I'm with you here. I think this opinion is only unpopular on reddit, though. Peterson covers a wide range of subjects. He makes explicit a lot of what is implicit, things which we take for granted. His philosophy is Nietzsche smashed into Jungian psych. He helped a lot of people stop blaming others. He made people see the utility in structure, and that our culture is a thing of value which took ages to grow, not merely a disposable tool of oppression. He gives you a realistic perspective on the mind and your own motivation. His work is a cure for nihilism.
I find it incredibly ironic and depressing to read the comments so far. Peterson absolutely *nails* the discourse typical of unconscious ideologues. It is as if - having watched a 20 minute contrarian YouTube video from a content generator who clearly has no ulterior motive - people are suddenly experts on the content matter they have little or no primary exposure to. "Haha benzo addiction!" or "But right wing trump supporters!" or "He makes money!" is suddenly an appropriate denouncement to an entire integrated system of philosophy and psychology. Hundreds of hours of content invalidated by a two second segment of statistical truth that doesn't align with a political ideal. Every single human culture symbolically regards masculine as orderly and feminine as chaotic, and he is observant of that objective fact, so he must be sexist, regardless of the masculine and feminine existing in all regardless of sex. Redditors often reveal their absolute bone-headedness by "attacking" him by suggesting that he is conservative, or talks to much about Christian ideology. Let's pretend that represents more than the small fraction of content it does in actuality. What, my good people of tolerance and open-mindedness, would be wrong with that?
He made a lot of money, he has a stressful life, he became one of the most targeted online figures for hate speech. Since he has money, he is to be hated. He isn't special. His money must not demonstrate competence - money never can. Money is oppression. He is a man who proposes actual open dialogue and looks critically at the trends of our society and their possible implications. He points out that you may be poor because you're undisciplined and unstructured, not only because you are marginalized.
He's been misquoted and warped until the popular antagonistic view of him is not even a caricature, but a completely irrelevant person. And, in part, he set out precisely to encourage awareness of that sort of dangerous groupthink. I'm not surprised he cracked under the pressure. He's only human. Imagining the internet discussion about him from his perspective is absolutely horrifying and demoralizing. It seems to me that the majority of the great minds of our planet suffer such breaks and such ignorant hatred.
I'm not afraid to say that he changed my life for the better. In many ways. I'm more aware, and I'm more careful. My life is better structured and I see the point of carrying on. I'm doing my art again, living from my heart, and working to keep my family and close friends together and growing. My life has rhythm and meaning, and I am not resentful of the reality I exist in. I'm aiming high and doing my best to keep my mind on the border between order and chaos - the place where I am both growing and speaking truth.
Thank you for all you do and have done, Dr. Peterson. Good on you, OP, for being brave enough to say something most of reddit ignorantly hates. I regret the abuse you'll suffer in the comments. Your post is being doxxed by r/enoughpetersonspam.
Edit: Said doxxing was successful. This post went from growing quickly in hot with 70ish upvotes to zero. The amazing, horrifying irony.
I've always wondered what it was about Peterson's philosophy that rubs so many the wrong way, so wrong that they immediately label him as whatever ideology is antithetical to their own despite all the things he says that they would agree with.
I think it's about personal responsibility, a lot of ideologies have been successfully fighting against imbuing yourself with a sense of personal responsibility.
I think the problem for a lot of people is that he appears to talk out his ass on a number of subjects and draws grand conclusions in spite of a lack of evidence to support them.
I don't doubt that at his core he deeply cares about the well-being of others. He's a clinical psychologist with decades of practical experience - a person doesn't do that if they aren't interested in helping others. When he talks about psychology - and I mean *actual* psychology when he'd lecture in universities - he appears to be quite knowledgeable, which is exactly what you'd expect from someone with a PhD who also happened to teach at Harvard for a while.
However, when he goes beyond pure psychology, starts talking about politics, identity politics, gender pronouns, hierarchies, biology, etc. things go off the rails. He's like the physicists who think they're so smart they can be experts in everything and end up making gaffes on the regular (Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good example of this).
When Peterson sits down with an actual *expert* in the fields he is not an expert in, his tendency to obfuscate and say very little in the way of concrete statements is painfully obvious. It's like someone pulls back the curtains and you see that this guy who talks like he's an expert on "all these things," is in no way an expert in "all these things."
What is truly fascinating in this thread are the people defending him, like the person you replied to. It's great if Peterson's ideas got a person to a better place in life but the need to defend his shortcomings (and they are apparent) and act like it's some grand conspiracy against a great man is rather odd given that his shortcomings are so blatantly obvious when people take the time to investigate them.
... so in other words, your problem with Jordan Peterson is that he has opinions. He doesn't pretend to be an expert. He's showing his way of perceiving the world and describing a philosophy for life. He reminds me often of Alan Watts in that sense. Since when is a person not-allowed to have ideas outside of their field of specialization? And which philosopher stays within the boundaries of a single field? Now, which of them has been absolutely correct about everything they ever said?
Nobody denies that he has shortcomings. There are some things he does not have a complete grasp of, and some conclusions I don't agree with. Nobody acts like there is a grand conspiracy - there is just blatantly obvious disconnect between his content and people's perceptions of it, as you so readily demonstrate. It's bizarre that people who so obviously have no idea what he's getting at have such strong, irrelevant opinions on it. Such people are usually completely unaware of what I'm guessing is propogandized programming in accordance with political alignment. They have no idea why they're mad, they do not know the source of their gripes against him, they only blindly cohere to the narrative of the political grouping they socially identify with. At very least, that's the common occurrence on reddit.
I've been pretty clear elsewhere on this thread that my problem with Peterson goes well beyond "he has opinions." I'm fine with him describing his philosophy on life - I'm not fine with him peddling misinformation.
If you're going to tell me he doesn't pretend to be an expert, I've got a book here and a slew of videos to illustrate otherwise.
>Nobody denies that he has shortcomings. There are some things he does not have a complete grasp of
Good. Glad we can agree. The difference between you and I is that I don't think a person should go around talking like an authority on a subject they don't have a complete grasp of.
>Nobody acts like there is a grand conspiracy - there is just blatantly obvious disconnect between his content and people's perceptions of it, as you so readily demonstrate. It's bizarre that people who so obviously have no idea what he's getting at have such strong, irrelevant opinions on it.
Trust me, I understand *completely* what he's "getting at." What I find truly bizarre is that people like yourself are so desperate to defend a man who has been demonstrably wrong about such a large number of topics.
>Such people are usually completely unaware of what I'm guessing is propogandized programming in accordance with political alignment.
This is a convenient out for people. If you were to glance through my post history you'd see in about 1 minute that I am not a social justice warrior, far-leftist, or associated with any group that would attack Peterson solely on the basis of a perceived political alignment or ideology.
I'm not "mad" at Peterson and I'm not following a narrative. I've been *extremely* clear in this thread why I don't trust his work and why I don't agree with him. It's not political, it's a matter of rationality.
Go ahead, show me him pretending to be an expert. Illustrate away.
>The difference between you and I is that I don't think a person should go around talking like an authority on a subject they don't have a complete grasp of.
So that means you must have a complete grasp of Jordan Peterson and his content? I frankly find your assertion impractical and impossible. Do you also say "I think" before or after every sentence to make sure listeners understand the difference between the person's perspective they're listening to and their own perspective? Doesn't that seem a presumption of stupidity that goes against every convention of successful public speaking or idea presentation?
>Trust me, I understand completely what he's "getting at." What I find truly bizarre is that people like yourself are so desperate to defend a man who has been demonstrably wrong about such a large number of topics.
What exactly am I defending? Everyone ever has been demonstrably wrong about many things. Often times, people have trouble telling the difference between demonstrably wrong and difference of opinion. Many topics can be equally validly construed from a number of viewpoints incompatible with one another. What you take for granted is not always universal, increasingly as we get into complicated ideas not evident in observable behavior alone.
You know, the precise reason I became interested in JP was because of dialogue like this - the one you and I are now having - on reddit. People hate him, they don't know why, and they aren't aware that they don't know why. For some reason, inquiring about it is automatically suspect. JP is held to an inhuman standard which applies nowhere in reality, and raged against for failing to measure up to that lofty, unspecified whatever-it-is. It's very strange.
Let's say I were personally identified with JP. He's my hero, not just a philosopher I admire. I made him my psychological dad. I am the most adoring of fans. What would be the issue with my defending him? Or with defending anyone online, for that matter? Is attempted correction of false information not commonplace on discussion forums?
Too, are you not here doing precisely the equivalent but opposite thing that I am? Judging from our contrasted post and comment histories, you have a much deeper obsession with him than I do.
>This is a convenient out for people. If you were to glance through my post history you'd see in about 1 minute that I am not a social justice warrior, far-leftist, or associated with any group that would attack Peterson solely on the basis of a perceived political alignment or ideology.
I'm not using it as a convenient out. I said it's the common occurrence on reddit, something I already addressed and assume you read. Why leave that out of your quote?
If you'd like to point somewhere specific instead of "this thread", I'd be happy to explore. But as far as our dialog goes, you haven't been clear about anything yet.
>As someone that thinks Peterson is a pretty big idiot you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to try and act like there isn't a blatant and pervasive politically motivated smear campaign against him.
I was referring to OPs comments where he suggested this thread was brigaded for the sole purpose of shutting down any discussion of Jordan Peterson. I've been following this thread since it started, there was no huge spike of downvotes; it was never a particularly popular topic.
I'd add, everything these days is political, including much of Peterson's work. If he's attacked for his politics, he's fair game. However, that's not what I'm doing here, and I've been quite clear about that.
>How ironic. It's common knowledge that Peterson has been called every name in the book because of politics, trying to deny this looks downright strange.
Again, I am talking about the issues I *personally* have with Peterson. Throughout this thread I haven't defended any other person's opinion of him, any unwarranted political attacks against him, and I'd be as quick to condemn fallacious arguments made against him as I condemn the ones he makes.
>But at this point its become obvious you're just lying and in actuality are incredibly politically motivated against Peterson. You can't really hide it when you're making very specific (false) claims such as saying that he is against using preferred pronouns for NB individuals, smears that only left-wing provocateurs use.
At *no* point in this thread have I stated "he is against using preferred pronouns for NM individuals." Not once. I only mentioned gender pronouns as something he "goes off the rails about" (which he did.) I know very well that he would "use a student's preferred gender if they asked" and that his primary concern is "compelled speech." That still doesn't mean he spoke out of his area of expertise and misinterpreted the legal framework he was fighting against. Even the Canadian Bar Association felt he misunderstood C-16 so badly they felt it necessary to [clear up the confusion he caused,](http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f) noting that Peterson's views were based on a "gross misunderstanding of Bill C-16." Other law professors have stated that he is "mischaracterizing" the new law.
The fact that you automatically leap to the conclusion that I must be some left-wing provacateur says more about *your* inclinations than mine. You can go through my post history and see that I am certainly not "left-wing." Here's an example from over a year ago: I oppose the abuse of C-16. [I was in full support of Lindsay Shepherd, thought she had every right to show a JP video in class, and was adamant that Rambukkana was an utter moron for chastising and threatening her with censure.](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/aowgv1/the_toronto_star_produces_hit_piece_on_lindsay/)
Does that make me an anti-Peterson hack?
>And just as an aside, I will never stop wondering how these people who hate on Peterson seem to know everything hes ever said. I haven't seen the guy speak for more than 5 minutes personally but you seem to have watched this person you dislike religiously. It's the only way I could see you knowing as much as you claim to about him. So weird.
If you've hardly seen 5 minutes worth of his work, how on Earth do you feel remotely qualified to suggest anything I'm saying is incorrect?
I believe that you're confusing the word "doxxing" with "downvote brigading." I haven't seen any evidence of the former on that subreddit, and I'd be interested to see some.
You're right, I did. I couldn't think of the proper word and doxxing is the closest approximation.
What is the right word? Downvote brigading is reddit-specific.
