Jordan Peterson

[solr]

Any thoughts on Jbp? Im from scandinavia, dont know much about him. People keep nagging me to check him out, but im preoccupied with other resources atm. Is he worth the time?

[robdl]

It depends - what do you want? 

Do you want to be more achieving, successful, respectable, etc., or do you want to understand the movement of thought-self (ego) which seeks success/achievement/respect/self-improvement in the first place?  He doesn't really provide much in terms of the latter.

Edited July 11, 2018 by robdl

[solr]

11 minutes ago, robdl said:

It depends - what do you want? 

Do you want to be more achieving, successful, respectable, etc., or do you want to understand the movement of thought-self (ego) which seeks success/achievement/respect/self-improvement in the first place?  He doesn't really provide much in terms of the latter.

In terms of spiral dynamics im not interested in an orange teacher if that's what you're implying. 

[robdl]

Just now, solr said:

In terms of spiral dynamics im not interested in an orange teacher if that's what you're implying. 

I'm not familiar with spiral dynamics/what the colours mean.

[RoaldKamman]

The man is legendary in his temperament and conviction yet open to the possibility to being wrong. An intellectual supermind being able to compile most of every psychological aspect of people up to orange. Which makes me believe that he does think in systems. He is moren than bloody well worth checking out. I have spent about 40 total hours on his content and must say that after that there is not much new to find. Im very glad that I spent that time tho. 

[Edvard]

I know a proclaimed Coral in spiral dynamics who seems to be a fan of him, TJ Reeves. He's a member of this forum, and I follow him on IG. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Edvard

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, solr said:

Any thoughts on Jbp? Im from scandinavia, dont know much about him. People keep nagging me to check him out, but im preoccupied with other resources atm. Is he worth the time?

I wouldn't recommend Jordan Peterson to a woman. He's tends to cater more toward men and advocating for men to climb higher in dominance hierarchies and such. I've watched about 15 or so of his videos. And I would think that he would be disheartening to many women because he harkens back to earlier more traditional patriarchal social structures as being healthier for men and women both. And he sees most initiatives toward equality as being "Neo-Marxism" and a sure sign that we're heading toward a Communist dystopian future. So, lots of demonization.

But I could see being really jazzed up to listen to what he says as a man, because he inspires men who feel powerless to own their masculinity and gives them narratives around the idea of manhood for climbing the hierarchy. But he tends to be somewhat critical of women competing in "male dominance hierarchies" and focusing less on motherhood/wifehood because he thinks it makes women less happy and makes society fall apart.

So, he might have the opposite effect on women, and take the wind out of the sails of their ambition and make them needlessly question their own power and place within the world. And I honestly think that's his intention. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Emerald

[robdl]

22 minutes ago, Emerald said:

 

But I could see being really jazzed up to listen to what he says as a man, because he inspires men who feel powerless to own their masculinity and gives them narratives around the idea of manhood for climbing the hierarchy. But he tends to be somewhat critical of women competing in "male dominance hierarchies" and focusing less on motherhood/wifehood because he thinks it makes women less happy and makes society fall apart.

 

Yeah, Peterson feeds the (traditional) male ego-identity, which is why half his youtube video titles (titled by his followers) are "Peterson OWNS transgender activist", "Peterson DESTROYS feminist professor in debate", "how to be a real man," "how to be a true alpha," "how to earn the respect of other men," etc.  A lot of fear there when it comes to protecting and strengthening the male identity within ego.

Edited July 11, 2018 by robdl

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, robdl said:

Yeah, Peterson feeds the (traditional) male ego-identity, which is why half his youtube video titles (titled by his followers) are "Peterson OWNS transgender activist", "Peterson DESTROYS feminist professor in debate", "how to be a real man," "how to be a true alpha," "how to earn the respect of other men," etc.  A lot of fear there when it comes to protecting and strengthening the male identity within ego.

Absolutely. It's really toxic.

 

[robdl]

13 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Absolutely. It's really toxic.

 

And to seek ego-identity in male-ness is not really any different than seeking identity in being American, communist, christian, atheist, conservative, etc.   Of course, you may be a male -- that is a biological fact.  But it may also be a fact that you are an American citizen. Or a fact that you are a lawyer for a living. But to derive ego-identity out of it is altogether different. That's when it becomes a movement of fear, seeking security in identity.

