Jordan Peterson Mega-thread

[bejapuskas]

Hey everyone,

In reaction to Leo's video about Making Sense Of Jordan Peterson, we thought that it would be a good idea to discuss our understandings and perhaps come up with a body of concrete examples of where Jordan Peterson talks stereotypes and unfair judgement and where he talks wisdom. 

Be very clear on what you are analyzing and what is your intention and background. Always provide link to what you are looking at. Examples which are generalized or not complete lead to misunderstanding, stereotypes and do not support learning as efficiently. 

Be mindful of the fact that people do not see your body language or your exact thoughts when reading what you posted, really try to be precise and compassionate with each other here.

This thread might be helpful for those who want to integrate spiral stages, especially those who find themselves having a Green shadow or aversion towards LGBTQI+ or feminism. We might discuss what having a shadow means, how integrity is important for people with an audience as large as Jordan Peterson or we might also talk about what communism is. The stage is yours.

 

Just a few guidelines to keep in mind while discussing this:

Avoid xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, castism, toxic masculinity, Incel, Red-Pill, men-hating and other problematic views as we do not want to lock this potentially very useful thread.

Be respectful and open-minded to other people's views. We all come from different contexts but other people do not know what kind of context are we coming from when we say what we say. Be mindful of this, explain and be empathetic. If somebody disagrees with you, it does not mean they hate you or want to attack you.

Do not only present one-sided perspectives. There is no such thing as an absolutely right or absolutely wrong opinion or representation of anything. Everything in reality has nuances. This is especially true for complex thinkers like Jordan Peterson. While analyzing a video, article or anything else, please try and think of and write from multiple perspectives, not just one. Be mindful of the intended content of this mega-thread and do not post off-topic things like trip reports, non-duality wars etc...

Feel free to use different models Leo discusses in his videos when analyzing Jordan Peterson content!

 

Have fun!

[bejapuskas]

Some definitions of words which might be useful for you guys, read through them carefully for extra insights. Do not use a word or judge somebody's opinion if you are not sure what they mean:

(Feel free to mention and use other definitions that you find interesting or eye-opening!)

 

feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes (all sexes, male, female, intersex, trans-sex etc.)

political correctness - the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability

fascism - a form of far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy

nazism - extreme racist or authoritarian views or behavior

elitism - the dominance of a society or system by an elite

conservatism - commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation

communism - a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs; absence of those notions of class that lead to systemic, hierarchical oppression

socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

liberalism - willingness to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas; a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

equality - the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities

status - position or rank in relation to others the status of a father; relative rank in a hierarchy of prestige - especially high prestige; the condition of a person or thing in the eyes of the law (note that status can affect people legally as well and in very unfair ways, it is not just about serotonin - people are born with an unequal status); state or condition with respect to circumstances 

oppression - prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or exercise of authority (related to hierarchy)

hierarchy - a system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority

power - the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way without being stopped

patriarchy - a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it

 

Note: One cannot truly be communist (evaluate everybody's needs, equality, equity etc.) while simultaneously being a nazi, fascist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic or elitist, which the Soviet, Russian and Chinese regimes are/were. Communism requires a higher spiral development, which is an idea that Jordan Peterson does not understand. This is also one of the points in Leo's video that is mentioned above.

[Insane butterfly]

Why so much obsession about J. Peterson?

[bejapuskas]

The problem of too much empathy 

I decided to analyze this video, because when I saw the title, I thought that most people have a lack of empathy and it is hard for me to imagine how somebody can have excess empathy. 

At the beginning, JP makes a good point that people vote their personalities more than they think. He describes how people are unable to objectively evaluate facts, partially because there are too many. (which however does not excuse the ignorance they have towards politics) This is why it is important to take politics seriously, because people do not and because of their selfish personalities, they influence the justice within a society in a negative way.

As JP mentions, it is important to realize how our personalities work as a filtering mechanism of facts and how there in fact is no such thing as facts. A feminist looks at an issue differently than a misogynist for example, it is impossible to agree on what the facts are, but the general direction in which society behaves and develops can be improved towards more love and unity.

JP points out that politically correct people are typical for having high agreeableness to which he has a surprised reaction at the same time. He also talks about how agreeableness helps us to stay in a relative peace, compassion and bondedness with each other. He says that agreeableness is connected to compassion and they are both important for taking care of kids, hurt people and those who cannot take care of themselves, but he also mentions that agreeableness is not good for building a political system upon.

