8 ms·

Is Jordan Peterson any better in person than he seems in his book? I read it after a friend recommended it and he seemed completely insufferable and possibly mi

Is Jordan Peterson any better in person than he seems in his book? I read it after a friend recommended it and he seemed completely insufferable and possibly mildly autistic based on what seemed like a real lack of understanding of the internal lives of others. Lots of people seem to like him, but I can't bring myself to watch him speak in person since everything I see just traversing the internet is framed as him "destroying liberals" in some fashion, which just affirms the insufferable idea.

cal5k 8y ago
I’d recommend watching one of his lectures rather than clips framed as “Jordan Peterson DESTROYS leftist” (the scourge of YouTube). He’s often intentionally put on the defensive in interviews and can understandably get prickly at continued attempts to wilfully misinterpret his arguments. Better yet, interviews with him and Dave Rubin or Joe Rogan, or his discussions with Sam Harris, are great ways to get a non-combative side of him.
- Reedx 8y ago
  The in-person discussions between Peterson and Sam Harris were great. It's what discourse should look like. They "steel man" each other, putting up the best form of each other's arguments. The opposite of creating/attacking straw men.
- andromedavision 8y ago
  His Biblical series has really helped me find peace in my life. As a former agnostic, I never thought I would reconsider my position on God and a need for the divine. I have way less anxiety than I did before; and it was really really bad before.
beaconstudios 8y ago
what about your reading of the book made you think he doesn't understand the internal lives of others? I read the book and didn't get that impression at all. sure, there's a lot of "feminist owned by Peterson's logic" stuff out there, but that's the culture war for you.
- faceplanted 8y ago
  > what about your reading of the book made you think he doesn't understand the internal lives of others? Maybe not "doesn't understand", it could just be disregard. Very simply the book seems uphold a philosophy that ignores that other people might have actual struggles and histories. I have a couple specific examples I can put up when I'm out of the office.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I read it as being optimistic that people can shoulder their burdens and work to improve their lot, without dismissing the fact that people do have outsized burdens compared to others. I mean, he talks about his familial issues with chronic depression and his daughter's horrifying medical problems, I can't think of anything more emblematic of "actual struggles".
esaym 8y ago
His book is a "self help" book. If you don't need help (or don't think you do), then yea, you might not like it... What I did find interesting were his interviews on the "joe rogan experience". There are three of them on youtube, here is the newest one: https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc
- faceplanted 8y ago
  I absolutely do feel like I'd appreciate help, but I've read significantly more helpful and less abrasive books for my situation, maybe the difference is that while I want help, I don't feel disaffected by modern society, and that stripped down Christian conservatism isn't an appealing philosophy as someone who had to leave the religion. If it's any consolation, I did like the chapter titles, each one was generally a good piece of advice, it was the content and justifications that were the issue.
grenoire 8y ago
Peterson in person is Peterson in his lectures, see comments below. Make up your mind yourself, and try to understand why people like and hate him both ways. He's a pretty compassionate guy as far as I can tell, he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him.
- dekken_ 8y ago
  > he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him why would anyone? if it's not a discussion it's a battle of ideologies and someone (them/they) have to win
  - grenoire 8y ago
    Case in point, you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue. You don't have to agree with everything someone says, and doing so would be philosophical suicide by the very definition of it. Just be a little more open on what you can take out his ideas, and if you're not interested in a specific subset of his subjects such as religion or identity politics or his diet (as one of the students in the audience asked him a question on), then just skip that. You be the judge, but be reasonable in your judgement.
    - dekken_ 8y ago
      > you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue I did no such thing how dare you
      - turc1656 8y ago
        You didn't literally say those words but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement. You said it was a battle of ideologies. Which means he is there as a representative of an ideology. That would make him an ideologue, based purely on logical flow from your statement. If that's not what you believe, then you shouldn't label the discussions he partakes in as ideological battles and instead brand them simply as honest political discourse with guests of varying viewpoints.
0x445442 8y ago
> a real lack of understanding of the internal lives of others. He had a successful clinical psychology practice for years. I'm not sure that's possible if your suspicion is true.
- faceplanted 8y ago
  You have a point, it came across as lack of understanding, when it could equally have been disregard.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tathougies 8y ago
> possibly mildly autistic Is having mild autism a bad thing? Why? By itself, stating that someone may be 'mildly autistic' has no bearing on the validity of their ideas.
- faceplanted 8y ago
  It's not a bad thing, it can be unfortunate for the person anyway, it was just one of my observations. Also I wasn't arguing his ideas, I was asking if his speaking worth spending the time on after his book was lacklustre.
pj_mukh 8y ago
Seconded. Tried to read some of his stuff. If he stuck to self-help, I think it'd be great. I have no idea why he tries to make (mostly nonsensical) political arguments/connections. Edit: For a deeper dive into why I specifically used the term "nonsensical". See this article [1]. I was thinking these exact things while reading his writing. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d...
- andromedavision 8y ago
  > I have no idea why he tries to make (mostly nonsensical) political arguments/connections. In these politically tumultuous times, you simply cannot separate the two. Nor could you do the same during the political upheaval of the 20th century seeing as though a lot of us have very strong political convictions. If you pay attention to the guy, he talks about his pondering on whether without the benefit of hindsight bias that we have now, he would have been a happy guard at Auschwitz. It speaks to character; a very personal thing. When you map that on to what's happening today with all the polarization, there are many ways in which answering such questions honestly to yourself makes you a better person whether you're on the right or left of the political divide.

cal5k 8y ago

I’d recommend watching one of his lectures rather than clips framed as “Jordan Peterson DESTROYS leftist” (the scourge of YouTube). He’s often intentionally put on the defensive in interviews and can understandably get prickly at continued attempts to wilfully misinterpret his arguments. Better yet, interviews with him and Dave Rubin or Joe Rogan, or his discussions with Sam Harris, are great ways to get a non-combative side of him.

