3 ms·

This is a nice even-handed review. It has been hard to get a clear picture of what Peterson is about and I've had to sift through an awful lot of partisan spite

by rusk 9y ago

This is a nice even-handed review. It has been hard to get a clear picture of what Peterson is about and I've had to sift through an awful lot of partisan spite-pieces on both sides to try to get to the bottom of what's going on with him. The following paragraph jumped out at me here: "The politics in this book lean a bit right, but if you think of Peterson as a political commentator you’re missing the point. The science in this book leans a bit Malcolm Gladwell, but if you think of him as a scientist you’re missing the point. Philosopher, missing the point. Public intellectual, missing the point. Mythographer, missing the point. So what’s the point?" I think part of the problem with our initial impressions of Peterson is he (or comes across) tries to present himself as these things kind of like he misses the point of himself sometimes .. but maybe that's just from having been taking such an embattled position so long. The article goes on to describe Peterson as "a prophet". As a student of psychology I don't personally think his views are "groundbreaking" but he does take a set of very well worn ideas and attune them to modern times. I read Bertrand Russell's "Conquest of Happiness" [0] a number of years ago and to me it seems to tick a lot of the same boxes, but perhaps in a less timely fashion. It's easy to think Russell managed to get his views out without annoying anybody but he had his fair share of partisan controversy in his time as well. It's only after the dust has settled that we view him as one of the most important western philosophers of the 20th Century. [0] https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.222834 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.222834

psyc 9y ago
In order to get a clearer picture of what Peterson is about, I did the unthinkable and watched a lot of his lectures. My opinion is that he's extremely thoughtful, formidable not so much in original thought, but careful synthesis of the many well-known sources he draws on most, and above all worthwhile. That is I think he says a ton of things that are fascinating (as Scott says, kind of in the Gladwell sense) and things that a lot of people could do with hearing these days. As far as the Gladwell thing goes, it's different because Peterson isn't making many scientific claims, or even claims as such. He's an intellectual psychologist synthesizing a - again, not original, but lucidly formulated - perspective on the human psyche itself. Not claiming how the world is, but how it is to us in our biological body-minds, which for many purposes is the only place that matters. His message is Jung meets Dostoevsky meets Joseph Campbell meets C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, but also meets Peterson.
- rusk 9y ago
  I simply don't have time to engage with his lectures. I've seen all the summaries and they're just something I don't need. Thankfully. What I do see is him continuously parading around the podcast circuit and the polarised discussion online about him. My gut reaction when I heard him on Joe Rogan was one of disgust, while quietly finding I actually agree with a lot of what he says. He's a guy who has access to "truth" (in the pragmatic, William James sense) that many of his attackers do not. I don't believe he's on the level of any of those people you've put up him up alongside. I think he draws on their work, mediates and applies their ideas as a clinical psychologist does. Clever, no doubt, and with a message that is undoubtedly of value to many, and certainly making a lot of money at it too.
  - rwj 9y ago
    If you agree with some of the things he says, why are you disgusted?
    - rusk 9y ago
      The term is called "Dissonance". It's okay and quite normal to have conflicting emotions about things. To have the head and heart in conflict. Peterson himself would say this is part of the process of getting to the truth. If you're just courting "comfortable" ideas all the time you'll get nowhere.
  - psyc 9y ago
    >> I simply don't have time to engage with his lectures. I've seen all the summaries and they're just something I don't need. Then it's easier to understand how you came by your opinions of him. Quite a bit harder, if you'll excuse me, to understand why you wrote more statements about him than anyone else in the thread, though. >> I don't believe he's on the level of any of those people you've put up him up alongside. I agree with this 100% (and would bet my entire net worth that Peterson does too), did not intend to give that impression at all, and edited my comment to reflect that.
    - 9y ago
LMYahooTFY 9y ago
I agree, and to segue a bit, I think it's rather unfortunate that his thoughts on psychology, human behavior, and dealing with tragedy are likely buried beneath partisanship for many people. He's a career clinical psychologist, father of two, well studied in Jungian archetypes, and bears all the mannerisms of being a folksy father figure. And what do you know, there is some popularity of memes referring to him as a "father of YouTube/Reddit/Internet" and wishful posts for him to be their father along with them. If there are people listening who have a deficit of such a figure in their lives, perhaps it's good they receive something to compensate for it. That seems more important than the partisan pontificating to me.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by rusk 9y ago

psyc 9y ago

In order to get a clearer picture of what Peterson is about, I did the unthinkable and watched a lot of his lectures. My opinion is that he's extremely thoughtful, formidable not so much in original thought, but careful synthesis of the many well-known sources he draws on most, and above all worthwhile. That is I think he says a ton of things that are fascinating (as Scott says, kind of in the Gladwell sense) and things that a lot of people could do with hearing these days. As far as the Gladwell thing goes, it's different because Peterson isn't making many scientific claims, or even claims as such. He's an intellectual psychologist synthesizing a - again, not original, but lucidly formulated - perspective on the human psyche itself. Not claiming how the world is, but how it is to us in our biological body-minds, which for many purposes is the only place that matters. His message is Jung meets Dostoevsky meets Joseph Campbell meets C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, but also meets Peterson.

rusk 9y ago
I simply don't have time to engage with his lectures. I've seen all the summaries and they're just something I don't need. Thankfully. What I do see is him continuously parading around the podcast circuit and the polarised discussion online about him. My gut reaction when I heard him on Joe Rogan was one of disgust, while quietly finding I actually agree with a lot of what he says. He's a guy who has access to "truth" (in the pragmatic, William James sense) that many of his attackers do not. I don't believe he's on the level of any of those people you've put up him up alongside. I think he draws on their work, mediates and applies their ideas as a clinical psychologist does. Clever, no doubt, and with a message that is undoubtedly of value to many, and certainly making a lot of money at it too.
- rwj 9y ago
  If you agree with some of the things he says, why are you disgusted?
  - rusk 9y ago
    The term is called "Dissonance". It's okay and quite normal to have conflicting emotions about things. To have the head and heart in conflict. Peterson himself would say this is part of the process of getting to the truth. If you're just courting "comfortable" ideas all the time you'll get nowhere.
- psyc 9y ago
  >> I simply don't have time to engage with his lectures. I've seen all the summaries and they're just something I don't need. Then it's easier to understand how you came by your opinions of him. Quite a bit harder, if you'll excuse me, to understand why you wrote more statements about him than anyone else in the thread, though. >> I don't believe he's on the level of any of those people you've put up him up alongside. I agree with this 100% (and would bet my entire net worth that Peterson does too), did not intend to give that impression at all, and edited my comment to reflect that.
  - 9y ago

LMYahooTFY 9y ago

I agree, and to segue a bit, I think it's rather unfortunate that his thoughts on psychology, human behavior, and dealing with tragedy are likely buried beneath partisanship for many people. He's a career clinical psychologist, father of two, well studied in Jungian archetypes, and bears all the mannerisms of being a folksy father figure. And what do you know, there is some popularity of memes referring to him as a "father of YouTube/Reddit/Internet" and wishful posts for him to be their father along with them. If there are people listening who have a deficit of such a figure in their lives, perhaps it's good they receive something to compensate for it. That seems more important than the partisan pontificating to me.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]