PDA

View Full Version : Who knows the work of Jordan Peterson, psychologist?



David G
04-19-2018, 12:03 PM
A friend just recommend his work. Seems like an interesting mixed bag at first blush --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Anyone familiar with him?

mdh
04-19-2018, 12:05 PM
You have a friend, indeed.

Paul Pless
04-19-2018, 12:09 PM
'public intellectual'

lol

David G
04-19-2018, 12:16 PM
'public intellectual'

lol

Interesting topic in its own right. I'll start a thread. Do you know Peterson?

Jim Bow
04-19-2018, 12:16 PM
Right-winger? Not me, says alt-right darling Jordan PetersonTo his growing legion of mostly male fans, Jordan Peterson is a cultural messiah, but to his critics he’s a professor of piffle. When the Canadian psychologist recently brought his brand of intellectual machismo to Australia, crowds flocked – and controversy followed.
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/right-winger-not-me-says-alt-right-darling-jordan-peterson-20180417-p4za14.html

SKIP KILPATRICK
04-19-2018, 12:20 PM
David,

Thank goodness you are finally reaching out for professional help! :D

David G
04-19-2018, 12:21 PM
David,

Thank goodness you are finally reaching out for professional help! :D

It's TOO LATE for me. Save yourself!!!!!!!! :D:rolleyes::D

TomF
04-19-2018, 12:23 PM
"Alt.right" isn't accurate, though "orthodox" certainly is. I find quite a lot of Peterson's ideas compelling, and others of them wrong-headed. But he is far from the caricature that some have made him to be.

For instance, despite all claims you might read, he isn't sexist, or homophobic, or authoritarian, or a fantasist. He is very strong on personal accountability, on following data to conclusions rather than bowing to ideology. He is not Christian, but teaches courses on the foundational nature of biblical narratives in our culture - and their continuing relevance and meaning. He has zip time for discourse theories, for Marxism, or similar dodges to personal responsibility.

He is also a practising clinical psychologist, who by all accounts has been very effective with his clients.

Paul Pless
04-19-2018, 12:24 PM
A friend just recommend his work. it was ishmael?

SKIP KILPATRICK
04-19-2018, 12:26 PM
I've been seeing Dr. Bachmann. He has been wonderful!

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--YyvTsJLV--/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,q_80,w _1200/18j4wfgt6hx8vjpg.jpg

David G
04-19-2018, 12:29 PM
"Alt.right" isn't accurate, though "orthodox" certainly is. I find quite a lot of Peterson's ideas compelling, and others of them wrong-headed. But he is far from the caricature that some have made him to be.

For instance, despite all claims you might read, he isn't sexist, or homophobic, or authoritarian, or a fantasist. He is very strong on personal accountability, on following data to conclusions rather than bowing to ideology. He is not Christian, but teaches courses on the foundational nature of biblical narratives in our culture - and their continuing relevance and meaning. He has zip time for discourse theories, for Marxism, or similar dodges to personal responsibility.

He is also a practising clinical psychologist, who by all accounts has been very effective with his clients.

Thanks, Tom, for the substantive response. The rest of these mugs... it's like trying to herd Catboats in a Force9 <G>

So it sounds like you think he is worth exploring? <shaddup Skip!!>

Ian McColgin
04-19-2018, 12:31 PM
Ishmael has certainly posted Peterson's links. To me he's a bit like Bruno Bettelheim - Superficially provocative and interesting but the deeper you dig the less truth you find.

Just to be clear for those who know a bit about Bettelheim, I am comparing the ways their ideas work, and certainly not even hinting that the various sordid things that came out about Bettelheim have any analogy in Peterson's life.

TomF
04-19-2018, 12:42 PM
He is worth listening to, though I admit he is a guy who loves a confrontation.

I'd say he is closer to an actual conservative, not an alt- or neo-. Which means that what he argues for are values which only seem innovative because they are now less fashionable; he puts ideas together well, but is arguing for values which feel awfully familiar. His argument, though, is that the values are in fact valuable, and uncomfortable or not, describe things which are empirically so.

Again, I don't agree with all his stuff by any means, but he is very bright, articulate (though a bit pugnacious and whiny), and can support all of what he says with lots of footnotes to actual studies.

David G
04-19-2018, 12:44 PM
Ishmael has certainly posted Peterson's links. To me he's a bit like Bruno Bettelheim - Superficially provocative and interesting but the deeper you dig the less truth you find.

Just to be clear for those who know a bit about Bettelheim, I am comparing the ways their ideas work, and certainly not even hinting that the various sordid things that came out about Bettelheim have any analogy in Peterson's life.


<snort>

So you're saying his stuff is more superficial than substantive - and not worth investing time in?

TomF
04-19-2018, 12:48 PM
An apologist for what may seem on reflection to surprise you as just "conventional wisdom". But which is still, for all its conventionality, often really wise.

Ian McColgin
04-19-2018, 12:52 PM
Not exactly, David G. Peterson is generally short enough that his stuff is readily digested and not the worst provocation for thinking your own ideas. At some point you may find that just a few sentences in leaves you feeling somehow trivialized. Good time to give him a rest. Read some Niebuhr.

ishmael
04-19-2018, 01:16 PM
From his recent book, "Twelve Rules for Life". Number nine.

"Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't".

I work on that one, especially with those who assume a superior attitude and gratuitously insult their fellow humans. With those folks, after awhile, there is no reaching them and it's easier, and better, to just leave them to stew in their own juices.

As I said months ago here, Peterson knows what he's talking about.

Flying Orca
04-19-2018, 01:55 PM
I believe this article sums up pretty much all you need to know about Jordan Peterson. It's worth reading all the way through: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

ishmael
04-19-2018, 02:11 PM
"Happiness is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life. You conjure your own world, not only metaphorically but also literally and neurologically. These lessons are what the great stories and myths have been telling us since civilization began."

Jordan Peterson

His twelve rules:


Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Make friends with people who want the best for you
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
Be precise in your speech
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

He, by setting rules in the first place, is not going to sit well with most of today's post-modern intellectuals. But as the old saw from WWII bomber pilots goes, "If you're taking flack it means you are over the target."

David G
04-19-2018, 02:39 PM
I believe this article sums up pretty much all you need to know about Jordan Peterson. It's worth reading all the way through: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

Thanks. Just the sort of thing I was looking for. And cohesive with the little bit of him I've sampled.

Ian McColgin
04-19-2018, 03:16 PM
Were Peterson philosophically literate, he would know that the "pursuit of happiness" enshrined in our constitution is basic Enlightenment-utilitarian philosophy and means a bit more than the moral ambition of a cow.

BrianY
04-19-2018, 03:26 PM
ishmael, as the man says, you must set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.

Let us know when you've achieved that perfection. Then we might listen to your crticisms.

Oh, also be sure to stand up straight!

David G
04-19-2018, 03:40 PM
"Happiness is a pointless goal. Don’t compare yourself with other people, compare yourself with who you were yesterday. No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life. You conjure your own world, not only metaphorically but also literally and neurologically. These lessons are what the great stories and myths have been telling us since civilization began."

Jordan Peterson

His twelve rules:


Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Make friends with people who want the best for you
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
Be precise in your speech
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

He, by setting rules in the first place, is not going to sit well with most of today's post-modern intellectuals. But as the old saw from WWII bomber pilots goes, "If you're taking flack it means you are over the target."


"Deteriorata"

You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here.
Deteriorata. Deteriorata.
Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons, unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss, and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
and despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.
Remember The Pueblo.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate.
Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you -
That lemon on your left, for instance.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore. It will stick to your face.
Gracefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan.
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
Hire people with hooks.
For a good time, call 606-4311. Ask for Ken.
Take heart in the bedeepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever fortune may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Therefore, make peace with your god,
Whatever you perceive him to be - hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up!


<Courtesy of National Lampoon>

Flying Orca
04-19-2018, 05:03 PM
Thanks. Just the sort of thing I was looking for. And cohesive with the little bit of him I've sampled.

That was my take as well.

ishmael
04-19-2018, 08:35 PM
I think Dr. Peterson would be first to agree, 'perfection is the enemy of the good'. No one I've met lives up to their ideals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep striving for them.

“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?”

Browning

Sky Blue
04-19-2018, 08:49 PM
Canada has proven to be fertile ground for the alternative right wing intelligentsia. Britain as well. Both nations labor horribly under the anti-intellectualism and hateful identity politics that undergird political correctness and it is unsurprising that it's most vociferous critics hail from these places.

BrianY
04-19-2018, 08:58 PM
I think Dr. Peterson would be first to agree, 'perfection is the enemy of the good'. No one I've met lives up to their ideals. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep striving for them.

“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?”

Browning

so when he says to set your house in perfect order before criticizing others, it's more of an ideal even though he says it's one of his "rules"...which seems to contradict his other rule about being precise in one's speech, or is that just an ideal too?

And what if you really dislike skateboards and skateboarders...if you let your children skateboard, that might make you dislike them, and he says that you shouldn't do that, but what also says to not bother children when they are skateboarding...so what is one supposed to do?

Keith Wilson
04-19-2018, 09:16 PM
Ah. Thanks very much Sr. Orca, that article probably saved me a fair amount of exasperation and wasted time. I might have taken Mr Peterson seriously. As someone who appreciates displaying ideas graphically, I think his 'maps of meaning' are complete howlers, utter gibberish, verging on parody. It's hard to look at these things without laughing; The Onion couldn't come up with them.
https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/peterson5-1024x795.jpg

https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/petersonreplace-1024x756.jpg

https://images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/peterson1-1024x935.jpg

ishmael
04-19-2018, 09:17 PM
In the instances you mention, Brian, what are your rules?

In just quoting his rules I've done a not a very satisfactory thing. There's a whole book devoted to their explication! Just borrowed it from the library. It's quite interesting.

Peterson is a very bright guy, who has thirty years of clinical experience, about the same teaching, and a wide swath of intent study of western culture. Literature and film, mostly. He's strongly influenced by Jung, which is a huge plus for me. Jung was a genius. We are both Jungian in our take on life, so of course he speaks to me in ways he won't to others.

David G
04-19-2018, 09:25 PM
In the instances you mention, Brian, what are your rules?

In just quoting his rules I've done a not a very satisfactory thing. There's a whole book devoted to their explication! Just borrowed it from the library. It's quite interesting.

Peterson is a very bright guy, who has thirty years of clinical experience, about the same teaching, and a wide swath of intent study of western culture. Literature and film, mostly. He's strongly influenced by Jung, which is a huge plus for me. Jung was a genius. We are both Jungian in our take on life, so of course he speaks to me in ways he won't to others.

Jung is a good one to admire.

ishmael
04-19-2018, 09:28 PM
Keith,

"Maps of Meaning" is maybe twenty five years old? I agree, those diagrams are a bit of a mish mash. A younger man struggling to put labels on things he didn't understand. If you'd tried to diagram your understanding at thirty I wager it wouldn't be nearly so complex.;) But then you're an engineer, not a psychologist.

Keith Wilson
04-19-2018, 09:39 PM
Mishmash is way too polite. There are many things I didn't understand at age thirty, and almost as many I don't understand now. And some things I thought I understood then, I now realize I don't; that may be a little wisdom. But I didn't write a 564-page book putting labels on things I didn't understand, with diagrams that are damn near the equivalent of the output of a random word generator.

Sorry, Jack, maybe there's some wisdom in Mr. Peterson's stuff. But his particular style of intellectual pomposity gets my back up more than almost anything.

ishmael
04-19-2018, 09:42 PM
No, but you've now topped 48 thousand posts here. ;)

Keith Wilson
04-19-2018, 09:46 PM
Yeah, it's taken me more than 20 years, and about half of them were on the now-deceased scrabble thread. :D

Sky Blue
04-19-2018, 09:50 PM
What happened to the scrabble thread?

David G
04-19-2018, 09:52 PM
Keith,

"Maps of Meaning" is maybe twenty five years old? I agree, those diagrams are a bit of a mish mash. A younger man struggling to put labels on things he didn't understand. If you'd tried to diagram your understanding at thirty I wager it wouldn't be nearly so complex.;) But then you're an engineer, not a psychologist.

jack,

I agree - from the little I've now read, he comes across as a man struggling to find the words to express something larger than his intellect can wrap itself around.

It may be that he is in touch with something so large, so complex, so over-archingly comprehensive... that it would be the work of a genius over a lifetime to begin to articulate it adequately. It is possible for something to be SO subtle that our attempts to give voice to the vision and the distinctions SEEM like contradictions and confusion. Some ideas don't lend themselves to being boxed in by words. The brain is an amazing thing, and human attempts to understand the body/anatomy are far ahead of efforts to understand the brain/psychology. Which are far ahead of our efforts to comprehend the soul/spirit.

Or not.

At this point, I'm leaning toward 'not'.

But if it IS all of that. If he HAS tapped into the ineffable, in a seminal way... he still is not able to explain it. His stuff IS self-contradictory and mercurial. Unless you enjoy pondering the imponderable, for the sake of convincing yourself you're on a journey toward enlightenment... which you could do with a rubber ducky in your lap, without all the dense and prolix persiflage.l.. it's pretty much useless.

I'd head back to Jung for some serious study, were I you.

Vince Brennan
04-19-2018, 09:54 PM
Did this guy self-publish? SERIOUSLY??????

ishmael
04-19-2018, 10:00 PM
I must have missed the Scrabble thread.

I think Peterson is on to something good. Very good. I e-mailed him awhile back, just as he was emerging on the 'scene'. Didn't hear back from him, which didn't surprise me. He must be busier than the proverbial one-armed paper hanger these days.

His prose, from what I've read in his new book, is utilitarian bordering on mildly inspired at times. He says what he means without much flourish.

It's interesting, a 100 years plus since Freud, and the issue of the psyche as a primary mover is still a nascent topic.

BrianY
04-19-2018, 10:06 PM
jack,

I agree - from the little I've now read, he comes across as a man struggling to find the words to express something larger than his intellect can wrap itself around.

It may be that he is in touch with something so large, so complex, so over-archingly comprehensive... that it would be the work of a genius over a lifetime to begin to articulate it adequately. It is possible for something to be SO subtle that our attempts to give voice to the vision and the distinctions SEEM like contradictions and confusion. Some ideas don't lend themselves to being boxed in by words. The brain is an amazing thing, and human attempts to understand the body/anatomy are far ahead of efforts to understand the brain/psychology. Which are far ahead of our efforts to comprehend the soul/spirit.

Or not.

At this point, I'm leaning toward 'not'.

But if it IS all of that. If he HAS tapped into the ineffable, in a seminal way... he still is not able to explain it. His stuff IS self-contradictory and mercurial. Unless you enjoy pondering the imponderable, for the sake of convincing yourself you're on a journey toward enlightenment... which you could do with a rubber ducky in your lap, without all the dense and prolix persiflage.l.. it's pretty much useless.

I'd head back to Jung for some serious study, were I you.

I think you give him way too much credit. Now, I haven't read a ton of his stuff so I could be wrong, but from what I have read, what he's struggling with is finding a way to state simple and well-known truths and ideals in overly complex, jargon-fille, academic - speak to make himself and his message appear to be something new and deeply profound. In doing so, he obfuscates the meaning and the message with contradictory, vague and semi-coherent rambling language that never seems to actually make any specific points. I can understand how this sort of thing appeals to some people - it sounds really profound and meaningful so it's easy to believe that it actually IS profound and meaningful if you don't think too critically about it.

He would do everyone a favor if he would follow his own rule: Be precise in your speech.

His audience would probably do themselves a favor if they'd give up his diagrams and ramblings and take up Zen. They'd gain more insight into themselves and humanity by just sitting and meditating on a regular basis.

