Jordan Peterson

Do you really need Sargon of Akkad ( ) to break this stuff down for you?

 

I think that may be the quickest I've ever seen anyone's view change on anybody or anything in my entire time at Hipforums.

I'm grappling with if this is commendable or not.

 

Commendable? Not really, other than that I suppose it shows I'm not a person who is afraid to change their mind in public. But I don't count that any thing special as I think it ought to be the norm. I've changed my mind about a good many things in the past, and no doubt will do so again.

I probably should have looked more deeply at his ideas prior to posting. I supose I was quite taken with one or two things he said, and with his charismatic way of self expression. He's a cool customer. But in the end there's a lot more with which I disagree. This became evident only after looking at 12 rules, and a few more videos.

I don't think I need to go through the reasons I changed my mind again as there's plently in this thread. 2 big ones would be BS regarding the left - todays lefties aren't Joe Stalin, and second the Bible which I think is useless as a guide to ethics in our age, and anyway, he seems to take it at face value as though it were what it purports to be - which I would argue (elesewhere not here) it isn't. He also says in one youtube video from before the last US election that he'd consider voting for you know who, and thinks Brexit is a good idea.
Other thngs too I don't like . but enough for now.

 

Not all the time, but I do enjoy his commentary.

 

Peterson is probably the most erudite of the AltLite demagogues (others including Milo, Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich, and the rest) to weaponize milenial male angst, but he does strike me as no less flaky.

This video is admittedly a hatchet job, but I think it's hard to read or view much Peterson critically without becoming aware of some pretty extreme, questionable ideas. His offhand remarks about the natural necessity of dominance hierarchies is questionable. His views on gender roles have earned him the title "Custoian of the Patriarchy". Jordan Peterson, Custodian of the Patriarchy When he talks about the conspiratorial menace of college students being indoctrinated by Post-modernist Marxists, as though it's a pervasive phenomenon, he goes off the deep end, and his proposal to monitor his colleagues' courses for Post-Modernist Marxist content is outright McCarthyism which no university should allow. One of Peterson's gripes is about the SJW's disservice to minorities by preaching victimization, but that seems to be exactly what he's doing with the young men rallying to him as a father figure telling them that the lies of women and Marxists are the root of their problems.

 

I was unaware that Peterson discusses Psychedelics in some of his discussions and lectures. I'm putting this here mainly as a reminder because I don't have the time at the moment to watch more of his extensive videos on it, but it looks like there are some relatively more involved videos on the subject he talks about.

 

True to form, what Peterson says about them on the video is little, vague, ambiguous, guarded and noncommittal. He says he has "no idea what they do.'What we don't understand about them, he says, "could fill a very thick book". As the title says, they show "how little we know about everything." They're very dangerous, proceed "with great risk". Under some circumstances, there may be benefits. Psilocybin can help people to quit smoking. Under some circumstances psychedlics can help us take care of unfinished business. He makes a somewhat obscure reference to Jewish cleansing rituals before approaching the Holy of Holies, but doesn't say psychedelics were used. Did I leave out anything important? Was that helpful?

 

As I said, he has more extensive discussions and lectures on the topic, I put that video there as sort of a placeholder to link me to the other videos.

 

I don’t dislike him, but I don’t love him. I think he’s smart and makes valid points. Why not just keep an open mind to what someone is saying instead of drawing lines in the sand simply because their politics don’t agree with yours or whatever?

 

I like this and he even briefly touches on why he might have said "I don't know what they do" in the previous video.

 

No question that he's "smart" and "makes valid points" (along with invalid ones). Open minds are always desirable, and we should never reject people completely simply because their politics don't agree with ours. However, if we watch and read a lot of him, and what he says begins to sound very political and extreme, and he seems to be gaining influence over an adoring fan base, I think we need to do more than sit back and keep an open mind. I've voiced my concerns about what he has to say. He is one of a number of gurus of the AltLite who is directing his followers to believe that a cabal of Postmodernist Marxist feminist Social Justice Warriors is out to get them and to destroy western civilization; that social dominance hierarchies are natural and good; that fighting for social justice for disadvantaged groups is a bad thing; and that we need to restore the norms of the status quo ante. Some of what he's saying is simply false. The fact that these same talking points are appearing from so many figures on the right of the political spectrum does not strike me as "accidental". Those ideas are very political, and if we allow them to get by without challenge, they can be harmful.

I first started watching and reading Jordan Peterson on the encouragement of a friend who is an ardent libertarian and thinks Peterson is the greatest thing since sliced bread. My friend is a racist, rabidly anti-goevernment and a staunch supporter of traditional gender roles, so I can't say his endorsement of Peterson gave me an open mind, but some of the things he said about Peterson sounded intriguing and at least I felt compelled to hear Peterson out, especially since I meet with my friend often and have to be able to discuss Peterson with him and other True Believers. And as they tell me, Peterson and I have a lot in common in our interest in world religions and myths. I tend to agree with many of Peterson's themes, including concern about the anomie resulting from the erosion of traditional morals and values. I can still learn from him while calling him out on what I perceive to be dangerous tendencies in his thinking.

 

You make some good points. Traditional gender roles. It’s funny, because he speaks at colleges where many women are part of his audience but maybe that is the idea. Hmm.

I honestly don’t know a lot about him but have a few friends who love the guy and suggested I give a listen.

 

Does anyone know if he has said in public that he's tried psychedelics himself?

 

My guess is "No', because if he's said that he had in public it would be big news for someone who is playing mainly to a conservative audience. The AltLite and libertarian hard core wouldn't mind, but the more traditional folks with the money might. Milo's career hasn't been the same since his pedo comment came to light. Peterson's remarks about some beneficial effects from psychedelics is risky enough with the broader conservative audience.