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, robdl said:

And to seek ego-identity in male-ness is not really any different than seeking identity in being American, communist, christian, atheist, conservative, etc.   Of course, you may be a male -- that is a biological fact.  But it may also be a fact that you are an American citizen. Or a fact that you are a lawyer for a living. But to derive ego-identity out of it is altogether different. That's when it becomes a movement of fear, seeking security in identity.

I agree completely. Jordan Peterson probably has had a high degree of success living by these narratives of manhood. And he thinks that success is somehow the point of life. He may not realize he's actually looking for something deeper than what his ego can supply. That said, apparently he had an experience of ego transcendence. So, I might expect him to be a bit more careful with the type of advice he gives. 

[robdl]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I agree completely. Jordan Peterson probably has had a high degree of success living by these narratives of manhood.

Right, just like how someone could have a high degree of success living by a narrative that it's a brutalistic, dog-eat-dog world, and that one has to out-work, out-compete everyone and fight for everything they want.  The fruits of the narrative can validate the narrative, but the narrative may very well be a complete ego-mind fabrication.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, robdl said:

Right, just like how someone could have a high degree of success living by a narrative that it's a brutalistic, dog-eat-dog world, and that one has to out-work, out-compete everyone and fight for everything they want.  The fruits of the narrative can validate the narrative, but the narrative may very well be a complete ego-mind fabrication.

I think this happens a lot. I used to live my life like that before I had my experiences of ego transcendence, and realized how much pressure I was putting on myself to be important or significant. So, I always had to out-compete everyone in my zones of dominance to feel okay about myself. But when my ego dropped away, I realized how much I was causing myself to get off center and suffer, instead of allowing myself to swim downstream to what was more authentic to me. And I didn't need to label myself as significant or important or valuable, because I realized I was already valid. 

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

What are these 'traditional patriarchal social structures' you speak of? I know about today's society, where women work a lot, to bring in tax money to the system (government), putting children in daycare and ruining their childhood.

What do you mean with equality? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

What's this dominance hierarchy stuff? He barely mentions hierarchies at all. He's not for or against them per say, just  observing their existence (they are there for a good reason btw - you and everyone else is alive because of them, wouldn't be food on your table w/o them).

I've watched like 15 of his videos. And a lot of what he said was geared around the narrative of male dominance hierarchies and being critical of women's role in the workplace. Also, NO ONE I've heard speak (and I listen to a lot of perspectives on the left and right) is arguing for equality of outcome.

In fact, Jordan Peterson and those parroting him are the only ones that I've ever heard use that phrase or any equivalent of it. That's just a straw man that Jordan Peterson uses to misrepresent social justice causes, so that he can easily argue against it easily without actually addressing any of the real concerns. It's the same thing with his buzz words "Neo-Marxism" and "Identity Politics". These are just ways to demonize social justice causes and put them in a box so that those who buy into what he says think that they have no merit or even consider the points. 

And he'll never come right out and take a position, and stays nebulous on purpose to give himself the disguise of open-mindedness and fairness, when he is really anything but. He's a very civil wolf in sheep's clothing. A Trojan Horse of societal regression. 

 

[robdl]

19 minutes ago, Outer said:

Ok... The transgender activity and feminist professor has nothing to do with men.

 

 

I'd say it absolutely does, in terms of the male ego identity.

As the greyness/murkyness of transgenderism undermines/threatens the traditional male ego identity, which is based on male vs. female.  Transgenderism muddies those waters.  It's like white nationalists who are totally uncomfortable with bi-racial/mixed people, because they muddy the waters as to what it means to be white vs. black.  They blur the lines, so to speak, and the ego depends on distinctions, lines -- whether the white identity or the male identity.

And for feminism, with its progressive values and critiques of men, questioning the whole male-female structure of our social system, also undermines/threatens the (traditional) male ego-identity, naturally.

Edited July 11, 2018 by robdl

[solr]

Well, this did not spark my interest at all. "Alpha", debating, feminism.. bleh. 

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Outer said:

I've never seen him being critical of women's role in the workplace. If you can find evidence that would be great.

Here is one that I watched but there were others too. It's been a while so I don't quite recall which ones I've watched. But I do remember watching this one. Also, if you go in YouTube search, type in the phrase "women in male dominance hierarchies" and you'll find the vast majority of the top results are Jordan Peterson videos, 10 out of the top 16 or 17 videos. 

8 minutes ago, Outer said:

He's for equality of opportunity, so I don't get why you think he's against equality... He is a classical liberal, those people are dead set on equality and freedom and rights for all...

