6 ms·

95% of times when i hear about Peterson, its someone trying to discredit him. Then i go to Youtube, search for what Peterson said about $topic, and can't find s

95% of times when i hear about Peterson, its someone trying to discredit him. Then i go to Youtube, search for what Peterson said about $topic, and can't find shit that i would even bother about. This stuff is getting creepy. Where is all the dislike coming from?

dralley 3y ago
Why do people ever dislike public figures? Why do people dislike Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil or Jake Paul? Peterson is / was a drug addict that gives mediocre-at-best self-help advice, who also goes around whining about wokeness and saying hateful things, while somehow keeping a large audience and grifting them for millions of dollars. As far as public figures go, it's fairly typical for such a person to invite antipathy.
- JSavageOne 3y ago
  Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said. The fact that you mention him being a "drug addict" (he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants after his wife got cancer) and then use words like "whining" to try to discredit him without actually addressing or disputing anything he's said shows you just have an axe to grind with no substance.
  - dralley 3y ago
    >he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants That is a very severe understatement. He was so badly addicted to benzos (for years) that he ended up going to Russia to have himself put into a weeks-long medically-induced coma to go cold-turkey, which resulted in brain damage. (He insisted on that course of action, which Western doctors refused to go along with, for obvious reasons). That left him unable to walk or speak properly for months and he still hasn't and probably will never fully recover. Just watch videos of him from a few years ago and compare them to videos from recently. I get that benzos is being studied as a potential treatment for depression, but he was doing massive quantities, and not as part of a pharmaceutical trial.
    - whiddershins 3y ago
      Ketamine? Source needed. He said it was a benzodiazepine. A prescribed anti-anxiety drug, which in rare cases is documented to create the exact withdrawal problem he had.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        It wouldnt be rare if all the cases were consistent with the duration of Peterson's access to + use of them—which is in turn a far more useful term ("access") to describe his relationship with drugs, in my seldom non-controversial opinion. Everyone bitches about their minor tranquilizer AFTER they're cutoff, smh [sighs] Edit: also, "slow well-publicized descent unto madness and suicide on a wave of intellectual dishonesty by public psychological expert and academic" or something using a combinatorial variation inclusive of all those words would be just peachy
    - artimaeis 3y ago
      I think you've mixed up ketamine and klonopin (clonazepam). https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peterson https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peter... Peterson was addicted to benzodiazepines, in specific he mentioned klonopin in his interview with New Republic.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Klonopin (benzo) !== ketamine (dissociative). My conjecture is many would benefit more from that kind of treatment than the former. Benzos lead to physical and mental oblivion just like alcoholism does.
    - JSavageOne 3y ago
      He was addicted for 18 months, but he was famous well before this. In any case none of this has any relevance to his status as a public intellectual.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Why is fame relevant at all to this discussion? What is this fixation with "his fame" as a sort of dialectical deus ex machina you keep using it to escape simple unfavorable discussion with respect to Mr. Peterson? (I used the word respect in the same sentence, see? We good?) Can he grab anyone's pussy also? Edit: also, does he say it was antidepressants? Anyone got the transcripts of podcast episodes where Jordan Peterson lies about being addicted to benzodiazepines/benzos and instead suggests they were antidepressants? I wish Klonopin was an anti-depressant yo, although im also glad thats absurd and truly not the case for my own sake Edit: help your man Peterson out? Did you purposefully lie or understate the publicly known and available information regarding the nature of his addiction? Was he maybe cleaning his room so thoroughly to find lost drugs Junkie Jesus style? I wanna believe you but my brain can't just lay down its arms and allow this kinda explicit foolishness or deception.
  - Angostura 3y ago
    > Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said I thought it addressed it fairly directly: * gives mediocre-at-best self-help advice * goes around whining about wokenes * saying hateful things I suppose we should add add that he claims to speak authoritatively about subjects well out of the areas of his expertise.
    - JSavageOne 3y ago
      Amazing, you've managed to meaningfully discredit thousands of hours of content and a couple books in a couple flippant sentences /s
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        > Join the club —Bible/"God"
      - Angostura 3y ago
        You originally said the commenter hadn't discredited anything that Peterson said. Now Peterson may have a substantial body that is sound and doesn't fall into the categories critiqued. I certainly don't suggest that he has never said anything of merit.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    > was briefly addicted to anti-depressants This is incredibly wrong and convenient. He was addicted to benzos—not anti-depressants. Benzos are anti-anxiety drugs but it is more helpful to think about them as"alcohol in a pill". Peterson is, in a sense, not distinct from an alcoholic. I'm not one to shit on drug addicts, hell, pot-kettle. But Peterson rubs me the wrong way because of his audacity in acting as if he is above the "usual" drug addict and that he can cheaply sell you the keys in the form of clichéd advice and can sell you better shit if you privately pay him to consult with him when he has to go all the way to fucking Russia to recieve "adequate treatment". I just can't even with this guy. Like, Im not gonna say he has zero helpful ideas but they are tainted with the nonsense that helps nobody but himself. Edit: i would like to find out the length of the supposef addiction as well. I just hate when people lie about this shit or polish it up when such stories should be unvarnished and relatively congruent with that which is known objectively or publiy particularly in such a public facing individual. Edit: he also has the perfect justification so its interesting if his accounts depart from a more objective one in a way that is palpable