 

So this young lady, whoever she is, gives us six reasons why "the left" "hates" Jordan Peterson. I don't think "the Left" hates Peterson nor anybody else, because "the Left" is an abstraction incapable of hating anything or anybody. The Left is far to broad and vague to generalize meaningfully about in terms of a common emotion. What does "the Let" consist of? Liberals? Progressives? Democrats? Obviously what she is talking about is a subgroup of Americans left of center who have strong opinions about Jordan Peterson. I think she's probably overgeneralizing on the basis of some left-wing commentators who are critical of Peterson, but being critical of someone doesn't necessarily mean they "hate" the guy. I'm obviously critical of Peterson, but I don't hate him. I agree with him on some things and learn from him. And she might classify me as part of "the Left", but I betcha most of the red hot lefties she has in mind would put me in the reactionary conservative camp. (I'd put me in the radical middle based on my views on fiscal policy and foreign policy).

Anyhow, for purposes of argument, let's assume she's right that lefties hate Peterson. She gives six reasons why.: (1) masculinity (he values it); (2) view of self (he stresses personal responsibility); (3) gender roles (he thinks they're governed by biology); (4) religion (he thinks God and religion are presuppositions for stable, productive societies); (5) academic status (as an academician, he challenges the privileged position of left wing scholars dominant in higher learning); and (6).success. (Peterson is able to bring in buks and followers, to the envy of his critics who aren't. We can take these one by one and see if what she's griping about has merit. Off hand, I'd say she stacks the deck in Peterson's favor by the way she selects and frames the issues to downplay his more extreme views. Again, by refusing to identify any specific critics instead of the generic "Left" she makes it difficult to focus on actual criticisms instead of the manufactured ones she feeds us.

Before getting into the weeds, we might address in general what's going on here. The sixties and seventies saw a revolutionary transformation in the basic paradigms governing U.S. culture and society. The civil rights movement gave African-Americans new opportunities in the workplace, and they were soon imitated by women and other minorities. People helping to advance these causes became the hated "Social Justice Warriors" of AltRight, AltLite lexicons. It is quite true that in pushing for their own rights, these groups and their allies occasionally carried them to extremes, especially in areas of political correctness and demonizing occupants of the traditional power structures they were seeking to capture. As is typical of social movements, where gains of one group are perceived as losses by others, these developments led to backlash, which is what Milo, Lauren, Peterson, McInnes, Cervonich, and Peterson are about. The Dominant Social Paradigm is striking back. That being said, let's look at the merits of Peterson's case in terms of the six issues.

 

I would describe my political views as left leaning (UK Green Party member), but I certainly don't hate people like JP.

If we have to hate everyone with whom we disagree we are lost. The whole notion that all lefties hate JP is just a bit more extremeism, and although I see him as definitely right wing and conservative, I don't see JP as an extremeist.

 

1. Masculinity. Peterson believes that “The masculine spirit is under assault” in our modern world. I agree that men are under pressures that their forebears never had to face. I belong to a men's affinity group--a relic of the men's movement of the early 90s. We don't dance naked in the woods and beat drums, but we do get together weekly to talk about issues in our lives--something men have learned from women. Our wives encourage this, and I think it helps in my marriage by allowing me to draw on male perspectives on issues that would otherwise be one-on-one with my wife. And we do tend see value in traditionally "masculine" virtues of honor, duty, and courage (which women may also exemplify). also tend to agree with Peterson that "If men are pushed too hard to feminize, they will become more and more interested in harsh political ideology." But other things he says need to be taken with a grain of salt. The "assault on masculinity" comes in three forms: (1) the entry and advancement of women in the work force, creating economic and status competition; (2) upheavals in the modern capitalist workforce making outsourcing and downsizing the new normal; and (3) verbal attacks by radical feminist spokespersons highlighting male bad behavior to heighten awareness of their plight. Peterson tends to focus on # (3).

“The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy," he says,"they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence." Meet The Popular YouTube Professor Who Recommends "Enforced Monogamy" He elaborates in the interview with Cathy Newman. Women don't make it to the top of many corporate heirarchies because they're too agreeable--i.e., compassionate and caring. That makes them nice, but nice folks are at a competitive disadvantage. So he advises female clients who want to get ahead to be less agreeable--i.e., more assertive. Based on his mythopoetic analyses, Peterson tends to view masculinity in terms of order and femininity in terms of chaos. “You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it." The suggestion is that the stereotype is inevitable, naturally ordained and dangerous to mess with. I think that's a questionable idea that needs to be called out. Another of his statements that raised eyebrows concerns Alek Minassian, a man accused of running six people over in a van in Toronto.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him", says Peterson. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.” Say what? I'm all for monogamy and think it's a stabilizing force in society, but I think calling for "enforced monogamy'--i.e., return to an era where divorce is difficult or impossilble--has it's own problems and makes Peterson sound like King Canute commanding the tides to back off.

 

Yes, he has admitted to trying mushrooms, at least.

 

Because Peterson often uses flowery language, I think it's really easy to cherry pick statements of his and run with them. This might be why Peterson has a strong following among the podcast and lecture formats, where he's allowed to unpack his ideas and less likely to have ridiculous edits that take statements out of context.

@Okiefreak his "enforced monogamy" phrase granted was a bit clumsy but it was not meant in the way you are interpretting it. He meant the value of monogamy should be instilled in males, rather than seeing promiscuous behavior as desirable.