally throwing every possible criticism at a wall and seeing what sticks. A shame that these people were duped as well:

..."a brilliant enlargement of our understanding of human motivation...a beautiful work."
-Sheldon H. White, Harvard University
..."unique...a brilliant new synthesis of the meaning of mythologies and our human need to relate in story form the deep structure of our experiences."
-Keith Oatley, University of Toronto

This authors' criticism is meaningless because literally all he's doing is whining.

TLDR: This article wasn't written to actually refute Peterson's book Maps of Meaning. This critique was written to preach to the anti-Peterson choir with some digs and guffaws. Stop pretending it's anything more than that.
 
Last edited:

Xenon

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,266
"Logic" is generous but yeah what he's saying is clear: rationality is a path to totalitarianism and humans can't survive without god because nothing matters if god doesn't exist.

We've heard this bullshit a million times before from guys like William Lane Craig and it's as intellectually dishonest coming from Peterson as it was from Craig.

So your saying that morality in this world wasn't heavily influenced by religion, and the discussion of the possible effects of its removal is without merit? Sure Jordan is taking things to the extreme, which just means he's an academic. It's what they do. But it's definitely something we have to consider.

The most intellectually dishonest thing here is pretending your having an actual discussion about a man on a forum that only allows negative threads to remain open. Filled with the usual assortment of Ad hominem attacks against him or anyone who shows even a hint of agreement in anything he says.
 

CodeRich

Alt-Account.
Banned
Mar 3, 2018
396
He criticizes the book by saying he doesn't understand the terms and that this is a problem, despite this being largely a work of philosophy. I've read plenty of philosophy books that are much more navel gazing and obtuse than Peterson ever gets. Peterson also pulls a lot of his language and concepts from Jung. The fact that he doesn't explicitly define every term he uses in the book is likely due to assumptions about the reader being familiar with some of the general concepts already. Peterson also uses poetic language in place of direct language to make it more interesting (in his opinion), but the intent and purpose of the word is still pretty clear. I mean I can literally define the words this guy is so confused about, if you would like me to do so. It's really not that hard.

Peterson's diagrams are trying to connect summarized ancient myths (like, yes, DRAGONS) with evolutionary psychology concepts. You actually have to read part of that 600 page book to understand it, believe it or not. Pulling out chunks of quote and some pictures with literally no context surrounding and then bitching "What does it all mean? Who knows! It's made-up jibber jabber with a DRAGON!" it is a shit way to make your argument against a philosophical framework on the value of ancient mythology.

And instead of addressing Peterson's framework he makes a bunch of conflicting statements about Peterson's use of language:

1) Peterson never really says what he means
2) Peterson uses language that nobody understands
3) Peterson says stuff that everybody already knows


These propositions combined are a mess of irony. The stuff Peterson says is simultaneously incomprehensible while also being blatantly obvious. OK then. This dudes entire article could be summarized in this one sentence:



That way we could just get all of the mind-reading armchair analysis out of the way and understand the actual motivation for this critique - to trash everyone who enjoys any of his work in any capacity. I mean, is he saying Peterson's fans only feel accomplished after they figure out what he means (which generally happens with every philosophy book written)? So therefore his concepts do have actual meaning? Who knows, as this guy is literally throwing every possible criticism at a wall and seeing what sticks. A shame that these people were duped as well:



This authors' criticism is meaningless because literally all he's doing is whining.

TLDR: This article wasn't written to actually refute Peterson's book Maps of Meaning. This critique was written to preach to the anti-Peterson choir with some digs and guffaws. Stop pretending it's anything more than that.
Exactly. I'm not even that big a Peterson fan, but there are philosophers that are much worse than him when it comes to obscuring language. People like Derrida, Judith Butler etc.
 

hexanaut

Member
Dec 6, 2017
820
I never heard of this dude until Chapo Trap House started roasting him and now all of the sudden I see a friend of mine linking his videos. Yikes.
 

MilesQ

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,490
It's an anecdote from personal experience and I didn't pretend it was anything other than that. I've only seen a more positive change in regards to his relationships with women or people from other ethnic backgrounds (we are Middle Eastern ourselves).

Also if you have any better alternatives than Peterson, by all means suggest them. Like I said, he has visited many psychologists/therapists, some of the best in the Netherlands and UK, with no luck at all.
I believe there might be something unique in the way Peterson explains these concepts that's more effective for some people.