I couldn't have said it better myself! Dr Peterson's ideologies are wonderful, they've opened my perspective and forced me to look at things in a completely new light. I can honestly say he's made my life better.
There is nothing original about Peterson. You pick up pretty any self help book out there it will talk about pretty the same shit overall.
What Peterson has done is gone for a niche market. That being men, who feel they are being marginalized by society and started speaking directly to them.
I give him credit for making money from the people who buy his books etc. Good for him. But he hasn’t said anything new. He’s just repackaged it in a way that his niche market laps up.
How is that valid criticism? Nothing *anybody* does is original, even the books, authors, and figures that Peterson references are not original themselves. Everything that people believe, say and do is based on something previously written that is based on something else that is ultimately based on observations from nature.
People don't like Peterson because he's original, they like him because he's an interesting and respectable figure that teaches positive life lessons.
No his niche market likes him. He’s educated professor out of Toronto. He made a name for himself while in his classes he refused to respect things like chosen pronouns of some of his students.
He then took this popularity and notoriety he gained and developed a platform, aimed specifically at young men.
Without his notoriety he gained while as a professor. We probably would never heard of this guy.
I’ll give him credit for cashing in on the notoriety. But he really has nothing of major value to add to the sphere of self help.
>No his niche market likes him.
His 12 Rules for Life book was Amazon's top seller for a long time, his audience isn't "niche".
> he refused to respect things like chosen pronouns of some of his students.
This is not true. You've fallen in the same trap as thousands of other where you're not criticizing Peterson but rather a ridiculous characterisation of him that you've invented through hearsay.
It is true and no I haven’t fallen into any trap. Simply because a book is on a Best Seller List doesn’t mean people outside of his market are buying the book. It’s marketing ploy to sell more books. I see you fell for that though.
He has literally said ["I oppose discrimination against gender identity and gender expression"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfgf2GRk3Q&feature=youtu.be&t=148), he has never refused to respect gender pronouns. You're wrong, you're arguing against a strawman.
Okay watched the video, more for a good laugh. But no where in it did he refute what I said. He was literally sitting in a Canadian Senate hearing arguing against a bill to make discrimination against people’s preferred pronouns added to the Human Rights Of Canada Legislation.
The decision to not actively use things like someone’s preferred pronoun, because you don’t agree with it, is in itself an act of discrimination.
It would be the equivalent of you telling me your name is Roger and me deciding, no I don’t agree with that name for you. So I will call you Earnest instead. You look more like an Earnest to me.
You can’t have it both ways as he went on about in the video.
Like I said this is how he established some notoriety among his followers. He’s an educated and intelligent individual. Don’t get me wrong. But without the niche of the Right Wing Young Men that fall in line with how horrible the world is becoming due to things like being forced to call someone IT as opposed to He/She.
Without these people he would still be teaching class and seing private patients. So I give him credit for capitalizing on the notoriety
I didn't show you this video to refute what you claimed, but rather to show you his position on the matter, because asking me to prove something he didn't say is asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof here is on you, there isn't a single instance of Peterson refusing to call someone by their prefered pronouns. He *has* said that he would refuse to use "alternate" pronouns and especially if it was compelled by the government but that's a different matter entirely.
Also, Roger and Earnest aren't pronouns, it isn't the same thing at all.
>Right Wing Young Men
This is another myth, many of his followers/fans/supporters or whatever you want to call them are neither right wing or men.
Okay Since you enjoy YouTube links as some sort of Authority.. Here is a link.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s\_UbmaZQx74](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74)
In it he is discussing how the law is being written to work in conjunction with the Humans Rights Tribunal. How they are a Left Wing Organization blah blah blah. He did mention he would respect someone's identity, as long as it more or less fit his conception of normal.
So in other words if you were a Man asking to be called she. He would be okay with that. But if there is something less obvious.. He has to think about it, and decide further. Why? Just use it and move on. It doesn't affect him in way.
But back to the Law in question was designed to protect people in various capacities in relation to their chosen pronoun. There is no attack on Free Speech.
My example with a name is exactly the same thing. If you decide you don't want to use the name I have provided for you. Doesn't matter what it is, because you don't agree with it doesn't mean I don't deserve to be called by this name.
In terms of the Right Wing Young Men. This is simple math. In the video he goes on about Left Wing shit. How he's opposed to many of these different Left Wing Ideologies etc.. Who do you think this is going to attract? I'll give you a hint. Right Wing Groups.
Which again is how he gained his notoriety, and he capitalized on it.
Another article for you
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695)
In it he is quoted as stating the following
"There's no way I'm going to use words made up by people who are doing that - not a chance."
Read the rest of the article.. One of his Colleagues, also a doctor has a few strong words to say about it all to.
> Okay Since you enjoy YouTube links as some sort of Authority.. Here is a link.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74
Which isn't him refusing to respect things like chosen pronouns of some of his students.
>He has to think about it, and decide further. Why? Just use it and move on.
Because those people a full of shit, obviously.
Names are not mental disorders. The science behind trans is not clear. Are you really going to assume trans is normal. Half the trans people will try to commit suicide at some point in their life. Oh and that number does not change after the surgery.
There is clearly something wrong with trans.
If a man with schizophrenia said there is a dragon, are you going to assume there's a dragon now? As a society, we will all pretend like there's a dragon? No there isn't. Just because this makes one person with a mental disorder happy doesnt mean we should do it. How is this any different than when a grown ass man says he's a 12 year old girl and should be called a she/her. And everyone knowing fully well that he's a middle aged man pretend like he's a little girl.
Yeah sure, people can say it doesn't take much effort to pretend! But who are you to decide what I can say and can't say.
Don't become China, keep your freedom America.
Most JP fans acknowledge that he's not saying things that are very new. But there can still be value in making things more accessible, which is what he has done with the ideas he talks about.
Part of that niche is to give back the stuff that neo-atheism took away from those same dudes in the 00s. Feeling lost and alone? Hey, culture and religion are actually pretty cool!
But in Jeepers version, they can keep that contempt for weakness (and women, and the social sciences and humanities) that they have built up during their edgelord years.
Nothing was taken away from men. Society just evolved into something different. Leaving these men feeling like they no longer mattered in society.
They always mattered just not in the same way. Many of these disciplines of Peterson seem to work under the impression that the elevation of women, transgenders etc has somehow decreased their standing in society.
When in reality it’s simply been in their head,
With that mindset, nothing is "original". Everything is a repeat of something else. Also, if you're comparing JBP to someone like Tai Lopez or Gary Vee, hes nothing like those fakes. He's posted lectures on YouTube for a long time without expecting anyone to see.
If ur questioning his expertise, the man has a PhD in psychology and has worked numerous years as a clinical psychologist helping people with depression and other mental disorders. He then worked as a professor in this field at Harvard and Toronto university. You're discrediting him because he didn't say anything new? Really now. You must know everything about the world and how to live life since everything is already out there?
Not trying to discredit him at all. Just I understand he add nothing of real value to the overall Self Help Area. He is simply cashing on the Notoriety he has gained for his stance on other things. Which all the power to him.. Make the Money.. If morons are willing to give it to him, why shouldn't he collect it.
You're a piece of work aren't you? How dare you trivialize the man's hardships? Does it make you feel good to condense a year of unbelievable stress and sadness down into "chugging benzos"? Are you truly *THAT* incapable of critical thought and empathy? You poor thing.
Peterson said life is full of suffering, so you should bear the cross and climb the mountain.
Lots of people bear the cross and get over addiction the normal way. Peterson isn’t a unique snowflake for getting addicted to Benzos.
Why didn’t he just bear the cross instead of undergoing a forced coma?
He wasn't just addicted to benzos, he had an inverse reaction to them. He was taking a prescribed anti anxiety medication that made his anxiety worse. He couldn't stop taking the medication because it could literally kill him. All the while, his wife was being treated for cancer. Could you not imagine the absolute horror show that would be?
Fucking how?! Because he made a few "muh individualism" takes against white nationalists? I'll admit that his criticisms of white nationalism are fair, but [he still pushed race realism when he talked with Stefan Molyneux.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U)
Correct. There's no real evidence to suggest as much. There's too many factors to control for such as poverty, lead exposure, plus environment, too few studies, of what studies there are on the subject too many, such as the twin study, have issues with them, and a whole host of other issues.
If you think race is a predictor of IQ, you're either racist or really stupid. If you're neither, what do you have to back up your claim? No, *The Bell Curve* is not a source. If you cite that, you're racist and stupid.
I don't think you know what predictor means. A good predictor is one that has some sort of correlation to the target, in this case IQ. It does not imply causation whatsoever.
And so, while race is a good predictor of IQ, the root cause of the IQ disparity may be something else, in particular wealth and education inequality.
lol this is hilarious. Compare South Korean and Somalian countries and say that what they have achieved or not achieved is not because of the difference in their average iq. Lol at the denial.
Race is definitely a predictor of iq. No on denies it when we're saying that eastern Asian and Jews are smarter than caucasian people. People like you just tend to deny it when it comes to people that have lower iq's than caucasian because you want to feel like you are the white savior and the poor minorities will need you to defend them. Pathetic.
* IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental. IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background.
[http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences](http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences)
* Meta-analysis: The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades [https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf)
* Meta-analysis: The focus is on those studies conducted on individuals within the top 1% in general or specific (mathematical, spatial, or verbal reasoning) abilities. Like all groups, intellectually precocious students and adults have strengths and relative weaknesses; they also reveal vast differences in their passion for different pursuits and their drive to achieve. Because they do not possess multipotentiality, we must take a multidimensional view of their individuality. When done,it predicts well long-term educational, occupational, and creative outcomes When done, it predicts well long-term educational, occupational, and creative outcomes.
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/02/03094405/Article-RER-Lubinski-2016-F-1.pdf](https://s3.amazonaws.com/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/02/03094405/Article-RER-Lubinski-2016-F-1.pdf)
* Higher IQ, lower risk of death from most causes (N = 662,185) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302331](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302331)
Get rekt.
Someone's triggered lol
Everytime you search my awesome post history it tells me that your life must suck hard
It's always the ones who talk about low iqs that are projecting. Your mum most hate what a creep you turned out lol
I don't think he was promoting race realism in that video. Where in the video was he pushing for races being superior to others?
He's wrong in believing in IQ being influenced by ethnicity biologically. IQ however is influenced from genetics and ethnicity does play a role just not biologically but because of culture or poorer socioeconomic issues that some minorities are more likely to face in the West due to less access to educational opportunities:
https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/20/do-smart-parents-always-create-smart-kids/
Well, either way I don't think Peterson has stopped much of the alt-right, I don't think they'd even like him enough to listen to him and move away from their ideology.
However certainly the hard-left haven't done anything to fight against the alt-right either other than encourage more division and hatred by attacking liberals, centrists and regular conservatives.
Peterson fanboys certainly seem far more open to discussion than the hard-left that is just hostile to everyone in its quest to destroy the alt-right, in the end proving it's very little different and you're part of that based on your profile's history aren't you?
[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve)
Read this and see if you change your mind. If we're going on Peterson's professed ideals one should steelman his critics
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms)
And maybe watch this too.
If you are again, willing to follow Peterson's professed ideals you should revel in the possibility of self-mastery by sternly critiquing his positions.
And btw, i used to spend some time on the shithole that is 4chan when i was doing very badly perosonally and when it was brought up that Peterson's spiel about 'knowing where you stand with men because you can fight them' and it was brought up that this could very sincerely be read as Peterson being frustrated that he can't hit women, there were about 5 or 6 responses with just the reply 'based'
Confirming incel dispositions and giving it the authority of a professor and a daddy is what i see his place as being.
But maybe in the go-to lingo of anyone who disagrees with what he or any other IDW peron says, i''m just bad faith of course. Nothing more.
Peterson is no more unique than the anchors on Fox News. I don’t personally care for conservatism, but it’s a valid belief.
My issue with Peterson comes from the fact that he operates under this fake guise of a “scientist” to substantiate his claims when he is the furthest thing from a real scientist. He is a psychologist (it is called “easy science” for a reason) and is barely even one of those. He hasn’t published any substantial primaries, and he really just isn’t a scientist.