This is a typical example of JP creating a strawman of what political correctness is. Political correctness is the effort to avoid expressions or behaviors that exclude, insult or marginalize groups of people who are disadvantaged or discriminated against. This sounds like a good principal to build a society upon, diversity can lead to a better understanding, open-mindedness, uniqueness of knowledge, life-experience, skills etc. The opposite of political correctness is basically discrimination.

What I find problematic is that JP replaces political correctness with agreeableness, which he often associates with women and nice guys, who he and his audience judge, and then criticizes it. Also note that JP as a white, straight North American probably doesn't face discrimination as often and political correctness does not benefit him as much, therefore his view on it is very likely biased.

Then, JP makes a good point that a lot of impulsive compassion, being butt-hurt for other people, can destroy a person. It is true that certain form of non-attachment is needed in order to stay sane in this world. Perhaps not all people at the bottom are victims and not all people at the top are vicious snakes, but many are. Most people in this world live in poverty, many die from diseases they cannot afford to cure, many die in wars that are caused by xenophobia and hunger for power, many are denied the right for COVID vaccine because of vaccine nationalism etc. The way in which he belittles this reality and the way in which he is mostly coming from his western perspective and life experience is problematic. The world is not centered around West. Billions of people do not live in EU or North America.

He judges people who in his eyes only feel and cannot think by presenting the word thinking as a virtue. However, people are inevitably stuck in their feeling, they cannot escape it, only focusing on thinking is a kind of denial. As I have already mentioned, JP is a hypocrite to talk about thinking as he does not take into account so many things, such as the oppressed and the things they go through, while thinking about this for himself. Again, this is most likely caused by him defending himself when being called out on being transphobic, misogynist etc. while being a straight white North American male who is not personally affected by these toxic views. (that also affect how a person votes, behaves in work environment, not just the way they speak)

JP makes a good point that if somebody judges you for something you say and starts hating your entire persona for it, it is their issue. However, it has to be said that this is often not the case with many people who call others out on not being politically correct or who are feminists. They in fact do not start hating one's entire persona, it is their projection, because they are stuck in and defensive about their views.

I also do not agree that one has to be a bastard in order to watch somebody learn how to be independent by struggling. This can be an expression of love, which JP probably understands. Seeing oppressed minorities struggle is not a way to make them more independent.

In conclusion, when JP talks about dogmatic structures, he confuses two different ideas, from which first is making people independent by making them do stuff on their own and the other one is watching oppressed disadvantaged minorities who cannot support themselves because of toxic hierarchies struggle.

[bejapuskas]

@Insane butterfly  Because the things that he judges and does not understand such as feminism, political correctness, communism, hierarchy and independence are important to understand and he is a good case study with a lot of material to look at. Also, many members of this forum sympathize with him or have a similar shadow like him, so it is in our best interest to study and try to deeply understand JP, rather than judging him or blindly trusting him. 

That being said, in my opinion, there are better intellectuals to study and there is a reason why Leo and I do not like JP that much as an influencer of the masses. It is just that because he influences the masses, we need to take him seriously in a way.

[Tim R]

I see the advantages of such a thread, but I'd also like to point out two possible problems with a "Jordan Peterson Mega-Thread":

First, it's about a person / based on a person, which this gives the whole thing a sort of of ad hominem-touch, which I really think should be avoided in good discussions. 

And second, this thread could very easily develop into a bashing-thread where people will pick some of JP's opinions and ideas, build a straw man and then knock it down to nurture their stage blue shadow. 

[bejapuskas]

@Tim R  I understand your concerns. I think this thread is mostly meant for serious people. And definitely the guidelines I set can be disrespected in which case I will lock this thread.

[SamC]

 

JP is waging the same type of war against feminism that he believes feminism wages against masculinity ( himself)

There are 2 premises that both sides fight for in this "war" like dynamic. The reason for this is  because there is a split, within the collective ego and each individual ego in both groups, which either has disowned feminism ( spiral dynamics stage green) or " Men´s rights movement" ( spiral dynamics stage orange/ blue)

1: Both sides argue that the other side oppresses them

2: Both sides argue that it has a right to exist.

3: Both sides disown each other

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Both sides hate each other

 

This is the case for both sides, in its relation to the outer world but also to their inner world. JP is in other words first and foremost waging this war in his mind - where he both represses his feminine side and also hates the other side for disowning him ( which his ego believes the feminine side wants to do). He can´t accept the thing that  A) goes against his identity + threaten his survival and B) is trying to disown him, because then - this war will officially be lost and he will be disowned, repressed, and not loved himself.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by SamC