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      When Peterson needed the kind of therapy or care you fancy yourself receiving in him, he had to go to Russia. Please, take your time and take that in. Why didn't he just call his own hotline? Lol
    - JSavageOne 3y ago
      You realize Peterson was famous well before that 18 month drug addiction, correct?
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Where did I say otherwise and where did I say it was relevant at all? What are you contesting here, bud? Edit: imma help you out here. If you wanna call out something I actually said, use the > and write it Your comment makes no sense, I never spoke to that which you raise unpredictably and unanswerably so (if thats even a real word)?
  - noelwelsh 3y ago
    Just random stuff from Twitter, because I'm not going to waste my time on his books. "You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn how to control it." https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1716881244750033367 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17168812447500333... Or you could just be a decent person. It's not that hard. "The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence." https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1715074395415425099 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17150743954154250... Counterexamples: Trump, Elon Musk's tenure at Twitter, Boris Johnson. Clearly the current system is not purely a meritocracy. This is also a completely vague statement, so plenty of room for weasling. What exactly does "predicated on competence" mean? I once read that someone fairly famous wrote "Be precise In Your Speech". Oh yeah, that was Peterson. Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful. And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1713689245360308619 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17136892453603086... Misogynistic crap. Women are not some undifferentiated glob. Some women don't even have any sexual interest in men! Also retweeting climate change denial etc.
    - JSavageOne 3y ago
      Anybody can pick a few random quotes out of context and dispute them. Keep in mind I'm not actually defending Peterson's views (I agree with some, disagree with others), I'm defending his status as a public intellectual. My experience and history shows that women definitely tend to be more attracted to men who are competent and powerful. There is nothing misogynist about that statement. That statement does not imply that all women are the same, it's a description of a pattern that has a semblance of truth.
      - Obscurity4340 3y ago
        Is his status as a public intellectual immutable or irrevokable, ever? Or does his Ph.D + tenure position ahelter him from deserved pushback on his nonsense and grifting in perpetuity? When he starts talking stupid, am I to defer to his "public intellectual" status and not only turn off my brain and logic and common sense and/or suspend judgment forever or would that still be ok and would you respond well to an invitation to join me in doing so? Edit: how many stupid things or over how long a period of uninterrupted time does it take for you to at least reexamine your views? Like this advocacy is as illogical as it is manipulatively and fiercely incorrect on a factual and qualitative basis jointly :/
- Slow_Hand 3y ago
  There seems to be a lot of disagreement in the replies to this comment around the exact nature of Jordan's health troubles/medical problems in 2019/2020. This is the most direct recounting of what happened, for anyone who cares to take a look: Peterson Family Update June 2020 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzRbEMzr0k8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzRbEMzr0k8
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > Peterson is / was a drug addict Peterson was taking doctor prescribed medication during a time when his wife was dying of cancer and like many in the US (opioid crisis) he got hooked on them. He is now off of them. If anything this should be celebrated, not denigrated. Like or dislike Peterson, it's important that we get our facts straight and avoid editorializing for the sake of manipulating readers.
- Mouthfeel 3y ago
  [dead]
amazingman 3y ago
If 5% of the time the discrediting is legitimate, then that should be enough to generate dislike for the man. If the 5% was rhetorical and it's really 0%, then you're not actually paying attention for reasons you should investigate. JBP is not a well man. Not physically, not morally, not ethically, and not spiritually.
- JSavageOne 3y ago
  If you were publicly outspoken on all of your views across all facets of life (eg. controversial topics, personal topics like relationships) with thousands of hours of content online, there would be plenty of people who strongly disagree with you and to use your words "dislike" you. The other way that's not possible is if you're not actually taking a stance on anything.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    But what if they were correct or at they weren't completely wrong?
pa7ch 3y ago
Contrapoints has a good criticism of him. I think the ragey criticisms are baited by him dancing around far right positions while otherwise talking pretty normal stuff. Anger based criticisms end up lying to make their point and then make Peterson more popular as a result.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wsve 3y ago