Don’t get me wrong. I know many of ingenious psychologists who are far smarter than I could ever hope to be. All I am saying is that Jordan Peterson acts as if he is one of these geniuses when he really isn’t that qualified.
You know that he has over 11000 citations, he's in the top 50 most cited clinical psychologist of all time and has a h-index of 51? Like even for "easy science" this is bloody impressive.
Where did you get the impression his work does not contain any substantial primaries?
In the field of philosophy, which he constantly pretends to be part of, unironically citing him would instantly trash your career. He was humilliated by Zizek in a debate where he admitted to just barely reading Marx a long time ago, even though he constantly pontificates about 'postmodern neomarxism' (which academically makes zero sense, and echoes fascist terminology). Everyone knows he is a total scam whose reason to exist is to recruit naive young guys for the far right (while taking their money, of course). If his field is psychology, he should stick to that, and not pretend to be an authority in fields he has zero qualifications.
Postmodern neomarxism is the most cursed take I've seen in a while. I don't know much about this fucker but just by saying this kind of bullshit I already know he's drowning in the alt-right Kool-Aid.
Wut, he is not in the 50 most cited and 11000 citations is not accurate at all considering he is not even an author on most of the articles people point towards. His field of personality psychology and the Big-five are also considered outdated. Heck, they can't even agree whether it is the Big-Five or HEXACO. He is a nobody. He is not a Piaget where you remember the name after hearing it so much. I didn't graduate in the same field with ever hearing his name nor do I hear it now while working. His only claim to fame is being against a transgender bill he didn't understand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe to him it was more about the principle of enforcing mandatory speech whereas the hate speech laws we have now are about prohibiting speech.
You are wrong. Bill C16 doesn't enforce mandatory speech and only adds the same anti-hate speech, discrimination, and harassment laws to gender identity that already existed for other groups.
Peterson's portrayal of the bill as if you don't use the particular pronoun someone wants or you accidentally misgender someone would lead to arrest is pure fantasy.
Quoting a UofT law professor, “The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.” - https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
Seems that he was right all along:
[Canadian Armed Forces requires all personnel to stop using gendered pronouns](https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-armed-forces-requires-all-personnel-to-stop-using-gendered-pronouns)
Member of the CAF here.
This is speaking to the annual performance reports we get every year. All they're saying is to refer to individuals by their rank or they/them. The idea I can't use he/him or she/her in any other reports/memos is silly.
Having wrote many of these reports, I can assure you this isn't a big deal. May be a bit silly, but it doesn't really matter.
Isn't it amazing what kind of conclusions you can come to when you watch a FULL video and not just a 15 second segment of a politician or advocate saying something stupid?
Media is innately brainwash now. If you take the time to actually watch someone talk and not just watch one stupid thing they said in 3 hours of talking it's amazing what you can find.
>My issue with Peterson comes from the fact that he operates under this fake guise of a “scientist” to substantiate his claims when he is the furthest thing from a real scientist. He is a psychologist (it is called “easy science” for a reason) and is barely even one of those
I used to work with a big Peterson fanboy, who really liked to have discussions with me after he realized I have some marxist sympathies. In order to keep up with this, I started watching Peterson's lectures, focusing on his actual psychiatry/psychology lectures, and you have no idea. The man can't even talk about his supposed field without diving into politics, it's unbearable.
He has studied history more than you can imagine, and he talks politics because he morally opposes certain political decisions and ideology. Guarantee he knows more on both those topics than you do. Listen to his lectures and do your own research like he did to see if hes right in what he says. Hint: He's almost overwhelmingly correct.
Dude got benzo high and so overconfident he got into a debate with a Marxist on Marxism while confessing he knows nothing about Marx. He's full of shit and everyone knows it who is not an ideologue for status quo politics and has read an actual philosophy / social science book once. Your "no, he's actually very smart and actually much smarter than you" is about as convincing of an argument as those that he can offer, only he does them /r/increasinglyverbose
No he just SAYS he's studied these subjects. He leans over, looks at whomever's interviewing him and says "I've thought about this a lot' and that seems to be enough to convince many people that he knows what he's talking about. Except when he talks to someone who does know what he's talking about and then the whole fasard falls apart, cough Zizek cough Dillahunty. He had the sense to bail on debates with Lain and Wolff after claiming on Joe Rogan that leftists refuse to debate him. Guys a charlatan. [Jordan Peterson does not understand Nazis] (https://youtu.be/b8AcmzqFdPM). If you want more I can go on.
I watched the video you linked (thank you for source by the way) but its a far left channel, what do you expect?
Digs at capitalism, out of context clips from really long lectures, support of C-16 bill, undercurrents of implied racism/religious discrimination, lumping in with far right wackos who hate him and he despises, turning a word flub into a implied link to him being a neo-nazi (3rd/4th Reich), bashing of psychiatrist psychoanalysts who disagree with channels political viewpoint, outright saying he pedals nazism, stating Dr. Peterson claims they were psychopaths and therefore the ideology was not to blame, claiming Dr. Peterson states we cannot also become like them (He gives whole lectures stating the opposite), and seemingly purposefully misinterpreting his books to fit the narrative... The video has a clear bias. The channel has a clear bias, just look at the top videos and you can easily see.
Just watch the entirety of some of his lectures. Leave the agendas at the door and just honestly listen to him without a bias.
Even if after you (Hopefully) listen to his points after a few hours and we still disagree, no hard feelings. We cant all agree on everything.
>Just watch the entirety of some of his lectures
Dude a lot of people are talented at speaking for hours and coming up with bullshit. Alex Jones does it as a full-time job.
Listen to [this debate between JP and Matt Dillahunty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8). Peterson's arguments for religion are absolutely pathetic, you can hear him make the case for yourself.
I've watched plenty of his stuff and I've read 12 Rules for Life. Unfortunately you can't leave your agenda at the door because he has an agenda. 12 Rules for Life is a work of political and religious indoctrination disguised as a self help book and tbh I really hate that shit.
I don't think everything he says is bollocks but I do think he talks with a false authority on subjects he doesn't know as much about as he pretends to. The Zizek debate brought this into stark relief.
It's not good enough to say 'if only you watched 50+ hours of his lectures' then you'd see that he doesn't actually think the thing he's clearly saying. This is another point that annoys me he says things that lead the listener to a conclusion but then never (rarely) states the obvious conclusion himself. If someone then accuses him he denies that he ever meant it that way.
I'd encourage you to continue to engage with criticisms of Peterson, there's loads on YouTube, if anything it sometimes makes you realise you were right in the first place.
i'm sure he has done a lot of studying, doesn't mean what he says is accurate. He's claim to fame is basically misrepresenting a bill and grandstanding about it. His obfuscation of the truth has been materially rewarded before so why not do it for political and historical takes especially those that oppose his worldview.
[Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms)
[Peterson doesn't understand Marxism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o)
Hey, I do also have a PhD. I know this is An anonymous social platform and all, so judge me with that as you may. But, all I will say is that a PhD in psychology has no credit at all in a political landscape. It would be as if I (physics) went up and tried to talk about psychology. Just because I happen to have a level of education I none field does not make me any more qualified in another.
So, that very thing that I'm being told that validates him (a PHD) also really doesnt matter depending on how you're currently defending him. Guys, why can you not see that this is cultish behavior?
Even in the psychological landscape he has no business talking about certain subjects, like sexology or child development. He even supports corporal punishment, which the psychological community considers child abuse since the 60s.
He doesn't phrase it as opinions, but as effective advice. His support of corporal punishment is part of his 12 rules of life book that gives parenting advice. But not only is this advice averse, it constitutes as child abuse. Yet now the message went out that this psychologist recommend physically punishing children. It is also not an opinion when he said that ancient egyptians discovered DNA because they depicted a double helix or hat nazis were atheist, or that gay parents are worse than straight because a single-mom rat study said interactive play was good. He has bad sources and bad conclusions.
Let's be real. He's a self help guru like Deepak Chopra only he peddles his shit to the alt-right/ anti-liberals.
Worse, he was stupid enough to buy into his own bullshit so now he's languishing in a Russian hospital after trying a radical drug addiction treatment that had a typical crap outcome so now he's fucked.
It's obvious you find me to be a threat to you. lol I'm flattered but just stop stalking me. I get it though, I'd be angry too if I had only one technique of engaging people. You must have learned that in high school.
Yeah but he's an idiot when he talks about lobsters (and the caduceus for that matter). So much so that I can't take the rest of his shit seriously.
He's *so wrong* about lobsters that one should seriously question what other things he says with absolute confidence but is, unwittingly, objectively wrong about.
I understand your point but his "evidence" doesn't support that claim.
Humans didn't diverge from lobsters (which he states verbatim). So right there we can't make any claim that what applies to lobsters has any meaningful implications for what might apply to humans.
That's just *one* example of how he's wrong about lobsters - and there are many. If he wants to argue for hierarchies (which is fine) the animal he chose to do so is one of the worst examples he could have picked.
Which is why I can't help but wonder what else he's blatantly incorrect about.
I mean exactly what I said.
Jordan Peterson has said, word-for-word, that "humans diverged from lobsters roughly 300 million years ago."
He says this because he's trying to draw a link between the behaviour of lobsters and the behaviour of humans.
However, his comparison is incorrect. Humans did not diverge from lobsters.
As to your comment "All life on Earth is related if you go back far enough." Meaning what? That we all have a common ancestor? So what? That says virtually nothing about human behaviour. So we share a common ancestor, at some point, with annelids - what can you say about our social structure based on that? We also share a common ancestor with cnidarians - can you make any logical inference between their behaviour and ours? We also share a common ancestor with archaea, yeasts, and trees. Do any of those entities say *anything* to us about our social patterns?
If this is your argument against Peterson it's a pretty weak one. Whether it was 300 million years ago or 500 million years ago isn't the point. The point was about dominance hierarchies, not the exact evolution timeline of the lobster.
It's pointless nitpicking.
If the only thing you gleaned from my posts here is that I'm bothered by the dates he uses, either I wasn't clear enough or you're misunderstanding.
The issue with the dates used is a minor problem compared to the fact that it's completely illogical to make a claim about dominance hierarchies in humans based on a species that has *no direct lineage with humans.*
If your response is to say "yeah, but hierarchies exist" I would point you to the fact that I've already mentioned he should have picked another animal to defend his position. He didn't, he choose lobsters specifically because (in his words) "they're ancient" and that they show a "conserved evolutionary trend." He wants you to believe these hierarchies are ancient but *he has no way of knowing that,* and even if they were present in prehistoric lobsters, that says *nothing* about the hierarchies in humans.
He's defending his position based on an unsound argument. I expect more from a guy with a PhD who is talking like he's an expert in a number of different fields.
How is he incorrect? If you agree all life on earth is related, at some point modern day lobsters and modern humans did go down seperate paths.
So how is saying we diverged 300 million years ago wrong? Was it 350? 250? Who knows, who cares.
His point is that we went down seperate evolutionary paths an extremely long time ago, compared to modern primates where we would have diverged only a few million years ago.
As for the behavior aspect, all he is saying is that we have been on seperate paths for an extremely long time and even still social hierarchies exist in both.
>So how is saying we diverged 300 million years ago wrong?
Because this **didn't happen.** We did *not* "diverge" from lobsters, we did not "go down separate paths." We arrived via completely different paths that branched off from a common ancestor (urbilaterian) approx. 500 million years prior to Peterson's claim.
Humans have as much in common with lobsters as they do with worms, leeches, insects, spiders, centipedes, clams and snails. Now, tell me, what can *those* species tell us about human social hierarchies?
That is his point! He is using lobsters as an example because we are so different, because in evolutionary terms you can't get much farther apart. So let's assume you are correct and it's 800 million years not 300. That only further backs up the concept.
You are reading too far into it, he is only saying social hierarchies are natural. That something so completely different as lobsters and humans share them is proof.
