Jordan Peterson

[Clayman]

Its interesting to observe.

People go into self-help, personal development. they learn the ways of the social constructivist, Anyone can be anything, babies are a white piece of paper, differences are insignificant, the end goal of your life is to be happy, self esteem, waaa. .... That is how you get into self-help. People let that sinks very deep, a foundation it becomes. It stays there...Quite empowering paradigm, but quite limited also.

And than you find a guy like this lumped into personal development circles, telling you: Not anyone can be anything, babies are not a white piece of paper, differences are significant, the end goal of your life is not to be happy. Imagine the trigger.

Yes the obvious reply is, ego games blah blah, ofc. Dual perspective, blah. Sure that. But speaking of the "human world" there are quite a few pros/cons coming with the biological shell you are inhibiting. And sadly it has become a taboo, to point that out in our modern society. Fingers are pointed, words like racist, homophobic, bigot are uttered at every turn. Avoiding some pieces of the puzzle at every turn.

If you avoid fitting the puzzle on these basic "human levels", how can you go to the "beyond human levels" ....ones that are so much more difficult. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Clayman

[Emerald]

Just now, Outer said:

Maybe he is an egalitarian and socially acceptable? Why don't you trust him?

I don't agree with him that men don't know how to deal with women in the workplace. But I agree with him that it's new and because of that it might be that men don't know how to deal with women there, etc.  He's thinking.

So you really think that Jordan Peterson is mentioning that he coached a guy with a low IQ and the problems with that, so people will advocate for eugenics? Or might it be because he actually didn't coach someone - he was their clinical psychologist, and teaching psychology to mostly women at the University of Toronto?

Very sad at these insane assumptions and connections.

Even Jordan Peterson admits that you can look directly at the end result of a person's impact on the world and infer that perhaps it was the motive all along. So, I don't trust him, because I see the end result of his rhetoric. I also don't trust him because I pick up on his dog whistles: the everyday societal ones and the Jungian ones. If you can zoom out a bit from him, you can see there is a common pattern to what he's doing. And he's being very effective at doing it. He's incredibly intelligent and charismatic, and he knows exactly what to say to seem like a normal guy talking about normal things. But his intentions can be inferred for those that recognize the subtle propaganda for what it is. 

 

[Clayman]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

 

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.

He also points out that IQ is good for some things, it also has negative effect. And that there are many other things of value in people that have nothing to do with IQ. Also criticizes far right groups on many occasions, especially when it comes to radicalization, and talking in racial waters.  So, it does not compute.

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Clayman

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Clayman said:

He also points out that IQ is good for some things, it also has negative effect. And that there are many other things of value in people that have nothing to do with IQ. Also criticizes far right groups on many occasions, especially when it comes to radicalization, and talking in racial waters. 

I've heard him temper his talks with these kinds of 'nuances' peppered in. And it's why he can be mainstream and have so much of an impact.

If he came right out and said, "People with low IQ are a burden on society, so we should get rid of them." No one would listen to what he has to say except for the most radical people. And if he didn't criticize the far Right a little bit, that would be suspicious given the amount that he rails against the Left. 

But you can tell what his intentions are by the amount of time and emotion he invests into a particular topic. So, the nuances are carefully placed within his rhetoric to disguise the rhetoric.

That way, he just seems like an open-minded intellectual in search for truth no matter what comes up. When in reality, he is a fierce ideologue whose end goal is to bring us back to a "Blue" social structure.

[Clayman]

1 hour ago, Outer said:

What's an oppressive social structure? Point directly to one.

That's no problem mate, you can point at exactly any structure you desire and be right. There is a tyrannical aspect in any system, in any structure, he likes to preach that, maybe because he got it quite right.

The reason he preaches that I would say is because of the failure of many people to see the non-tyrannical and protective part of it. They preach of oppression against some ... group. At the same time sitting on a laptop, eating chia, under a roof with no danger to be attacked or killed by anything.
 

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Last Sunday as I was debating JP on this forum, I was casually sitting on the couch with my laptop almost eating chia (it was melon) while my mother suddenly got called a b*** by a drunken guest, who enjoyed calling me "Fatima" when my name isn't remotely close to it. He ended up screaming everywhere that he hated arabs for literally no reason. I am mixed race and he assumed I was muslim. This man made several remarks during dinner that I was not belonging and handed me a plate of meat to check if I was eating pork. 

But yes, no oppression here. 

