Dr. Jordan Peterson everybody

Do you reject his validity because his view of the world is different than yours?

Ben Shapiro uses half truths and manipulated facts to push his agenda, but Peterson is an actual psychocologist with some really valid points. Don't hate just because he isn't left leaning.

I like how he questioned the merits of the man’s argument, and the assumption was that he was salty because of his politics. You named a credential- ok, he got a degree in psychology- lots of people do. His degree in psychology makes him somehow an expert in politics? Or is he a popular intellectual with a degree in psychology- and the study of people could certainly help a person in how to push the right buttons to engage certain people and be popular without needing to necessarily be intellectual? One of my step moms was intelligent and sucessful, had a degree in psychology, her own practice. Said many valid things. Wasn’t the best person to listen to. Bernie Sanders- as far left as you can go just about without ending up in the ocean. Man only leaned left once in his life and it was to reach into a donation jar with someone else’s money. Yet- plenty of “left leaning” folks don’t follow him despite the fact he says many valid things- because at the core his message has truth...

... but it isn’t truth. It has validity and merit, but it isn’t valid. So no, not everyone who looks at Dr. Peterson and says “what an intelligently phrased and obviously well thought out load of popular trite founded on flawed premises..” is dismissing him out of hand because they are part of a Marxist conspiracy to replace the word “your” with “our.” The fact is that much of what he says may well ring mechanically true. As humans- analyzing ourselves and little behavior can be uncomfortable. Stripped of sentimentality most relationships come back to us. What someone does or can do for us. Even our family. It comes back to what we want and how we get it. It’s much harder to be “enlightened” and “open minded” when one has nothing, much easier to be accepting and sharing when we have more than we need and feel no risk of loosing it. When the plane crashes in the Andes and gets stranded, humans eat their neighbor or get eaten. Uncomfortable truth. But when we aren’t stranded in the...

.. Andes, there’s no reason to act like we are. When we aren’t in lofe or death combat on a battlefield there is no reason to react fast and hard to perceived threats, to conduct ourselves as though we are. We as human beings define the course of society. It is not an entity with Iran own will that we all are slaves to- like the economy it is a creation born from the thoughts and actions of individuals. The man feels threatened. That’s not a leap- he’s said so himself. He feels a threat to freedom and to his property and that of his “tribe” and his ways, and so he advocates based out of his fear of communism and fear of soviet distopia under the premise that anything that seeks like something “they” would do is wrong.

One could say- “I don’t want to be like Hitler, so if Hitler might do it, I won’t.” In theory, not bad. But... Hitler played with dogs. He briliahed his teeth and has friends and loved the people in his life. He created jobs and fostered industries and corporations that are not just functioning to this day, but many are world leaders in their fields. The man was evil, but we can’t simply say everything he did was evil. The USSR is not an aspirational system- but not everything they did was bad, not every concept or idea they had was bad- it was implemented badly, and we have solid examples of how things go wrong. When someone tries to build an airplane and fails- that doesn’t make airplanes bad, or even some of their ideas. We know communism doesn’t work. So skip communism, but that doesn’t mean in those failed planes aren’t some ideas that can help us soar.

When he said that men become violent because they don't have partners and are sexually frustrated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy
Much like Ben Shapiro, Peterson uses that sort of vague, handwavey pseudoscientific jargon that gives his views the sheen of validity without actually having any. Just shouting that something is "science" or "natural" does not make it so.

I dunnoh. Statements like: “Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,” really make me think he might just be an unbiased and factual commenter of science. His assertion that debating women is more difficult for him than debating men because he “can’t hit them <women>” clearly shows he’s no chauvinist- but an enlightened lover of females. Of course... since a great deal of his rhetoric is how political correctness and “special treatment” harm the groups they supposedly serve (so by saying he won’t hit women isn’t that sort of against his own code...?) but anyhow- Just because he believes that Economic Marxist’s were defeated in the Cold War and so secretly infiltrated education and are trying to enact a Marxist totalitarian conspiracy using higher education to brainwash people doesn’t mean he’s somehow questionable.

@pripyatplatypus, you found one of many negative articles about Peterson. The author of that NYT article, Nellie Bowles, was with Peterson for two days before she wrote it. We should all know by now that just about every major media source has become political biased and the NYT is certainly not an exception.
.
If you spend two days with anyone you can easily gather enough quotes to be able to arrange them out of context in a way that doesn't represent reality. That's what happened in this article. Here's an interview with Peterson where they discuss the article if you'd like to hear it right from the horses mouth.
https://youtu.be/ig437hsFT-Y

I found a better clip of Dr Peterson describing the "forced menogomy" concept that was taken out of context in that NYT article. And it doesnt have any of the garbage that my first linked video has.
https://youtu.be/3675epkG_iU

Oh don’t get me wrong. The NYT article and ones like it are written with a palpable bias and leaning to sensationalism. A hypocracy of a group accusing “popular intellectuals” of leaning to popular over intellectual, opposite sides of the same coin, one smug in liberal superiority and the other smug in conservative superiority- both claiming to be “champions of the people” while in truth each are advocates of a narrow demographic while trying to advertise their ideas as in service of all people. That doesn’t make the Dr. good to say these detractors are just as bad as he in principal. It also doesn’t mean that he can’t have some nuggets of logic just as his detractors have some good logical criticisms of him. We take people as a whole, and on the whole- not for one or two aspects or arguments, this man is 2 plumbs short of a fruitcake.