Let me give a personal story about this guy, A while back, when I was just beginning therapy, my therapist recommended I take an online personality test, which unbeknownst to me, was authored by Jordan Peterson. After I took the test, it gave 5-7 paragraphs explaining what each individual personality trait meant. Pretty boilerplate, but for some traits, when you got further down the explanations, it started feeling less and less like a personality test. For example, for the "agreeableness" trait, it would talk about how it was testing how "compliant, nurturing, kind, naively trusting and conciliatory" the person is, and that it generally found women scored higher. Sure, I can believe you've found that during your surveys. But then you scroll down a little more, and it starts saying things like "This difference in agreeableness between men and women is largest in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where the most has been done to ensure equality of outcome between the sexes. This provides strong evidence that biological factors rather than the environment and learning account for the dissimilarity." Uh... Why are we talking about Norway and Sweden suddenly? Scroll down a little more, and it makes more sense: "Agreeable people, [...], are more likely to enter professions associated with people, such as teaching and nursing, which are dominated by women. This is true even in the Scandinavian countries, where attempts to produce gender-equal societies has reached a maximum." Ah. So what we have here is, regardless of whether you agree it's true or not, a political agenda masquerading as a personality test. It's purpose is to argue Peterson's vocal political belief that the gender pay gap is not an issue, because women are biologically better at being nurses instead of engineers. His proof? Just look at those Scandinavians, they have completely solved sexism (citation needed) and still see this gap! Peterson may have genuinely good self help books and lectures, but the issue is it's not for the purpose of actually helping people. It's to push people closer to his world view, to agreeing with his political agenda. If you truly gained something from reading his books or watching his lectures, don't let me take that away from you. But be mindful of when his self help veers towards political beliefs.
- halbritt 3y ago
  > Ah. So what we have here is, regardless of whether you agree it's true or not, a political agenda masquerading as a personality test. It's purpose is to argue Peterson's vocal political belief that the gender pay gap is not an issue, because women are biologically better at being nurses instead of engineers. His proof? Just look at those Scandinavians, they have completely solved sexism (citation needed) and still see this gap I'm not sure it's a political belief per se so much as a refutation of the implicit assumption that the gender pay gap is entirely the result of sexism and more likely the result of other factors, not least of which are the traits and proclivities of either sex. I'm not prepared to debate whether or not his argument on the topic is legitimate, but it is something that he has elaborated on and supported with some data.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> Where is all the dislike coming from? He is providing, if not a counter-narrative, then at least a narrative orthogonal to those other people favor.
RationalDino 3y ago
What you are experiencing is called "the controversy bait-and-switch". Peterson is a master of it. What he does is say something designed to look like a dog whistle to get people upset. Then when challenged on it, he say something reasonable to pull in fans. Then he says something else which is designed to be misunderstood, and repeats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8&t=244s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8&t=244s explains it, and shows an actual example of how Peterson does it. This example had Peterson using the phrase "enforced monogamy" without context, causing people to assume that he wanted laws to enforce monogamy. Then, when challenged, he said, "Oh, no, what I meant was SOCIALLY enforced monogamy. All that I'm saying is that monogamy is a good thing!" Score 1 for Peterson. And people left sore about it are now primed to react doubly at whatever piece of bait he presents next.
- blueflow 3y ago
  Ngl, its a big PITA if you say thing A, and some people understand A, B, C and D and then get mad at you for supporting D. This happened to me some times before and i absolutely hate it. Seeing your argument that its a baddy thing makes me feel very uneasy. And the "dog whistle" thing you mentioned is conceptually that, accusing someone of saying something they didn't exactly say. I hate this concept. How would someone even proove that something they said wasn't a "dog whistle"?
  - RationalDino 3y ago
    It happens to all of us by accident. That's fine. But by the time you've built yourself a major brand based on doing this over and over again, your repeated protestations about "just being misunderstood" wear thin. There is a legitimate grey area in the middle.
  - ebiester 3y ago
    Let's say you support A, but know that many supporters of A also support B, C, and think that A implies D. Detractors also know that an argument that A implies D. If you are arguing for A, and you are versed in basic argumentation (as anyone in Peterson's situation is), it is reasonable to expect that you understand the landscape of the argument. As such, if you know that this will be used to discredit your argument, it is incumbent on you to say, "I am arguing for A. I define A as such. With that definition, I am not arguing for D or that A implies D." ___ As for dog whistles, you avoid having that problem by explicitly condemning the groups that use the dog whistle (if you indeed believe that group is wrong -- e.g. explicitly denouncing white nationalists), and by adjusting your argument to avoid any semblance of dog whistles as you learn about them. Yes, it's more work, but this is the landscape of public discourse. Consider that minorities like Muslims have had to do this to the point of absurdity. (E.g. someone does not support the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian hospitals and the withholding of substantial relief aid to Gaza, but that does not mean they support Hamas or its taking of hostages.)
KyleJune 3y ago
The Majority Report with Sam Seder on YouTube have good videos breaking down things that Jordan Peterson has said. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Majority+report+jordan+peterson https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Majority+report...
- Mouthfeel 3y ago
  [dead]

