5 ms·

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 thoughtf

by 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.
  - rusk 9y ago
    > Quite a but harder, if you'll excuse me, to understand why you wrote more statements about him than anyone else in the thread, though. Fair enough. If he wasn't in my face everywhere I turned I wouldn't have had to perform such extensive meta-analysis of his epistemology. The problem with Peterson is that it's this aspect of him that's cloudy, and which frightens some people. His actual "teachings" as it were aren't really that interesting to me, but I fully support the pragmatic approach to self-help he promulgates.
rwj 9y ago
Second this. It it ridiculous how much discussion about Peterson exists, and how little of it actually discusses his ideas.
- rusk 9y ago
  Well that depends on which of Peterson's ideas you are talking about. You can't just say "oh his teachings are fine" and that means that none of the publicity machine around him is of any consequence. There are very much two aspects to Jordan Peterson. What I came on here to say (and have since stayed for the discussion) is that that other aspect to him really isn't as sinister as people make out. I think he does play it up for publicity though. Would you not agree?
rainingmonkey 9y ago
>Peterson isn't making many scientific claims, or even claims as such. My first encounter with Peterson was hearing his "lobster theory", which struck me as such pseudoscientific piffle that I've tried to pay him as little attention as possible ever since. I imagine the reason Peterson elicits such strong reactions is because he presents differently for different audiences. As suggested elsewhere in the comments, "he's built his own persona into this gigantic strawman that looks like an ogre to everybody", luring them into attacking a position he never held so that he can appear calm, wise and reasonable in his rebuttal, and take the role of the poor attacked underdog. He speaks of "postmodern curtural marxism", yet by his own admission, has never debated a marxist. Like the best controversialists, he picks his fights very carefully, preferring to "debate" with campus teenagers than other "intellectuals". For those who haven't heard it, his "lobster theory" goes: 1. Lobsters are animals with a hierarchical society 2. Lobsters have a "seratonin based nervous system". Humans also have a "seratonin based nervous system". 3. Therefore, a hierarchical society is natural (and therefore best) for humans.
- psyc 9y ago
  This is most unfair. You may take issue with specific aspects of how Peterson, specifically, articulates the evolutionary origin of social hierarchy. You may even take issue with evolutionary psychology at large, which is a separate argument. To call the idea that there is an evolutionary origin, or that it is ancient, 'psudoscientific' seems to be just name-calling, unless you have a basis for this you aren't presenting here. Peterson is far from the first to think or write about it.

by psyc 9y ago

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.
- rusk 9y ago
  > Quite a but harder, if you'll excuse me, to understand why you wrote more statements about him than anyone else in the thread, though. Fair enough. If he wasn't in my face everywhere I turned I wouldn't have had to perform such extensive meta-analysis of his epistemology. The problem with Peterson is that it's this aspect of him that's cloudy, and which frightens some people. His actual "teachings" as it were aren't really that interesting to me, but I fully support the pragmatic approach to self-help he promulgates.

rwj 9y ago

Second this. It it ridiculous how much discussion about Peterson exists, and how little of it actually discusses his ideas.

rusk 9y ago
Well that depends on which of Peterson's ideas you are talking about. You can't just say "oh his teachings are fine" and that means that none of the publicity machine around him is of any consequence. There are very much two aspects to Jordan Peterson. What I came on here to say (and have since stayed for the discussion) is that that other aspect to him really isn't as sinister as people make out. I think he does play it up for publicity though. Would you not agree?

rainingmonkey 9y ago

>Peterson isn't making many scientific claims, or even claims as such. My first encounter with Peterson was hearing his "lobster theory", which struck me as such pseudoscientific piffle that I've tried to pay him as little attention as possible ever since. I imagine the reason Peterson elicits such strong reactions is because he presents differently for different audiences. As suggested elsewhere in the comments, "he's built his own persona into this gigantic strawman that looks like an ogre to everybody", luring them into attacking a position he never held so that he can appear calm, wise and reasonable in his rebuttal, and take the role of the poor attacked underdog. He speaks of "postmodern curtural marxism", yet by his own admission, has never debated a marxist. Like the best controversialists, he picks his fights very carefully, preferring to "debate" with campus teenagers than other "intellectuals". For those who haven't heard it, his "lobster theory" goes: 1. Lobsters are animals with a hierarchical society 2. Lobsters have a "seratonin based nervous system". Humans also have a "seratonin based nervous system". 3. Therefore, a hierarchical society is natural (and therefore best) for humans.

psyc 9y ago
This is most unfair. You may take issue with specific aspects of how Peterson, specifically, articulates the evolutionary origin of social hierarchy. You may even take issue with evolutionary psychology at large, which is a separate argument. To call the idea that there is an evolutionary origin, or that it is ancient, 'psudoscientific' seems to be just name-calling, unless you have a basis for this you aren't presenting here. Peterson is far from the first to think or write about it.