Hi, sorry I'm lost, what's up with you pops? Is he a famous psychologist too? Maybe is because I'm not a native English speaker so I don't understand your point, mind to elaborate a little more please?
-
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.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
Hi, sorry I'm lost, what's up with you pops? Is he a famous psychologist too? Maybe is because I'm not a native English speaker so I don't understand your point, mind to elaborate a little more please?
No, think about it. That article doesn't contradict what I'm saying at all. All he does is hide behind this pseudo-academic shield; enforced monogamy is an anthropological term, as shown by the moderator of several Jordan Peterson subreddits, and here is evidence it might reduce violence. What he doesn't do in that article is address his usage of it, or his vision of it.
Again, the original context:
That wasn't commentary on polygamist societies. That was commentary on our society. How can you read it any other way? Where was the Toronto killer from?
The broader context makes it seem even worse, not better. As sexist and oppressive as our society can be, Peterson believes it does not enforce monogamy effectively enough. He thinks the mechanisms of enforcement were better when less women worked, when women had less control over their bodies, when society simply assumed women were wired to be subservient to men.
"People are misunderstanding what enforced monogamy is" is a total misreading of the situation. Pointing out that it's been used in some anthropological papers doesn't absolve Peterson. It's not some passive phenomenon that he's simply observing; when he says enforced monogamy would have saved lives, he's prescribing that society begin to exert more control over women again, and the mechanisms for doing that are never innocuous.
Sorry for the double post, and I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but I want to zoom in on this a bit.
Jordan Peterson has a habit of misrepresenting concepts from fields he has no expertise in. That would certainly include anthropology - a field he has actually encouraged people to avoid, ironically enough. He lazily quoted the apologia of a fan to back up his usage of the term 'enforced monogamy', but I haven't been able to find any evidence that 1) it's actually a widely used anthropological term or 2) that he's using it properly either way. Searching through academic databases doesn't bring up much. The examples basically range in nature from this 1914 paper that talks about things like legally enforced monogamy in the states. . .
. . .to papers discussing experiments in coevolution, like one that experimented on flies.
So since Peterson leaned on Reddit, I decided to do the same. I hit up /r/AskAnthropology. What did I find? Here's a representative example:
So basically, it's not this thread that's misunderstanding the term. It's Jordan Peterson.
(That's actually being charitable, too. In all likelihood, Peterson was just projecting his own bullshit, and stumbled upon and latched onto the nonsensical "it's just anthropology!" defense. Apparently he was correct in thinking it would be compelling to some people.)
Yeah but have you tried not taking Peterson's quote out of context and twisting it like the evil media does
/s
I'm not going to lie... pedanticmikey is managing to come across as reasonable and well-intentioned, but that just makes it even more stark that they so remind me of this:
The determination to believe Peterson was taken out of context, even though there is no proper evidence for that and no one has explained how that additional context would absolve him, is something else.
Like, this is representative:
Perplexed. But then "it turned out" (credible source for this?) that apparently polygamist cultures came up in the conversation, and all the confusion melted away. How does the possible existence of that tidbit actually change anything? How does it turn "I empathize with the Toronto killer's frustrations and think enforced monogamy is the rational solution to them" into commentary on some hypothetical polygamist society? Ah, who can say? When it comes to Jordan Peterson, context works in the most mysterious ways.
Hmm ya there isn't a whole lot of nuance in the term enforced monogamy.
Following this thread for a while and I get the impression that there is a really deep desire to believe in him. Or rather in the notion that there is a natural order that is being violated and all that has to be done is return to said natural order. And him being completely unable to straight out say what he actually means is just a great shortcoming.
Peterson is a religious conservatist. He SO thinks women shouldn't be sleeping around so much and that women's sexual freedom is deteriorating society & the reason these incel dimwits & terrorists exist. If women would just settle down with one man, men wouldn't have to go around shooting or blowing up people.
Yeah, I get the same impression.
That last point is probably especially important. Everything he says is wrapped up in multiple layers of nonsense. And it's not like his fans are uniquely suited to carefully unwrapping those layers - not at all. What they've become good at, however, is situating their understanding in opposition to whatever negative things are being said about him in the media.