These are the types of things that JP's rhetoric lead people to write off as playing at "identity politics". That way, they lack empathy and awareness of the issues that real people face. I guarantee you, if the two young gentlemen on this thread were experiencing situations like that, they would have a completely different view on JP. They wouldn't be able to play devil's advocate and cooly consider that maybe some hierarchies are natural and shouldn't be dismantled, because there's a protective element to them. It's easy to support something where the cards are stacked in one's favor. 

[Emerald]

37 minutes ago, Outer said:

I asked for an example, you can't give one. OK. There goes that hypothesis. Sorry if I'm gas-lighting you by asking you for evidence - the opposite of gas-lighting.

Jordan Peterson crying about his impact on people's lives, doesn't mean that he is having a good impact on people as a whole group. The problem is that he has a lot of self-help advice that's legitimate, but he uses that self-help advice as the peanut butter that hides the pill. The pill which is designed to get people moving back to a more traditional society. And the traditional society in his mind is patriarchal and goes by "Western" (read white) values. 

He probably thinks he's bringing order back to the social system, and thinks he's doing a good job. So, I get the sense that this regression that he wants, in his mind is like a life's purpose for him, where he gets a sense of personal importance by being the guy that brings order back to society. And that order is imposed by protecting Western (read white) values, demonizing progress, subtly advocating for patriarchy, and hyper-focus on masculinity's importance. 

[Emerald]

43 minutes ago, Outer said:

@Emerald

"... And it makes me even more convinced that he’s good. Not just a good psychotherapist, but a good person. ..."

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/

A lot of people think that Jordan Peterson is a good person... but one more than Jordan Peterson himself. 

[Clayman]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I've heard him temper his talks with these kinds of 'nuances' peppered in. And it's why he can be mainstream and have so much of an impact.

If he came right out and said, "People with low IQ are a burden on society, so we should get rid of them." No one would listen to what he has to say except for the most radical people. And if he didn't criticize the far Right a little bit, that would be suspicious given the amount that he rails against the Left. 

But you can tell what his intentions are by the amount of time and emotion he invests into a particular topic. So, the nuances are carefully placed within his rhetoric to disguise the rhetoric.

That way, he just seems like an open-minded intellectual in search for truth no matter what comes up. When in reality, he is a fierce ideologue whose end goal is to bring us back to a "Blue" social structure.

I ll say its  its way more sophisticated than that. 

-Ideologue that tells the both sides of the story, not really an ideologue.
-Person that promotes individualism to such a big degree is leading people out of blue into orange. Not wise versa. 
-I would agree that he has an agenda, and that he is purposely repeating the same things at every speech, as a political leader, using it instrumentally, one might say. But I would strongly disagree that he is doing this for the given reason. I would say its for promoting individualism as a way to stabilize the left-right identity politics mania. In that regard he is fighting against the radical-left as much as the radical-right. Its just the left that is popular and less demonized. So I get it why he likes to spit on them so much. 


There was an interesting case in my country. Trying to be more egalitarian and inclusive, we are an EU candidate. They lowered the body weight and strength requirements for fireman, so there would be more women, it was unfair and oppressive, woman could not get in and be the cool fireman.

There was a fire, a family of 4 people died, 2 of them under the age of 5. the firegirl didn't have the sufficient strength nor weight to go trough the door. When her colleague came and helped her break it, it was too late.

If you lower the requirements for being a engineer to 80 IQ, in the name of eliminating systemic oppression. We should not wonder why that building fell and killed all those people. 

"You are wise when you know that "evil" is not elsewhere" would be the proper quote.

It has just a nice ring to it you know, when you are trying to eliminate systemic oppression, be more inclusive, tolerant, you must be good , good hearthed also,  doing the good and the right things, and that guy over there doing the same things as me, must be doing them for the same reason... what can go wrong. Its actually simple, it makes sense. This is the stuff he is warning against. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Clayman

[lmfao]

@solr Jordan Peterson is quite the intelligent psychologist. I found some of his university psychology lectures to be interesting and his lectures aren't usually loaded with jargon, which means he's easy to follow. If you want to learn a few things within psychology in a fun/interesting way, his youtube lectures are the way to go. I've been listening to stuff from this playlist, although there are others.