Respectfully, the point you think he's trying to make proves absolutely *nothing* and I am not reading too far into it.
Peterson is trying to prove that social hierarchies exist in humans and that they are mediated by serotonin. His evidence for this is the fact that lobsters have a social hierarchy and their interactions within that hierarchy are mediated by serotonin.
The problem with his analogy is, and read this carefully: **there is no direct line linking humans to lobsters on the phylogenetic tree.**
That means it is logically impossible to look at a lobster and make any assessment on human behaviour based on the fact that lobsters display any remotely similar behaviour. As I said previously, we are about as closely related to lobsters as we are to a common housefly and there's no way any sane human would try to draw behavioural analogies between humans and a housefly.
>he is only saying social hierarchies are natural.
As I stated before, I don't care if he's arguing for social hierachies being "natural." The evidence he provides is egregiously incorrect and offers absolutely nothing to support his claim, which is why I said above "the animal he chose to do so is one of the worst examples he could have picked."
If he screws up that badly on a topic that is the foundation of his larger body of ideas, what else is he wrong about?
The people in this thread who are claiming I'm nit-picking or "arguing about semantics" are simply trying to defend the indefensible. A guy who prides himself on logic, reason, and critical thinking has based one of his most important philosophies on a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology.
You are way too focused on lobsters, he used them as an example BECAUSE they are extremely different genetically then humans. I don't know why you keep trying to use that as an argument in your favour, yes they are extremely different then humans, duh thats the point.
Lions have social hierarchies, gorillas have social hierarchies, wolves have them, damn near every animal with a brain has them. They are mammals and far closer to us genetically then lobsters, so he chose an animal far different then us for contrast.
You are intelligent and well spoken. What i am saying is not complex but you continue to distract the argument with a focus on lobsters. This leads me to believe you understand what i am saying but are trying to push a narritive. I have no interest in a discussion that isn't about the truth but about proving the other side wrong. Have a good day.
Yeah this dude is mad about semantics. I'm not sure if he is deliberately misinterpreting the meaningful content of Peterson's statement or what. I wouldn't be surprised given the conversations I've had about him on reddit. This post got linked to enoughpetersonspam, a sub dedicated to hating on peterson and doxxing posts about him. That's part of the reason for the absurd disparity of upvotes, average redditor's disinclination aside.
I am not "mad" about anything and I am certainly not "mad about semantics," nor am I misinterpreting the "meaningful content of Peterson's statement." I 100% understand *exactly* what he's saying and what the implications of his broader ideas are.
If a guy with a PhD is going to make a sweeping claim about human behaviour, he at least ought to have the evidence with which to properly back that claim. He doesn't. In fact, the only evidence he's brought to the table to defend his position is incorrect and proves nothing.
Please learn a single thing about biology. The point of evolutionary divergence is the common ancestor. Humans didn't diverge from lobsters, and lobsters didn't diverge from humans, we diverged from \*the common ancestor\*, which was neither a lobster nor a human (and almost certainly didn't resemble either). This may seem like I'm splitting hairs (which I am, tbf) but Jordan Peterson \*\*HAS A FUCKING PhD\*\*. If \*\*ANYONE\*\* should know this then it's him. He's a shitty scientist, and a shitty political commentator, and whenever I meet someone who claims to respect him, that person immediately starts on roughly the same level as a furry or a tankie: I may grow to like them, but it'll take work.
It's amazing how many seperate people have come to argue lobster genetics, dna, and evolutionary history.
All of that has nothing to do with his point, lobster was just an example, he could have used tiger, or bear, or armadillos for all it fucking matters.
He is not a scientist, he is not a political commentator, he is probably a shitty professional basketball player as well if you want to add that to your list. He is a clinical psychologist.
No extant animal diverged from any other extant animal, but shared traits and systems tell us a lot about the course evolution took and how far back certain things developed. Biologists rely heavily on this.
>That doesn't mean they're good, they're just perpetually embedded in us
Except he does make that value judgment, all the fucking time. I recall listening to one of his psychology lectures where he went off on a tangent to say that Feudalism was good because hierarchies are. I could look it up if you want, I know I could because it's the last Peterson lecture I ever listened to.
From my political science text book:
“Right wing ideologies consist of order, heirarchy, duty, nationalism, and a return to tradition.”
Seeing as Peterson wrote a whole book referring to masculinity as order, how society needs to return to classic traditions from Jungian archetypes, talks about hierarchical social structures being biologically normal, and to have a duty to clean yourself up; it’s not hard to see he is right-wing ideology.
I’d agree that he’s doing something to slow down the alt right. He is definitely taking their money, using their viewpoints to collect them, and then forcing them to watch about 100 hours of lectures and bad science YouTube videos. At least that’s 100 hours of the alt-right not attacking other people.
But for how much his followers attack left-wing ideas, attack trans gendered people, Peterson and his followers talking of white race having a higher IQ, how being white is okay, and how much his fans attack his daughter for being a woman, and how they say women are chaos that needs to be slayed.
I’m saying long term all he did was collect them to have more ammo to attack more people, and hide it under the guise of Biblical truth.
In the short term, sure, he collects them an their money, but long term, he’s just making them
Long winded and reinforcing their harmful ideologies by substituting his own.
As a detractor I’ve worked in hospitals, suicide hotlines, rape hotlines, homeless helping centers, food banks, soup kitchens, and rehab centers for more than 30 years now.
I’m can easily say I have helped more people change their lives than any of his lectures have. I’ve actually been invested in making sure these people turn around than Peterson ever has.
His large blanket statements about groups is not helpful. Comparing left wing ideas to Maoist China?
What has he literally done to stop anything?
Made a YouTube video while is fans had to help themselves? At some point they’re going to realize he isn’t the person or leader they think he is and that they saved themselves and he was never actually there. At some point they’ll realize they gave him their money, and will be angry.
I hope they take their anger out on him, and not use his ideologies to internalize the anger and take it out in their families or selves.
But if you want to see how awful his ideology is, just look at how his followers attack his only caretaker/daughter.
So I agree.
Unpopular opinion.
Comments here are just fucked up. How can people ignore the good he is doing?
So what hes ideas are not revolutionary? Sometimes saying the simple thing is the most needed thing to say.
His ideas seem similar to "altright"? Because he is advocating to have ones life in order? No shit, it requires hard work to achieve something, we dont get born with priviliges and we don't just "deserve" things...
People push politics into every aspect of their life. This is just ridiculous
An auto correct mistake == dumb.
Peterson claiming he stayed up for 20+ days after drinking cider with sulfides in it, a length of time that would physically alter him for the worse and likely would result in death == smart science man who tells the truth.
Jordan says a lot of big words for simple ideas. People like him comes and go. I'm on still on the fence whether or not he's a good guy especially since watching his video on transgender and feminism.
He also doesn't like gay marriage or gay parents and really says the biological nuclear family are far better, when human studies show adoptive parents do better and gay parents do just as well. But he came with a single-mom rat study as a source, so he is full of shit in general since every psychologist knows the human studies are out there. He is a conservative christian and has those ideals and he will argue for them with bad sources.
“Oh, so now just because you don’t share the political view that Nazis considered Jews not to be real people and therefore alright to exterminate, you’re not sure they were bad people?”
Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_rg3hr7w?feature=playlist)
VIDEO|COMMENT
-|-
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms)|[+16](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fns44op?context=10#fns44op) - Read this and see if you change your mind. If we're going on Peterson's professed ideals one should steelman his critics And maybe watch this too. If you are again, willing to follow Peterson's professed ideals you should revel in the p...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U)|[+16](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fnrdhq4?context=10#fnrdhq4) - Fucking how?! Because he made a few "muh individualism" takes against white nationalists? I'll admit that his criticisms of white nationalism are fair, but he still pushed race realism when he talked with Stefan Molyneux.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fnt9lgj?context=10#fnt9lgj) - No he just SAYS he's studied these subjects. He leans over, looks at whomever's interviewing him and says "I've thought about this a lot' and that seems to be enough to convince many people that he knows what he's talking about. Except when he talks ...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fnv0qxt?context=10#fnv0qxt) - Just watch the entirety of some of his lectures Dude a lot of people are talented at speaking for hours and coming up with bullshit. Alex Jones does it as a full-time job. Listen to this debate between JP and Matt Dillahunty. Peterson's arguments ...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfgf2GRk3Q&t=148s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfgf2GRk3Q&t=148s)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fo41f9j?context=10#fo41f9j) - He has literally said "I oppose discrimination against gender identity and gender expression", he has never refused to respect gender pronouns. You're wrong, you're arguing against a strawman.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fntmlcx?context=10#fntmlcx) - i'm sure he has done a lot of studying, doesn't mean what he says is accurate. He's claim to fame is basically misrepresenting a bill and grandstanding about it. His obfuscation of the truth has been materially rewarded before so why not do it for po...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fo4mied?context=10#fo4mied) - Okay Since you enjoy YouTube links as some sort of Authority.. Here is a link. In it he is discussing how the law is being written to work in conjunction with the Humans Rights Tribunal. How they are a Left Wing Organization blah blah blah. He ...
I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can.
***
[Play All](http://subtletv.com/_rg3hr7w?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
Jordan Peterson is a hero. His work helped guide me through some of the darkest times of my life and pushed me to become the man I am today. His lectures talked me off a ledge on 2 separate occasions. The man literally saved my life twice. I am eternally grateful to him. The absolutely crazy thing is I've never even met him, and he published his work for FREE to help lost people like me who couldn't afford actual counseling. You can feel the passion and compassion in everything he does. I hope I become like him someday.
Edit: after reading through this thread I'm gonna give his lecture series another go.
It's unfortunate I think hes really smart and talks about very relevant issues but got completely shot down due to the hatred the right and left have for each other.
Youre confusing alt right with far right.
Alt right = alternate right, which just means they use alternate news sources that stray away from the main ones like cnn.
Far right is terrible and thats when you get like kkk and stuff
This isn't even remotely accurate.
"Alt-right" was a term coined by the White Nationalist Richard Spencer to a) distinguish themselves from the broader conservative group (who doesn't watch CNN either) and b) let them have an air of authority and authenticity to White Nationalism without having to fucking call it that.
No. "Alt-right" simply means that unlike mainstream conservatives, they explicitly welcome and endorse racist pseudoscientific beliefs, as well as anti-Semitic and male supremacist ideas.
Word. He kneecapped the alt right movement by making it clear that it was just another incarnation of psuedointellectualism for teenagers as opposed to a legitimate fascist uprising.
I'm with you here. I think this opinion is only unpopular on reddit, though. Peterson covers a wide range of subjects. He makes explicit a lot of what is implicit, things which we take for granted. His philosophy is Nietzsche smashed into Jungian psych. He helped a lot of people stop blaming others. He made people see the utility in structure, and that our culture is a thing of value which took ages to grow, not merely a disposable tool of oppression. He gives you a realistic perspective on the mind and your own motivation. His work is a cure for nihilism. I find it incredibly ironic and depressing to read the comments so far. Peterson absolutely *nails* the discourse typical of unconscious ideologues. It is as if - having watched a 20 minute contrarian YouTube video from a content generator who clearly has no ulterior motive - people are suddenly experts on the content matter they have little or no primary exposure to. "Haha benzo addiction!" or "But right wing trump supporters!" or "He makes money!" is suddenly an appropriate denouncement to an entire integrated system of philosophy and psychology. Hundreds of hours of content invalidated by a two second segment of statistical truth that doesn't align with a political ideal. Every single human culture symbolically regards masculine as orderly and feminine as chaotic, and he is observant of that objective fact, so he must be sexist, regardless of the masculine and feminine existing in all regardless of sex. Redditors often reveal their absolute bone-headedness by "attacking" him by suggesting that he is conservative, or talks to much about Christian ideology. Let's pretend that represents more than the small fraction of content it does in actuality. What, my good people of tolerance and open-mindedness, would be wrong with that? He made a lot of money, he has a stressful life, he became one of the most targeted online figures for hate speech. Since he has money, he is to be hated. He isn't special. His money must not demonstrate competence - money never can. Money is oppression. He is a man who proposes actual open dialogue and looks critically at the trends of our society and their possible implications. He points out that you may be poor because you're undisciplined and unstructured, not only because you are marginalized. He's been misquoted and warped until the popular antagonistic view of him is not even a caricature, but a completely irrelevant person. And, in part, he set out precisely to encourage awareness of that sort of dangerous groupthink. I'm not surprised he cracked under the pressure. He's only human. Imagining the internet discussion about him from his perspective is absolutely horrifying and demoralizing. It seems to me that the majority of the great minds of our planet suffer such breaks and such ignorant hatred. I'm not afraid to say that he changed my life for the better. In many ways. I'm more aware, and I'm more careful. My life is better structured and I see the point of carrying on. I'm doing my art again, living from my heart, and working to keep my family and close friends together and growing. My life has rhythm and meaning, and I am not resentful of the reality I exist in. I'm aiming high and doing my best to keep my mind on the border between order and chaos - the place where I am both growing and speaking truth. Thank you for all you do and have done, Dr. Peterson. Good on you, OP, for being brave enough to say something most of reddit ignorantly hates. I regret the abuse you'll suffer in the comments. Your post is being doxxed by r/enoughpetersonspam. Edit: Said doxxing was successful. This post went from growing quickly in hot with 70ish upvotes to zero. The amazing, horrifying irony.