So somehow 'enforced monogamy' becomes an anthropological term, and when Peterson comments on an incel from Toronto, he's actually commenting on polygamist societies. It makes no sense whatsoever, it isn't rooted in any actual expertise in anthropology, but it feels right because even the most irrelevant nonsense can feel like meaningful context when it shifts your understanding away from a negative media narrative.
I happen to agree strongly with Peterson's rule #10: be precise in your speech. I wish he did, too.
"Everyone Poops" would legitimately be a good book for JP fans.
You reminded me of this.
Big fan that it cuts itself off. He meanders much more than other intellectuals I'm aware of.
Instead of linking the entire conversation for you to make your decision, I'm going to link JP responding to criticism , because the person beig critcized is generally the most reliable source. That's what getting into the bottom of it looks like, trust me I'm a contrarian.
Come on, if basic skepticism debunks your entire argument you probably don't do enough digging. I sincerely doubt you've seen the full conversation.
For fuck's sake. Went out with a couple of buddies I hadn't seen in a while Saturday night. At some point during conversations about the alt-right, etc., Peterson's name was referenced and I had to basically hear the equivalent of "he uses facts and logic." Keep in mind one of these dudes is a Ph.D from Cornell. As all my friends know, though, I'm not a, "Well, I respect your [place any opinion here]" type of guy so I just fucking unloaded on both of them for what is objectively a horrible view at both an intellectual and human level and finally got the, "Whatever dude, this is clearly a conversation for another time" response. Then I beat both their asses in shuffle board.
At this point I'm firmly of the belief that if you try to convince me of Peterson's high intellect and great thinking with a straight face then you're treating me like I'm stupid, and while I'm like light years from being an intellectual in any sense of the word, I ain't a stupid.
At this point I'm firmly of the belief that if you try to convince me of Peterson's high intellect and great thinking with a straight face then you're treating me like I'm stupid, and while I'm like light years from being an intellectual in any sense of the word, I ain't a stupid.
That rule actually shows his university background, if you don't do that you get eviscerated by peers reviewing your article (or literally anything you do).
People think of research like it's some kind of collaborating work between out of this world geniuses who love to work together and prop fellow researchers like some kind of corporatist BS.
If you send your shit to peer review, they're gonna try to tear your shit a new one (at least at the most prestigious publications). Not saying it's a perfect process (perfection is unfathomable anyway) but it's pretty robust.
Being as precise as Peterson usually appears to be is a pretty good way of producing shit.
I have absolutely no idea why anyone needs to hear that basic fact from Peterson but still a good advice from a Dick Cheney is still good advice.
Ugh, I unloaded on my in-laws again this weekend because they won't not stop trying to make me like JP. Like, I want to sit there and play my switch as much as possible and get home without heated arguments and it continues to bother them that they know I think he's an idiot that I can't stand.
I leaned in on the Sargon shit and "alternative Patreon" as obvious proof that he isn't some moderate free speech guy concerned about PC culture run amok but an actual alt-right shitbag that dances a very wordy jig around what he means so you can't exactly pin him down, but the dog whistling resonates with his actual target audience.
I got told "Well, I don't know who that Sargon is, but he can't be all bad", so I then info-dumped who Sargon is and what he did. My mother in law and sisters in law seem fucking horrified because they know who Anita Sarkesian is and what Gamergate is and seemed to have come around. My (conservative/Rockefeller Republican) brother in law has always thought he was a hack and basically came down that free speech is a canard thrown out by the alt-right to excuse all speech including hate-speech.. but the true believer fans doubled down and basically said "Well, if JP likes Sargon I'm sure it's for a reason and doesn't mean he agrees with everything he did and maybe Gamergate had a point about feminism".
So.. small victory?
I leaned in on the Sargon shit and "alternative Patreon" as obvious proof that he isn't some moderate free speech guy concerned about PC culture run amok but an actual alt-right shitbag that dances a very wordy jig around what he means so you can't exactly pin him down, but the dog whistling resonates with his actual target audience.