David G
04-19-2018, 11:00 PM
I think you give him way too much credit. Now, I haven't read a ton of his stuff so I could be wrong, but from what I have read, what he's struggling with is finding a way to state simple and well-known truths and ideals in overly complex, jargon-fille, academic - speak to make himself and his message appear to be something new and deeply profound. In doing so, he obfuscates the meaning and the message with contradictory, vague and semi-coherent rambling language that never seems to actually make any specific points. I can understand how this sort of thing appeals to some people - it sounds really profound and meaningful so it's easy to believe that it actually IS profound and meaningful if you don't think too critically about it.

He would do everyone a favor if he would follow his own rule: Be precise in your speech.

His audience would probably do themselves a favor if they'd give up his diagrams and ramblings and take up Zen. They'd gain more insight into themselves and humanity by just sitting and meditating on a regular basis.

Yes, the odds are with your interpretation, and that of the article that F.O. referenced. And yet, I have heard similar sorts of seemingly muddled, confused, and contradictory language from academics who actually were onto something, but hadn't fully grokked it yet. At least not enough to explain it. But odds are you're right. And his schtick is just a schtick, which he himself seems to take seriously.

I have one economist friend who used to teach, now consults, but whose real work is a way at looking at some aspects of economics that could be ground-breaking. Because we're old friends, and I have a bit of economics background, he used to bounce ideas off of me. It helped him sort thru things to have me attempt to pick it apart, and to insist on rigor. Now that he's putting it together, I can no longer help him, because his area is not mine, the structure of his reasoning has grown too large, and I simply can't keep up. He has some initial chapters for a book done, but he's not completely there yet on a theoretical level.

But the point is - some of Peterson's writing reminds me of his - when he had only a glimmer of, and but a tenuous grasp on, the insight that's driving it all. Sometimes attempts to be precise end up being just wordy if the concept is still mostly nebulous in your mind. So... I'm not willing to absolutely write off Peterson. Just mostly inclined to.

johnw
04-19-2018, 11:23 PM
Yeah, it's taken me more than 20 years, and about half of them were on the now-deceased scrabble thread. :D
I suppose that's been replaced by Words with Friends. Someday, I will make it hard for my friend Mimi to beat me...

pcford
04-20-2018, 12:48 AM
DavidG, what the heck!! I leave here for a while and when I come back you are quoting Jung and Jordan Peterson! I have been watching quite a bit of his videos on youtube; he is interesting. I got in a p*ssing match with some people in a film group in which I served on the board of directors. Peterson dislikes the "social justice warriors"...those hyper politically correct advocates of absolute identity political purity. He was almost fired from the U of Toronto for not using politically correct pronouns. Identity politics...that brought you the disaster of Donald Trump.


A friend just recommend his work. Seems like an interesting mixed bag at first blush --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson

Anyone familiar with him?

David G
04-20-2018, 12:56 AM
DavidG, what the heck!! I leave here for a while and when I come back you are quoting Jung and Jordan Peterson! I have been watching quite a bit of his videos on youtube; he is interesting. I got in a p*ssing match with some people in a film group in which I served on the board of directors. Peterson dislikes the "social justice warriors"...those hyper politically correct advocates of absolute identity political purity. He was almost fired from the U of Toronto for not using politically correct pronouns. Identity politics...that brought you the disaster of Donald Trump.

If you'd only let me keep the shop apron on... ;)

pcford
04-20-2018, 01:19 AM
If you'd only let me keep the shop apron on... ;)

The alt-right guys seem to love him. Though I don't think he desires their friendship. He is a fascinating phenomenon.

David G
04-20-2018, 03:01 PM
The alt-right guys seem to love him. Though I don't think he desires their friendship. He is a fascinating phenomenon.

Did you read the critique in Levitating Blackfish's #18??

TomF
04-20-2018, 03:19 PM
To be fair, he us a lecturer more than a writer. His snippets of lectures from his u of Toronto classes are well worth listening to.

johnw
04-20-2018, 03:41 PM
The alt-right guys seem to love him. Though I don't think he desires their friendship. He is a fascinating phenomenon.
He seems to share their contempt for people who fight for social justice, and had adopted their language in describing them. If he didn't want their peaches, why shake their tree?

Flying Orca
05-25-2018, 07:13 AM
Another good piece on Peterson: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/

Khayyam1048
07-30-2018, 06:32 AM
A good piece? Are you joking? This is a crude hit piece, written in SJW-speak, that misunderstands and misrepresents Peterson at every turn. At 58 years of age I am no swooning acolyte and have my own disagreements with Peterson, both in large areas like economics (where, surprisingly for an ex-activist for a socialist party, his views are strangely and disappointingly underdeveloped) and in points of detail, but he deserves far better than this pitiful hatchet job. (It's also depressing to witness how vertiginously standards have fallen at the TLS.)

Peerie Maa
07-30-2018, 06:41 AM
^ What a strange first post to a Wooden Boat Forum. :confused:

Khayyam1048
07-30-2018, 06:42 AM
Peterson may well share the alt-right's contempt for those who represent themselves as fighting for social justice, but he has also explained why he dislikes both the alt-right and the SJWs in terms of what he calls the "ideological possession" common to both. Those who wish to link him with the alt-right because he and they share a common enemy in the SJWs are clearly trying to smear Peterson by association. In so doing, they are grievously mischaracterising him.

Khayyam1048
07-30-2018, 06:45 AM
You'll have to explain why.

Khayyam1048
07-30-2018, 06:52 AM
This is a fair comment. Peterson is brilliant as a lecturer, public speaker and interviewee, but clumsy and pedestrian for the most part (odd bravura flashes aside) as a writer. He seems to be a natural performer who needs an audience as a sounding board as he develops his ideas (rather like an improvising jazz musician) in the act of presenting them.

Peerie Maa
07-30-2018, 07:01 AM
You'll have to explain why.

First off, I had to Google SJW-speak.

Social justice warrior (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) term for an individual who promotes socially progressive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_progressive) views, including feminism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism), civil rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights), and multiculturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism),[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#cite_note-Ohlheiser-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#cite_note-Johnson-2) as well as identity politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#cite_note-3) The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#cite_note-Heron_&_Belford-4) and engaging in disingenuous arguments.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#cite_note-Ringo-5)


You will fit right in here with the likes of SB. Nothing like joining a conversation with a vitriolic ad hom to endear yourself to strangers. ;)

skuthorp
07-30-2018, 07:05 AM
Just another messiah substitute. The opportunists, fools and weak minded are always with us and a reliable meal ticket to someone with a gift of the gab.

David G
07-30-2018, 08:21 AM
After Peterson was recommended to me - by a friendly, earnest, questing... but not always reliable source - I looked into him a bit.

He appears to be another in a long line of folks who use large words, important sounding but vague phrases, and disjointed discourse to appear a 'deep thinker' to those who don't have the background to recognize the difference. He seems to alternate between being assiduously and punctiliously vague - hoping to offer no substance for any rebuttal - and outbursts of tenuously-grounded assertions. It's a bit dizzying, really.

He may be onto some salient points. But - if so - he's really still in the exploration stage. Not ready for prime time... but appearing to crave it. So he ventures forth, not wholly prepared, to explore in public the nuggets of truth he has grasped. The problem seems to be that he hasn't used those nuggets to build anything coherent by way of theories or explanations of larger issues. But he keeps trying, developing his understanding in fits and starts, rejecting his prior comments, but not seeming to make a lot of progress toward a larger vision. Just offering up different, but equally bootless, theories.

Either that - or he's a conceptual genius who just hasn't developed the language to express it. I'm not ruling that out entirely. Just mostly. Since my examination has been cursory... perhaps I'm being unfair. But after reading enough academic writing - both good and bad - I think I've got the picture.

Keith Wilson
07-30-2018, 08:37 AM
He appears to be another in a long line of folks who use large words, important sounding but vague phrases, and disjointed discourse to appear a 'deep thinker' to those who don't have the background to recognize the difference.That describes his charts exactly. Vaguely connected profound-appearing word salad, with some circles and boxes and arrows thrown in apparently for decoration.

It's hard sometimes to tell the difference between an inarticulate genius and a pompous mediocrity.

Tom Montgomery
07-30-2018, 08:42 AM
.
Meh.

Color me surprised that anyone would dredge up this thread. Especially a newbie.

AlanMc
07-30-2018, 08:59 AM
i've been watching a few of peterson's videos lately. they're entertaining and he makes some good points.

downthecreek
07-30-2018, 09:11 AM
That describes his charts exactly. Vaguely connected profound-appearing word salad, with some circles and boxes and arrows thrown in apparently for decoration.

It's hard sometimes to tell the difference between an inarticulate genius and a pompous mediocrity.

He's been described, amongst other things as "the stupid person's idea of a smart person".

I haven't seen, heard or read much of his stuff, but, on the basis of what I have done, that seems to me to be quite apt. He certainly seems to have tuned in quite successfully to a strain of reactionary thought that seems to be popular at the moment in some quarters.

David G
07-30-2018, 09:12 AM
A good piece? Are you joking? This is a crude hit piece, written in SJW-speak, that misunderstands and misrepresents Peterson at every turn. At 58 years of age I am no swooning acolyte and have my own disagreements with Peterson, both in large areas like economics (where, surprisingly for an ex-activist for a socialist party, his views are strangely and disappointingly underdeveloped) and in points of detail, but he deserves far better than this pitiful hatchet job. (It's also depressing to witness how vertiginously standards have fallen at the TLS.)

Cool.

So give us some of each. What are some specific critiques you'd offer of his work, as a whole? And what about his work is of value (deserves better)? Perhaps I've missed something...

TomF
07-30-2018, 09:58 AM
He doesn't "shine" in print, I agree, but his lecture clips from his classrooms are pretty good. As are some at least of his other speaking and interview clips. I don't agree with the notion that he's "a stupid person's idea of a smart person;" he's actually a smart person. Just one who does not agree with various tropes in modern academic discourse that have become rather hegemonic. And likes being pugnacious and passive-aggressive in his delivery.

I don't think Peterson's even really trying to say something "new" or "revolutionary" - I don't experience him as a reactionary, let alone an alt-con, or a neo-con, however much those folks seize upon him. The "rules" he proposes for getting oneself together (he's got an active clinical psych private practice, eh) aren't revolutionary or even outside of common sense. They're obviously, intentionally, pointedly based on the "received wisdom" of the Western culture, and supported by a fairly comprehensive command of the relevant clinical literature. His unpacking of biblical themes (note, he's not a supernatural-god-believing-Christian) to find actual value has a lot of commonality with what Northrop Frye did in English Lit through his rather illustrious academic career; similarly Peterson's unpacking of myth and legend isn't terribly different from what Joseph Campbell did.

What's different is that Peterson is up front in saying that empirical quantitative data, including data from a wide variety of economic and social datasets, shows that quite pragmatically, people often choose to continue to embody bits of those myths and archetypes. Given free choice to do so. And Peterson argues that folks' choices to do so are not primarily driven by discourses of social domination or patriarchal oppression, but by what folks seem to genuinely prefer. By what is consistent with how folks tend to self-describe in established clinical psychology tools like the OCEAN personality tests - the tests which are accurate enough descriptors of one's tendencies and preferences that Cambridge Analytica used them to (successfully) sway elections through micro-targeted info, eh?

I think that what Peterson would say is not that he's even really attempting to break new ideological ground; he's trying to indicate that there's empirical quantitative support across a raft of disciplines for attitudes and practices which have largely been disparaged in currently dominant academic circles as "cultural imperialism" or "social constructs." Peterson is saying that such disparagements have it backwards; that the social constructs (myths, legends, archetypes, norms) often arose from physiological experience. Experience which (as in his Lobster illustration) is physiologically observable and quantifiable in other species which broke off from our own evolutionary pathway hundreds of millions of years ago. Lobsters, he says, don't have social constructs of oppression/dominance, but their neurological markers react exactly as humans' do in situations of stress.

That is, Peterson thinks it's unlikely that complex socially constructed narratives about fluid gender identity and heteronormative lobster oppression etc. are the reason that lobsters' neurotransmitter levels change when they meet up with other bigger or smaller lobsters. Or that male lobsters' levels are reliably different from females'. He figures that way back in evolutionary time, before lobsters and mammals diverged, some common ancestor of lobsters and humans developed this neurological system which we (and pretty much every other creature) share. Which suggests that it's flat wrong to argue that socially constructed gendered narratives among humans are the cause of gendered behaviour. That instead, humanity's various social constructs and narratives about such things arose as means of describing and explaining what people (and lobsters) are impelled towards by our physiology. The narratives are epiphenomenal, more than deterministic and oppressive.Again, that isn't exactly novel.

We've talked for ages here on the forum about things like the adaptive nature of altruism for a species (though not for an individual within the species), and how this is a logical origin point for discourses of morality. We've talked about the adaptive nature of developing social relations, seen in species from wolves to lions to ants to herring to primates ... and how this is a logical origin point for discourses of nationalism or religious identity groups. Secular science-friendly Liberals are OK with that, are fully engaged in what they view as a legitimate and substantive line of inquiry. But somehow, we're not OK with Peterson exploring the same patterns respecting gender relationships.

I don't see Peterson as a guru, or some enormously novel thinker; I disagree with quite a lot of what he says, actually. But I also don't think he's a wannabe academic or some kind of alt-right crackpot. His often pugnacious phrases and responses really get on my nerves, and IMO detract from what he says - but then again, interviewers and critics persist in making him out to say things which he actually doesn't, and then slaying their own strawmen. That would get me punchy too.

AlanMc
07-30-2018, 10:06 AM
He doesn't "shine" in print, I agree, but his lecture clips from his classrooms are pretty good. As are some at least of his other speaking and interview clips. I don't agree with the notion that he's "a stupid person's idea of a smart person;" he's actually a smart person. Just one who does not agree with various tropes in modern academic discourse that have become rather hegemonic. And likes being pugnacious and passive-aggressive in his delivery.I don't think Peterson's even really trying to say something "new" or "revolutionary" - I don't experience him as a reactionary, let alone an alt-con, or a neo-con, however much those folks seize upon him. The "rules" he proposes for getting oneself together (he's got an active clinical psych private practice, eh) aren't revolutionary or even outside of common sense. They're obviously, intentionally, pointedly based on the "received wisdom" of the Western culture, and supported by a fairly comprehensive command of the relevant clinical literature. His unpacking of biblical themes (note, he's not a supernatural-god-believing-Christian) to find actual value has a lot of commonality with what Northrop Frye did in English Lit through his rather illustrious academic career; similarly Peterson's unpacking of myth and legend isn't terribly different from what Joseph Campbell did. What's different is that Peterson is up front in saying that empirical quantitative data, including data from a wide variety of economic and social datasets, shows that quite pragmatically, people often choose to continue to embody bits of those myths and archetypes. Given free choice to do so. And Peterson argues that folks' choices to do so are not primarily driven by discourses of social domination or patriarchal oppression, but by what folks seem to genuinely prefer. By what is consistent with how folks tend to self-describe in established clinical psychology tools like the OCEAN personality tests - the tests which are accurate enough descriptors of one's tendencies and preferences that Cambridge Analytica used them to (successfully) sway elections through micro-targeted info, eh?I think that what Peterson would say is not that he's even really attempting to break new ideological ground; he's trying to indicate that there's empirical quantitative support across a raft of disciplines for attitudes and practices which have largely been disparaged in currently dominant academic circles as "cultural imperialism" or "social constructs." Peterson is saying that such disparagements have it backwards; that the social constructs (myths, legends, archetypes, norms) often arose from physiological experience. Experience which (as in his Lobster illustration) is physiologically observable and quantifiable in other species which broke off from our own evolutionary pathway hundreds of millions of years ago. Lobsters, he says, don't have social constructs of oppression/dominance, but their neurological markers react exactly as humans' do in situations of stress. That is, Peterson thinks it's unlikely that complex socially constructed narratives about fluid gender identity and heteronormative lobster oppression etc. are the reason that lobsters' neurotransmitter levels change when they meet up with other bigger or smaller lobsters. Or that male lobsters' levels are reliably different from females'. He figures that way back in evolutionary time, before lobsters and mammals diverged, some common ancestor of lobsters and humans developed this neurological system which we (and pretty much every other creature) share. Which suggests that it's flat wrong to argue that socially constructed gendered narratives among humans are the cause of gendered behaviour. That instead, humanity's various social constructs and narratives about such things arose as means of describing and explaining what people (and lobsters) are impelled towards by our physiology. The narratives are epiphenomenal, more than deterministic and oppressive.Again, that isn't exactly novel. We've talked for ages here on the forum about things like the adaptive nature of altruism for a species (though not for an individual within the species), and how this is a logical origin point for discourses of morality. We've talked about the adaptive nature of developing social relations, seen in species from wolves to lions to ants to herring to primates ... and how this is a logical origin point for discourses of nationalism or religious identity groups. Secular science-friendly Liberals are OK with that, are fully engaged in what they view as a legitimate and substantive line of inquiry. But somehow, we're not OK with Peterson exploring the same patterns respecting gender relationships. I don't see Peterson as a guru, or some enormously novel thinker; I disagree with quite a lot of what he says, actually. But I also don't think he's a wannabe academic or some kind of alt-right crackpot. His often pugnacious phrases and responses really get on my nerves, and IMO detract from what he says - but then again, interviewers and critics persist in making him out to say things which he actually doesn't, and then slaying their own strawmen. That would get me punchy too.


it's almost comical to go watch the full length video of the interviews that these hatchet job articles are based on. they go WAY out of their way to murder the context of what he's saying.