dralley 3y ago

Why do people ever dislike public figures? Why do people dislike Dr. Oz or Dr. Phil or Jake Paul? Peterson is / was a drug addict that gives mediocre-at-best self-help advice, who also goes around whining about wokeness and saying hateful things, while somehow keeping a large audience and grifting them for millions of dollars. As far as public figures go, it's fairly typical for such a person to invite antipathy.

JSavageOne 3y ago
Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said. The fact that you mention him being a "drug addict" (he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants after his wife got cancer) and then use words like "whining" to try to discredit him without actually addressing or disputing anything he's said shows you just have an axe to grind with no substance.
- dralley 3y ago
  >he was briefly addicted to anti-depressants That is a very severe understatement. He was so badly addicted to benzos (for years) that he ended up going to Russia to have himself put into a weeks-long medically-induced coma to go cold-turkey, which resulted in brain damage. (He insisted on that course of action, which Western doctors refused to go along with, for obvious reasons). That left him unable to walk or speak properly for months and he still hasn't and probably will never fully recover. Just watch videos of him from a few years ago and compare them to videos from recently. I get that benzos is being studied as a potential treatment for depression, but he was doing massive quantities, and not as part of a pharmaceutical trial.
  - whiddershins 3y ago
    Ketamine? Source needed. He said it was a benzodiazepine. A prescribed anti-anxiety drug, which in rare cases is documented to create the exact withdrawal problem he had.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      It wouldnt be rare if all the cases were consistent with the duration of Peterson's access to + use of them—which is in turn a far more useful term ("access") to describe his relationship with drugs, in my seldom non-controversial opinion. Everyone bitches about their minor tranquilizer AFTER they're cutoff, smh [sighs] Edit: also, "slow well-publicized descent unto madness and suicide on a wave of intellectual dishonesty by public psychological expert and academic" or something using a combinatorial variation inclusive of all those words would be just peachy
  - artimaeis 3y ago
    I think you've mixed up ketamine and klonopin (clonazepam). https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peterson https://newrepublic.com/article/156829/happened-jordan-peter... Peterson was addicted to benzodiazepines, in specific he mentioned klonopin in his interview with New Republic.
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Klonopin (benzo) !== ketamine (dissociative). My conjecture is many would benefit more from that kind of treatment than the former. Benzos lead to physical and mental oblivion just like alcoholism does.
  - JSavageOne 3y ago
    He was addicted for 18 months, but he was famous well before this. In any case none of this has any relevance to his status as a public intellectual.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Why is fame relevant at all to this discussion? What is this fixation with "his fame" as a sort of dialectical deus ex machina you keep using it to escape simple unfavorable discussion with respect to Mr. Peterson? (I used the word respect in the same sentence, see? We good?) Can he grab anyone's pussy also? Edit: also, does he say it was antidepressants? Anyone got the transcripts of podcast episodes where Jordan Peterson lies about being addicted to benzodiazepines/benzos and instead suggests they were antidepressants? I wish Klonopin was an anti-depressant yo, although im also glad thats absurd and truly not the case for my own sake Edit: help your man Peterson out? Did you purposefully lie or understate the publicly known and available information regarding the nature of his addiction? Was he maybe cleaning his room so thoroughly to find lost drugs Junkie Jesus style? I wanna believe you but my brain can't just lay down its arms and allow this kinda explicit foolishness or deception.
- Angostura 3y ago
  > Nothing you just said disputes any of what Peterson has said I thought it addressed it fairly directly: * gives mediocre-at-best self-help advice * goes around whining about wokenes * saying hateful things I suppose we should add add that he claims to speak authoritatively about subjects well out of the areas of his expertise.
  - JSavageOne 3y ago
    Amazing, you've managed to meaningfully discredit thousands of hours of content and a couple books in a couple flippant sentences /s
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      > Join the club —Bible/"God"
    - Angostura 3y ago