For me, his lectures on the "Big Five Aspects scale" are quite memorable. The Big Five Aspects scale is a model for describing and measuring personality. In this model, there are five dimensions of measurement: Agreeableness, conscientiousness, Extroversion, Openness to Experience and Neuroticism. It provides a nice way of conceptualizing personality. These 5 traits are things you can observe in the people around you, and can be used to explain why people behave in different ways. Each trait has two sub components, e.g. conscientiousness is composed of orderliness and industriousness. In his conscientiousness lecture in this playlist he talks about how conscientiousness predicts political orientation and life success, and how racial prejudice and avoidance of your "out group" may in part be an evolutionary adaptation (of course he isn't morally justifying this). This is because unfamiliar groups of people can carry pathogens which can kill you. For example, when Europeans came over to meet the Native Americans it is estimated that 90% of Native Americans were killed from pathogens that Europeans were carrying. He speculates that racial prejudice can be the result of "orderliness" going out of control in order to avoid infection. He talks about Hitler in general as well as example of orderliness taken to extremes, and he talks about how Hitler in his speeches and writings would describe Jews using words related to medical disease. 

 

As you've obviously seen from the responses in this thread, Jordan Peterson is more well known for his political stances. And when Jordan Peterson engages in conversation around politics, he explains his world view and people like to debate his world view. I personally find his political stuff less interesting. Although I do find some his interpretations of the Bible to be sort of interesting. 

 

 

[Clayman]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

Yes I know and I agree, but the emphasis on tyrannical tends to be when the structure doesn't have the non-tyrannical and protective parts. There isn't many of those in Western society. That's why there was silence.

I would agree, the benefits seem outweigh the oppression aspect my a significant margin. It takes extreme amount of ignorance not to see that.. Also people tend to see systems in some form of isolation. O, its capitalism, and there is oppression. Than oppression must come from capitalism. This is the standard linear thinking people take, i mean i don't blame them, that is the default way.

It never occurs to them that maybe the oppression thing has nothing to do with capitalism, the west, or humans themselves. Maybe its some other system far out from all of this human mess...... mess.... perfect mess..

Edited July 12, 2018 by Clayman

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Artaemis said:

I like that he is kinda introducing Carl Jung to the masses in greater detail and depth than what they may be familiar with. I consider Carl Jung to have had a lot of yellow thinking, considering the era and his contemporaries. I also like that Jordan Peterson is compelling others to explore personality theory. If orange people can conjure up some self awareness through personality theory, imagine the possibilities. 

Its not so great that he is demonizing green though. And that he is a really charismatic speaker who can make you want to believe anything he is saying, because he says it so well. 

I love the work of Carl Jung. I spent and entire year immersing myself in the topic of Jungian psychology, and reading everything I could get my hands on. The problem is that he's using Jung's model for his own demagoguery. And he's doing that on a deeper level than most people are aware of, because most people aren't familiar with the Jungian perspective. So, he's got a ton of stuff going on and he seems like he's just entertaining this or that idea. But I see him as very calculated and someone who slips under the radar because of the fact that he's a doctor, he presents as a nice and intelligent man, and he never strays too far from the normal discourse... unless he presents it as just an idea that he as an 'intellectual and open minded' person is toying with. 

[CreamCat]

Despite the fact that traditionalism has problems, the changes people neurotically suggest do not seem any better because they force answers to come out of their egos. Answers that you force out of your egos are low quality answers. People are trying to peg a square block into round holes.

Answers will emerge organically. Don't force answers out of your egos. Accept the fact that we may not know a better answer for a while. Be patient. Trust that high quality answers will naturally emerge out of infinite intelligence.

I don't care much about traditionalism, but Jordan Peterson is right in that short-sighted neurotic answers coming out of human egos are not going to solve problems.

Lots of neurotic answers people suggest are dogmatic and inflexible.

Let the problem simmer in your subconsicous mind. The answers may not come from you, but others.

Leo said that while we are formulating a theory, we should have ability to act in opposition to our forming theory and keep doing what we have been doing until a good theory emerges. Theories change everyday, and we can't change what we do everyday.

Why are people so eager to push new theories down others' throats before the theories are tested? We need scientific politics.

Edited July 12, 2018 by CreamCat

[Clayman]

2 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Last Sunday as I was debating JP on this forum, I was casually sitting on the couch with my laptop almost eating chia (it was melon) while my mother suddenly got called a b*** by a drunken guest, who enjoyed calling me "Fatima" when my name isn't remotely close to it (I have a latin name). He ended up screaming everywhere that he hated arabs for literally no reason. I am mixed race (and not arab at all btw) and he assumed I was muslim. This man made several remarks during dinner that I was not belonging and handed me a plate of meat to check if I was eating pork. 