TomF
07-30-2018, 10:13 AM
Damn, something weird on my computer isn't allowing paragraphs to separate. Sorry for that obliterating wall of text, folks.

AlanMc
07-30-2018, 10:16 AM
Damn, something weird on my computer isn't allowing paragraphs to separate. Sorry for that obliterating wall of text, folks.



hahhaha, i got through it... barely.

John of Phoenix
07-30-2018, 10:31 AM
"I never met a shrink who didn't need a shrink." - JoP

Stand up straight with your shoulders back
Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
Make friends with people who want the best for you
Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
Be precise in your speech
Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

Osborne Russell
07-30-2018, 11:16 AM
Damn, something weird on my computer isn't allowing paragraphs to separate. Sorry for that obliterating wall of text, folks.

Good text, though.

I've watched a couple of his videos. Sometimes I agree strongly and admire his clarity. Sometimes I disagree. Sometimes I can't figure out what he's saying.

But it seems like apart from all of that, he sometimes goes off the rails into reification, i.e. inventing concepts, building them into systems, and then arguing that the systems are the things themselves. As if nature distinguished between insects and mammals.

Peerie Maa
07-30-2018, 11:19 AM
He's been described, amongst other things as "the stupid person's idea of a smart person".

I haven't seen, heard or read much of his stuff, but, on the basis of what I have done, that seems to me to be quite apt. He certainly seems to have tuned in quite successfully to a strain of reactionary thought that seems to be popular at the moment in some quarters.
In Kent? The home of UKIP and not so closet casual racism.

Keith Wilson
07-30-2018, 11:19 AM
. . . humanity's various social constructs and narratives about such things arose as means of describing and explaining what people (and lobsters) are impelled towards by our physiology. The narratives are epiphenomenal, more than deterministic and oppressive. Again, that isn't exactly novel. Well, of course. To say otherwise is 'blank slate' hogwash, and pretends that we aren't evolved mammals - although it works both ways, of course; the cultural stuff does affects our thinking and behavior to some degree, and there are always some people who don't fit the standard categories. Puncturing fashionable academic nonsense is almost too easy. Steven Pinker does that kind of thing better, and far more coherently.

Your paragraphs appear to have returned.

'Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world' is a bit silly, even if you leave out the ludicrous 'perfect'. Nothing this side of mathematical equations is ever in perfect order anywhere.

TomF
07-30-2018, 11:39 AM
Paragraphs re-emerged when I edited The Wall '0 Text on a different machine. But the Deus just isn't in one of my Machinas. :D

downthecreek
07-30-2018, 11:47 AM
In Kent? The home of UKIP and not so closet casual racism.

Kent? What would I know about Kent? It's on the other side of the Queen Elizabeth bridge, for Heaven's sake! We Essex girls have no truck with Kent. But at least they didn't actually elect Nige, so I give them credit for that. BY:D

Peerie Maa
07-30-2018, 11:53 AM
Kent? What would I know about Kent? It's on the other side of the Queen Elizabeth bridge, for Heaven's sake! We Essex girls have no truck with Kent. But at least they didn't actually elect Nige, so I give them credit for that. BY:D
Hmm? Essex girls? I still have relatives in Kent, so I know about the not so closet casual racism.
About Khayyam1048 Location:
Kent England

Khayyam1048
07-30-2018, 02:13 PM
I am sorry if you have lived your life under a rock for the last few years; I assumed that the expression "SJW" would be widely understood, at least among English speakers. As it happens, I used the term as a neutral descriptor, not as a pejorative one, although you are certainly correct if you discern a penumbra of criticism towards such people in my earlier comment.

As far as ad homs go, vitriolic or otherwise, I'll leave those to you.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that this forum was intended for debate rather than ingratiation.

Khayyam1048
07-30-2018, 02:20 PM
A lot of people live in Kent, including Bob Geldof; a quick glance at Wikipedia (for what it's worth) suggests a figure of just under 2 million. Residency there, you may be surprised to learn, is not restricted to members or supporters of UKIP.

johnw
07-30-2018, 02:38 PM
I am sorry if you have lived your life under a rock for the last few years; I assumed that the expression "SJW" would be widely understood, at least among English speakers. As it happens, I used the term as a neutral descriptor, not as a pejorative one, although you are certainly correct if you discern a penumbra of criticism towards such people in my earlier comment.

As far as ad homs go, vitriolic or otherwise, I'll leave those to you.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that this forum was intended for debate rather than ingratiation.

If you think SJW is a neutral descriptor, you've been living under a rock for more than ten years.

As for the purpose of the forum, it's for discussing wooden boats. Tell us about yours, it will humanize you and help you gain acceptance. If, that is, you want to have the kind of acceptance that makes it easier to have a polite discussion. Some who come here prefer to troll, and if that's your wish, feel free to disregard my advice.

Peerie Maa
07-30-2018, 03:09 PM
A lot of people live in Kent, including Bob Geldof; a quick glance at Wikipedia (for what it's worth) suggests a figure of just under 2 million. Residency there, you may be surprised to learn, is not restricted to members or supporters of UKIP.

Do you remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fSbpNh9fDY
I spent 13 years living in Margate, still have an aunt living at Broadstairs, who casually commented of a pedestrian we passed "He has been out in the sun too long".

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 04:18 AM
I am here to discuss Jordan Peterson, since that is the topic of this thread.

I intuited the definition of the acronym "SJW" from its usage in real life rather than from the eminent lexicographers of Wikipedia.

PeterSibley
07-31-2018, 04:59 AM
Reminds me of SB.
"Worse than all this, there's no room for even tepid dissent. Criticise the left and you're labelled a fascist, a toady of the alt-right. Dare to criticise the extremes of Islam and you're branded an Islamophobe. Question LGBT+ politics and you're a homophobe; refuse to use gender neutral pronouns and you're a transphobe.Western society, he suggests, has turned against men. "We are playing very foolish games in the West," he warns in one YouTube video. "And we could bring the house down around us." When a young German interviewer informs Peterson one of her professors recommends not having a child to reduce her carbon footprint, Peterson cracks, "Tell him he can save the planet by jumping off a cliff." In another video, he fumes that "the radical left has never taken responsibility for being on the same side as the Stalinists, Maoists and Cambodian murderers. At least the Germans apologised: 'Sorry about the Nazis.' "

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 05:01 AM
I am assuming that your aunt is a lady of a certain generation. If you overheard casual conversations in, say, Urdu or Hausa (and understood them), you might encounter some less than complimentary remarks about white Europeans. For good or ill, that's human nature.

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 05:10 AM
In the context of this forum I might add: Make even mildly critical comments about SJWs and you will be accused of trolling and subjected to patronising little lectures about the supposedly therapeutic properties of wooden boats. The rot goes deep!

David G
07-31-2018, 08:31 AM
So... I ask this...


Cool.

So give us some of each. What are some specific critiques you'd offer of his work, as a whole? And what about his work is of value (deserves better)? Perhaps I've missed something...

After some snark from our new BilgeRat, and no response to my query, John asks this...


If you think SJW is a neutral descriptor, you've been living under a rock for more than ten years.

As for the purpose of the forum, it's for discussing wooden boats. Tell us about yours, it will humanize you and help you gain acceptance. If, that is, you want to have the kind of acceptance that makes it easier to have a polite discussion. Some who come here prefer to troll, and if that's your wish, feel free to disregard my advice.

And... we get this in reply...


In the context of this forum I might add: Make even mildly critical comments about SJWs and you will be accused of trolling and subjected to patronising little lectures about the supposedly therapeutic properties of wooden boats. The rot goes deep!

It appears we've been infected with a mild outbreak of JAFT.

<or maybe a SkyBlooie sockpuppet... the similarities are eerie>

TomF
07-31-2018, 08:40 AM
Dem sox needs washin. Peeeyoooo.

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 11:40 AM
You have me genuinely puzzled. I am neither a troll nor a sock-puppet, but just someone who thought (and still thinks) that the TLS article about Jordan Peterson was both inaccurate, uncharitable and unremittingly hostile. (Despite a brief search, I am none the wiser as to who or what JAFT might be.)

I could offer some of my own criticisms of Jordan Peterson:

1) Relying on memory and apparently speaking without notes, he is often cavalier about verifiable facts (such as dates);

2) Despite his brilliance as a lecturer/public speaker, a debater and an interviewee he is a pedestrian and often clumsy writer (although, as I have elsewhere noted, there are occasional bravura flashes);

3) His analysis of economics is surpringly underdeveloped for someone who was once an activist for a socialist political movement, and tends (by default) towards an acceptance of the current status quo;

4) Despite his patently sincere warnings against what he terms "ideological possession" there is something disturbingly cult-like both in the mass meetings he regularly addresses and in the "self-authoring" material he prepares and markets. (At least in the former instance, I am sure that the irony is not altogether lost on him.)

5) As with any philosophy that focuses on the what we might term the personal redemption of the individual, there is a concurrent danger of political quietism and over-ready acceptance of the existing social (and, as noted above, economic) order. Must we *really* have set our own houses entirely in order before we can criticise others, or society as a whole? This seems to be partly a counsel of perfection (for the individual concerned) and partly a recipe for postponing social criticism, possibly indefinitely, or at least until it is too late for such criticism to make a positive difference.

I hold the above criticisms to be valid, and yet I also believe that - on balance - Jordan Peterson is a force for the good. I hope that his lectures, books, etc., will attract serious commentary, criticism and analysis, and not merely the kind of panicked would-be demolition jobs that have appeared so far.

johnw
07-31-2018, 11:49 AM
In the context of this forum I might add: Make even mildly critical comments about SJWs and you will be accused of trolling and subjected to patronising little lectures about the supposedly therapeutic properties of wooden boats. The rot goes deep!
My heavens, a patronizing lecture about patronizing lectures. Not terribly self-aware, are you?

Unlike Tom, who has actually advocated for Peterson's views, all you've done on this thread is criticize those who criticize Peterson. It would appear that you are not here to discuss Peterson's beliefs, only to criticize those you consider 'social justice warriors.'

Because, you know, fighting for social justice is such a terrible thing to do.

By the way, no one has said a word about the 'supposedly therapeutic properties of wooden boats.' You speculated on the purpose of the forum, and I informed you. This forum is hosted by WoodenBoat Magazine, and would not exist without them. While most of the posts are in the Bilge, most of the views are of boat-related threads on the rest of the forum. If you're not interested in wooden boats, well and good, but it is not really honest to speculate about the purpose of the forum and then complain when it's explained to you.

But if you're just here to complain about Peterson's critics and whine about the people who don't agree with you, that's fine, please proceed.

Edited to add:

I see while I was writing this you offered some criticism of Peterson. What I would like to know is what contribution he's making. After all, it's not that hard to find people who criticize him.

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 11:54 AM
Perhaps you and David G would care to proffer, for the undoubted edification of all, the towering intellectual edifices that you yourselves have erected. Go on, don't be shy! If Jordan Peterson, a mere tenured professor at the University of Toronto (who must have bluffed his way, earlier on, into a similar job at Harvard), can pull the wool over our eyes, you eminent scholars and fearless truth-tellers must make it your public duty to undeceive us.

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 11:57 AM
And now a patronising lecture about a supposedly patronising lecture about a genuinely patronising lecture. Wooden boats? I feel as though I've stumbled into a hall of distorting mirrors!

johnw
07-31-2018, 11:58 AM
Perhaps you and David G would care to proffer, for the undoubted edification of all, the towering intellectual edifices that you yourselves have erected. Go on, don't be shy! If Jordan Peterson, a mere tenured professor at the University of Toronto (who must have bluffed his way, earlier on, into a similar job at Harvard), can pull the wool over our eyes, you eminent scholars and fearless truth-tellers must make it your public duty to undeceive us.

So, you decline to tell us what's good about Peterson? If you can't do that, why are you even talking about him?

johnw
07-31-2018, 11:59 AM
And now a patronising lecture about a supposedly patronising lecture about a genuinely patronising lecture. Wooden boats? I feel as though I've stumbled into a hall of distorting mirrors!
Keep spinning, maybe that will help you get your balance.

johnw
07-31-2018, 12:24 PM
Perhaps you and David G would care to proffer, for the undoubted edification of all, the towering intellectual edifices that you yourselves have erected. Go on, don't be shy! If Jordan Peterson, a mere tenured professor at the University of Toronto (who must have bluffed his way, earlier on, into a similar job at Harvard), can pull the wool over our eyes, you eminent scholars and fearless truth-tellers must make it your public duty to undeceive us.

I'm sure we'd all be edified by David's papers on economic history from grad school, but he started the thread to learn about Jordan Peterson. Since you like Peterson, why not tell us what's best about his thinking?

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 12:29 PM
Why shouldn't I criticise those who criticise Peterson if I think that they are wrong?

Peterson's positive doctrines are complex and consequently resistant to easy summary. I will attempt to list briefly some of them:

1) He has persuaded lifelong atheists (such as myself) that religious myths are not merely the result of ignorant or outmoded (specifically, pre-scientific) ways of viewing and interpreting the world, but the outward signs of forces operating enduringly on, and within, the human mind (cf. Jung);

2) He has (at least partly) rehabilitated figures such as Freud, Jung and Nietzsche, whom I am sure I was not alone in previously dismissing as cranks and/or demagogues (although I continue to entertain grave reservations about them);

3) He has also thrown a spotlight on to figures such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Frankl and (for a North American audience) Orwell (the last of whom is rightly revered in my native UK).

He is bound to have come into conflict with the votaries of Identity Politics, since such people promote what Peterson regards (rightly, I think) as an extreme form of social constructionism with a concomitant denial of innate biological and temperamental differences between the sexes, and of the very existence of a commonly-shared human nature.