      You originally said the commenter hadn't discredited anything that Peterson said. Now Peterson may have a substantial body that is sound and doesn't fall into the categories critiqued. I certainly don't suggest that he has never said anything of merit.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  > was briefly addicted to anti-depressants This is incredibly wrong and convenient. He was addicted to benzos—not anti-depressants. Benzos are anti-anxiety drugs but it is more helpful to think about them as"alcohol in a pill". Peterson is, in a sense, not distinct from an alcoholic. I'm not one to shit on drug addicts, hell, pot-kettle. But Peterson rubs me the wrong way because of his audacity in acting as if he is above the "usual" drug addict and that he can cheaply sell you the keys in the form of clichéd advice and can sell you better shit if you privately pay him to consult with him when he has to go all the way to fucking Russia to recieve "adequate treatment". I just can't even with this guy. Like, Im not gonna say he has zero helpful ideas but they are tainted with the nonsense that helps nobody but himself. Edit: i would like to find out the length of the supposef addiction as well. I just hate when people lie about this shit or polish it up when such stories should be unvarnished and relatively congruent with that which is known objectively or publiy particularly in such a public facing individual. Edit: he also has the perfect justification so its interesting if his accounts depart from a more objective one in a way that is palpable
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    When Peterson needed the kind of therapy or care you fancy yourself receiving in him, he had to go to Russia. Please, take your time and take that in. Why didn't he just call his own hotline? Lol
  - JSavageOne 3y ago
    You realize Peterson was famous well before that 18 month drug addiction, correct?
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Where did I say otherwise and where did I say it was relevant at all? What are you contesting here, bud? Edit: imma help you out here. If you wanna call out something I actually said, use the > and write it Your comment makes no sense, I never spoke to that which you raise unpredictably and unanswerably so (if thats even a real word)?
- noelwelsh 3y ago
  Just random stuff from Twitter, because I'm not going to waste my time on his books. "You should be a monster, an absolute monster, and then you should learn how to control it." https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1716881244750033367 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17168812447500333... Or you could just be a decent person. It's not that hard. "The people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don’t want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence." https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1715074395415425099 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17150743954154250... Counterexamples: Trump, Elon Musk's tenure at Twitter, Boris Johnson. Clearly the current system is not purely a meritocracy. This is also a completely vague statement, so plenty of room for weasling. What exactly does "predicated on competence" mean? I once read that someone fairly famous wrote "Be precise In Your Speech". Oh yeah, that was Peterson. Women deeply want men who are competent and powerful. And I don’t mean power in that they can exert tyrannical control over others. That’s not power. That’s just corruption. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1713689245360308619 https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/17136892453603086... Misogynistic crap. Women are not some undifferentiated glob. Some women don't even have any sexual interest in men! Also retweeting climate change denial etc.
  - JSavageOne 3y ago
    Anybody can pick a few random quotes out of context and dispute them. Keep in mind I'm not actually defending Peterson's views (I agree with some, disagree with others), I'm defending his status as a public intellectual. My experience and history shows that women definitely tend to be more attracted to men who are competent and powerful. There is nothing misogynist about that statement. That statement does not imply that all women are the same, it's a description of a pattern that has a semblance of truth.
    - Obscurity4340 3y ago
      Is his status as a public intellectual immutable or irrevokable, ever? Or does his Ph.D + tenure position ahelter him from deserved pushback on his nonsense and grifting in perpetuity? When he starts talking stupid, am I to defer to his "public intellectual" status and not only turn off my brain and logic and common sense and/or suspend judgment forever or would that still be ok and would you respond well to an invitation to join me in doing so? Edit: how many stupid things or over how long a period of uninterrupted time does it take for you to at least reexamine your views? Like this advocacy is as illogical as it is manipulatively and fiercely incorrect on a factual and qualitative basis jointly :/
Slow_Hand 3y ago
There seems to be a lot of disagreement in the replies to this comment around the exact nature of Jordan's health troubles/medical problems in 2019/2020. This is the most direct recounting of what happened, for anyone who cares to take a look: Peterson Family Update June 2020 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzRbEMzr0k8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzRbEMzr0k8
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
> Peterson is / was a drug addict Peterson was taking doctor prescribed medication during a time when his wife was dying of cancer and like many in the US (opioid crisis) he got hooked on them. He is now off of them. If anything this should be celebrated, not denigrated. Like or dislike Peterson, it's important that we get our facts straight and avoid editorializing for the sake of manipulating readers.
Mouthfeel 3y ago
[dead]