But yes, no oppression here. 

Its and attitude of a person. We have to deal with that, it does not make it some human made systemic oppression.
Even if all the people did that to you, its still does not make it. It is influence that goes way beyond humans and their doings.

Its quite intriguing and scary at the same time... how people do not realize their smallness, they think they know big, they can point stuff. fix stuff, because they perceive it being wrong. In the end they end up  making it way worse. 

[Emerald]

16 minutes ago, Artaemis said:

But I see light that will emerge from this for the collective. This is the lesson they want to learn.  This may actually speed up the evolutionary process from orange into green. It was a very similar process for myself and I see a lot of myself in his fans. People are not so easily fooled, once they begin opening to the concept of self awareness, their innate knowing may overcome.  

What I honestly think will happen is that people will go further and further toward regressive ideologies to the point where it creates a huge a crisis. And humanity will come out wiser from the crisis, and know that it's not a good road to go down... at least until we hit this point again at a higher point on the spiral. So, in a sense, you could say that people like Jordan Peterson are paving the way toward that crisis that expands collective awareness. So, in the grand scheme of things, surely even the most terrible things bring us forward. That said, I would prefer avoiding crises if at all possible, because in crises people get hurt. And I think that recognizing Jordan Peterson's intentions for what they are and how they're playing into the proliferation of regressive ideologies is important to be able to do. 

[Emerald]

49 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

Despite the fact that traditionalism has problems, the changes people neurotically suggest do not seem any better because they force answers to come out of their egos. Answers that you force out of your egos are low quality answers. People are trying to peg a square block into round holes.

Answers will emerge organically. Don't force answers out of your egos. Accept the fact that we may not know a better answer for a while. Be patient. Trust that high quality answers will naturally emerge out of infinite intelligence.

I don't care much about traditionalism, but Jordan Peterson is right in that short-sighted neurotic answers coming out of human egos are not going to solve problems.

Lots of neurotic answers people suggest are dogmatic and inflexible.

Let the problem simmer in your subconsicous mind. The answers may not come from you, but others.

Leo said that while we are formulating a theory, we should have ability to act in opposition to our forming theory and keep doing what we have been doing until a good theory emerges. Theories change everyday, and we can't change what we do everyday.

Why are people so eager to push new theories down others' throats before the theories are tested? We need scientific politics.

Perspectives have already emerged organically from many people. It's just that some people don't want to take the time to listen to them, and write them off as short-sighted and neurotic. And because the people that write them off, aren't the ones experiencing the problems, they can just sit comfortably in the status quo waiting for answers that are MORE COMFORTABLE TO THEIR EGO. But those answers are just the ego talking and will only solidify the status quo. 

Tell a man that things will go back to a traditional society, and he may or may not like it. But he won't be afraid of his place within it. Tell a woman that things will go back to a traditional society, and it's like telling them they won't really be able to be a full person anymore. So, there is an existential danger to all the ideologies being advocated for by Jordan Peterson. 

[Emerald]

49 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I agree 100%.  

Glad you see it too.

[Emerald]

43 minutes ago, Clayman said:

Its and attitude of a person. We have to deal with that, it does not make it some human made systemic oppression.
Even if all the people did that to you, its still does not make it. It is influence that goes way beyond humans and their doings.

Its quite intriguing and scary at the same time... how people do not realize their smallness, they think they know big, they can point stuff. fix stuff, because they perceive it being wrong. In the end they end up  making it way worse. 

You seriously don't see any systemic issue in this instance of clear cut racism? Then you go into all kinds of abstract thoughts about a person's own smallness and our inability as humans to know how to remedy issues.

You're being foolish and using the wrong paradigm for the issue at hand. That's like a starving person asking you for some food, and responding "There is no you. Let go of your ego and stop believing in the illusion a you that needs to eat." Then, you continue munching on the sandwich you were just munching on before you depart feeling proud that you've just imparted some real pearls of wisdom to that ignorant wretch.

The fact of the matter is, that people who are in a systemically oppressed group, are going to have to deal with very specific problem behaviors from a sizable minority of people. And that effect compounds over a lifetime. And it's an actual existential threat that they've had to deeply explore, far more than anyone who's not in that group has. 

So, maybe consider that people in oppressed groups might know a little bit more than you do about what might work. Also, consider the fact that if it gets on your nerves, it's working. If ain't called agitation for no reason. 