Although I share Peterson's disdain for, and justified anxiety about, Postmodernism, I would not regard the Ayn Rand disciple Steven Hicks to be a wholly dependable critic of this intellectual (and social) movement. It says a great deal for its hardihood and tenacity, at least in organisational terms, that it has withstood what should have been the devastating critiques of Alan Sokal almost a quarter of a century ago. Nevertheless, any body of thought that promotes a radical relativism and attempts to weaken any strong notions of the possibility of objective truth must be seen as intellectually (and, ultimately, morally and socioculturally) pernicious.

Peterson was consequently correct, I believe, in drawing public attention to the sinister implications of Bill C-16 for the freedom of thought, enquiry and public expression, legislation that was directly inspired by Identity Politics.

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 12:34 PM
That sounds good! What does it mean?

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 12:38 PM
Oh, on the debit side, I could regret the unapologetic middlebrowism (or even lowbrowism) of a lot of Peterson's cultural preoccupations. The Lion King? Harry Potter? But I suppose he knows the reference points of his undergraduates.

johnw
07-31-2018, 12:52 PM
Oh, on the debit side, I could regret the unapologetic middlebrowism (or even lowbrowism) of a lot of Peterson's cultural preoccupations. The Lion King? Harry Potter? But I suppose he knows the reference points of his undergraduates.
How condescending of you.

johnw
07-31-2018, 12:59 PM
Why shouldn't I criticise those who criticise Peterson if I think that they are wrong?

Peterson's positive doctrines are complex and consequently resistant to easy summary. I will attempt to list briefly some of them:

1) He has persuaded lifelong atheists (such as myself) that religious myths are not merely the result of ignorant or outmoded (specifically, pre-scientific) ways of viewing and interpreting the world, but the outward signs of forces operating enduringly on, and within, the human mind (cf. Jung);

2) He has (at least partly) rehabilitated figures such as Freud, Jung and Nietzsche, whom I am sure I was not alone in previously dismissing as cranks and/or demagogues (although I continue to entertain grave reservations about them);

3) He has also thrown a spotlight on to figures such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Frankl and (for a North American audience) Orwell (the last of whom is rightly revered in my native UK).

He is bound to have come into conflict with the votaries of Identity Politics, since such people promote what Peterson regards (rightly, I think) as an extreme form of social constructionism with a concomitant denial of innate biological and temperamental differences between the sexes, and of the very existence of a commonly-shared human nature.

Although I share Peterson's disdain for, and justified anxiety about, Postmodernism, I would not regard the Ayn Rand disciple Steven Hicks to be a wholly dependable critic of this intellectual (and social) movement. It says a great deal for its hardihood and tenacity, at least in organisational terms, that it has withstood what should have been the devastating critiques of Alan Sokal almost a quarter of a century ago. Nevertheless, any body of thought that promotes a radical relativism and attempts to weaken any strong notions of the possibility of objective truth must be seen as intellectually (and, ultimately, morally and socioculturally) pernicious.

Peterson was consequently correct, I believe, in drawing public attention to the sinister implications of Bill C-16 for the freedom of thought, enquiry and public expression, legislation that was directly inspired by Identity Politics.
Well, those sound like good things to say, although not at all original. I'm sure there's a bit more depth to it than you can get into in a forum post. I own a bookstore, by the way, and I can tell you that the authors you say he's thrown a spotlight on have been popular and well-regarded here much longer than Peterson has been on the scene.

Atheists, who are a relatively small group of people, are about the only ones in our culture who typically don't see the value of religious myths, or see them as having negative value. Certainly explaining the value of myth to atheists is a good thing, and perhaps the way he does it is more accessible than the way others, such as Jung, have been doing it for decades.

I had hoped to learn of something that would be new to me, but there is certainly value in being able to teach things that a lot of people don't currently understand.

The hate speech aspects of C-16 would be unconstitutional in the U.S., by the way.

Keith Wilson
07-31-2018, 02:08 PM
OK, another one for the ignore list. Bye bye.

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 02:16 PM
It'll involve a serious investment of time, but - if you were able to spare it - you should watch, in their entirety, the following lecture series, posted on YouTube:

1) Maps of Meaning (2017);

2) Personality and Its Transformations (2017);

3) Biblical Series (The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories) (2017-).

To gain some insight into Peterson's quarrels with Identity Politics, the three numbered parts of "Professor Against Political Correctness" should be watched, along with the unedited footage of Peterson's (and his lawyer's) testimony to the Canadian Senate regarding C-16.

I was hoping, before I read them, that Peterson's two published books, "Maps of Meaning" (1998) and "12 Rules for Life" (2018), would be, at least in part, digests or distillations of the ideas presented in his lectures, but they are (on the whole) not. The former sprawls (and gropes) while the latter (although not, by the usual standards, a short book) both simplifies and omits while also tending to repetition. For the time being, at least, he is at his best in his lectures.

Paul Pless
07-31-2018, 03:03 PM
It'll involve a serious investment of time, but - if you were able to spare it - you should watch, in their entirety, the following lecture series, posted on YouTube <snort>

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 03:14 PM
Like the poor, the weak in mind are always with us.

Paul Pless
07-31-2018, 03:16 PM
aye 'tis a tragedy

Khayyam1048
07-31-2018, 03:24 PM
aye 'tis a tragedy

'Tis, verily and in sooth!

Paul Pless
07-31-2018, 03:44 PM
'Tis, verily and in sooth!so? is that you sky?

Sky Blue
07-31-2018, 03:53 PM
so? is that you sky?

You wish!;) Hell, maybe I wish.:)

The early returns are that Khayyam 1048 is going to be a very hard swallow for the usual suspects.

Looking forward to more from this interesting new member!

John of Phoenix
07-31-2018, 03:54 PM
Just another red with a thesaurus.

:D LMAO :D

AlanMc
07-31-2018, 04:08 PM
Just another red with a thesaurus.

:D LMAO :D


don't worry john, you're dunning kruger in chief title is secure.

John of Phoenix
07-31-2018, 04:22 PM
Sweet Mother of God reds are Stupid.

:D LMAO :D

johnw
07-31-2018, 10:46 PM
so? is that you sky?
I don't see why anyone would think this is Sky. This is a person strongly concerned with intellectual hierarchy, contemptuous of those people and ideas he considers beneath him (Harry Potter) and deeply insecure about his place in it (constantly worried that people are condescending to him.)

Sky has no such insecurities. He is ensconced in a pink, fluffy cloud of certainty that he's near the top of the heap, with the people he cites just about at his level.

David G
08-01-2018, 09:46 AM
K - you are failing in your efforts to communicate effectively your thoughts on Peterson. Despite some prompting by several attempting to nudge you in the direction of collegial discourse.

Leading with insults doesn't help... it rather sets the tone. Badly. Generalities don't help. They just increase the chance that people will give short shrift to your writings. Failure to answer direct questions is also unhelpful. Restating the obvious (except as a means to hone distinctions) isn't really useful. And as a housekeeping matter - if you are replying to a comment, it helps to use the 'Reply With Quote' button so we can tell at a glance what you are referring to. Helps minimize confusion in this sort of venue.

Frankly - you're not off to a good start. Sadly, you are edging ever closer to my Ignore List. But you're not there yet, and there is time for you to redeem yourself. Have you got it in you? I remain hopeful. Open to the notion that Peterson has something to offer... but unmoved by your efforts to say what.

Here's a hypothesis I've put forth before, and which remains unrebutted: Peterson appeals to those who have enough education and maturity and depth of understanding to recognize the truths contained... but not enough of all that to recognize the weaknesses. (this, btw, is the same dynamic that allows cults to start)

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 03:56 AM
I'd be disinclined to take the declarations of 18-year-olds as a safe guide to how they'll view the world at 50.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 04:44 AM
Well, those sound like good things to say, although not at all original. I'm sure there's a bit more depth to it than you can get into in a forum post. I own a bookstore, by the way, and I can tell you that the authors you say he's thrown a spotlight on have been popular and well-regarded here much longer than Peterson has been on the scene.

Atheists, who are a relatively small group of people, are about the only ones in our culture who typically don't see the value of religious myths, or see them as having negative value. Certainly explaining the value of myth to atheists is a good thing, and perhaps the way he does it is more accessible than the way others, such as Jung, have been doing it for decades.

I had hoped to learn of something that would be new to me, but there is certainly value in being able to teach things that a lot of people don't currently understand.

The hate speech aspects of C-16 would be unconstitutional in the U.S., by the way.

I'm not striving for originality myself, but merely trying to say why I think Peterson cannot be easily brushed aside. I am aware that the authors mentioned continue to have a strong readership, but context is important: Freud and Jung, while prominent cultural figures, no longer loom large in current academic psychology; Nietzsche is, like Wagner's Loge, a slippery figure difficult to pin down, but Peterson is attempting (I cannot yet say with what degree of success) to provide him with some anchorage; Solzhenitsyn and Frankl articulate personal philosophies that run deeply counter to the narcissism and nihilism of the present; Orwell is concerned with precision of language, personal integrity and suspicion of mass behaviour and belief.

I'd be interested to know what Peterson thinks, or might think, about writers such as Christopher Lasch, Jacques Ellul, Leon Festinger, C. Wright Mills, Eric Hoffer, Ivan Illich, Andrew M. Lobaczewski and the late David Smail.

To be honest, Peterson has somewhat elevated the Harry Potter cycle and The Lion King in my estimation by discovering depths in them that I myself, by my unassisted efforts, would have been unable to discern. I'm just a little disappointed that he hasn't trained his sights on, say, Wagner's "Ring", "Tristan" and "Parsifal" (indeed, on the Germanic and Arthurian myths and legends generally); on Oswald Spengler, Albert Camus, Arthur Koestler; on The Arabian Nights (in its various iterations), the Brothers Grimm, Perrault and other compilers of folk or fairy tales, Gulliver's Travels, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Lewis Carroll's "Alice" books and "Snark", Nabokov's "Lolita", Elia Kazan's "A Face in the Crowd", Jerry Lewis's "The Nutty Professor", Robert Bresson's "Diary of a Country Priest", Anthony Asquith's "The Browning Version", Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" passim, Roy Huggins's original TV series of "The Fugitive", "My Favorite Martian", Patrick McGoohan's "The Prisoner", the lyrics of David Ackles, Laura Nyro, Judee Sill and Nick Drake...

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 07:12 AM
I don't see why anyone would think this is Sky. This is a person strongly concerned with intellectual hierarchy, contemptuous of those people and ideas he considers beneath him (Harry Potter) and deeply insecure about his place in it (constantly worried that people are condescending to him.)

Sky has no such insecurities. He is ensconced in a pink, fluffy cloud of certainty that he's near the top of the heap, with the people he cites just about at his level.

I'm 58, and my anxieties mostly concern the prospect of imminent old age. Next to that, the casual opinions of strangers (particularly in relation to my stray, pseudonymous remarks on the Internet) loom very low in my list of private concerns.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 12:00 PM
For the purposes of discussion - let's assume that's true. Now what? You're still failing in the ways mentioned... and still lurching inexorably toward 'ridicule only' status. Choosing to address my bluntness (a bluntness - you might note - arrived at only after several friendlier previous attempts) with an emotional reaction, instead of attempting to address the actual criticism, is just another brick in the wall.

It's also ironic to hear someone calling names of pomposity after they've started their contribution to this thread with this bit, "A good piece? Are you joking? This is a crude hit piece, written in SJW-speak, that misunderstands and misrepresents Peterson at every turn." Trashing the citation offered in superior fashion... offering no particulars to back up your judgement, just assuming we should accept it as 'received wisdom' I guess... and throwing in an unexplained acronym - again with the assumption that you don't need to clarify the meaning, and one that turns out to flavor the stew further with condescending judgement. Another brick in the wall.


You just can't help it, can you? You're on your high horse yet again, while having the effrontery to lecture others about their allegedly "superior" attitude. Have you not considered, by the way, that to criticise is precisely to assume (at least in the relevant aspects) superiority to the person or thing criticised? That's what you've just done with regard to me, isn't it?

I offered my honest opinion of the TLS piece, and I see no reason to change it (certainly, I have so far been offered none); the original poster of the link to the article,
"Flying Orca", proclaimed it "good" with neither evidence from him (or her) nor demur from you or anyone other than me, and yet I am unaccountably being held to a different and higher standard. Incidentally, the "unexplained acronym" (SJW) seems to have been very widely understood, and has even earned me a fair bit of condemnation from others, who have claimed that it was "pejorative" (and intended as such on my part) and therefore prejudicial. I can only repeat that my understanding of the expression was arrived at inferentially (by encountering it in print and deriving its meaning from its context), and that I was not previously aware of any specificially pejorative connotations that it might possess.

David G
08-02-2018, 12:04 PM
You just can't help it, can you? You're on your high horse yet again, while having the effrontery to lecture others about their allegedly "superior" attitude. Have you not considered, by the way, that to criticise is precisely to assume (at least in the relevant aspects) superiority to the person or thing criticised? That's what you've just done with regard to me, isn't it?

I offered my honest opinion of the TLS piece, and I see no reason to change it (certainly, I have so far been offered none); the original poster of the link to the article,
"Flying Orca", proclaimed it "good" with neither evidence from him (or her) nor demur from you or anyone other than me, and yet I am unaccountably being held to a different and higher standard. Incidentally, the "unexplained acronym" (SJW) seems to have been very widely understood, and has even earned me a fair bit of condemnation from others, who have claimed that it was "pejorative" (and intended as such on my part) and therefore prejudicial. I can only repeat that my understanding of the expression was arrived at inferentially (by encountering it in print and deriving its meaning from its context), and that I was not previously aware of any specificially pejorative connotations that it might possess.

And there we have it folks. The final few bricks. Hand delivered by the owner's mule. I'm convinced - too much noise/sophistry/logical limpness, not enough signal/honesty/rigor.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 12:13 PM
And there we have it folks. The final few bricks. Hand delivered by the owner's mule. I'm convinced - too much noise/sophistry/logical limpness, not enough signal/honesty/rigor.

Does that comment actually mean anything, other than sounding vaguely insulting? You're clearly very easily convinced by whatever it is you want to convince yourself of, and at the same time very uncharitable towards anyone you perceive as viewing the world in a different way.

AlanMc
08-02-2018, 12:15 PM
oh surprise, david doesn't get good signal strength from a source outside his echo chamber. :rolleyes:

David G
08-02-2018, 12:17 PM
Does that comment actually mean anything, other than sounding vaguely insulting? You're clearly very easily convinced by whatever it is you want to convince yourself of, and at the same time very uncharitable towards anyone you perceive as viewing the world in a different way.

<snort> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll put it as simply as possible: you have convinced me that you are not worth engaging with on a substantive level. Anything further is liable to be sheer frivolity. You can stop hauling bricks now.

Osborne Russell
08-02-2018, 01:02 PM
I'm not striving for originality myself, but merely trying to say why I think Peterson cannot be easily brushed aside.

He's worth listening to. So are Mussolini and Jesus. Not implying any other resemblance.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 01:39 PM
<snort> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll put it as simply as possible: you have convinced me that you are not worth engaging with on a substantive level. Anything further is liable to be sheer frivolity. You can stop hauling bricks now.

You're very easily convinced - by yourself.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 01:40 PM
He's worth listening to. So are Mussolini and Jesus. Not implying any other resemblance.

Mussolini was assassinated, Jesus was assumed, while Peterson (although gaunt) appears to thrive (and I cling - precariously - to life).

pcford
08-02-2018, 02:44 PM
Peterson may be the sole ray of hope in our mass cultural life. The fact of his amazing popularity in the craven age of Trump does give one hope. He requires work to understand; this is not easy in the era of the Kardashians. It requires work to think; one does not go looking in this venue for engagement in this sort of activity.
Oh, I find it humorous that people consider him alt-right.