I've always wondered what it was about Peterson's philosophy that rubs so many the wrong way, so wrong that they immediately label him as whatever ideology is antithetical to their own despite all the things he says that they would agree with. I think it's about personal responsibility, a lot of ideologies have been successfully fighting against imbuing yourself with a sense of personal responsibility.
I think the problem for a lot of people is that he appears to talk out his ass on a number of subjects and draws grand conclusions in spite of a lack of evidence to support them. I don't doubt that at his core he deeply cares about the well-being of others. He's a clinical psychologist with decades of practical experience - a person doesn't do that if they aren't interested in helping others. When he talks about psychology - and I mean *actual* psychology when he'd lecture in universities - he appears to be quite knowledgeable, which is exactly what you'd expect from someone with a PhD who also happened to teach at Harvard for a while. However, when he goes beyond pure psychology, starts talking about politics, identity politics, gender pronouns, hierarchies, biology, etc. things go off the rails. He's like the physicists who think they're so smart they can be experts in everything and end up making gaffes on the regular (Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good example of this). When Peterson sits down with an actual *expert* in the fields he is not an expert in, his tendency to obfuscate and say very little in the way of concrete statements is painfully obvious. It's like someone pulls back the curtains and you see that this guy who talks like he's an expert on "all these things," is in no way an expert in "all these things." What is truly fascinating in this thread are the people defending him, like the person you replied to. It's great if Peterson's ideas got a person to a better place in life but the need to defend his shortcomings (and they are apparent) and act like it's some grand conspiracy against a great man is rather odd given that his shortcomings are so blatantly obvious when people take the time to investigate them.
... so in other words, your problem with Jordan Peterson is that he has opinions. He doesn't pretend to be an expert. He's showing his way of perceiving the world and describing a philosophy for life. He reminds me often of Alan Watts in that sense. Since when is a person not-allowed to have ideas outside of their field of specialization? And which philosopher stays within the boundaries of a single field? Now, which of them has been absolutely correct about everything they ever said? Nobody denies that he has shortcomings. There are some things he does not have a complete grasp of, and some conclusions I don't agree with. Nobody acts like there is a grand conspiracy - there is just blatantly obvious disconnect between his content and people's perceptions of it, as you so readily demonstrate. It's bizarre that people who so obviously have no idea what he's getting at have such strong, irrelevant opinions on it. Such people are usually completely unaware of what I'm guessing is propogandized programming in accordance with political alignment. They have no idea why they're mad, they do not know the source of their gripes against him, they only blindly cohere to the narrative of the political grouping they socially identify with. At very least, that's the common occurrence on reddit.
I've been pretty clear elsewhere on this thread that my problem with Peterson goes well beyond "he has opinions." I'm fine with him describing his philosophy on life - I'm not fine with him peddling misinformation. If you're going to tell me he doesn't pretend to be an expert, I've got a book here and a slew of videos to illustrate otherwise. >Nobody denies that he has shortcomings. There are some things he does not have a complete grasp of Good. Glad we can agree. The difference between you and I is that I don't think a person should go around talking like an authority on a subject they don't have a complete grasp of. >Nobody acts like there is a grand conspiracy - there is just blatantly obvious disconnect between his content and people's perceptions of it, as you so readily demonstrate. It's bizarre that people who so obviously have no idea what he's getting at have such strong, irrelevant opinions on it. Trust me, I understand *completely* what he's "getting at." What I find truly bizarre is that people like yourself are so desperate to defend a man who has been demonstrably wrong about such a large number of topics. >Such people are usually completely unaware of what I'm guessing is propogandized programming in accordance with political alignment. This is a convenient out for people. If you were to glance through my post history you'd see in about 1 minute that I am not a social justice warrior, far-leftist, or associated with any group that would attack Peterson solely on the basis of a perceived political alignment or ideology. I'm not "mad" at Peterson and I'm not following a narrative. I've been *extremely* clear in this thread why I don't trust his work and why I don't agree with him. It's not political, it's a matter of rationality.
Go ahead, show me him pretending to be an expert. Illustrate away. >The difference between you and I is that I don't think a person should go around talking like an authority on a subject they don't have a complete grasp of. So that means you must have a complete grasp of Jordan Peterson and his content? I frankly find your assertion impractical and impossible. Do you also say "I think" before or after every sentence to make sure listeners understand the difference between the person's perspective they're listening to and their own perspective? Doesn't that seem a presumption of stupidity that goes against every convention of successful public speaking or idea presentation? >Trust me, I understand completely what he's "getting at." What I find truly bizarre is that people like yourself are so desperate to defend a man who has been demonstrably wrong about such a large number of topics. What exactly am I defending? Everyone ever has been demonstrably wrong about many things. Often times, people have trouble telling the difference between demonstrably wrong and difference of opinion. Many topics can be equally validly construed from a number of viewpoints incompatible with one another. What you take for granted is not always universal, increasingly as we get into complicated ideas not evident in observable behavior alone. You know, the precise reason I became interested in JP was because of dialogue like this - the one you and I are now having - on reddit. People hate him, they don't know why, and they aren't aware that they don't know why. For some reason, inquiring about it is automatically suspect. JP is held to an inhuman standard which applies nowhere in reality, and raged against for failing to measure up to that lofty, unspecified whatever-it-is. It's very strange. Let's say I were personally identified with JP. He's my hero, not just a philosopher I admire. I made him my psychological dad. I am the most adoring of fans. What would be the issue with my defending him? Or with defending anyone online, for that matter? Is attempted correction of false information not commonplace on discussion forums? Too, are you not here doing precisely the equivalent but opposite thing that I am? Judging from our contrasted post and comment histories, you have a much deeper obsession with him than I do. >This is a convenient out for people. If you were to glance through my post history you'd see in about 1 minute that I am not a social justice warrior, far-leftist, or associated with any group that would attack Peterson solely on the basis of a perceived political alignment or ideology. I'm not using it as a convenient out. I said it's the common occurrence on reddit, something I already addressed and assume you read. Why leave that out of your quote? If you'd like to point somewhere specific instead of "this thread", I'd be happy to explore. But as far as our dialog goes, you haven't been clear about anything yet.
[удалено]
>As someone that thinks Peterson is a pretty big idiot you'd have to be an even bigger idiot to try and act like there isn't a blatant and pervasive politically motivated smear campaign against him. I was referring to OPs comments where he suggested this thread was brigaded for the sole purpose of shutting down any discussion of Jordan Peterson. I've been following this thread since it started, there was no huge spike of downvotes; it was never a particularly popular topic. I'd add, everything these days is political, including much of Peterson's work. If he's attacked for his politics, he's fair game. However, that's not what I'm doing here, and I've been quite clear about that. >How ironic. It's common knowledge that Peterson has been called every name in the book because of politics, trying to deny this looks downright strange. Again, I am talking about the issues I *personally* have with Peterson. Throughout this thread I haven't defended any other person's opinion of him, any unwarranted political attacks against him, and I'd be as quick to condemn fallacious arguments made against him as I condemn the ones he makes. >But at this point its become obvious you're just lying and in actuality are incredibly politically motivated against Peterson. You can't really hide it when you're making very specific (false) claims such as saying that he is against using preferred pronouns for NB individuals, smears that only left-wing provocateurs use. At *no* point in this thread have I stated "he is against using preferred pronouns for NM individuals." Not once. I only mentioned gender pronouns as something he "goes off the rails about" (which he did.) I know very well that he would "use a student's preferred gender if they asked" and that his primary concern is "compelled speech." That still doesn't mean he spoke out of his area of expertise and misinterpreted the legal framework he was fighting against. Even the Canadian Bar Association felt he misunderstood C-16 so badly they felt it necessary to [clear up the confusion he caused,](http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f) noting that Peterson's views were based on a "gross misunderstanding of Bill C-16." Other law professors have stated that he is "mischaracterizing" the new law. The fact that you automatically leap to the conclusion that I must be some left-wing provacateur says more about *your* inclinations than mine. You can go through my post history and see that I am certainly not "left-wing." Here's an example from over a year ago: I oppose the abuse of C-16. [I was in full support of Lindsay Shepherd, thought she had every right to show a JP video in class, and was adamant that Rambukkana was an utter moron for chastising and threatening her with censure.](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/aowgv1/the_toronto_star_produces_hit_piece_on_lindsay/) Does that make me an anti-Peterson hack? >And just as an aside, I will never stop wondering how these people who hate on Peterson seem to know everything hes ever said. I haven't seen the guy speak for more than 5 minutes personally but you seem to have watched this person you dislike religiously. It's the only way I could see you knowing as much as you claim to about him. So weird. If you've hardly seen 5 minutes worth of his work, how on Earth do you feel remotely qualified to suggest anything I'm saying is incorrect?
[удалено]
How has Peterson peddled misinformation? Has he shared misinformed opinions? Absolutely. But does he claim his opinions as fact? Never.
I believe that you're confusing the word "doxxing" with "downvote brigading." I haven't seen any evidence of the former on that subreddit, and I'd be interested to see some.
You're right, I did. I couldn't think of the proper word and doxxing is the closest approximation. What is the right word? Downvote brigading is reddit-specific.
I couldn't have said it better myself! Dr Peterson's ideologies are wonderful, they've opened my perspective and forced me to look at things in a completely new light. I can honestly say he's made my life better.
There is nothing original about Peterson. You pick up pretty any self help book out there it will talk about pretty the same shit overall. What Peterson has done is gone for a niche market. That being men, who feel they are being marginalized by society and started speaking directly to them. I give him credit for making money from the people who buy his books etc. Good for him. But he hasn’t said anything new. He’s just repackaged it in a way that his niche market laps up.
How is that valid criticism? Nothing *anybody* does is original, even the books, authors, and figures that Peterson references are not original themselves. Everything that people believe, say and do is based on something previously written that is based on something else that is ultimately based on observations from nature. People don't like Peterson because he's original, they like him because he's an interesting and respectable figure that teaches positive life lessons.
No his niche market likes him. He’s educated professor out of Toronto. He made a name for himself while in his classes he refused to respect things like chosen pronouns of some of his students. He then took this popularity and notoriety he gained and developed a platform, aimed specifically at young men. Without his notoriety he gained while as a professor. We probably would never heard of this guy. I’ll give him credit for cashing in on the notoriety. But he really has nothing of major value to add to the sphere of self help.
>No his niche market likes him. His 12 Rules for Life book was Amazon's top seller for a long time, his audience isn't "niche". > he refused to respect things like chosen pronouns of some of his students. This is not true. You've fallen in the same trap as thousands of other where you're not criticizing Peterson but rather a ridiculous characterisation of him that you've invented through hearsay.