Can I ask how much of Dr. Peterson's lectures or literature you've listened too or read? I have done quite a bit of both. Although he's conservative, he certainly isnt 'far right'. I also know, because he has stated it multiple times, that he believes conservatives and liberals need each other and that he views neither as superior. He beef is with the far left, marxist, and post modernists. I read what you wrote and I get the feeling that you're tossing him all the way into the alt-right bucket and therefore dismissing him entirely. My concern is that your dismissal may have passed up on an opportunity to listen to a very articulate representative of the "other side".
.
Could you do me a favor and either read or listen to this "Democrats apology" that he wished they would have said. It really brings home what a LOT of us on the conservative side have trouble articulating about our objection to the Democratic party.
.
https://youtu.be/2eIpi0rpVf8

Thank you. I’ve seen things from and about him- interviews, quotes, articles, I’ve never followed the man in any sense. After watching that link I can say more or less what I would have said. He is passionate- he believes what he says and is invested. He is articulate, educated, and has skills in writing and speaking. He says some things that make sense, some I can agree with in whole or part- but his logic is ultimately not self consistent, and he basis his conclusions on highly subjective and easily challenged opinions. He is very good at sounding like he’s “straight shooting” by disguising the agenda he is promoting behind what seek like genuinely concessions or “hard truths,” building a credibility one loses when they simply rant about how terrible something is. The “3 star review-“ because 1 Star is usually a useless rant and 5 can be a bot- but 3, people listen because it’s ballanced....

.... but each carefully chosen conceit is a barb- either propping up the side he is actually advocating, or backhandedly insulting the side he seems to be making concessions to- or sometimes both at once. He uses a lot of emotional language, emotional concepts and appeals, each designed to engage a listener on an emotional level. Movies like Armageddon- they are somewhat terrible. I love Armageddon. It’s virtue is that it does such a good job (for me anyway), of applying the right stimuli and pulling emotional parlor tricks that I am too engaged to sit there pickin at its inaccuracies, plot holes and complete implausobilitoes and near impossibilities. I WANT to see a group of rejected rough neck “Everymen” go into space on an adventure. I WANT to see love and sacrifice and staunch human determination overcome impossible odds. So I see it. I go for the ride, and I leave knowing it was fiction. An emotional hand job designed to play at my inner nature and desires. Star Trek, most...

.. wannabe hard sci fi pop stuff- they can consult experts and have great writers and throw words and theories around that only a handful of people on earth could recognize and demonstrate why, while it sounds and seems plausible on the surface even to those with some knowledge of science- it’s just bullshit meant to tell a story- a morality play at its heart most of the time. So from what I see- that is what he is at best. A man who used inconsistent logic and applies inconsistent principals to actions and beliefs as suits him, because he’s telling a story from an emotional place to appease the emotions of people who aren’t like minded, but for all the trappings of intellectualism- in the end he’s a well spoken morning radio dj who doesn’t like things that challenge his place in society, and is terrified (and probably strangely aroused) by totalitarian boogie men.

Thank you too. You're absolutely right that people see what they wanna see. We grab ahold of the things that support our current beliefs while loads of evidence that challenge our beliefs can slide right by unnoticed.
.
How can you be so sure that's not happening to you?
.
To be honest your claim that he's terrified, strangely aroused, and a totalitarian sure have an ironic bend of school room name calling for someone so concerned with the integrity of rational discourse. To be fair, I do agree that he speaks with strong conviction on his beliefs, almost as if they were absolute when in reality there are opposing theories an no proof on either side. But at the same time there is very little in psychology or human nature that is absolute. So anyone who speaks with conviction on the subject is in the same boat regardless of their core beliefs.
.
In the interest of getting to the reality of Petersons views i would love to have a discussion about the specifics of his views.

I disagree with some of what he says too. I'm just not interested in a vague emotional baseless discussion to see who can cast him in the best or worst image.

I can understand that. For the record- I was not disparaging him, but giving my opinion based on what I know of him. Calling him “terrified” isn’t an insult, but an assessment of emotion. One would be insulted to say “I’m terrified my child is hurt...” and one can be terrified of communism as well. Likewise- I sincerely believe based on his actions that he is aroused by it on some level. His fixations go beyond what most anyone would agree are healthy. But enough of that. As you say, o was not and am not trying to put the man on trial as a witch. Do you have a particular point of his in mind you’d like to discuss, or would you prefer that I describe one which I had issue with and we take it from there?