Ian McColgin
08-02-2018, 03:10 PM
Peterson is not alt-right or even normal right. It's just that his zest for controversy puts him seeming to justify some dark stuff. And the alt right, not maintaining the wit to listen closely, think he's with them. Rather like those of his fans who use pejoratives - and there is no excuse for pretending that this is not a pejorative - like "SJW" on his critics.

If you don't rest on Peterson, his work is not the worst first step towards a critical and examined life.

johnw
08-02-2018, 03:38 PM
Peterson may be the sole ray of hope in our mass cultural life. The fact of his amazing popularity in the craven age of Trump does give one hope. He requires work to understand; this is not easy in the era of the Kardashians. It requires work to think; one does not go looking in this venue for engagement in this sort of activity.
Oh, I find it humorous that people consider him alt-right.
Based on what 1048 says, it does not appear that he has much original to say, but perhaps he's sold the man short. If you could explain why he's the sole ray of hope and worth putting some effort into, I'd be grateful. I've been thinking there are quite a few rays of hope.

johnw
08-02-2018, 03:48 PM
I'm 58, and my anxieties mostly concern the prospect of imminent old age. Next to that, the casual opinions of strangers (particularly in relation to my stray, pseudonymous remarks on the Internet) loom very low in my list of private concerns.
I'm 65, and the big surprise about growing older is how much respect the young people I meet give me. They ask my opinion on things, then keep asking questions to keep me talking. Nothing like my generations, we were a bunch of jerks by comparison.

bob winter
08-02-2018, 04:12 PM
I notice that the younger people want to be helpful in a lot of ways. This is good, especially with the lifting restrictions imposed after the heart surgery.

Ian McColgin
08-02-2018, 04:14 PM
Or they figure we're more harmless if they appear to pay attention while we jabber on.

skuthorp
08-02-2018, 04:17 PM
Lot of fuss over a vigorous self-promoter. But in the Trump age we should not be surprised……….

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 06:09 PM
Based on what 1048 says, it does not appear that he has much original to say, but perhaps he's sold the man short. If you could explain why he's the sole ray of hope and worth putting some effort into, I'd be grateful. I've been thinking there are quite a few rays of hope.

I didn't think that I had sold Peterson short; I merely acknowledged what I believe to be his limitations as I myself see them, to the extent that I am able to judge (since there are inevitably areas where his expertise - and the expertise of others - greatly exceeds my own academically inexpert guesswork and intellectual fumblings - I am a modern-jazz double-bass player and classical piano teacher by profession, not a psychologist, philosopher, political scientist or similar pundit).

I wouldn't say that Peterson is the "sole ray of hope" in our culture, which would be to oversell him (and correspondingly to undersell others). One endearing (and admirable) quality that Peterson does have, though, is the ability to admit some, at least, of the limitations of his viewpoint, and to stress that, far from being a completed project, its formation is an ongoing project. However, although I have reservations (some of which I have attempted to articulate), I do think that Peterson is a genuine ray of hope.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 06:13 PM
I'm 65, and the big surprise about growing older is how much respect the young people I meet give me. They ask my opinion on things, then keep asking questions to keep me talking. Nothing like my generations, we were a bunch of jerks by comparison.

You're my elder brother's age. Much as I love him (and suspect I'd like you if I actually met you), I think his cohort were - by and large - a bunch of jerks. A few years back I taught piano in a school a couple of days a week. For the most part, I hated the adults (the teachers and other staff) and loved the 11- to 16-year-olds.

johnw
08-02-2018, 06:18 PM
I didn't think that I had sold Peterson short; I merely acknowledged what I believe to be his limitations as I myself see them, to the extent that I am able to judge (since there are inevitably areas where his expertise - and the expertise of others - greatly exceeds my own academically inexpert guesswork and intellectual fumblings - I am a modern-jazz double-bass player and classical piano teacher by profession, not a psychologist, philosopher, political scientist or similar pundit).

I wouldn't say that Peterson is the "sole ray of hope" in our culture, which would be to oversell him (and correspondingly to undersell others). One endearing (and admirable) quality that Peterson does have, though, is the ability to admit some, at least, of the limitations of his viewpoint, and to stress that, far from being a completed project, its formation is an ongoing project. However, although I have reservations (some of which I have attempted to articulate), I do think that Peterson is a genuine ray of hope.
I assume you know about this:


https://youtu.be/VXAcxR2qo3Y
https://youtu.be/VXAcxR2qo3Y
My academic background is in political theory, a field which cross-pollinates with everything from linguistics to psychology and was originally a subset of philosophy. So, I have an interest, and some partially-related expertise, but I don't like to spend a lot of time boning up on someone whose work repackages stuff I studied decades ago. What's really original about Peterson?

mdh
08-02-2018, 06:26 PM
I wouldn't say that Peterson is the "sole ray of hope" in our culture, which would be to oversell him (and correspondingly to undersell others). One endearing (and admirable) quality that Peterson does have, though, is the ability to admit some, at least, of the limitations of his viewpoint, and to stress that, far from being a completed project, its formation is an ongoing project. However, although I have reservations (some of which I have attempted to articulate), I do think that Peterson is a genuine ray of hope.

I agree. And his popularity is good sign for the populace, but not so much for academia.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 06:27 PM
Lot of fuss over a vigorous self-promoter. But in the Trump age we should not be surprised……….

Do you imagine that the age of celebrity was inaugurated by Trump? Must anyone with any professional ambitions to garner recognition in the public sphere or a desire to disseminate their ideas in the wider culture be henceforth seen as a symptom of the accession of Trump?

skuthorp
08-02-2018, 06:30 PM
Self promoters have been about for a long time all right, look at Billy Graham………… and politicians with a bent for demagoggery do it all the time.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 06:32 PM
What's really original about Peterson?

I'd say it's the precise synthesis of elements, combined (in terms of cultural cycles) with its timing.

skuthorp
08-02-2018, 06:38 PM
How about 'self promoting messiah substitute?:rolleyes:

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 06:43 PM
Again, I think that Peterson is a bit like Richard Kimble in the original TV series of "The Fugitive". From time to time there were genuine criminals who sought to team up with him, falsely assuming some kind of criminal confraternity, only to be rudely rebuffed.

I myself, as the record of this thread will disclose, have unguardedly used the term "SJW", hitherto unadvised that it is - apparently - unacceptably prejudicial.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 06:47 PM
Self promoters have been about for a long time all right, look at Billy Graham………… and politicians with a bent for demagoggery do it all the time.

The funny thing is that I immediately saw the parallels between Jordan Peterson and Billy Graham. As an atheist, I used to regard the latter as a wholly sinister figure, but even before his recent death I had come to take a more charitable and nuanced view of him.

Khayyam1048
08-02-2018, 07:04 PM
I assume you know about this:


https://youtu.be/VXAcxR2qo3Y

I was shown this a few years ago by a fellow double-bass player (albeit a user of the German rather than the French bow, which latter I was schooled in) and his wife. Rather a lovely film.

Sky Blue
08-02-2018, 11:29 PM
I suspect I'd like johnw

Me too. Love you johnw! :)

pcford
08-03-2018, 12:23 AM
K - you are failing in your efforts to communicate effectively your thoughts on Peterson. Despite some prompting by several attempting to nudge you in the direction of collegial discourse.

Leading with insults doesn't help... it rather sets the tone. Badly. Generalities don't help. They just increase the chance that people will give short shrift to your writings. Failure to answer direct questions is also unhelpful. Restating the obvious (except as a means to hone distinctions) isn't really useful. And as a housekeeping matter - if you are replying to a comment, it helps to use the 'Reply With Quote' button so we can tell at a glance what you are referring to. Helps minimize confusion in this sort of venue.

Frankly - you're not off to a good start. Sadly, you are edging ever closer to my Ignore List. But you're not there yet, and there is time for you to redeem yourself. Have you got it in you? I remain hopeful. Open to the notion that Peterson has something to offer... but unmoved by your efforts to say what.

Here's a hypothesis I've put forth before, and which remains unrebutted: Peterson appeals to those who have enough education and maturity and depth of understanding to recognize the truths contained... but not enough of all that to recognize the weaknesses. (this, btw, is the same dynamic that allows cults to start)

You will note that nobody except perhaps Khayyam has actually said anything about Peterson's content. Rather, people are just insulting each other. Well, it is the Bilge.

skuthorp
08-03-2018, 03:30 AM
The funny thing is that I immediately saw the parallels between Jordan Peterson and Billy Graham. As an atheist, I used to regard the latter as a wholly sinister figure, but even before his recent death I had come to take a more charitable and nuanced view of him.
I rather think he began to believe his own propaganda Khayyam, but then the gap between those who believe in something, and those who don't is very wide. I probably am less than charitable in not allowing he actually did believe in his version of god. After a long discussion here with a convert to catholicism we both came to the conclusion that, at very base, there was no common connection.

David G
08-03-2018, 08:33 AM
You will note that nobody except perhaps Khayyam has actually said anything about Peterson's content. Rather, people are just insulting each other. Well, it is the Bilge.

Naaahhh... not true. Lots of folks have talked about his content. On the first page alone: 5,8,12,13,18,19,27,28, etc.

But what did you find useful about his work?

Osborne Russell
08-03-2018, 11:21 AM
Peterson may be the sole ray of hope in our mass cultural life.

He might be one ray of hope. If he's the only one, we're done.

johnw
08-03-2018, 11:56 AM
You will note that nobody except perhaps Khayyam has actually said anything about Peterson's content. Rather, people are just insulting each other. Well, it is the Bilge.
You clearly haven't read the thread.

Khayyam1048
08-03-2018, 04:26 PM
This might interest some:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYgC9Zrp0ps

pcford
08-03-2018, 06:43 PM
This might interest some:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYgC9Zrp0ps

Omar, that is a good selection. I have watched many, many of his Youtube offerings. However, I will wager that the boys here will not listen to much of it. "Too much bla, bla, bla...." as a bonehead friend of mine said. Not enough insults and raw meat. Peterson will never be a hero of the Bilge.

johnw
08-03-2018, 07:10 PM
This might interest some:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYgC9Zrp0ps
I prefer to read stuff rather than watch it. I can take in the information more quickly, and interruptions don't matter as much. Do you have some written stuff to refer me to?

Khayyam1048
08-03-2018, 07:31 PM
Do you have some written stuff to refer me to?

Inevitably, there are free downloads of Jordan Peterson's "12 Rules for Life" available online. I would suggest that you (and others) begin with Rule (Chapter) 11.

Ian McColgin
08-03-2018, 08:26 PM
But were Peterson's 12 Rules and improvement on "The Three Rules of Discipline and Eight Points for Attention".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDgRtsIHhdk

pcford
08-04-2018, 01:06 AM
But were Peterson's 12 Rules and improvement on "The Three Rules of Discipline and Eight Points for Attention".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDgRtsIHhdk

If you are attempting to paint him as some kind of extremist, it is obvious that you have not bothered to look at his ideas very carefully. On the other hand, Mr. Seeger likely whistles much better.

Ian McColgin
08-04-2018, 04:30 AM
I could be simply joking. Or perhaps I recall that JHWH needed only ten.

Or did he? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXeTsWGPT0w

Khayyam1048
08-04-2018, 06:38 AM
But were Peterson's 12 Rules and improvement on "The Three Rules of Discipline and Eight Points for Attention".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDgRtsIHhdk

Are you now or have you ever been an exponent of the five-string banjo?

Ian McColgin
08-04-2018, 06:51 AM
+ + +

johnw
08-04-2018, 02:39 PM
So, I managed to listen to a little bit of that clip before a customer interrupted me. Peterson was saying he doesn't know what the term alt-right refers to. Perhaps he should research Richard Spencer, who claims to have invented the term. The comment came off as disingenuous. He talks as if only the left practices identity politics. I give him this, that's consistent with not knowing what the term 'alt-right' refers to.

So, I thought maybe his journal articles are a better introduction to his thinking. So far, they've struck me as competent but not terribly original. Apparently, the peer-reviewed stuff he's published is non-controversial.

Perhaps his books are better, but so far I haven't seen anything that tempts me to read them. Are there essays posted somewhere that are worth reading? That might be a better introduction.

Peerie Maa
08-04-2018, 03:11 PM
So, I managed to listen to a little bit of that clip before a customer interrupted me. Peterson was saying he doesn't know what the term alt-right refers to. Perhaps he should research Richard Spencer, who claims to have invented the term. The comment came off as disingenuous. He talks as if only the left practices identity politics. I give him this, that's consistent with not knowing what the term 'alt-right' refers to.

So, I thought maybe his journal articles are a better introduction to his thinking. So far, they've struck me as competent but not terribly original. Apparently, the peer-reviewed stuff he's published is non-controversial.

Perhaps his books are better, but so far I haven't seen anything that tempts me to read them. Are there essays posted somewhere that are worth reading? That might be a better introduction.

It sounds s though you are being sucked in by a fan, the abbreviation of Fanatic.

johnw
08-04-2018, 03:15 PM
It sounds s though you are being sucked in by a fan, the abbreviation of Fanatic.
Well, I'm trying to give him a fair go, but so far I'm not impressed. Maybe there's something I'm missing.

oznabrag
08-04-2018, 03:46 PM
Are you now or have you ever been an exponent of the five-string banjo?

:D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K90ETt1rSWg

johnw
08-04-2018, 04:17 PM
:D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K90ETt1rSWg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/74/9b/48749b40f9e202dff814cf5377a7dbb4.jpg

Keith Wilson
08-04-2018, 04:34 PM
Are you now or have you ever been an exponent of the five-string banjo?Reminds me of a cartoon. You can substitute banjo for accordion easily enough:

https://djbulls.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cartoon_harp_n_accordion.jpg?w=488&h=650

Khayyam1048
08-04-2018, 05:31 PM
He talks as if only the left practices identity politics.

No, Peterson regularly condemns right-wing identity politics, too.

pcford
08-04-2018, 11:19 PM
No, Peterson regularly condemns right-wing identity politics, too.

Omar, you will only confuse the boys. They want to believe the pablum fed to them: Peterson is a tool of the alt.right.

johnw
08-05-2018, 12:17 AM
No, Peterson regularly condemns right-wing identity politics, too.
Thanks, I'd like to read about that. I didn't get very far into the link you posted before I got interrupted. I ended up staying an hour late at work dealing with a huge pile of academic books.

Seriously, do you have any links to essays I could read? One of my many character defects is that I'd much rather read an essay than listen to a lecture.

johnw
08-05-2018, 12:31 AM
Omar, you will only confuse the boys. They want to believe the pablum fed to them: Peterson is a tool of the alt.right.
Talk about people making assumptions! Do you have something to contribute that would give us a fuller understanding of Peterson, or are you just here to insult those who are trying to understand him?

Clearly, I can't rely on snippets of what he says that his fans like, I need to either listen to the whole thing or forego listening entirely. Based on the response I've had here, he seems to make remarks that are at odds with his core beliefs, which is a very curious thing to do. Granted, I may lack context, but that's why I'm asking for more information.

One reason I'm still interested is that TomF seems to think better of him than many people on the forum, and I respect Tom's opinions.

One thing that interests me is that he thinks a study of religion can show us something about morality. I'm a skeptic on this point. It's my contention that morality is based on empathy, not faith. So I'd like to know why he thinks religion has something to teach us about morality, or if I'm wrong in thinking that he believes this.

Peerie Maa
08-05-2018, 04:26 AM
One thing that interests me is that he thinks a study of religion can show us something about morality. I'm a skeptic on this point. It's my contention that morality is based on empathy, not faith. So I'd like to know why he thinks religion has something to teach us about morality, or if I'm wrong in thinking that he believes this.

This.
I believe that religion does not invent morality, I believe that religions codify morality. The Golden Rule is the common core to many religions, so claiming that all of the different religions all invented the same concept is relying on too much of a coincidence.

skuthorp
08-05-2018, 04:34 AM
He's getting a lot of free publicity here, but what matters is book sales.