I got told "Well, I don't know who that Sargon is, but he can't be all bad", so I then info-dumped who Sargon is and what he did. My mother in law and sisters in law seem fucking horrified because they know who Anita Sarkesian is and what Gamergate is and seemed to have come around. My (conservative/Rockefeller Republican) brother in law has always thought he was a hack and basically came down that free speech is a canard thrown out by the alt-right to excuse all speech including hate-speech.. but the true believer fans doubled down and basically said "Well, if JP likes Sargon I'm sure it's for a reason and doesn't mean he agrees with everything he did and maybe Gamergate had a point about feminism".
So.. small victory?
Clearly we need to listen to every single thing he said that week to really get to the core of his argument.
Clearly the issue is birth control; not education over it or access to it. It's so blatant he's a Christian fundamentalist even though his fans will deny it.
Lobster Doctor says he's leaving Patreon (I'm not going to link to the sites reporting this, as they're trash, but it's accurate... Peterson and Rubin, among others, are leaving) because it's "unethical" to keep using them. Also, totally unrelated, he lost over 40% of his supporters in the last six months.
Oh, look at that... he's actually lost basically all of the subscribers he gained in the last 12 months:
There's a great Patreon exodus, they say. Everyone is leaving the platform! Except, well...
Patreon's TOTAL pledges started at about 2.9M on Jan 1, 2018 and is all the way down to... *checks notes* 4.97M as of Jan 1, 2019.
Okay okay, that's not fair. Let's look at only the last three months, when the "shit" hit the "fan." For context, a bunch of creators and fans are talking like everyone's ditching the platform because they banned a couple high-profile creators like Carl of Swindon recently. So if that's really having an effect on the entire platform, it would show, right? Well...
4.58M pledges on Oct 2, 2018 compared to 4.97M as of Jan 1, 2019. So it's still up.
The main "dip" creators see is at the beginning of each month as that's when lots of people decide to stop pledging for whatever reason. It's pretty consistent, really, as seen in this "all time" graph where each little "wave" is a month-end:
So what's my point?
Yes, Jordan Peterson (and his ilk) are losing patrons across the board, but Patreon, as a service, is only seeing a typical end-of-month dip for December, and (at least as of today) the December change is still up about 151k. It may drop a bit more, but trends show it'll go right back up.
These guys, like the Doc Lobster, are (as usual) manufacturing outrage to try to get as many followers as they can to come with them to whatever new service they're going to start up. But make no mistake... folks like JP and Rubin are seeing the biggest drops... and NOT other top creators.
(all data is from here: https://graphtreon.com) Check it out yourself. Look at other not-trash creators and see their 3, 6, and 12-month trajectories. Then check the alt-light/alt-right darlings (Peterson, Rubin, DeFranco...)
Happy new year :)
Oh, look at that... he's actually lost basically all of the subscribers he gained in the last 12 months:
There's a great Patreon exodus, they say. Everyone is leaving the platform! Except, well...
Patreon's TOTAL pledges started at about 2.9M on Jan 1, 2018 and is all the way down to... *checks notes* 4.97M as of Jan 1, 2019.
Okay okay, that's not fair. Let's look at only the last three months, when the "shit" hit the "fan." For context, a bunch of creators and fans are talking like everyone's ditching the platform because they banned a couple high-profile creators like Carl of Swindon recently. So if that's really having an effect on the entire platform, it would show, right? Well...
4.58M pledges on Oct 2, 2018 compared to 4.97M as of Jan 1, 2019. So it's still up.
The main "dip" creators see is at the beginning of each month as that's when lots of people decide to stop pledging for whatever reason. It's pretty consistent, really, as seen in this "all time" graph where each little "wave" is a month-end:
So what's my point?
Yes, Jordan Peterson (and his ilk) are losing patrons across the board, but Patreon, as a service, is only seeing a typical end-of-month dip for December, and (at least as of today) the December change is still up about 151k. It may drop a bit more, but trends show it'll go right back up.
These guys, like the Doc Lobster, are (as usual) manufacturing outrage to try to get as many followers as they can to come with them to whatever new service they're going to start up. But make no mistake... folks like JP and Rubin are seeing the biggest drops... and NOT other top creators.
(all data is from here: https://graphtreon.com) Check it out yourself. Look at other not-trash creators and see their 3, 6, and 12-month trajectories. Then check the alt-light/alt-right darlings (Peterson, Rubin, DeFranco...)
