Jordan Peterson Embarrassing Himself On UK TV

[SS10]

Jordan Peterson reappeared on the UK Political Discussion Show 'Question Time' recently. (See full video below) 

Watching Leos 'Making Sense of Jordan Peterson' really revealed a lot about JP and it is evident in this video, I recommend you watch the whole video.

 

 

[Consept]

Im not really a Peterson fan but i wouldnt say he embarrassed, i just dont think hes that educated on UK political issues, but he didnt pretend he did he was asking questions which seemed to be to understand more which i think is fair enough. There maybe a question of why he was even on there but i actually think it was interesting having an outsider asking obvious questions.  

[Preety_India]

I find it difficult to grasp UK politics for some reason. I'm not surprised that Jordan is a bit clueless too. 

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

48:49 The pattern repeats itself. Jordan appeals to what I call the analytic tradition of psychology that reduces problems down to components within the individual: symptoms, diagnoses, traits, drives, genes, beliefs, values etc. On the other hand, there is a systemic tradition with its own dedicated field (community psychology) where the individual is understood in relationship to a larger context ("structures"): interpersonal relationships (parents, friends), community (school, work), societal infrastructure (health services, policy, laws), culture (values, ideology) etc.

Jordan wants to pin the problem of racism to the individual, while the systemic approach views problems as consequences of relationships between the individual and the environment. The labour MP Stella Creasy had a perfect example at 51:35 which she called the bystander effect. If we apply Jordan's terms to that problem, who exactly would be held personally responsible for the bystander effect? Where does this passive compliance with racism come from, and how should it be fixed? This is where the analytic tradition breaks down.

[Consept]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

48:49 The pattern repeats itself. Jordan appeals to what I call the analytic tradition of psychology that reduces problems down to components within the individual: symptoms, diagnoses, traits, drives, genes, beliefs, values etc. On the other hand, there is a systemic tradition with its own dedicated field (community psychology) where the individual is understood in relationship to a larger context ("structures"): interpersonal relationships (parents, friends), community (school, work), societal infrastructure (health services, policy, laws), culture (values, ideology) etc.

Jordan wants to pin the problem of racism to the individual, while the systemic approach views problems as consequences of relationships between the individual and the environment. The labour MP Stella Creasy had a perfect example at 51:35 which she called the bystander effect. If we apply Jordan's terms to that problem, who exactly would be held personally responsible for the bystander effect? Where does this passive compliance with racism come from, and how should it be fixed? This is where the analytic tradition breaks down.

I hadnt actually got to the last bit of it and after watching it i think youre right. The problem is Jordan is stuck with this ideas you can see hes very inflexible, even when he saying them theres an anger and tension that comes with holding on. He cant really go against his normal points because his fan base is basically built on them, but you can see how impractical they are in this conversation. Of course the bystander effect is what keeps racism going, having grown up in London myself i know this first hand, its when you let it go thats the problem. The individual of course should be punished but people 100% need to take responsibility for allowing an environment where racism can even exist. For example there are many white households where the odd racist remark against black people might happen, however everyone involved might be very careful not to say this in public, if this is the case is it not likely that this racist sentiment will spill over in various aspects of peoples lives? Going by Jordans take, thats irrelevant as only the person who says something in public that could be deemed racist should be addressed not the system, in this case the household. This is obviously flawed, the public racism is just a spill over of the systemic. 

[Shin]

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

48:49 The pattern repeats itself. Jordan appeals to what I call the analytic tradition of psychology that reduces problems down to components within the individual: symptoms, diagnoses, traits, drives, genes, beliefs, values etc. On the other hand, there is a systemic tradition with its own dedicated field (community psychology) where the individual is understood in relationship to a larger context ("structures"): interpersonal relationships (parents, friends), community (school, work), societal infrastructure (health services, policy, laws), culture (values, ideology) etc.

Jordan wants to pin the problem of racism to the individual, while the systemic approach views problems as consequences of relationships between the individual and the environment. The labour MP Stella Creasy had a perfect example at 51:35 which she called the bystander effect. If we apply Jordan's terms to that problem, who exactly would be held personally responsible for the bystander effect? Where does this passive compliance with racism come from, and how should it be fixed? This is where the analytic tradition breaks down.

You need to be yellow for that.

Jordan is waaay too stuck in orange for this to cross his mind.

It's great to teach proper blue and orange values to the masses, and God do we need that, but him trying to be political at this stage just pushes society backwards too.

I wonder if he sees systemic psychology as a pseudo science or if he even knows it exists at all point.

 

[Rilles]

1 hour ago, Shin said:

You need to be yellow for that.

Jordan is waaay too stuck in orange for this to cross his mind.

It's great to teach proper blue and orange values to the masses, and God do we need that, but him trying to be political at this stage just pushes society backwards too.

I wonder if he sees systemic psychology as a pseudo science or if he even knows it exists at all point.

 

He probably believes sociology is Marxist pseudo-science even though alot of the early  sociologist were conservatives.

[DocWatts]

Jordon Peterson reminds me of Scientology in some ways.

In that both dispense very basic self help advice which does actually improve people's lives to some degree, but both are motivated by problematic ideologies that they intertwine with their motivational messaging, making both seem far more reasonable than they actually are.

Though of course Scientology (it being a Cult and all) is far more malignant in thier motivations than Jordy P, who's really just a well intentioned evangelist for outdated values and social norms (when applied to the entire society in places like the UK, US, and Canada; they're perfectly functional for individuals stuck at Red)

Edited November 23, 2021 by DocWatts

[Shin]

1 hour ago, Rilles said:

He probably believes sociology is Marxist pseudo-science even though alot of the early  sociologist were conservatives.

Yeah

JP is great though, he could be such a toxic influence if he didn't embody healthy blue and orange values.
It's just a shame that he looks very stuck and probably will never learn of his mistakes, which limits his potential and by extension humanity potential.

Imagine a JP open minded, just imagine.

[Rilles]

6 minutes ago, Shin said:

Yeah

JP is great though, he could be such a toxic influence if he didn't embody healthy blue and orange values.
It's just a shame that he looks very stuck and probably will never learn of his mistakes, which limits his potential and by extension humanity potential.

Imagine a JP open minded, just imagine.

He would be on the level of our Lord and Saviour Leonardo Da Gura. 

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Shin said:

I wonder if he sees systemic psychology as a pseudo science or if he even knows it exists at all point.

Psychologists are generally aware of some systems theory, but the main difference is in the practical approach to solving problems. Analytic psychologists work within the therapist-patient dynamic, which creates change within the individual. They can use systems theories like the Transactional Model of Development to provide nuances to that process, like "therapy might be ineffective due to surrounding structural factors", but they won't work on directly solving those factors.

Community psychologists work by creating systemic change, which can involve health reforms, policy adjustments, organizational management of institutions (e.g. schools), shifting societial values through NGOs etc. So what Jordan is lacking is not so much the ability to understand this approach, but it's rather the unwillingness to see its potential in practical application. He is of course biased when he says that there are downsides to taking a structural approach ("it pits groups against groups"), because there are obvious downsides to the analytical approach as well (reductionism, victim blaming, viewing everything through the lens of dysfunction/pathology etc.).