Khayyam1048
08-05-2018, 05:08 AM
He's getting a lot of free publicity here, but what matters is book sales.

He's already topped the bestseller lists; he doesn't really need much in the way of publicity, here or anywhere else.

Khayyam1048
08-05-2018, 05:09 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/966111770225008641?lang=en

Khayyam1048
08-05-2018, 05:14 AM
This.
I believe that religion does not invent morality, I believe that religions codify morality. The Golden Rule is the common core to many religions, so claiming that all of the different religions all invented the same concept is relying on too much of a coincidence.

Not if you believe that all human brains are wired in broadly similar ways and therefore employ broadly similar mental categories. Chomsky believes this in regard to early language acquisition and others have invoked the concept in other cognitive domains, e.g. Jerry Fodor:

http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langmind/Fodor1983.pdf

johnw
08-05-2018, 01:20 PM
This.
I believe that religion does not invent morality, I believe that religions codify morality. The Golden Rule is the common core to many religions, so claiming that all of the different religions all invented the same concept is relying on too much of a coincidence.
The golden rule popped up in numerous locations and religious traditions during the axial age. Here's some of my thinking on that:

http://booksellersvsbestsellers.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-illusion-of-self-strangeness-of.html


It may be that a rapidly changing world required people to think for themselves, and they needed to be reminded to exercise their empathy.

johnw
08-05-2018, 01:27 PM
Not if you believe that all human brains are wired in broadly similar ways and therefore employ broadly similar mental categories. Chomsky believes this in regard to early language acquisition and others have invoked the concept in other cognitive domains, e.g. Jerry Fodor:

http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/langmind/Fodor1983.pdf
Yes, and Jung believed we certain archetypes were innate in humans. Personally, I think those archetypes are deeply embedded in culture.

johnw
08-05-2018, 01:42 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/966111770225008641?lang=en
Wait, he's got Richard Spencer interacting with him on Twitter and he claims not to know what the alt-right is?

I've now read a few pages of his tweets, and I have to say, he's looking less impressive all the time. There must be some source that shows more depth than his tweets but is more interesting than his journal articles. Is it possible that this sweet spot only exists in his lectures and interviews? There must be something written down.

johnw
08-05-2018, 03:37 PM
Okay, I've listened to a bit more of Peterson with fewer distractions, and I'm less impressed than ever. There's a level of willful ignorance there that just doesn't go with being a legitimate public intellectual. I know he's Canadian and can't be expected to know a great deal about American elections, but the man just hasn't done his homework. He's just repeating right-wing talking points. I think he's gained a reputation as a right-winger by talking like a right-winger. Yes, he does say both right and left go wrong when they talk about identity politics, but his claim that the Democrats offered nothing but identity politics is something he could easily have checked out and discovered wasn't true. Clinton had carefully worked-out policies for a wide number of issues, such as the situation of coal miners out of work because coal can't compete with natural gas on price, but she was never able to shape the narrative, which was about Trump's identity politics and her emails. Clinton didn't fail to be elected because she focused on identity politics, she failed because, after a generation of being vilified, she could not define herself to the voters.

Either the man's not intellectually honest, or he allows his confirmation bias to overwhelm his intellect. I suspect the latter. Neither is a desirable quality in a public intellectual, but both can help people attract attention to themselves. In this case, he seems to have followed the path of least resistance, and taken the brave stance of repeating the party line on why Trump won. A little effort might have produced some interesting insights, but telling people what they want to hear is one way to be popular.

Maybe there's more to his psychology, but a man who's that derivative in his pronouncements about events he's watched happen seems unlikely to have made many strides beyond the influences of people I've already read, like Freud, Nietzsche, and Jung. It's nice that he's introducing more people to their thinking, but I was introduced to them before he'd written his first book.

Maybe when he's not being interviewed by an advocate for right-wing identity politics he'll come off better.

Khayyam1048
08-06-2018, 01:13 PM
The preamble from the Icelandic host is worth listening to. Peterson loses me somewhat at the beginning with his remarks about abstractions (which don't seem fully coherent), but he soon gets into his stride:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_QPCxCkws

Khayyam1048
08-06-2018, 02:04 PM
http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-biggest-campaign-mistake-2017-9

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476485650/fact-check-hillary-clinton-and-coal-jobs

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/10/context-hillary-clintons-comments-about-coal-jobs/

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/sanders-looking-to-rack-up-west-virginia-win-over-clinton-222952

https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/news/economy/hillary-clinton-ohio-coal/index.html

Khayyam1048
08-06-2018, 02:27 PM
Okay, I've listened to a bit more of Peterson with fewer distractions, and I'm less impressed than ever. There's a level of willful ignorance there that just doesn't go with being a legitimate public intellectual. I know he's Canadian and can't be expected to know a great deal about American elections, but the man just hasn't done his homework. He's just repeating right-wing talking points. I think he's gained a reputation as a right-winger by talking like a right-winger. Yes, he does say both right and left go wrong when they talk about identity politics, but his claim that the Democrats offered nothing but identity politics is something he could easily have checked out and discovered wasn't true. Clinton had carefully worked-out policies for a wide number of issues, such as the situation of coal miners out of work because coal can't compete with natural gas on price, but she was never able to shape the narrative, which was about Trump's identity politics and her emails. Clinton didn't fail to be elected because she focused on identity politics, she failed because, after a generation of being vilified, she could not define herself to the voters.

Either the man's not intellectually honest, or he allows his confirmation bias to overwhelm his intellect. I suspect the latter. Neither is a desirable quality in a public intellectual, but both can help people attract attention to themselves. In this case, he seems to have followed the path of least resistance, and taken the brave stance of repeating the party line on why Trump won. A little effort might have produced some interesting insights, but telling people what they want to hear is one way to be popular.

Maybe there's more to his psychology, but a man who's that derivative in his pronouncements about events he's watched happen seems unlikely to have made many strides beyond the influences of people I've already read, like Freud, Nietzsche, and Jung. It's nice that he's introducing more people to their thinking, but I was introduced to them before he'd written his first book.

Maybe when he's not being interviewed by an advocate for right-wing identity politics he'll come off better.

Try as I might, I cannot find the interview, speech or lecture in which Peterson declares that Hillary's campaign was only about identity politics. If you can direct me to it, I'll readily (if not exactly gladly) eat humble pie. What he has repeatedly said, in one form or another, is that she laid undue emphasis upon it, and that this cost her the election. I think the first part of this summary of Peterson's position is correct (a value judgement on my part, of course), but I lack the detailed knowledge of American politics to know whether the second part is supported by the facts. It has, to me, an intuitive ring of plausibility about it, but I admit that this is just a feeling on my part.

Incidentally, which "advocate for right-wing identity politics" was he being interviewed by? (I am certainly aware that such people exist, and equally aware that Peterson has regularly condemned them.)

I'd read bits of Freud, Nietzsche (via Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra and later Bertrand Russell's very hostile chapter in "A History of Western Philosophy") and Jung (partly via Christopher Booker's "The Neophiliacs") in my late teens (born in 1960, I am two years older than Peterson), but he does seem to have put a bit of a new spin on them, and has certainly introduced their names and at least some of their ideas to people who might not otherwise have encountered them.

Khayyam1048
08-07-2018, 08:13 AM
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-45084954/jordan-peterson-on-the-backlash-against-masculinity

Khayyam1048
08-07-2018, 08:17 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLtjxaYwQ1Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg_OlMRloTs

Khayyam1048
08-07-2018, 08:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BATsZZctDKM

David G
08-08-2018, 11:10 AM
It's interesting that the fellow who mentioned Peterson to me is dyslexic, and ADD... and can not assimilate written information well at all. But he has a curious, active, if untutored, mind. And he watches hours and hours of videos from all sorts of folks.

I'm just the opposite. I don't have time to invest in watching videos, but love reading.

And here several folks have told us that videos is where Peterson shines. Written format... not so much.

I wonder if part of the reason Peterson comes across better in video form is that it's harder to evaluate such information critically. With a book, you can easily stop at any moment and think about a word, phrase, chapter, or topic. You can flip back to a previous comment. You can look at the index and refresh your memory of what, precisely, was said - and how - about a particular example, analogy, metaphor, or detail.

Watching a video seem a bit more of a 'swallow it whole' experience.

Khayyam1048
08-08-2018, 11:21 AM
I wonder if part of the reason Peterson comes across better in video form is that it's harder to evaluate such information critically.

You can wonder whether and even hope that is the case, but with Peterson you would be wrong. He's a natural performer who seems, rather like an improvising jazz musician (and here I speak from first-hand experience), to need an audience as a kind of emotional sounding board. Improvising in public, whether with music or words, is precisely to walk the precarious line between chaos and order that Peterson so frequently invokes.

Osborne Russell
08-08-2018, 11:32 AM
Watching a video seem a bit more of a 'swallow it whole' experience.

For sure. Like movies, suspension of disbelief.

David G
08-08-2018, 11:52 AM
You can wonder whether and even hope that that is the case, but with Peterson you would be wrong. He's a natural performer who seems, rather like an improvising jazz musician (and here I speak from first-hand experience), to need an audience as a kind of emotional sounding board. Improvising in public, whether with music or words, is precisely to walk the precarious line between chaos and order that Peterson so frequently invokes.

Being married to a musician who composes, writes lyrics, plays both piano and guitar beautifully, and who made her living for a bit doing jazz improv at a local cafe... and also having done some extemporaneous public speaking myself, I do understand the urge, the approach... and the talent it takes to perform in that way. And I see the parallel you are drawing. At the same time, having a bit of an academic background, I understand the clarity, rigor, cohesion, and precision required to produce something of value in that way.

So... I understand the former. Do you understand the latter?

From what you've said so far, I have to wonder. Are you so taken by his improv skills that the apparent holes in his logic/narrative disappear for you?

Or... to put it another way... improv is about inspiration. Sometimes the unleashing of that inspiration can lead to brilliance. Sometimes - it just works! Though not always, of course. Science, otoh, involves reproducible results, and sustainable coherent logic strings stretching from hypothesis to conclusion... and beyond to overarching theory . Something Peterson seems not to shine at. Too many leaps. Too many gaps. Too much performance, not enough rigor.

AND... none of that answers the question I posed in #177.

AND... I have to object to your first sentence, above. I don't 'hope' anything about Peterson. I approached this thread with an open, but skeptical, mind. I've become more skeptical, not less, but remain open to being convinced that Peterson has something of substance to offer. I've invited you, or anyone, to convince me. Some folks I respect continue to think he's not a total write-off. So this assigning a motive where there is none is bs. The sort of sloppy rhetoric that I objected to previously in our conversations. I'm happy to engage with anyone who wants to meet me halfway, but I'm not at all willing to wade thru that sort of claptrap to get there. This is also the sort of logical sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty that makes me discount your opinion of Peterson a bit.

Khayyam1048
08-08-2018, 04:13 PM
Being married to a musician who composes, writes lyrics, plays both piano and guitar beautifully, and who made her living for a bit doing jazz improv at a local cafe... and also having done some extemporaneous public speaking myself, I do understand the urge, the approach... and the talent it takes to perform in that way. And I see the parallel you are drawing. At the same time, having a bit of an academic background, I understand the clarity, rigor, cohesion, and precision required to produce something of value in that way.

So... I understand the former. Do you understand the latter?

From what you've said so far, I have to wonder. Are you so taken by his improv skills that the apparent holes in his logic/narrative disappear for you?

Or... to put it another way... improv is about inspiration. Sometimes the unleashing of that inspiration can lead to brilliance. Sometimes - it just works! Though not always, of course. Science, otoh, involves reproducible results, and sustainable coherent logic strings stretching from hypothesis to conclusion... and beyond to overarching theory . Something Peterson seems not to shine at. Too many leaps. Too many gaps. Too much performance, not enough rigor.

AND... none of that answers the question I posed in #177.

AND... I have to object to your first sentence, above. I don't 'hope' anything about Peterson. I approached this thread with an open, but skeptical, mind. I've become more skeptical, not less, but remain open to being convinced that Peterson has something of substance to offer. I've invited you, or anyone, to convince me. Some folks I respect continue to think he's not a total write-off. So this assigning a motive where there is none is bs. The sort of sloppy rhetoric that I objected to previously in our conversations. I'm happy to engage with anyone who wants to meet me halfway, but I'm not at all willing to wade thru that sort of claptrap to get there. This is also the sort of logical sloppiness and intellectual dishonesty that makes me discount your opinion of Peterson a bit.

I have done a first degree in Music (in the days when it was just Classical Music) and pursued postgraduate studies (as a musicologist) to PhD level; I have no idea whether this has (or possibly could have) endowed me with the qualities (clarity, rigour, cohesion and precision) that you mention.

As a practitioner of jazz improvisation I must remark that inspiration, while it can and does occur, is - however desirable - neither a necessary nor an inevitable component of the enterprise. Your wife will be able to advise you that extemporisation was once widespread in classical music (and still survives among organists - I once heard an elaborate fugue improvised by a young French virtuoso in Derby Cathedral); there are books such as Christopher Simpson's "The Division Viol", Quantz's "On Playing the Flute" and C. Ph. E. Bach's "The True Art of Keyboard Playing" (to mention no others) that systematically train the student in, among other things, improvisation (often as an outgrowth of ornamentation, thoroughbass, etc.). Inspiration cannot be taught, but the mechanics of improvisation can be (although there are also brilliant autodidacts who seem to infer the principles without explicit instruction). There is, of course, an already vast and still rapidly growing library of materials related to the techniques of jazz improvisation.

Peterson himself is a psychologist, and it seems to me - although I lack the background and training to assess the matter with any likely prospect of accuracy - that psychology, in point of rigour, lies somewhere between the hard sciences (generally more rigorous) and the social sciences (generally less so). Thus, on my analysis (for whatever it may be worth), the psychologist is apt to shuttle between the positivistic, quantifiable and demonstrable on the one hand, and the speculative, subjective and intuitive on the other.

Could you be specific about the holes, the leaps and the gaps in Peterson's logic? I have noted small errors of fact in his lectures (concerning such things as the dates of events) and an annoying tendency on his part, for example, to treat "phenomena" as a singular noun (along with the mispronunciation of words that he has, presumably, only encountered in print), but - although I have studied critical thinking (and even elementary logic as an undergraduate) - I have not so far discerned any obvious lapses of reasoning in Peterson's discourse. Since I myself am not the subject of discussion here, I am less interested in my own purported lapses which, if they have occurred, are the result of human fallibility rather than vice.

Khayyam1048
08-08-2018, 04:48 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y18chstrtyA

johnw
08-08-2018, 07:38 PM
Try as I might, I cannot find the interview, speech or lecture in which Peterson declares that Hillary's campaign was only about identity politics. If you can direct me to it, I'll readily (if not exactly gladly) eat humble pie. What he has repeatedly said, in one form or another, is that she laid undue emphasis upon it, and that this cost her the election. I think the first part of this summary of Peterson's position is correct (a value judgement on my part, of course), but I lack the detailed knowledge of American politics to know whether the second part is supported by the facts. It has, to me, an intuitive ring of plausibility about it, but I admit that this is just a feeling on my part.

Incidentally, which "advocate for right-wing identity politics" was he being interviewed by? (I am certainly aware that such people exist, and equally aware that Peterson has regularly condemned them.)

I'd read bits of Freud, Nietzsche (via Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra and later Bertrand Russell's very hostile chapter in "A History of Western Philosophy") and Jung (partly via Christopher Booker's "The Neophiliacs") in my late teens (born in 1960, I am two years older than Peterson), but he does seem to have put a bit of a new spin on them, and has certainly introduced their names and at least some of their ideas to people who might not otherwise have encountered them.