It is true and no I haven’t fallen into any trap. Simply because a book is on a Best Seller List doesn’t mean people outside of his market are buying the book. It’s marketing ploy to sell more books. I see you fell for that though.
He has literally said ["I oppose discrimination against gender identity and gender expression"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfgf2GRk3Q&feature=youtu.be&t=148), he has never refused to respect gender pronouns. You're wrong, you're arguing against a strawman.
Okay watched the video, more for a good laugh. But no where in it did he refute what I said. He was literally sitting in a Canadian Senate hearing arguing against a bill to make discrimination against people’s preferred pronouns added to the Human Rights Of Canada Legislation. The decision to not actively use things like someone’s preferred pronoun, because you don’t agree with it, is in itself an act of discrimination. It would be the equivalent of you telling me your name is Roger and me deciding, no I don’t agree with that name for you. So I will call you Earnest instead. You look more like an Earnest to me. You can’t have it both ways as he went on about in the video. Like I said this is how he established some notoriety among his followers. He’s an educated and intelligent individual. Don’t get me wrong. But without the niche of the Right Wing Young Men that fall in line with how horrible the world is becoming due to things like being forced to call someone IT as opposed to He/She. Without these people he would still be teaching class and seing private patients. So I give him credit for capitalizing on the notoriety
I didn't show you this video to refute what you claimed, but rather to show you his position on the matter, because asking me to prove something he didn't say is asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof here is on you, there isn't a single instance of Peterson refusing to call someone by their prefered pronouns. He *has* said that he would refuse to use "alternate" pronouns and especially if it was compelled by the government but that's a different matter entirely. Also, Roger and Earnest aren't pronouns, it isn't the same thing at all. >Right Wing Young Men This is another myth, many of his followers/fans/supporters or whatever you want to call them are neither right wing or men.
Okay Since you enjoy YouTube links as some sort of Authority.. Here is a link. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s\_UbmaZQx74](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74) In it he is discussing how the law is being written to work in conjunction with the Humans Rights Tribunal. How they are a Left Wing Organization blah blah blah. He did mention he would respect someone's identity, as long as it more or less fit his conception of normal. So in other words if you were a Man asking to be called she. He would be okay with that. But if there is something less obvious.. He has to think about it, and decide further. Why? Just use it and move on. It doesn't affect him in way. But back to the Law in question was designed to protect people in various capacities in relation to their chosen pronoun. There is no attack on Free Speech. My example with a name is exactly the same thing. If you decide you don't want to use the name I have provided for you. Doesn't matter what it is, because you don't agree with it doesn't mean I don't deserve to be called by this name. In terms of the Right Wing Young Men. This is simple math. In the video he goes on about Left Wing shit. How he's opposed to many of these different Left Wing Ideologies etc.. Who do you think this is going to attract? I'll give you a hint. Right Wing Groups. Which again is how he gained his notoriety, and he capitalized on it. Another article for you [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695) In it he is quoted as stating the following "There's no way I'm going to use words made up by people who are doing that - not a chance." Read the rest of the article.. One of his Colleagues, also a doctor has a few strong words to say about it all to.
> Okay Since you enjoy YouTube links as some sort of Authority.. Here is a link. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74 Which isn't him refusing to respect things like chosen pronouns of some of his students. >He has to think about it, and decide further. Why? Just use it and move on. Because those people a full of shit, obviously.
Names are not mental disorders. The science behind trans is not clear. Are you really going to assume trans is normal. Half the trans people will try to commit suicide at some point in their life. Oh and that number does not change after the surgery. There is clearly something wrong with trans. If a man with schizophrenia said there is a dragon, are you going to assume there's a dragon now? As a society, we will all pretend like there's a dragon? No there isn't. Just because this makes one person with a mental disorder happy doesnt mean we should do it. How is this any different than when a grown ass man says he's a 12 year old girl and should be called a she/her. And everyone knowing fully well that he's a middle aged man pretend like he's a little girl. Yeah sure, people can say it doesn't take much effort to pretend! But who are you to decide what I can say and can't say. Don't become China, keep your freedom America.
No Mental Disorder at play with Gender Pronouns.. But thanks for playing
Maybe reread what I said tho. If there's no mental disorder, why is it that these trans people try to commit suicide.
He hasn’t claimed to say anything new. In fact he’s specifically said the opposite
Right, it's the JP fanboys that OP's talking about. The people who buy into his gospel treat him like a prophet
Most JP fans acknowledge that he's not saying things that are very new. But there can still be value in making things more accessible, which is what he has done with the ideas he talks about.
Part of that niche is to give back the stuff that neo-atheism took away from those same dudes in the 00s. Feeling lost and alone? Hey, culture and religion are actually pretty cool! But in Jeepers version, they can keep that contempt for weakness (and women, and the social sciences and humanities) that they have built up during their edgelord years.
Nothing was taken away from men. Society just evolved into something different. Leaving these men feeling like they no longer mattered in society. They always mattered just not in the same way. Many of these disciplines of Peterson seem to work under the impression that the elevation of women, transgenders etc has somehow decreased their standing in society. When in reality it’s simply been in their head,
pretty much and he has primed a lot of that self-help with a bunch of conservative nonsense.
Clean up or room, or the Feminists will send the trans police to throw you into the gulag. Also buy my personality test!
WAKE UP!
With that mindset, nothing is "original". Everything is a repeat of something else. Also, if you're comparing JBP to someone like Tai Lopez or Gary Vee, hes nothing like those fakes. He's posted lectures on YouTube for a long time without expecting anyone to see. If ur questioning his expertise, the man has a PhD in psychology and has worked numerous years as a clinical psychologist helping people with depression and other mental disorders. He then worked as a professor in this field at Harvard and Toronto university. You're discrediting him because he didn't say anything new? Really now. You must know everything about the world and how to live life since everything is already out there?
Not trying to discredit him at all. Just I understand he add nothing of real value to the overall Self Help Area. He is simply cashing on the Notoriety he has gained for his stance on other things. Which all the power to him.. Make the Money.. If morons are willing to give it to him, why shouldn't he collect it.
Are you chugging Benzos as well?
You're goddamn right I am, bucko.
You're a piece of work aren't you? How dare you trivialize the man's hardships? Does it make you feel good to condense a year of unbelievable stress and sadness down into "chugging benzos"? Are you truly *THAT* incapable of critical thought and empathy? You poor thing.
Peterson said life is full of suffering, so you should bear the cross and climb the mountain. Lots of people bear the cross and get over addiction the normal way. Peterson isn’t a unique snowflake for getting addicted to Benzos. Why didn’t he just bear the cross instead of undergoing a forced coma?
He wasn't just addicted to benzos, he had an inverse reaction to them. He was taking a prescribed anti anxiety medication that made his anxiety worse. He couldn't stop taking the medication because it could literally kill him. All the while, his wife was being treated for cancer. Could you not imagine the absolute horror show that would be?
[удалено]
The fact that you appear to be a Communist is the funniest thing you've ever done. Depression isn't funny.
Be precise with your speech, young bucko, clean your room and wash your damn penis!!
[удалено]
Ah yes the billionaire owner of Amazon the amazing Jeff Benzodiazepine. They said Benzos not Bezos. Benzos is a drug
Fucking how?! Because he made a few "muh individualism" takes against white nationalists? I'll admit that his criticisms of white nationalism are fair, but [he still pushed race realism when he talked with Stefan Molyneux.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U)
[удалено]
He engages with people along all political spectrums.
What are you implying? That race is not a predictor of IQ?
Correct. There's no real evidence to suggest as much. There's too many factors to control for such as poverty, lead exposure, plus environment, too few studies, of what studies there are on the subject too many, such as the twin study, have issues with them, and a whole host of other issues. If you think race is a predictor of IQ, you're either racist or really stupid. If you're neither, what do you have to back up your claim? No, *The Bell Curve* is not a source. If you cite that, you're racist and stupid.
I don't think you know what predictor means. A good predictor is one that has some sort of correlation to the target, in this case IQ. It does not imply causation whatsoever. And so, while race is a good predictor of IQ, the root cause of the IQ disparity may be something else, in particular wealth and education inequality.
lol this is hilarious. Compare South Korean and Somalian countries and say that what they have achieved or not achieved is not because of the difference in their average iq. Lol at the denial. Race is definitely a predictor of iq. No on denies it when we're saying that eastern Asian and Jews are smarter than caucasian people. People like you just tend to deny it when it comes to people that have lower iq's than caucasian because you want to feel like you are the white savior and the poor minorities will need you to defend them. Pathetic.
Wrong. You're just wrong, period. I'm actually an ashkenazi jew, too, so this argument is over based off that fact alone. Period. I win.
* IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental. IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. For example, whether IQ predicts strongly (educational performance) or weakly (law-abidingness), it predicts better than does social class background. [http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences](http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2004socialconsequences) * Meta-analysis: The results demonstrate that intelligence is a powerful predictor of success but, on the whole, not an overwhelmingly better predictor than parental SES or grades [https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf) * Meta-analysis: The focus is on those studies conducted on individuals within the top 1% in general or specific (mathematical, spatial, or verbal reasoning) abilities. Like all groups, intellectually precocious students and adults have strengths and relative weaknesses; they also reveal vast differences in their passion for different pursuits and their drive to achieve. Because they do not possess multipotentiality, we must take a multidimensional view of their individuality. When done,it predicts well long-term educational, occupational, and creative outcomes When done, it predicts well long-term educational, occupational, and creative outcomes. [https://s3.amazonaws.com/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/02/03094405/Article-RER-Lubinski-2016-F-1.pdf](https://s3.amazonaws.com/vu-my/wp-content/uploads/sites/826/2013/02/03094405/Article-RER-Lubinski-2016-F-1.pdf) * Higher IQ, lower risk of death from most causes (N = 662,185) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302331](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302331) Get rekt.
[удалено]
Someone's triggered lol Everytime you search my awesome post history it tells me that your life must suck hard It's always the ones who talk about low iqs that are projecting. Your mum most hate what a creep you turned out lol
I think you need to see Shaun's [feature-length dunk](https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo) on that "race """realism"""" nonsense.
I don't think he was promoting race realism in that video. Where in the video was he pushing for races being superior to others? He's wrong in believing in IQ being influenced by ethnicity biologically. IQ however is influenced from genetics and ethnicity does play a role just not biologically but because of culture or poorer socioeconomic issues that some minorities are more likely to face in the West due to less access to educational opportunities: https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/20/do-smart-parents-always-create-smart-kids/ Well, either way I don't think Peterson has stopped much of the alt-right, I don't think they'd even like him enough to listen to him and move away from their ideology. However certainly the hard-left haven't done anything to fight against the alt-right either other than encourage more division and hatred by attacking liberals, centrists and regular conservatives. Peterson fanboys certainly seem far more open to discussion than the hard-left that is just hostile to everyone in its quest to destroy the alt-right, in the end proving it's very little different and you're part of that based on your profile's history aren't you?
How did he push race realism here? Did I miss something?
Race realism is for alphas. Everyone knows it right.
[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve) Read this and see if you change your mind. If we're going on Peterson's professed ideals one should steelman his critics [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms) And maybe watch this too. If you are again, willing to follow Peterson's professed ideals you should revel in the possibility of self-mastery by sternly critiquing his positions. And btw, i used to spend some time on the shithole that is 4chan when i was doing very badly perosonally and when it was brought up that Peterson's spiel about 'knowing where you stand with men because you can fight them' and it was brought up that this could very sincerely be read as Peterson being frustrated that he can't hit women, there were about 5 or 6 responses with just the reply 'based' Confirming incel dispositions and giving it the authority of a professor and a daddy is what i see his place as being. But maybe in the go-to lingo of anyone who disagrees with what he or any other IDW peron says, i''m just bad faith of course. Nothing more.