[CreamCat]

7 hours ago, Emerald said:

Tell a man that things will go back to a traditional society, and he may or may not like it. But he won't be afraid of his place within it.

That's not true. Have you been subject to the choice between military conscription and imprisonment? Conscription was a traumatic experience for me. Have you been seriously threatened with years of prison sentence? We are still largely traditional although the difference is that women now have enough time and energy left to work at jobs. In the past, infant mortality rate was so high that only 2 out of 6 children survived. For a human population to maintain itself, the birth rate should be at least 2. It was evolutionary pressure that killed societies where women gave birth to less than 6 children in the past. It wasn't men who prevented women from going to work. Nowdays, even in islamic societies, economic necessity forces women to go to work and drive. Economic necessity is just another aspect of evolutionary pressure. It's only a matter of time before Islam succumbs to evolutionary pressure. Evolution doesn't care about tradition.

Blue Traditionalism is scary to young men who are subject to conscription, too. Men like me want to abolish conscription.

I was once very neurotic about eradicating conscription, but I realized I needed to understand perspectives before convincing people. Tell blue people to abolish conscription, and they won't listen. They will only strengthen their opinions through discussion.

Blue traditionalism doesn't just let one gender roam freely. It is oppressive to everyone. It is far harsher to the lower class, but it is still oppressive to the kings like bill gates and donald trump. Do understand that blue absolutism was a solution to Red chaos. You can't just remove Blue absolutism without allowing Red psychopaths to run rampant. Go to south america where Red is running rampant. You'd wish more Blue was there.

We still need some degrees of Blue conservatism without being dogmatic. Maintaining a stable conservative core for a while is helpful because doing so allows more room for experimentations. You can't just spin things every other day and expect things to not fall into Red chaos. Test your social theories in small-scale experimentations before rolling it out on a bigger scale. Every stage of tier 1 expects too much too fast. if you try to change things at a neckbreak pace, things collapse. Slow down. But, don't think that I support Blue. Blue tried to ban writing 2500 years ago and fought wars with capitalists over slavery.

I try to maintain distance from any specific group. The pattern I see is that dogmatism slightly loosens as you transition from Purple to Blue to Green. But, Green is still dogmatic about group identity because it is in tier 1. One sign of dogmatic group identity is that one is persistent in gerrymandering an issue along the line of group boundary when there is no such clear boundary. The group can be any group.

Another problem is that perspective by itself doesn't necessarily suffice as a solution. It might take more than perspective to solve a complex problem. Infinite intelligence could solve problems in totally unexpected ways. I've seen different perspectives at work, and they haven't worked too well. We have to accept that we don't know how to solve a problem, yet. Ignoring the fact that we don't know for sure is ignorance.

What I'd like to see is more tolerance for confusion and more integrative systemic approach that includes everyone instead of drawing lines over artificial group boundaries because it's impossible for only a certain group of people to escape. Take capitalism for example. The ultra rich haven't escaped capitalism. Capitalism is rigged against everyone including the ultra rich. The ultra rich are so afraid of losing money and social status associated with money that they keep trying to screw everyone else over.

The counterintuitive move is to lead people into a place where everyone doesn't care much about group identity. You become a woman or a man when you need to be. You become a citizen of USA when you need to be. But, most of the time, you just are a human being. The blue problems associated with islam and western traditionalism can be solved by leading people into Orange, Green, and Yellow.

Don't expect Blue people to directly skip to Green. Green fails to convince Blue because Green wants Blue people to directly skip to Green. Lead Blue people into Blue-Orange first and then Orange and then Green. Encourage Blue people to taste sweet freedom that comes with Blue-Orange and Orange. After they become Orange, they will be ready for Orange-Green, Green, and Yellow and so on.

Green depises Orange. Green hates leading Blue people into Orange. That's why it would be another counterintuitive move.

To a spiral wizard, the stages matter much more than particular perspectives of stages. Green Islam and Green Jordan Peterson will not have problems associated with Blue. I don't know whether spiral wizardry works, but I bet my hopes on it for now.

Edited July 12, 2018 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

Quote

you make the conclusion that he's advocating for genocide and eugenics secretly but don't say it (dog whistle).

@Outer I don't know where this comes from. How do you know what a person didn't say?

Why do you not refute my arguments as well? Where do you peg me, you, and others in spiral dynamics?

Edited July 12, 2018 by CreamCat