If you're not going to view the links you ask me to view, I don't see why I should view them.


This might interest some:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYgC9Zrp0ps

About 7 minute in, he said that identity politics are all the Democrats have to offer, it's that "or nothing." If he doesn't know more than that about American politics, why is he commenting on the topic?

You didn't notice that, and you didn't notice that the interviewer is Douglas Murray, who wrote an entire book about how Europe faces "death" because its identity is threatened by Muslims immigrating. This is the sort of thing you are more likely to stop and think about if you're reading than if you're listening.

You may like his performance, but I'm looking for a bit more depth than he seems to offer, based on what I've seen. If you could guide me to some of his writing that's reasonably short, I'll give it a shot, but my initial impression of his performance is that he adjusts to say what will get the desired response from his audience. If you're making money on public appearances, perhaps that makes sense. If you're offering real insights, the written word is better.

I'm sorry I haven't been able to respond to you more quickly. I'm extremely busy right now at my shop and on a book project, so I don't have a lot of time for listening to lectures. I can get a better picture, and get it more quickly, if you'll just provide me with something to read. I'm pretty sure I can give Peterson a fairer hearing in print than in performance, in part because he will be more careful and precise in his writing than in his speech.

David G
08-08-2018, 09:32 PM
I have done a first degree in Music (in the days when it was just Classical Music) and pursued postgraduate studies (as a musicologist) to PhD level; I have no idea whether this has (or possibly could have) endowed me with the qualities (clarity, rigour, cohesion and precision) that you mention.

As a practitioner of jazz improvisation I must remark that inspiration, while it can and does occur, is - however desirable - neither a necessary nor an inevitable component of the enterprise. Your wife will be able to advise you that extemporisation was once widespread in classical music (and still survives among organists - I once heard an elaborate fugue improvised by a young French virtuoso in Derby Cathedral); there are books such as Christopher Simpson's "The Division Viol", Quantz's "On Playing the Flute" and C. Ph. E. Bach's "The True Art of Keyboard Playing" (to mention no others) that systematically train the student in, among other things, improvisation (often as an outgrowth of ornamentation, thoroughbass, etc.). Inspiration cannot be taught, but the mechanics of improvisation can be (although there are also brilliant autodidacts who seem to infer the principles without explicit instruction). There is, of course, an already vast and still rapidly growing library of materials related to the techniques of jazz improvisation.

Peterson himself is a psychologist, and it seems to me - although I lack the background and training to assess the matter with any likely prospect of accuracy - that psychology, in point of rigour, lies somewhere between the hard sciences (generally more rigorous) and the social sciences (generally less so). Thus, on my analysis (for whatever it may be worth), the psychologist is apt to shuttle between the positivistic, quantifiable and demonstrable on the one hand, and the speculative, subjective and intuitive on the other.

Could you be specific about the holes, the leaps and the gaps in Peterson's logic? I have noted small errors of fact in his lectures (concerning such things as the dates of events) and an annoying tendency on his part, for example, to treat "phenomena" as a singular noun (along with the mispronunciation of words that he has, presumably, only encountered in print), but - although I have studied critical thinking (and even elementary logic as an undergraduate) - I have not so far discerned any obvious lapses of reasoning in Peterson's discourse. Since I myself am not the subject of discussion here, I am less interested in my own purported lapses which, if they have occurred, are the result of human fallibility rather than vice.

The gaps in his logic? Several have already been mentioned. I'm not inclined to go back and dredge up more examples. I'll just say even my brief survey showed up several.

But I think I've heard enough. It may turn out I'm missing something, but I'm willing to take that chance for now.

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 04:01 AM
The gaps in his logic? Several have already been mentioned.

Then mention them again, otherwise people might think that you are stalling/bluffing.

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 04:21 AM
If you're not going to view the links you ask me to view, I don't see why I should view them.



About 7 minute in, he said that identity politics are all the Democrats have to offer, it's that "or nothing." If he doesn't know more than that about American politics, why is he commenting on the topic?

You didn't notice that, and you didn't notice that the interviewer is Douglas Murray, who wrote an entire book about how Europe faces "death" because its identity is threatened by Muslims immigrating..

Once again (as with some of your confrères on this forum), your tone is simultaneously passive-aggressive and self-righteous.

Do you know, in the practical sense, what intellectual charity is?

Of course, any sensible person "knows" that everything in Europe is just fine and that its burgeoning Muslim population present absolutely no problems. The problem is clearly Islamophobia on the part of the indigenous population. How dare bigots and hatemongers like Murray mention Theo van Gogh, Lee Rigby, Charlie Hebdo, the Manchester Arena bombing, the grooming, abuse and rape scandals in Rochdale, Rotherham, Telford, Oxford, etc., the vehicles driven into crowds, the acid attacks, the lawlessness in places such as the Parisian banlieues, Molenbeek, Malmö and Cologne...! Nothing to see here! Move on! Move on!

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 06:11 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/timeline-vehicle-terror-attacks-europe/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11341599/Prophet-Muhammad-cartoons-controversy-timeline.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_child_sex_abuse_ring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/molenbeek-the-belgian-neighbourhood-indelibly-linked-to-jihad-a6736636.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/world/europe/sweden-crime-immigration-hand-grenades.html

Ian McColgin
08-09-2018, 07:01 AM
We've had some Bilge threads go theologically circular due to the doggedness of one correspondent but it's something new and remarkable for a Forum member's entire oeuvre, running at a brisk 4.6 posts per day and producing 27% of this thread's post count, to be devoted to the intellectual glory of one Canadian.

David G
08-09-2018, 08:08 AM
Then mention them again, otherwise people might think that you are stalling/bluffing.

Some might. But they'd be wrong. Most will see that I've simply concluded for now that the game is not worth the candle.

Wait... Jordan? Izaat you??

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 10:12 AM
Some might. But they'd be wrong. Most will see that I've simply concluded for now that the game is not worth the candle.

Wait... Jordan? Izaat you??

In other words, you have no constructive criticisms to offer.

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 10:16 AM
We've had some Bilge threads go theologically circular due to the doggedness of one correspondent but it's something new and remarkable for a Forum member's entire oeuvre, running at a brisk 4.6 posts per day and producing 27% of this thread's post count, to be devoted to the intellectual glory of one Canadian.

Er, the clue is in the name of the thread. And, as I've already made clear, I am not an uncritical admirer of Peterson, although on balance I see him as a force for the good. I'm just someone who has noticed huge amounts of pomposity and intellectual arrogance among his critics here, combined with evasiveness and sheer nastiness.

oznabrag
08-09-2018, 10:17 AM
Some might. But they'd be wrong. Most will see that I've simply concluded for now that the game is not worth the candle.

Wait... Jordan? Izaat you??

I'll just leave this here . . .

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/85vphg/how_the_rub%C3%A1iy%C3%A1t_of_omar_khayy%C3%A1m_in spired/

oznabrag
08-09-2018, 10:18 AM
Er, the clue is in the name of the thread. And, as I've already made clear, I am not an uncritical admirer of Peterson, although on balance I see him as a force for the good. I'm just someone who has noticed huge amounts of pomposity and intellectual arrogance among his critics here, combined with evasiveness and sheer nastiness.

Oh, dear.

That's the MIRROR, man!

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 10:26 AM
Oh, dear.

That's the MIRROR, man!

I haven't got the faintest idea what you might mean (assuming you mean anything).

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 10:30 AM
I'll just leave this here . . .

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/85vphg/how_the_rub%C3%A1iy%C3%A1t_of_omar_khayy%C3%A1m_in spired/

I use Khayyam as a monicker and Peterson makes a reference to The Rubaiyat so I must be Peterson, QED. Actually, no; if Peterson were here I'm sure he'd identify himself. I was born two years before Peterson in London, England, and have never pursued a career in Clinical Psychology.

Keith Wilson
08-09-2018, 10:42 AM
God, what an ornery bunch. All I can say is that Peterson draws the silliest diagrams I've seen in years, something like Tufte would make as an example of how not to do it.

David G
08-09-2018, 11:41 AM
Well... we all grow... we all gather wisdom... in our own ways, and in our own times. And sometimes one has to explore half-truths and partial explanations - that nonetheless lead us down a useful path - to prepare for a fuller understanding.

So to all those who find Peterson to be useful/helpful in their journey... good on ya! Bon Voyage!!

pcford
08-09-2018, 01:51 PM
Well, Omar, it seems like the boys are either too busy to investigate Peterson or think they have seen right through it

Peterson is perhaps unique on the American cultural scene at the moment. He actually summons one to think carefully. This is a rare commodity in this venue.

Peterson got his first attention in mass media by his opposition to requirements by the university and ultimately provincial authorities which required transexuals to be addressed with whatever pronoun they desire.

Perhaps a bit of background here would be useful. There are those that believe that they can change their genders at will. These genders are not strictly binary; in fact, the believe there are hundreds if not thousands of newly named genders. I stress this has nothing to do with sexuality; whatever happens between two people when the lights go out is no business of you or me. Actual incidents of transgender people is quite rare; there is no scientific evidence to argue otherwise. The rub came when transgendered people required others to call them by a certain pronoun. For example, it is common that a putatively transgendered person will want to be called "they" instead of he or she. When the university and provincial administration promulgated a legal requirement to do so, Peterson refused to acquiesce. At great personal and even physical risk. By the way, Peterson states he usually calls a person with the pronoun that they appear to desire. But he strenously objects to the government requiring certain pronouns to be used. The transgender movement is integral to a hyper-politically correct faction on the American political scene; they are sometimes called social justice warriors.

Here is a parody, succinct and on the money:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdnyrzq96s

The social justice warriors often display thuggish behavior. Look at the videos of the Evergreen dust-up. You will see a transgender-identified person ranging the fringes of the mob with a baseball bat. Because Peterson opposed these fringe left wing groups, he attracted the attention of the alt.right. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Some will assume that he is alt.right but that is incorrect. He has portrayed himself as finding the Canadian Liberal Party as most agreeable with his thinking. The Liberals are center/left. Crudely put, they occupy roughly the same segment of the political spectrum as Hillary Clinton.

The social justice warriors portray themselves as an outgrowth of the civil rights, anti-war and sexual minority movements of the 60s. But listen to my homeboy Mario Savio: "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it — that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!" In the 50s and 60s civil right movements people paid with their lives to advance the movement. Similarly, in the 60s, people paid with their careers with their opposition to the stupid Vietnam war. As the humorous video above states, the modern social justice warriors risk little and advance little in the form of coherent thinking. Peterson called this simply narcissism.

Note the difference between the quote by Savio and the behavior of the social justice warriors. Whereas, Savio called for opposition the government regardless of danger to oneself, the social justice warriors want the government to protect them.

The extreme identity politics of this movement is gasoline to the fire of Trumpism. We should not be allowing these people more air...unless you want four more years of the Orange One.

Omar, most of the boys assemble here to insult one another. However, one or two may be attracted enough to make the effort to look closely at Peterson's thinking. It is rewarding.

Hugh Conway
08-09-2018, 02:07 PM
intellectual masturbation isn't particularly rewarding.

pcford
08-09-2018, 02:09 PM
intellectual masturbation isn't particularly rewarding.

It's much too hard to think, right?

AndyG
08-09-2018, 02:12 PM
What a tedious thread.

And I should know, I've contributed to the most tedious, enough times.

Andy

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 02:36 PM
The extreme identity politics of this movement is gasoline to the fire of Trumpism. We should not be allowing these people more air...unless you want four more years of the Orange One.

Omar, most of the boys assemble here to insult one another. However, one or two may be attracted enough to make the effort to look closely at Peterson's thinking. It is rewarding.

As an Englishman I find American politics puzzling, or at any rate the level of emotional investment therein. At the last presidential election, you had, on the one hand, a barely-sane, ultra-right-wing zealot completely bought and paid for by corporate interests and the Military-Industrial Complex, and visibly hell-bent upon unleashing chaos upon the world, and on the other hand you had Donald Trump.

It's like being asked whether you prefer to die in a housefire or from an aggressive brain tumour.

I completely agree with you about the SJWs (even if that term got me into trouble in the first place). They're symptoms of a sick society.

There is a fault line running down the middle of our societies in the developed world, and it's beginning to open into an unbridgeable abyss. Peterson, while he is not himself flawless, is a kind of Cassandra figure.

AndyG
08-09-2018, 02:43 PM
What a tedious thread.

And I should know, I've contributed to the most tedious, enough times.

Andy

johnw
08-09-2018, 03:11 PM
Once again (as with some of your confrères on this forum), your tone is simultaneously passive-aggressive and self-righteous.

Do you know, in the practical sense, what intellectual charity is?

Of course, any sensible person "knows" that everything in Europe is just fine and that its burgeoning Muslim population present absolutely no problems. The problem is clearly Islamophobia on the part of the indigenous population. How dare bigots and hatemongers like Murray mention Theo van Gogh, Lee Rigby, Charlie Hebdo, the Manchester Arena bombing, the grooming, abuse and rape scandals in Rochdale, Rotherham, Telford, Oxford, etc., the vehicles driven into crowds, the acid attacks, the lawlessness in places such as the Parisian banlieues, Molenbeek, Malmö and Cologne...! Nothing to see here! Move on! Move on!
So, you agree with Murray, which is why you like Peterson? Got it.

You ask me to look at a YouTube vid, and when I don't agree with your view of it you throw a hissy fit. Is that what you mean by intellectual charity? Is this post of yours intended to be persuasive, or just passive-aggressive and self-righteous? You certainly do project a lot.

This thread is starting to look like a waste of time.

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 04:03 PM
So, you agree with Murray, which is why you like Peterson? Got it.

You ask me to look at a YouTube vid, and when I don't agree with your view of it you throw a hissy fit. Is that what you mean by intellectual charity? Is this post of yours intended to be persuasive, or just passive-aggressive and self-righteous? You certainly do project a lot.

This thread is starting to look like a waste of time.

There's actually quite a lot I disagree with Murray about (Neoconservatism, the 2003 Iraq War, whistleblowers like Julian Assange), so you're making unwarranted assumptions. I broadly share his concern about Islam and his disdain for multiculturalism, but I come at these problems from a different perspective. I don't know just how much of Peterson's philosophy Murray would actually endorse, and vice versa (Peterson, although he seldom comments on foreign policy, has openly condemned "liberal interventionist" wars as "idiotic" while Murray has publicly supported them).

I don't ask you to do anything (you are, as an adult, free to make your own choices) but since you are commenting on a thread about Jordan Peterson I have to assume that you have some interest in the subject. I have expressed my opinions on a forum, not thrown fits, hissy or otherwise, and you should be careful about accusing others of projection.

A thread like this becomes a waste of time when people do not observe basic ground rules of discourse, of which the Principle of Charity (which you somehow distort to mean agreement with my opinions, which is not at all what I myself understand by the term) is a good example, and use tricks of rhetoric to stall and avoid giving straight answers to straight questions.

AndyG
08-09-2018, 04:09 PM
What a tedious...

Oh, I can't be bothered. Got reef points to sort out.

One person's declarations of 'truth', the right way, 'answers to everything', should be taken with the biggest grains of cynical salt you can muster. End of.

David G
08-09-2018, 04:10 PM
There's actually quite a lot I disagree with Murray about (Neoconservatism, the 2003 Iraq War, whistleblowers like Julian Assange), so you're making unwarranted assumptions. I broadly share his concern about Islam and his disdain for multiculturalism, but I come at these problems from a different perspective. I don't know just how much of Peterson's philosophy Murray would actually endorse, and vice versa (Peterson, although he seldom comments on foreign policy, has openly condemned "liberal interventionist" wars as "idiotic" while Murray has publicly supported them).