amazingman 3y ago

If 5% of the time the discrediting is legitimate, then that should be enough to generate dislike for the man. If the 5% was rhetorical and it's really 0%, then you're not actually paying attention for reasons you should investigate. JBP is not a well man. Not physically, not morally, not ethically, and not spiritually.

JSavageOne 3y ago
If you were publicly outspoken on all of your views across all facets of life (eg. controversial topics, personal topics like relationships) with thousands of hours of content online, there would be plenty of people who strongly disagree with you and to use your words "dislike" you. The other way that's not possible is if you're not actually taking a stance on anything.
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  But what if they were correct or at they weren't completely wrong?

pa7ch 3y ago

Contrapoints has a good criticism of him. I think the ragey criticisms are baited by him dancing around far right positions while otherwise talking pretty normal stuff. Anger based criticisms end up lying to make their point and then make Peterson more popular as a result.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wsve 3y ago

Let me give a personal story about this guy, A while back, when I was just beginning therapy, my therapist recommended I take an online personality test, which unbeknownst to me, was authored by Jordan Peterson. After I took the test, it gave 5-7 paragraphs explaining what each individual personality trait meant. Pretty boilerplate, but for some traits, when you got further down the explanations, it started feeling less and less like a personality test. For example, for the "agreeableness" trait, it would talk about how it was testing how "compliant, nurturing, kind, naively trusting and conciliatory" the person is, and that it generally found women scored higher. Sure, I can believe you've found that during your surveys. But then you scroll down a little more, and it starts saying things like "This difference in agreeableness between men and women is largest in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where the most has been done to ensure equality of outcome between the sexes. This provides strong evidence that biological factors rather than the environment and learning account for the dissimilarity." Uh... Why are we talking about Norway and Sweden suddenly? Scroll down a little more, and it makes more sense: "Agreeable people, [...], are more likely to enter professions associated with people, such as teaching and nursing, which are dominated by women. This is true even in the Scandinavian countries, where attempts to produce gender-equal societies has reached a maximum." Ah. So what we have here is, regardless of whether you agree it's true or not, a political agenda masquerading as a personality test. It's purpose is to argue Peterson's vocal political belief that the gender pay gap is not an issue, because women are biologically better at being nurses instead of engineers. His proof? Just look at those Scandinavians, they have completely solved sexism (citation needed) and still see this gap! Peterson may have genuinely good self help books and lectures, but the issue is it's not for the purpose of actually helping people. It's to push people closer to his world view, to agreeing with his political agenda. If you truly gained something from reading his books or watching his lectures, don't let me take that away from you. But be mindful of when his self help veers towards political beliefs.