If you believe the world consists of groups, and everything is about the striving for power between those groups, and that there are no individuals, then that is identity politics. Most of the people in social justice believe just that. They exaggerate discrimination against minorities and other groups. They also play another game which is called the oppressor/oppressed paradigm. I.e minorities are oppressed and discriminated against (even though they really aren't as much as people think), and therefore they need to be included in Universities, workplaces, etc, as a matter of diversity. That they were given the same opportunity (SAT tests, etc) doesn't matter. Equality of outcome is what's important.

I know that this is what Jordan Peterson says that he's for. But he can't genuinely be for equality of opportunity if he thinks that examining and dismantling systemic inequalities that make everyone start off on unequal footing, will lead to some dystopian future where everyone's in a bread line. Now, I know that he'll temper this with the appearance of nuance by saying that there is 'some inequality.' But he does so in a way that de-legitimizes the perspectives of people who are experiencing systemic oppression in a way that he never will. 

Also, you're only one person, and so is Jordan Peterson. I don't know about you personally. But Jordan Peterson is a wealthy, heterosexual, cisgender, well-educated white man. He's pretty much in the ultimate blindspot for experiencing systemic inequalities. So, how can you or Jordan Peterson be so certain that the discrimination other groups face is an over-exaggeration? 

[robdl]

22 minutes ago, Outer said:

You're basing too much on a title, that transgender activist might've said a lot of nonsense you know... It's just a description. Just search Theryn Meyer Jordan Peterson.

He doesn't have anything against trans people, neither JP's followers...

Neither do they have anything against feminists.

You're the one seeing the world in groups.  I.e "Jordan Peterson OWNS feminist" doesn't mean he owns all feminists...

The content of the video is beside the point.  I'm questioning the click-batey nature of the video titles to pull in Peterson followers to give them what they want to see (to see Peterson "OWN" a transgender activist, to own a feminist).  Lots of videos there also about Peterson "owning a leftist", "dismantles a liberal."  These are videos with 100's of thousands of hits.  Clearly lots of tribal identity politics going on there with left-right, male-feminist, etc., and the need to beat the "other side."  It just reeks of conservative-male ego identity.  It's self-evident, really.  And the leader reflects the followers; and the followers reflect the leader.

Edited July 11, 2018 by robdl

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

As a woman, I don't think you'll be able to escape JP's cultural influence.

His parrots use his political doctrine as a way to gaslight your experience and claim you have nothing to complain about. They lure you each time into an endless debate where you need to address sophist on highly complicated academic stuff, which most of the time they don't even master.  All they do is repeating word by word Peterson's perspective like an index card.

What is dangerous is the smokescreen which persuade those people that there is nothing wrong or nothing as such as oppressive social structures. He's success has to do more with providing his base of followers with a bunch of theories which enables them to keep on living their life without having to accept social progress and thus, perpetrating traditional and conservative ideologies and structures they are familiar with.

 

Very well said! My experiences exactly. 

[Emerald]

21 minutes ago, Outer said:

He never was critical of women in the first minutes, which is all I watched, he just says men don't know how to deal with women in the workplace because they haven't been there for long and he lists a bunch of stuff. It's just observations and logic. If you said Jordan thinks men don't know how to deal with women in the workplace... Is  that different from saying Jordan is critical of women in the workplace? Which one is more factual?

He says inequality is a problem and that it does destabilize society.

There's very little to none systemic oppression in western societies.

You're just not picking up on the dog whistles that he uses. He's very careful to make himself seem quite egalitarian and socially acceptable.

So, he'll never come right out and say that he's being critical of women being in the workplace. He'll imply that it's just a weird situation that men don't know how to navigate. Then, he'll leave that premise open ended for men to fill in their own ideas. And many men, who already have issues with women, will obviously fill that in with the idea, "Maybe women shouldn't be in the workplace, after all." He won't say it. He'll leave it up to his viewers to say it. 

It's the same thing he did when he was having a conversation about IQ. He was talking about how he coached some guy who had an IQ of 85. And he labored the fact, that it took him over 40 hours of working with him for that guy to learn a task as simple as folding letters to fit in envelopes.

Now, Jordan Peterson didn't say anything about getting rid of low IQ people or eugenics. But about half the comments section consisted of people advocating for eugenics. There were also a ton of people talking about race and how 'the average black person has an IQ of 80', and combining that with the eugenics arguments other people were using.

And I'd bet money that this isn't on accident on the part of Jordan Peterson. It's 100% intentional. 

He implies just enough to get people thinking in the direction he wants them to think. But he doesn't go far enough to lose the air of plausible deniability.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Emerald