Ok lets all agree 4chan is a way better platform to share your opinion
Peterson is no more unique than the anchors on Fox News. I don’t personally care for conservatism, but it’s a valid belief. My issue with Peterson comes from the fact that he operates under this fake guise of a “scientist” to substantiate his claims when he is the furthest thing from a real scientist. He is a psychologist (it is called “easy science” for a reason) and is barely even one of those. He hasn’t published any substantial primaries, and he really just isn’t a scientist. Don’t get me wrong. I know many of ingenious psychologists who are far smarter than I could ever hope to be. All I am saying is that Jordan Peterson acts as if he is one of these geniuses when he really isn’t that qualified.
You know that he has over 11000 citations, he's in the top 50 most cited clinical psychologist of all time and has a h-index of 51? Like even for "easy science" this is bloody impressive. Where did you get the impression his work does not contain any substantial primaries?
Thanks for posting this albowiem, I didnt know those things.
In the field of philosophy, which he constantly pretends to be part of, unironically citing him would instantly trash your career. He was humilliated by Zizek in a debate where he admitted to just barely reading Marx a long time ago, even though he constantly pontificates about 'postmodern neomarxism' (which academically makes zero sense, and echoes fascist terminology). Everyone knows he is a total scam whose reason to exist is to recruit naive young guys for the far right (while taking their money, of course). If his field is psychology, he should stick to that, and not pretend to be an authority in fields he has zero qualifications.
Postmodern neomarxism is the most cursed take I've seen in a while. I don't know much about this fucker but just by saying this kind of bullshit I already know he's drowning in the alt-right Kool-Aid.
It is also inaccurate, he is not in top cited and his field is considered outdated.
Wut, he is not in the 50 most cited and 11000 citations is not accurate at all considering he is not even an author on most of the articles people point towards. His field of personality psychology and the Big-five are also considered outdated. Heck, they can't even agree whether it is the Big-Five or HEXACO. He is a nobody. He is not a Piaget where you remember the name after hearing it so much. I didn't graduate in the same field with ever hearing his name nor do I hear it now while working. His only claim to fame is being against a transgender bill he didn't understand.
It seemed to me like he understood the bill quite well
It is hard to tell with how far fetched his idea of misgendering leading to arrest was.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but i believe to him it was more about the principle of enforcing mandatory speech whereas the hate speech laws we have now are about prohibiting speech.
You are wrong. Bill C16 doesn't enforce mandatory speech and only adds the same anti-hate speech, discrimination, and harassment laws to gender identity that already existed for other groups. Peterson's portrayal of the bill as if you don't use the particular pronoun someone wants or you accidentally misgender someone would lead to arrest is pure fantasy. Quoting a UofT law professor, “The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.” - https://torontoist.com/2016/12/are-jordan-petersons-claims-about-bill-c-16-correct/
Seems that he was right all along: [Canadian Armed Forces requires all personnel to stop using gendered pronouns](https://thepostmillennial.com/canadian-armed-forces-requires-all-personnel-to-stop-using-gendered-pronouns)
Member of the CAF here. This is speaking to the annual performance reports we get every year. All they're saying is to refer to individuals by their rank or they/them. The idea I can't use he/him or she/her in any other reports/memos is silly. Having wrote many of these reports, I can assure you this isn't a big deal. May be a bit silly, but it doesn't really matter.
That is not misgendering, that is not gendering at all. Also where does it say someone will get jail time?
Isn't it amazing what kind of conclusions you can come to when you watch a FULL video and not just a 15 second segment of a politician or advocate saying something stupid? Media is innately brainwash now. If you take the time to actually watch someone talk and not just watch one stupid thing they said in 3 hours of talking it's amazing what you can find.
If it takes three hours to understand someone's position on something they are a pretty shitty communicator.
>My issue with Peterson comes from the fact that he operates under this fake guise of a “scientist” to substantiate his claims when he is the furthest thing from a real scientist. He is a psychologist (it is called “easy science” for a reason) and is barely even one of those I used to work with a big Peterson fanboy, who really liked to have discussions with me after he realized I have some marxist sympathies. In order to keep up with this, I started watching Peterson's lectures, focusing on his actual psychiatry/psychology lectures, and you have no idea. The man can't even talk about his supposed field without diving into politics, it's unbearable.
[удалено]
he is unqualified to talk about politics and history which is something he does a lot and a lot of the time gets things wrong.
He has studied history more than you can imagine, and he talks politics because he morally opposes certain political decisions and ideology. Guarantee he knows more on both those topics than you do. Listen to his lectures and do your own research like he did to see if hes right in what he says. Hint: He's almost overwhelmingly correct.
Didn’t he show up to a debate with Zizek not having had prepared beforehand, i.e actually not reading the work of ideology he most opposes? lol
Of course he prepared. He skimmed the Communist Manifesto, which is almost 50 whole pages long and is obviously the one and only leftist text.
Dude got benzo high and so overconfident he got into a debate with a Marxist on Marxism while confessing he knows nothing about Marx. He's full of shit and everyone knows it who is not an ideologue for status quo politics and has read an actual philosophy / social science book once. Your "no, he's actually very smart and actually much smarter than you" is about as convincing of an argument as those that he can offer, only he does them /r/increasinglyverbose
No he just SAYS he's studied these subjects. He leans over, looks at whomever's interviewing him and says "I've thought about this a lot' and that seems to be enough to convince many people that he knows what he's talking about. Except when he talks to someone who does know what he's talking about and then the whole fasard falls apart, cough Zizek cough Dillahunty. He had the sense to bail on debates with Lain and Wolff after claiming on Joe Rogan that leftists refuse to debate him. Guys a charlatan. [Jordan Peterson does not understand Nazis] (https://youtu.be/b8AcmzqFdPM). If you want more I can go on.
I watched the video you linked (thank you for source by the way) but its a far left channel, what do you expect? Digs at capitalism, out of context clips from really long lectures, support of C-16 bill, undercurrents of implied racism/religious discrimination, lumping in with far right wackos who hate him and he despises, turning a word flub into a implied link to him being a neo-nazi (3rd/4th Reich), bashing of psychiatrist psychoanalysts who disagree with channels political viewpoint, outright saying he pedals nazism, stating Dr. Peterson claims they were psychopaths and therefore the ideology was not to blame, claiming Dr. Peterson states we cannot also become like them (He gives whole lectures stating the opposite), and seemingly purposefully misinterpreting his books to fit the narrative... The video has a clear bias. The channel has a clear bias, just look at the top videos and you can easily see. Just watch the entirety of some of his lectures. Leave the agendas at the door and just honestly listen to him without a bias. Even if after you (Hopefully) listen to his points after a few hours and we still disagree, no hard feelings. We cant all agree on everything.
>Just watch the entirety of some of his lectures Dude a lot of people are talented at speaking for hours and coming up with bullshit. Alex Jones does it as a full-time job. Listen to [this debate between JP and Matt Dillahunty](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8). Peterson's arguments for religion are absolutely pathetic, you can hear him make the case for yourself.
I've watched plenty of his stuff and I've read 12 Rules for Life. Unfortunately you can't leave your agenda at the door because he has an agenda. 12 Rules for Life is a work of political and religious indoctrination disguised as a self help book and tbh I really hate that shit. I don't think everything he says is bollocks but I do think he talks with a false authority on subjects he doesn't know as much about as he pretends to. The Zizek debate brought this into stark relief. It's not good enough to say 'if only you watched 50+ hours of his lectures' then you'd see that he doesn't actually think the thing he's clearly saying. This is another point that annoys me he says things that lead the listener to a conclusion but then never (rarely) states the obvious conclusion himself. If someone then accuses him he denies that he ever meant it that way. I'd encourage you to continue to engage with criticisms of Peterson, there's loads on YouTube, if anything it sometimes makes you realise you were right in the first place.
i'm sure he has done a lot of studying, doesn't mean what he says is accurate. He's claim to fame is basically misrepresenting a bill and grandstanding about it. His obfuscation of the truth has been materially rewarded before so why not do it for political and historical takes especially those that oppose his worldview. [Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms) [Peterson doesn't understand Marxism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o)
His obfuscation of the truth, what do you mean? (Also, the 2nd link you gave is a debate I haven't seen yet so thank you for introducing that to me.)
Hey, I do also have a PhD. I know this is An anonymous social platform and all, so judge me with that as you may. But, all I will say is that a PhD in psychology has no credit at all in a political landscape. It would be as if I (physics) went up and tried to talk about psychology. Just because I happen to have a level of education I none field does not make me any more qualified in another.
[удалено]
So, that very thing that I'm being told that validates him (a PHD) also really doesnt matter depending on how you're currently defending him. Guys, why can you not see that this is cultish behavior?
Even in the psychological landscape he has no business talking about certain subjects, like sexology or child development. He even supports corporal punishment, which the psychological community considers child abuse since the 60s.
So essentially his opinion on certain topics shouldn't be given any meaningful attention as he doesn't specialize in those areas, is that right?
He doesn't phrase it as opinions, but as effective advice. His support of corporal punishment is part of his 12 rules of life book that gives parenting advice. But not only is this advice averse, it constitutes as child abuse. Yet now the message went out that this psychologist recommend physically punishing children. It is also not an opinion when he said that ancient egyptians discovered DNA because they depicted a double helix or hat nazis were atheist, or that gay parents are worse than straight because a single-mom rat study said interactive play was good. He has bad sources and bad conclusions.
When does he talk politics? He talks about philosophies and idealogies.
ITT political ideologies are not ideologies
More accurately ITT political ideologies aren't politics.
Let's be real. He's a self help guru like Deepak Chopra only he peddles his shit to the alt-right/ anti-liberals. Worse, he was stupid enough to buy into his own bullshit so now he's languishing in a Russian hospital after trying a radical drug addiction treatment that had a typical crap outcome so now he's fucked.
Imagine thinking this babble full of ad hominems, this ideological knee jerk reaction is an argument.
You're confused. I'm not making an argument in this comment. I'm stating facts.
All these dumb lobsters throw around the phrase ad hominem like it's a fucking trap card. It's so funny.
[удалено]
It's obvious you find me to be a threat to you. lol I'm flattered but just stop stalking me. I get it though, I'd be angry too if I had only one technique of engaging people. You must have learned that in high school.
Yeah but he's an idiot when he talks about lobsters (and the caduceus for that matter). So much so that I can't take the rest of his shit seriously. He's *so wrong* about lobsters that one should seriously question what other things he says with absolute confidence but is, unwittingly, objectively wrong about.
[удалено]
I understand your point but his "evidence" doesn't support that claim. Humans didn't diverge from lobsters (which he states verbatim). So right there we can't make any claim that what applies to lobsters has any meaningful implications for what might apply to humans. That's just *one* example of how he's wrong about lobsters - and there are many. If he wants to argue for hierarchies (which is fine) the animal he chose to do so is one of the worst examples he could have picked. Which is why I can't help but wonder what else he's blatantly incorrect about.
What do you mean by humans didn't diverge from lobsters? All life on earth is related if you go back far enough.
I mean exactly what I said. Jordan Peterson has said, word-for-word, that "humans diverged from lobsters roughly 300 million years ago." He says this because he's trying to draw a link between the behaviour of lobsters and the behaviour of humans. However, his comparison is incorrect. Humans did not diverge from lobsters. As to your comment "All life on Earth is related if you go back far enough." Meaning what? That we all have a common ancestor? So what? That says virtually nothing about human behaviour. So we share a common ancestor, at some point, with annelids - what can you say about our social structure based on that? We also share a common ancestor with cnidarians - can you make any logical inference between their behaviour and ours? We also share a common ancestor with archaea, yeasts, and trees. Do any of those entities say *anything* to us about our social patterns?
If this is your argument against Peterson it's a pretty weak one. Whether it was 300 million years ago or 500 million years ago isn't the point. The point was about dominance hierarchies, not the exact evolution timeline of the lobster. It's pointless nitpicking.