I don't ask you to do anything (you are, as an adult, free to make your own choices) but since you are commenting on a thread about Jordan Peterson I have to assume that you have some interest in the subject. I have expressed my opinions on a forum, not thrown fits, hissy or otherwise, and you should be careful about accusing others of projection.

A thread like this becomes a waste of time when people do not observe basic ground rules of discourse, of which the Principle of Charity (which you somehow distort to mean agreement with my opinions, which is not at all what I myself understand by the term) is a good example, and use tricks of rhetoric to stall and avoid giving straight answers to straight questions.

I don't suppose you you can offer that thought in a chart or graph form? Or perhaps Peterson has already done one?

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 04:12 PM
What a tedious...

Oh, I can't be bothered. Got reef points to sort out.

One person's declarations of 'truth', the right way, 'answers to everything', should be taken with the biggest grains of cynical salt you can muster. End of.

If you had the slightest familiarity with the thought of Jordan Peterson you would not entertain for a moment the thought that he is offering "answers to everything" or some definitive version of the truth.

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 04:13 PM
I don't suppose you you can offer that thought in a chart or graph form? Or perhaps Peterson has already done one?

I assume there is some (presumably humorous) point to this comment, but I can't make out what it is.

AndyG
08-09-2018, 04:39 PM
If you had the slightest familiarity with the thought of Jordan Peterson you would not entertain for a moment the thought that he is offering "answers to everything" or some definitive version of the truth.

You do not know a thing about me, or where my thoughts stem from. Goodnight.

pcford
08-09-2018, 04:40 PM
There is a fault line running down the middle of our societies in the developed world, and it's beginning to open into an unbridgeable abyss. Peterson, while he is not himself flawless, is a kind of Cassandra figure.

Well said. Most here cannot be expected to put much effort into unpacking an argument. However, I hope that perhaps one or two may consider what he is saying.

johnw
08-09-2018, 04:45 PM
There's actually quite a lot I disagree with Murray about (Neoconservatism, the 2003 Iraq War, whistleblowers like Julian Assange), so you're making unwarranted assumptions. I broadly share his concern about Islam and his disdain for multiculturalism, but I come at these problems from a different perspective. I don't know just how much of Peterson's philosophy Murray would actually endorse, and vice versa (Peterson, although he seldom comments on foreign policy, has openly condemned "liberal interventionist" wars as "idiotic" while Murray has publicly supported them).

I don't ask you to do anything (you are, as an adult, free to make your own choices) but since you are commenting on a thread about Jordan Peterson I have to assume that you have some interest in the subject. I have expressed my opinions on a forum, not thrown fits, hissy or otherwise, and you should be careful about accusing others of projection.

A thread like this becomes a waste of time when people do not observe basic ground rules of discourse, of which the Principle of Charity (which you somehow distort to mean agreement with my opinions, which is not at all what I myself understand by the term) is a good example, and use tricks of rhetoric to stall and avoid giving straight answers to straight questions.
And now you distort what I've said, and claim that what I've done. I've had enough of your tricks of rhetoric. Good day.

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 04:52 PM
You do not know a thing about me, or where my thoughts stem from. Goodnight.

I agree, it's not easy to make out what you think, since you don't appear to be too clear about it yourself. I know at least one thing about you, though. Goodnight.

Khayyam1048
08-09-2018, 04:54 PM
And now you distort what I've said, and claim that what I've done. I've had enough of your tricks of rhetoric. Good day.

More distortion and projection on your part.

Keith Wilson
08-10-2018, 01:35 PM
Here's a modestly interesting article on Mr Peterson - or, rather a response to the essay in The Atlantic. I'd never heard of Peterson before this thread, not the sort of thing I normally follow, but now I have not the slightest desire to learn more. Link to the article here. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/the-lefts-hatred-of-jordan-peterson-is-perfectly-rational.html)

A brief quote:


But the core problem with Peterson’s argument — the one that best justifies the left’s contempt for him — is that it proceeds from the premise that it is impossible to draw a categorical distinction between oppressions that are rooted in race, gender, or class, and ineluctable misfortunes like “being less tall than one might prefer.” A moment’s scrutiny reveals the absurdity of this idea. But for anyone who finds comfort in Peterson’s claim — anyone who does not wish to believe that he has benefited from unearned privileges, or that America has racked up unpaid debts to the poor, to women, or its black citizens — the notion is superficially plausible enough to be taken at face value. Which is why it is so popular; and therefore, dangerous; and therefore, contemptible.

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 01:49 PM
Here's a modestly interesting article on Mr Peterson - or, rather a response to the essay in The Atlantic. I'd never heard of Peterson before this thread, not the sort of thing I normally follow, but now I have not the slightest desire to learn more. Link to the article here. (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/08/the-lefts-hatred-of-jordan-peterson-is-perfectly-rational.html)

A brief quote:

Another hit piece, characterised by exactly the kind of identitarian drivel Peterson is (quite rightly) out to expose and debunk.

Keith Wilson
08-10-2018, 02:21 PM
Another hit piece, characterised by exactly the kind of identitarian drivel Peterson is (quite rightly) out to expose and debunk.Oh, please. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif He obviously disagrees with Mr. Peterson, but 'identitarian drivel"? The article is fairly careful to distinguish between the genuine effects of history and mere random accidents, as Peterson appears not to. You are not improving my opinion of Peterson.

Peerie Maa
08-10-2018, 02:42 PM
A good piece? Are you joking? This is a crude hit piece, written in SJW-speak, that misunderstands and misrepresents Peterson at every turn. At 58 years of age I am no swooning acolyte and have my own disagreements with Peterson, both in large areas like economics (where, surprisingly for an ex-activist for a socialist party, his views are strangely and disappointingly underdeveloped) and in points of detail, but he deserves far better than this pitiful hatchet job. (It's also depressing to witness how vertiginously standards have fallen at the TLS.)


^ What a strange first post to a Wooden Boat Forum. :confused:

Well, was I wrong?
As a son of Kent, I feel that I should apologise.

pcford
08-10-2018, 02:55 PM
Omar, this is a strange place. The site was created for the further glorification of wooden boats. However, it gets the most traffic in this section. The forty or fifty world wide benthic denizens of the place use it for their own purposes. Frankly, I don't know why the magazine furnishes the space for the limited number of participants.

Again, I recommend Jordan Peterson for serious consideration. I do not endorse (or even understand) everything he states, but I believe the guy is worth some effort.

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 04:22 PM
Oh, please. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif He obviously disagrees with Mr. Peterson, but 'identitarian drivel"? The article is fairly careful to distinguish between the genuine effects of history and mere random accidents, as Peterson appears not to. You are not improving my opinion of Peterson.

There is only one history, Keith; it does not bifurcate into what you call the "genuine" variety (whose "effects" presumably arise from human agency), and "random accidents" (which result from what insurers and other mystics refer to as Acts of God). Consequently, if Peterson does not merely "seem" not to make this "distinction without a difference", but, in fact, does not make it, then that is surely a point in his favour.

Our writer tries to turn Peterson's criticism of identity politics against him, but this comes across to anyone who has actually been listening to what Peterson has said as pitifully contrived and shoddily journalistic.

You are not, incidentally, improving my opinion of you.

Paul Pless
08-10-2018, 04:31 PM
shoddily journalisticwth does that even mean?

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 04:42 PM
Jordan Peterson is not always careful to maintain a proper distinction between Marxism, broadly understood, and what is sometimes called Cultural Marxism, and - as I have elsewhere noted - his understanding of Postmodernism is over-reliant on the writings and presentations of Steven R. C. Hicks. Marx himself is certainly too complex and multifarious a thinker to be summarily written off (the YouTube lectures by David Harvey on "Capital" are well worth watching), and I wish Peterson's critique here and elsewhere was more nuanced and developed, but I certainly find Peterson's general strictures about identity politics timely and convincing.

Like Peterson, I dislike the clickbait-y titles with which people, supposedly his admirers and allies (although they have clearly not attended to him properly), often post his interviews to YouTube. His interlocutor in the first clip here is not "destroyed" by Peterson but simply, I would maintain, bettered by him in debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCaABqPGxk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0&t=1048s

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 04:45 PM
wth does that even mean?

Got a dictionary? OK, turn to "shoddy". "Shoddily" is the adverbial form (i.e. indicative of something done in a shoddy fashion). Now, turn to "journalist". "Journalistic" could be regarded simply as the adverbial form, but actually means rather more than simply "of or pertaining to a journalist or journalists".

oznabrag
08-10-2018, 04:53 PM
There is only one history, Keith; it does not bifurcate into what you call the "genuine" variety (whose "effects" presumably arise from human agency), and "random accidents" (which result from what insurers and other mystics refer to as Acts of God). Consequently, if Peterson does not merely "seem" not to make this "distinction without a difference", but, in fact, does not make it, then that is surely a point in his favour.

Our writer tries to turn Peterson's criticism of identity politics against him, but this comes across to anyone who has actually been listening to what Peterson has said as pitifully contrived and shoddily journalistic.

You are not, incidentally, improving my opinion of you.

Well THAT'S a surprise!

Do you believe that you are improving anyone's opinion of YOU, with this unmitigated onslaught of supercilious sanctimony?

Keith Wilson
08-10-2018, 04:55 PM
Got a dictionary? OK, turn to "shoddy". "Shoddily" is the adverbial form (i.e. indicative of something done in a shoddy fashion). Now, turn to "journalist". "Journalistic" could be regarded simply as the adverbial form, but actually means rather more than simply "of or pertaining to a journalist or journalists".Jesus T. Christ, what an ornery cuss you are. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Peerie Maa
08-10-2018, 05:27 PM
Check this out
Make life more pleasant for everyone else with (https://www.facebook.com/ABCTV/videos/2173245502924208/)Kitty Flanagan (https://www.facebook.com/KittyFlanagan/?fref=mentions)'s handy new book "488 Rules For Life". #TheWeekly (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/theweekly?source=feed_text)

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 06:40 PM
Well THAT'S a surprise!

Do you believe that you are improving anyone's opinion of YOU, with this unmitigated onslaught of supercilious sanctimony?

Not anyone capable of perpetrating a linguistic atrocity such as "this unmitigated onslaught of supercilious sanctimony", that's for sure. You just liked the sound of it, didn't you? Whether it meant anything (beyond a suggestion of being insulting) never bothered you, did it? Lose the mental flab.

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 06:43 PM
Jesus T. Christ, what an ornery cuss you are. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Not really, Keith. But, like most people, if I'm baited I'll snap back.

Paul Pless
08-10-2018, 06:43 PM
oh come now khayyam, surely you recognise that garbanzo was virtue signalling with that post in a manner in which to 'identify' himself aligned in a certain way here. . .

no? you didn't see that as being obvious???

Paul Pless
08-10-2018, 06:45 PM
how'd you find us btw khayyam? and is your login name a nod to the persian astronomer poet?

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 06:50 PM
One small cavil with this article: the thin-skinned identitarian narcissists who fear Jordan Peterson are not worthy of being called "left"; they present zero challenge to Monopoly Capitalism at home or military adventurism abroad. They are a kind of ersatz left, born of intellectual malnutrition and moral atrophy, just as chicory coffee was born of war shortages.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/09/atlantic-left-fears-jordan-peterson/

Khayyam1048
08-10-2018, 06:52 PM
how'd you find us btw khayyam? and is your login name a nod to the persian astronomer poet?

Oh, I ran into you while searching for pieces (friendly, hostile and neutral) about Peterson.

And, yes, my monicker is a nod to the great man (born in Naishapur in AD 1048).

Paul Pless
08-10-2018, 06:53 PM
yeah, chicory sucks

AndyG
08-10-2018, 07:05 PM
What a tedious ... oh, ffs, I'm out of here.

Sky Blue
08-10-2018, 07:11 PM
Great thread! Thx

oznabrag
08-10-2018, 07:12 PM
oh come now khayyam, surely you recognise that garbanzo was virtue signalling with that post in a manner in which to 'identify' himself aligned in a certain way here. . .

no? you didn't see that as being obvious???

Really?

Khayyam1048
08-11-2018, 06:52 AM
https://www.dailywire.com/news/34334/atlantic-columnist-explains-why-left-so-afraid-james-barrett

Khayyam1048
08-11-2018, 06:57 AM
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31829/feminist-professor-labels-jordan-peterson-ben-james-barrett

Paul Pless
08-11-2018, 07:02 AM
What a tedious ... oh, ffs, I'm out of here.


Great thread! Thx

Lol

Khayyam1048
08-11-2018, 07:23 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/

Khayyam1048
08-11-2018, 07:25 AM
Lol

One thing's for sure: Jordan Peterson was not sent by the Universal Father to reunite us.

Khayyam1048
08-11-2018, 11:16 AM
XXVII
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

And, for that matter, when old, too.

Jordan Peterson does not provide, and does not purport to provide, solutions to all the problems of the world (his 12 Rules, distilled from the 42 on Quora, are not intended to be exhaustive). The Internet provides many other commentators whose observations bear reading and listening to or watching; every now and then, to my delight or horror, I encounter somebody new.

The Scottish vlogger/podcaster Alan Watt (not to be confused with his near-namesake, Alan Watts) is worth a listen:

https://tunein.com/podcasts/Politics/Cutting-Through-The-Matrix-p154155/

CGP Grey has an interesting channel on YouTube as well as a web site:

https://www.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey/videos?disable_polymer=1

http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/qa-with-grey

And, if you're not already Jordan-ed out, there is a Young Pretender, Jordan Greenhall:

http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/01/deep-code-speaks-the-red-religion-vs-the-blue-church/

https://medium.com/deep-code/understanding-the-blue-church-e4781b2bd9b5

Paul Pless
08-11-2018, 11:29 AM
Perhaps we should start a Rubaiyat thread, truth be told I was about Petersoned out when you arrived.* :)
I bet even Keith and you might get along there and then!


Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
A Flask of Wine, a Book of Verse — and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness —
And Wilderness is Paradise now.




*The rightes and lefties here have been going at it hammer and tongs for some time now.

Khayyam1048
08-11-2018, 11:35 AM
Perhaps we should start a Rubaiyat thread, truth be told I was about Petersoned out when you arrived.* :)
I bet even Keith and you might get along there and then!


Here with a Loaf of Bread beneath the Bough,
A Flask of Wine, a Book of Verse — and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness —
And Wilderness is Paradise now.




*The rightes and lefties here have been going at it hammer and tongs for some time now.

Give me enough wine and I can get on with almost anybody.

Khayyam1048
08-15-2018, 11:49 AM
Without the support of a flotilla of wooden boats it would appear that this thread has already gone to a watery grave. Still, should anyone happen upon its sunken remains the following might be of interest:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/who-will-speak-for-the-european-working-class/21458#.W3RYqn3TU1L

David G
08-15-2018, 02:30 PM
Without the support of a flotilla of wooden boats it would appear that this thread has already gone to a watery grave. Still, should anyone happen upon its sunken remains the following might be of interest:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/who-will-speak-for-the-european-working-class/21458#.W3RYqn3TU1L

Yikes. An 'analysis' that correctly notes that there are fewer strikes, and shrinking union membership, and suchlike - and puts it down to... 'a left that has given up on workers.'

No other factors mentioned. No other possibilities suggested.

And you find his work worthy of mention? Remarkable.

Khayyam1048
08-15-2018, 03:29 PM
Yikes. An 'analysis' that correctly notes that there are fewer strikes, and shrinking union membership, and suchlike - and puts it down to... 'a left that has given up on workers.'

No other factors mentioned. No other possibilities suggested.

And you find his work worthy of mention? Remarkable.

This is Professor Frank Furedi.

What is your own take on the issues mentioned here? Where do you think Furedi errs? What has he overlooked?