Happy new year :)
DeFranco as in Philip DeFranco? He's alt-right? I haven't followed him much in years but I thought he was fairly progressive when I used to watch some of his videos years ago, with maybe some occasional "is PC culture going too far?" brainfarts but nothing so severe as to push him into the laps of the alt-right side. Has he made a significant turn for the worse?
Hell, maybe not. I saw his name pop up a few times over the years with some dumb commentary. My point wasn't that he's alt-right but was (maybe?) one of the "darlings" of those folks because of his "PC going too far" stuff. Honestly I could be way off on that one. But his patreon stats have taken a bit of a dive since May. Maybe I was mixing him up with Crowder (who does not appear to be on Patreon) in general...
Yeah, he has some dumb takes and did occasionally try to take a centrist mediator stance on some "outrages" but all in all I think he leans left in most issues and I don't think he is as bad as someone like Boogie.
Setting Trump Jr is scary but is that what he said?
I honestly don't know what he's saying here. Birth control being a disruptor? Yeah, sure. Not a crazy concept. Not sure what he means by backlash though.
Last edited:
They started seriously talking about leaving after seeing their numbers drop, so their Patrons, who may or may not have been tired of their schtick, took the first step.
Just a small update now that we're a few days into January to see how the site's recovering from the standard end of month AND end of year dips...
orange = patrons.
green = estimated money (when available, because not all creators list this amount, especially the big ones)
Patreon TOTAL - 1y
Patreon TOTAL - 3m
Already above late October 2018 Patrons and seems to be recovering on estimated money
Doc Lobster - 1y
Rubes - 1y
To be clear: I'm not saying there's not a Patreon exodus. I'm just saying it sure looks like Peterson and Rubin's patronage has been dwindling as it is, while the site as a whole isn't quite showing the same kind of loss in activity. These guys have to blame "the left" and Patreon because they can't accept the possibility that people are dropping their subs for all sorts of reasons, and not specifically because of the site itself, despite the vocal fans who will claim "EVERYONE" is leaving because Patreon is too PC or whatever nonsense they come up with.
Anyway... sorry to take that tangent. Much of that isn't really about Peterson...
But his Patreon is now below what it was over a year ago; he's at just over 5,500 and he was last at ~5,500 patrons in September 2017 and he peaked at about ~9,900 in July 2018. Make no mistake... he'll be fine, and he's set for life (As evidenced by how he outlined all of his revenue streams in that interview a little while back), but I think we'll see that the fans who supported him at the peak of his Patreon intake (June/July/August) aren't going to be following him to whatever his anti-Patreon service ends up being. At least until he releases a new book (working title: 12 MORE Rules for Life; The Rules I Forgot To Tell You About).
Ben Burgiss (some guy from Zero Books) takes on two JP lobsters defending the honor of Daddy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sRklq0lx6Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sRklq0lx6Y
I'm pretty sure that Peterson said something against anti-semitism in like early December. Might have been earlier?
Last edited:
Jr. looking like a completely lost dumb motherfucker while listening to a pseudo intellectual.
I have a confession to make: Listening to JP videos is a guilty pleasure of mine. The guy is clearly a talented orator and I do think he is very intelligent. But don't hold that against me because I also think almost every word out of his mouth is hateful pseudoscience nonsense.
Same here and I doubt we're the only ones itt. He's an absolutely ridiculous and shameless conman. Somebody needs to make a drinking game out of JP videos.
I don't know why you would subject yourself to Peterson when you could instead listen to Zizek rub his nose for an hour while talking about Hitler, Pokemon, and fucked up German toilets with shit inspection shelves.
ok here is one: take a drink every time he talks about making your bed or reading the gulag archipelago.
Last edited:
I honestly feel like - even before this whole Patreon thing - Peterson kinda dropped off the face of the earth outside of his fanbase. I don't think I've seen a 'Why are (((they))) afraid of him?' article in quite some time. It's kind of a relief, to be honest.
I was just getting off the train in London Victoria station today on the way to work and saw a poster for Petersons book, was very sad to see. Worst part is the quote from the NYT about him being the most influential thinker of our times or some bullshit.
He is pretty influential, unfortunately it's influencing depressed and aimless men to become sociopaths.
- Status