Reedx 8y ago
The in-person discussions between Peterson and Sam Harris were great. It's what discourse should look like. They "steel man" each other, putting up the best form of each other's arguments. The opposite of creating/attacking straw men.
andromedavision 8y ago
His Biblical series has really helped me find peace in my life. As a former agnostic, I never thought I would reconsider my position on God and a need for the divine. I have way less anxiety than I did before; and it was really really bad before.

beaconstudios 8y ago

what about your reading of the book made you think he doesn't understand the internal lives of others? I read the book and didn't get that impression at all. sure, there's a lot of "feminist owned by Peterson's logic" stuff out there, but that's the culture war for you.

faceplanted 8y ago
> what about your reading of the book made you think he doesn't understand the internal lives of others? Maybe not "doesn't understand", it could just be disregard. Very simply the book seems uphold a philosophy that ignores that other people might have actual struggles and histories. I have a couple specific examples I can put up when I'm out of the office.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I read it as being optimistic that people can shoulder their burdens and work to improve their lot, without dismissing the fact that people do have outsized burdens compared to others. I mean, he talks about his familial issues with chronic depression and his daughter's horrifying medical problems, I can't think of anything more emblematic of "actual struggles".

esaym 8y ago

His book is a "self help" book. If you don't need help (or don't think you do), then yea, you might not like it... What I did find interesting were his interviews on the "joe rogan experience". There are three of them on youtube, here is the newest one: https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc

faceplanted 8y ago
I absolutely do feel like I'd appreciate help, but I've read significantly more helpful and less abrasive books for my situation, maybe the difference is that while I want help, I don't feel disaffected by modern society, and that stripped down Christian conservatism isn't an appealing philosophy as someone who had to leave the religion. If it's any consolation, I did like the chapter titles, each one was generally a good piece of advice, it was the content and justifications that were the issue.

grenoire 8y ago

Peterson in person is Peterson in his lectures, see comments below. Make up your mind yourself, and try to understand why people like and hate him both ways. He's a pretty compassionate guy as far as I can tell, he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him.

dekken_ 8y ago
> he just can't tolerate people who aren't willing to have proper discourse with him why would anyone? if it's not a discussion it's a battle of ideologies and someone (them/they) have to win
- grenoire 8y ago
  Case in point, you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue. You don't have to agree with everything someone says, and doing so would be philosophical suicide by the very definition of it. Just be a little more open on what you can take out his ideas, and if you're not interested in a specific subset of his subjects such as religion or identity politics or his diet (as one of the students in the audience asked him a question on), then just skip that. You be the judge, but be reasonable in your judgement.
  - dekken_ 8y ago
    > you are disregarding what he has to say as branding him as an ideologue I did no such thing how dare you
    - turc1656 8y ago
      You didn't literally say those words but that's the only reasonable conclusion based on your statement. You said it was a battle of ideologies. Which means he is there as a representative of an ideology. That would make him an ideologue, based purely on logical flow from your statement. If that's not what you believe, then you shouldn't label the discussions he partakes in as ideological battles and instead brand them simply as honest political discourse with guests of varying viewpoints.

0x445442 8y ago

> a real lack of understanding of the internal lives of others. He had a successful clinical psychology practice for years. I'm not sure that's possible if your suspicion is true.

faceplanted 8y ago
You have a point, it came across as lack of understanding, when it could equally have been disregard.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tathougies 8y ago

> possibly mildly autistic Is having mild autism a bad thing? Why? By itself, stating that someone may be 'mildly autistic' has no bearing on the validity of their ideas.

faceplanted 8y ago
It's not a bad thing, it can be unfortunate for the person anyway, it was just one of my observations. Also I wasn't arguing his ideas, I was asking if his speaking worth spending the time on after his book was lacklustre.

pj_mukh 8y ago

Seconded. Tried to read some of his stuff. If he stuck to self-help, I think it'd be great. I have no idea why he tries to make (mostly nonsensical) political arguments/connections. Edit: For a deeper dive into why I specifically used the term "nonsensical". See this article [1]. I was thinking these exact things while reading his writing. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-d...

andromedavision 8y ago
> I have no idea why he tries to make (mostly nonsensical) political arguments/connections. In these politically tumultuous times, you simply cannot separate the two. Nor could you do the same during the political upheaval of the 20th century seeing as though a lot of us have very strong political convictions. If you pay attention to the guy, he talks about his pondering on whether without the benefit of hindsight bias that we have now, he would have been a happy guard at Auschwitz. It speaks to character; a very personal thing. When you map that on to what's happening today with all the polarization, there are many ways in which answering such questions honestly to yourself makes you a better person whether you're on the right or left of the political divide.