Tell your guy to listen/read some Mark Manson.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
56,969
No I think I'm sufficiently familiar with his famous clips. Look, we really have different definitions of what constitutes Alt-Right.
I don't consider Anti-Socialism, Anti-Feminism or even Anti-Immigration to be exclusively Alt-Right ideas. These are widely held beliefs among these other groups I just mentioned.
For me a more accurate criteria would be if he was pushing ideas such as White-Identitarianism, White-Nationalism or National-Socialism and I just haven't seen him do that. On the contrary, I've seen him argue against that.

No, sorry, but someone who associates with alt-right figure heads, props them up, agrees with them, and shares their ideas is alt-right. It's not debatable.
 

mael

Avenger
Nov 3, 2017
16,812
I've never seen a worse misuse of graph than what this peterson fellow committed to paper and yes I'm including the Polygon graph.
The graph serves no purpose, they're not clearly labeled and you can't begin to decipher any meaning from it just by having the graph in isolation.
They're pointless in their current form and I frankly doubt that they would be any more useful with any kind of text.

I don't know if Peterson is smart or not but it is an indictment on anyone who actually taught him that he is unable to properly make a graph.
 

Arkeband

Banned
Nov 8, 2017
7,663
So your saying that morality in this world wasn't heavily influenced by religion, and the discussion of the possible effects of its removal is without merit? Sure Jordan is taking things to the extreme, which just means he's an academic. It's what they do. But it's definitely something we have to consider.

The most intellectually dishonest thing here is pretending your having an actual discussion about a man on a forum that only allows negative threads to remain open. Filled with the usual assortment of Ad hominem attacks against him or anyone who shows even a hint of agreement in anything he says.

Academics do not "take things to the extreme", what you just said is nonsense.

And negative threads stay open because positive threads would be endorsing his obvious bigotry, which is against the TOS. We don't need to scrape his entire body of work to see obvious fact, and his creepy cult members insistence that we read and watch everything he's ever done because "we just didn't get it" when he's actively retweeting white supremacists, conspiracy theories and hoaxes on Twitter is utterly ridiculous.
 

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
These propositions combined are a mess of irony. The stuff Peterson says is simultaneously incomprehensible while also being blatantly obvious. OK then.

The point is that his work are self-help banalities dressed up in torturous and quite bad prose to make them sound profound.

Peterson also uses poetic language in place of direct language to make it more interesting (in his opinion), but the intent and purpose of the word is still pretty clear. I mean I can literally define the words this guy is so confused about, if you would like me to do so. It's really not that hard.

First of all, serious academics do not eschew "direct language" if they want to be taken seriously. But more importantly, while I bet you could define those words, I'm also sure that another Peterson fan would have a completely different set of definitions. That's the point of the obscurantism, it allows the reader to impose any kind of meaning they want onto his non-ideas in a way that makes it sound like he's really getting to the bottom of capital-T Truth. That's why there are alt-right kekistanis who love him and also free speech logic and reason New Atheists who love him.
 

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
Exactly. I'm not even that big a Peterson fan, but there are philosophers that are much worse than him when it comes to obscuring language. People like Derrida, Judith Butler etc.
Right. But the problem is that Peterson criticizes a lot of these people for writing in a difficult way as well. It's especially ironic since I remember him complaining about Derrida not saying anything new, but using complicated language - and the writer here is criticizing him for doing essentially the same thing.
 

Xenon

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,266
Academics do not "take things to the extreme", what you just said is nonsense.

And negative threads stay open because positive threads would be endorsing his obvious bigotry, which is against the TOS. We don't need to scrape his entire body of work to see obvious fact, and his creepy cult members insistence that we read and watch everything he's ever done because "we just didn't get it" when he's actively retweeting white supremacists, conspiracy theories and hoaxes on Twitter is utterly ridiculous.

Exactly, so pretending like this thread is an actual discussion with merit is disingenuous. This thread is simply for people to chime in on how they hate JP. This is less for you and more to inform people who may actually want to have a discussion about him. It's pointless, as this exists as a place for people who don't like him to vent.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
56,969
Exactly, so pretending like this thread is an actual discussion with merit is disingenuous. This thread is simply for people to chime in on how they hate JP. This is less for you and more to inform people who may actually want to have a discussion about him. It's pointless, as this exists as a place for people who don't like him to vent.

It's a thread to raise awareness of the fact the man is alt-right via association and support, a complete sham in terms of his work, and a complete pos for many of his beliefs.

Thre's not really much discussion to be had around it, you're kind of right there.
 

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
Exactly, so pretending like this thread is an actual discussion with merit is disingenuous. This thread is simply for people to chime in on how they hate JP. This is less for you and more to inform people who may actually want to have a discussion about him. It's pointless, as this exists as a place for people who don't like him to vent.