halbritt 3y ago
> Ah. So what we have here is, regardless of whether you agree it's true or not, a political agenda masquerading as a personality test. It's purpose is to argue Peterson's vocal political belief that the gender pay gap is not an issue, because women are biologically better at being nurses instead of engineers. His proof? Just look at those Scandinavians, they have completely solved sexism (citation needed) and still see this gap I'm not sure it's a political belief per se so much as a refutation of the implicit assumption that the gender pay gap is entirely the result of sexism and more likely the result of other factors, not least of which are the traits and proclivities of either sex. I'm not prepared to debate whether or not his argument on the topic is legitimate, but it is something that he has elaborated on and supported with some data.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> Where is all the dislike coming from? He is providing, if not a counter-narrative, then at least a narrative orthogonal to those other people favor.

RationalDino 3y ago

What you are experiencing is called "the controversy bait-and-switch". Peterson is a master of it. What he does is say something designed to look like a dog whistle to get people upset. Then when challenged on it, he say something reasonable to pull in fans. Then he says something else which is designed to be misunderstood, and repeats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8&t=244s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwSDqJAum8&t=244s explains it, and shows an actual example of how Peterson does it. This example had Peterson using the phrase "enforced monogamy" without context, causing people to assume that he wanted laws to enforce monogamy. Then, when challenged, he said, "Oh, no, what I meant was SOCIALLY enforced monogamy. All that I'm saying is that monogamy is a good thing!" Score 1 for Peterson. And people left sore about it are now primed to react doubly at whatever piece of bait he presents next.

blueflow 3y ago
Ngl, its a big PITA if you say thing A, and some people understand A, B, C and D and then get mad at you for supporting D. This happened to me some times before and i absolutely hate it. Seeing your argument that its a baddy thing makes me feel very uneasy. And the "dog whistle" thing you mentioned is conceptually that, accusing someone of saying something they didn't exactly say. I hate this concept. How would someone even proove that something they said wasn't a "dog whistle"?
- RationalDino 3y ago
  It happens to all of us by accident. That's fine. But by the time you've built yourself a major brand based on doing this over and over again, your repeated protestations about "just being misunderstood" wear thin. There is a legitimate grey area in the middle.
- ebiester 3y ago
  Let's say you support A, but know that many supporters of A also support B, C, and think that A implies D. Detractors also know that an argument that A implies D. If you are arguing for A, and you are versed in basic argumentation (as anyone in Peterson's situation is), it is reasonable to expect that you understand the landscape of the argument. As such, if you know that this will be used to discredit your argument, it is incumbent on you to say, "I am arguing for A. I define A as such. With that definition, I am not arguing for D or that A implies D." ___ As for dog whistles, you avoid having that problem by explicitly condemning the groups that use the dog whistle (if you indeed believe that group is wrong -- e.g. explicitly denouncing white nationalists), and by adjusting your argument to avoid any semblance of dog whistles as you learn about them. Yes, it's more work, but this is the landscape of public discourse. Consider that minorities like Muslims have had to do this to the point of absurdity. (E.g. someone does not support the indiscriminate bombing of Palestinian hospitals and the withholding of substantial relief aid to Gaza, but that does not mean they support Hamas or its taking of hostages.)

KyleJune 3y ago

The Majority Report with Sam Seder on YouTube have good videos breaking down things that Jordan Peterson has said. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Majority+report+jordan+peterson https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Majority+report...

Mouthfeel 3y ago
[dead]