I feel like a lot of people are putting a decent amount of effort into explaining why he's bad and then a handful of his fans complaining about how everyone is just attacking him baselessly.

We have a very good and thorough takedown of the guy in OP. We also have had Shuja Haider's excellent critique of his understanding of postmodernism linked. I don't see the Peterson defenders really engaging with either article.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,382
He criticizes the book by saying he doesn't understand the terms and that this is a problem, despite this being largely a work of philosophy.

He does not say that. He says the sentences are either (1) banal; or (2) nonsensical. He does not say that Peterson uses words that are too big or too technical.

I've read plenty of philosophy books that are much more navel gazing and obtuse than Peterson ever gets. Peterson also pulls a lot of his language and concepts from Jung. The fact that he doesn't explicitly define every term he uses in the book is likely due to assumptions about the reader being familiar with some of the general concepts already. Peterson also uses poetic language in place of direct language to make it more interesting (in his opinion), but the intent and purpose of the word is still pretty clear. I mean I can literally define the words this guy is so confused about, if you would like me to do so. It's really not that hard.

Again, he's not complaining about the vocabulary. He's complaining about the syntax.

Peterson's diagrams are trying to connect summarized ancient myths (like, yes, DRAGONS) with evolutionary psychology concepts. You actually have to read part of that 600 page book to understand it, believe it or not. Pulling out chunks of quote and some pictures with literally no context surrounding and then bitching "What does it all mean? Who knows! It's made-up jibber jabber with a DRAGON!" it is a shit way to make your argument against a philosophical framework on the value of ancient mythology.

Robinson did read the book. When you critique something, you necessarily have to use examples to make the point your making. Does he have to annotate the entire book to satisfy you. Your response to his critique is essentially, "You just don't get it maaaaaaan. My boy JP's laying down the broken truths and they're just way above your head."

Also worth noting that Peterson has no training in philosophy, which may be why he's not good at it.

And instead of addressing Peterson's framework he makes a bunch of conflicting statements about Peterson's use of language:

1) Peterson never really says what he means
2) Peterson uses language that nobody understands
3) Peterson says stuff that everybody already knows


These propositions combined are a mess of irony. The stuff Peterson says is simultaneously incomprehensible while also being blatantly obvious. OK then. This dudes entire article could be summarized in this one sentence:

You appear to be having great difficulty understanding the article, because you've misrepresented Robinson's critique. An accurate summary of it (I hope this is allowed, since you've suggested above that summaries of an argument are invalid in critiquing it) are:

(1) The things that Peterson says that are true are banal.

(2) Other things that Peterson says are incomprehensible.

(3) Peterson's needlessly emotive and baroque manner of writing obscures (1) and (2).



That way we could just get all of the mind-reading armchair analysis out of the way and understand the actual motivation for this critique - to trash everyone who enjoys any of his work in any capacity.

Ah, dismiss a critique by ascribing secret motives to the critic rather than engage the critique. And in the same sentence complain about mind-reading armchair analysis. Irony lives! Poor job, poor effort.

I mean, is he saying Peterson's fans only feel accomplished after they figure out what he means (which generally happens with every philosophy book written)? So therefore his concepts do have actual meaning? Who knows, as this guy is literally throwing every possible criticism at a wall and seeing what sticks.

He does acknowledge that Peterson's views have meaning. Just that they aren't very interesting or original. I mean, it's right in the article.

the article you didn't read/understand said:
It's not that it's empty of content; in fact, it's precisely because some of it does ring true that it is able to convince readers of its importance. It's certainly right that some procedures work in one situation but not another. It's right that good moral systems have to be able to think about the future in figuring out what to do in the present. But much of the rest is language so abstract that it cannot be proved or disproved. (The old expression "what's new in it isn't true, and what's true isn't new" applies here.)



A shame that these people were duped as well:



This authors' criticism is meaningless because literally all he's doing is whining.

TLDR: This article wasn't written to actually refute Peterson's book Maps of Meaning. This critique was written to preach to the anti-Peterson choir with some digs and guffaws. Stop pretending it's anything more than that.

An appeal to book blurbs and some more attacking of secret motives? I could say that you're just saying this because you're a butthurt JP fanboy who gets triggered when someone takes a shot at him. But then I'd just be doing what you're doing in reverse and I prefer to play the ball not the man.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
56,969
He does not say that. He says the sentences are either (1) banal; or (2) nonsensical. He does not say that Peterson uses words that are too big or too technical.



Again, he's not complaining about the vocabulary. He's complaining about the syntax.



Robinson did read the book. When you critique something, you necessarily have to use examples to make the point your making. Does he have to annotate the entire book to satisfy you. Your response to his critique is essentially, "You just don't get it maaaaaaan. My boy JP's laying down the broken truths and they're just way above your head."

Also worth noting that Peterson has no training in philosophy, which may be why he's not good at it.



You appear to be having great difficulty understanding the article, because you've misrepresented Robinson's critique. An accurate summary of it (I hope this is allowed, since you've suggested above that summaries of an argument are invalid in critiquing it) are:

(1) The things that Peterson says that are true are banal.

(2) Other things that Peterson says are incomprehensible.

(3) Peterson's needlessly emotive and baroque manner of writing obscures (1) and (2).





Ah, dismiss a critique by ascribing secret motives to the critic rather than engage the critique. And in the same sentence complain about mind-reading armchair analysis. Irony lives! Poor job, poor effort.



He does acknowledge that Peterson's views have meaning. Just that they aren't very interesting or original. I mean, it's right in the article.







An appeal to book blurbs and some more attacking of secret motives? I could say that you're just saying this because you're a butthurt JP fanboy who gets triggered when someone takes a shot at him. But then I'd just be doing what you're doing in reverse and I prefer to play the ball not the man.

Ha, Ive been staring at that post for a while, but I couldn't muster the energy to do what you just did.

Thank you for breaking down why Arkage was missing the point.
 

I Don't Like

Member
Dec 11, 2017
14,918
Nah that's incorrect.

He's saying that humans need morality to live appropriately and he believes that humans need some kind of faith in something other than themselves that allow them to better understand what makes us who we are. Good or bad.

Aka its a flawed assumption but its logically sound if you take that flawed assumption to its logical conclusion.
.

Yeah, in terms of morality is exactly what we're talking about and why I brought up WLC. "Morality comes from god, without god anything goes." It's what Peterson calls in that quote "transcendent values."

William Lane Craig has said that "rationality is a path to totalitarianism"? That's not likely. And also no one, not even Peterson says that humans can't survive without god - that's a strawman.

Within the context of morality. We need god because without him we'd have no sense of morality and would degrade to savages or some shit. Again: "transcendent values." With god's demise we lose them and start killing each other off because we're too primitive to figure it out. This is a long-standing claim by Christian apologists.
 

Xenon

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,266
It's a thread to raise awareness of the fact the man is alt-right via association and support, a complete sham in terms of his work, and a complete pos for many of his beliefs.

Thre's not really much discussion to be had around it, you're kind of right there.

Thank you for proving my point, the article make no mentions or allusions to his political affiliations. It's about being critical of his theories. Which could be an interesting discussions, but is impossible since he is considered a reprehensible person.

I feel like a lot of people are putting a decent amount of effort into explaining why he's bad and then a handful of his fans complaining about how everyone is just attacking him baselessly.

We have a very good and thorough takedown of the guy in OP. We also have had Shuja Haider's excellent critique of his understanding of postmodernism linked. I don't see the Peterson defenders really engaging with either article.

You also have a number of people calling anyone who agrees with him stupid or lacking intelligence. Great atmosphere for discussion. I'm not saying that people who are against his views are not making valid points. Just that it's simply impossible for someone who agrees with him to make theirs in this environment.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Spit these broken truths to these broke fools, my dude. Don't actually try to help them. Just shine on them all day.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
56,969
Thank you for proving my point, the article make no mentions or allusions to his political affiliations. It's about being critical of his theories. Which could be an interesting discussions, but is impossible since he is considered a reprehensible person.

I didn't prove your point though.

The article doesn't exist in a vacuum, there is more to be added to the discussion.

The problem is there isn't anything to discuss because people like yourself keep dismissing all the valid points.

Sorry Xenon, but the thread is full of well articulated reasons why the quote I'm replying to is utter nonsense.
 

CopperPuppy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,636
You also have a number of people calling anyone who agrees with him stupid or lacking intelligence. Great atmosphere for discussion. I'm not saying that people who are against his views are not making valid points. Just that it's simply impossible for someone who agrees with him to make theirs in this environment.
Why don't you try then? I honestly don't see anyone who agrees with him making valid points.

And I don't think it's any big secret that Peterson caters to idiots and provides them with the faux intellectual underpinnings they desperately seek for their shitty beliefs. What kind of person do you think he's inviting in with "the essence of being is inherently masculine" and all that other blathering, vacuous nonsense?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.