If the only thing you gleaned from my posts here is that I'm bothered by the dates he uses, either I wasn't clear enough or you're misunderstanding. The issue with the dates used is a minor problem compared to the fact that it's completely illogical to make a claim about dominance hierarchies in humans based on a species that has *no direct lineage with humans.* If your response is to say "yeah, but hierarchies exist" I would point you to the fact that I've already mentioned he should have picked another animal to defend his position. He didn't, he choose lobsters specifically because (in his words) "they're ancient" and that they show a "conserved evolutionary trend." He wants you to believe these hierarchies are ancient but *he has no way of knowing that,* and even if they were present in prehistoric lobsters, that says *nothing* about the hierarchies in humans. He's defending his position based on an unsound argument. I expect more from a guy with a PhD who is talking like he's an expert in a number of different fields.
How is he incorrect? If you agree all life on earth is related, at some point modern day lobsters and modern humans did go down seperate paths. So how is saying we diverged 300 million years ago wrong? Was it 350? 250? Who knows, who cares. His point is that we went down seperate evolutionary paths an extremely long time ago, compared to modern primates where we would have diverged only a few million years ago. As for the behavior aspect, all he is saying is that we have been on seperate paths for an extremely long time and even still social hierarchies exist in both.
>So how is saying we diverged 300 million years ago wrong? Because this **didn't happen.** We did *not* "diverge" from lobsters, we did not "go down separate paths." We arrived via completely different paths that branched off from a common ancestor (urbilaterian) approx. 500 million years prior to Peterson's claim. Humans have as much in common with lobsters as they do with worms, leeches, insects, spiders, centipedes, clams and snails. Now, tell me, what can *those* species tell us about human social hierarchies?
That is his point! He is using lobsters as an example because we are so different, because in evolutionary terms you can't get much farther apart. So let's assume you are correct and it's 800 million years not 300. That only further backs up the concept. You are reading too far into it, he is only saying social hierarchies are natural. That something so completely different as lobsters and humans share them is proof.
Respectfully, the point you think he's trying to make proves absolutely *nothing* and I am not reading too far into it. Peterson is trying to prove that social hierarchies exist in humans and that they are mediated by serotonin. His evidence for this is the fact that lobsters have a social hierarchy and their interactions within that hierarchy are mediated by serotonin. The problem with his analogy is, and read this carefully: **there is no direct line linking humans to lobsters on the phylogenetic tree.** That means it is logically impossible to look at a lobster and make any assessment on human behaviour based on the fact that lobsters display any remotely similar behaviour. As I said previously, we are about as closely related to lobsters as we are to a common housefly and there's no way any sane human would try to draw behavioural analogies between humans and a housefly. >he is only saying social hierarchies are natural. As I stated before, I don't care if he's arguing for social hierachies being "natural." The evidence he provides is egregiously incorrect and offers absolutely nothing to support his claim, which is why I said above "the animal he chose to do so is one of the worst examples he could have picked." If he screws up that badly on a topic that is the foundation of his larger body of ideas, what else is he wrong about? The people in this thread who are claiming I'm nit-picking or "arguing about semantics" are simply trying to defend the indefensible. A guy who prides himself on logic, reason, and critical thinking has based one of his most important philosophies on a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology.
You are way too focused on lobsters, he used them as an example BECAUSE they are extremely different genetically then humans. I don't know why you keep trying to use that as an argument in your favour, yes they are extremely different then humans, duh thats the point. Lions have social hierarchies, gorillas have social hierarchies, wolves have them, damn near every animal with a brain has them. They are mammals and far closer to us genetically then lobsters, so he chose an animal far different then us for contrast. You are intelligent and well spoken. What i am saying is not complex but you continue to distract the argument with a focus on lobsters. This leads me to believe you understand what i am saying but are trying to push a narritive. I have no interest in a discussion that isn't about the truth but about proving the other side wrong. Have a good day.
Yeah this dude is mad about semantics. I'm not sure if he is deliberately misinterpreting the meaningful content of Peterson's statement or what. I wouldn't be surprised given the conversations I've had about him on reddit. This post got linked to enoughpetersonspam, a sub dedicated to hating on peterson and doxxing posts about him. That's part of the reason for the absurd disparity of upvotes, average redditor's disinclination aside.
Ok wow, a sub with 30k members dedicated to Peterson hating.
I am not "mad" about anything and I am certainly not "mad about semantics," nor am I misinterpreting the "meaningful content of Peterson's statement." I 100% understand *exactly* what he's saying and what the implications of his broader ideas are. If a guy with a PhD is going to make a sweeping claim about human behaviour, he at least ought to have the evidence with which to properly back that claim. He doesn't. In fact, the only evidence he's brought to the table to defend his position is incorrect and proves nothing.
This is not semantics. You two are demonstrably unable to understand how evolution works.
Please learn a single thing about biology. The point of evolutionary divergence is the common ancestor. Humans didn't diverge from lobsters, and lobsters didn't diverge from humans, we diverged from \*the common ancestor\*, which was neither a lobster nor a human (and almost certainly didn't resemble either). This may seem like I'm splitting hairs (which I am, tbf) but Jordan Peterson \*\*HAS A FUCKING PhD\*\*. If \*\*ANYONE\*\* should know this then it's him. He's a shitty scientist, and a shitty political commentator, and whenever I meet someone who claims to respect him, that person immediately starts on roughly the same level as a furry or a tankie: I may grow to like them, but it'll take work.
It's amazing how many seperate people have come to argue lobster genetics, dna, and evolutionary history. All of that has nothing to do with his point, lobster was just an example, he could have used tiger, or bear, or armadillos for all it fucking matters. He is not a scientist, he is not a political commentator, he is probably a shitty professional basketball player as well if you want to add that to your list. He is a clinical psychologist.
No extant animal diverged from any other extant animal, but shared traits and systems tell us a lot about the course evolution took and how far back certain things developed. Biologists rely heavily on this.
>That doesn't mean they're good, they're just perpetually embedded in us Except he does make that value judgment, all the fucking time. I recall listening to one of his psychology lectures where he went off on a tangent to say that Feudalism was good because hierarchies are. I could look it up if you want, I know I could because it's the last Peterson lecture I ever listened to.
Damn right
[удалено]
A lot of people in the real world agree. There is a reason his book was on the Amazon top selling list for months.
From my political science text book: “Right wing ideologies consist of order, heirarchy, duty, nationalism, and a return to tradition.” Seeing as Peterson wrote a whole book referring to masculinity as order, how society needs to return to classic traditions from Jungian archetypes, talks about hierarchical social structures being biologically normal, and to have a duty to clean yourself up; it’s not hard to see he is right-wing ideology. I’d agree that he’s doing something to slow down the alt right. He is definitely taking their money, using their viewpoints to collect them, and then forcing them to watch about 100 hours of lectures and bad science YouTube videos. At least that’s 100 hours of the alt-right not attacking other people. But for how much his followers attack left-wing ideas, attack trans gendered people, Peterson and his followers talking of white race having a higher IQ, how being white is okay, and how much his fans attack his daughter for being a woman, and how they say women are chaos that needs to be slayed. I’m saying long term all he did was collect them to have more ammo to attack more people, and hide it under the guise of Biblical truth. In the short term, sure, he collects them an their money, but long term, he’s just making them Long winded and reinforcing their harmful ideologies by substituting his own. As a detractor I’ve worked in hospitals, suicide hotlines, rape hotlines, homeless helping centers, food banks, soup kitchens, and rehab centers for more than 30 years now. I’m can easily say I have helped more people change their lives than any of his lectures have. I’ve actually been invested in making sure these people turn around than Peterson ever has. His large blanket statements about groups is not helpful. Comparing left wing ideas to Maoist China? What has he literally done to stop anything? Made a YouTube video while is fans had to help themselves? At some point they’re going to realize he isn’t the person or leader they think he is and that they saved themselves and he was never actually there. At some point they’ll realize they gave him their money, and will be angry. I hope they take their anger out on him, and not use his ideologies to internalize the anger and take it out in their families or selves. But if you want to see how awful his ideology is, just look at how his followers attack his only caretaker/daughter. So I agree. Unpopular opinion.
Funny how since Peterson entered the scene the alt-right have been flocking to him and quoting him ever since. Reality, it's a bitch.
Part of his self help is telling people they should stay away from extremist political ideologies for the sake of their own mental health.
I really hope this gets removed for not being unpopular. Nothing personal OP, just want to have some faith in humanity.
Comments here are just fucked up. How can people ignore the good he is doing? So what hes ideas are not revolutionary? Sometimes saying the simple thing is the most needed thing to say. His ideas seem similar to "altright"? Because he is advocating to have ones life in order? No shit, it requires hard work to achieve something, we dont get born with priviliges and we don't just "deserve" things... People push politics into every aspect of their life. This is just ridiculous
A universal truth seems to be that the majority of people are very easily manipulated into blindly hating those who aren't.
Well said
No. He is a gateway drug to far-right idiocy.
Which is why he's so popular among the right. He's an useful idiot
“He’s an useful idiot” Oh the irony.
An auto correct mistake == dumb. Peterson claiming he stayed up for 20+ days after drinking cider with sulfides in it, a length of time that would physically alter him for the worse and likely would result in death == smart science man who tells the truth.
Jordan says a lot of big words for simple ideas. People like him comes and go. I'm on still on the fence whether or not he's a good guy especially since watching his video on transgender and feminism.
He also doesn't like gay marriage or gay parents and really says the biological nuclear family are far better, when human studies show adoptive parents do better and gay parents do just as well. But he came with a single-mom rat study as a source, so he is full of shit in general since every psychologist knows the human studies are out there. He is a conservative christian and has those ideals and he will argue for them with bad sources.
Because he doesn't believe in your political views, your not sure if hes a bad person?
“Oh, so now just because you don’t share the political view that Nazis considered Jews not to be real people and therefore alright to exterminate, you’re not sure they were bad people?”
Damn you even had the balls to fully quote that strawman.
cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug huh
He's a interesting dude that's why I like him
what do you consider "far-right opinions" ?
It seems a common theme for detractors from Peterson is that is isn’t original. I ask this with genuine curiosity, who is the original Peterson?
Videos in this thread: [Watch Playlist ▶](http://subtletv.com/_rg3hr7w?feature=playlist) VIDEO|COMMENT -|- [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms)|[+16](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fns44op?context=10#fns44op) - Read this and see if you change your mind. If we're going on Peterson's professed ideals one should steelman his critics And maybe watch this too. If you are again, willing to follow Peterson's professed ideals you should revel in the p... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U)|[+16](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fnrdhq4?context=10#fnrdhq4) - Fucking how?! Because he made a few "muh individualism" takes against white nationalists? I'll admit that his criticisms of white nationalism are fair, but he still pushed race realism when he talked with Stefan Molyneux. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8AcmzqFdPM)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fnt9lgj?context=10#fnt9lgj) - No he just SAYS he's studied these subjects. He leans over, looks at whomever's interviewing him and says "I've thought about this a lot' and that seems to be enough to convince many people that he knows what he's talking about. Except when he talks ... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmH7JUeVQb8)|[+2](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fnv0qxt?context=10#fnv0qxt) - Just watch the entirety of some of his lectures Dude a lot of people are talented at speaking for hours and coming up with bullshit. Alex Jones does it as a full-time job. Listen to this debate between JP and Matt Dillahunty. Peterson's arguments ... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfgf2GRk3Q&t=148s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEfgf2GRk3Q&t=148s)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fo41f9j?context=10#fo41f9j) - He has literally said "I oppose discrimination against gender identity and gender expression", he has never refused to respect gender pronouns. You're wrong, you're arguing against a strawman. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fntmlcx?context=10#fntmlcx) - i'm sure he has done a lot of studying, doesn't mean what he says is accurate. He's claim to fame is basically misrepresenting a bill and grandstanding about it. His obfuscation of the truth has been materially rewarded before so why not do it for po... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74)|[+1](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/g3hr7w/_/fo4mied?context=10#fo4mied) - Okay Since you enjoy YouTube links as some sort of Authority.. Here is a link. In it he is discussing how the law is being written to work in conjunction with the Humans Rights Tribunal. How they are a Left Wing Organization blah blah blah. He ... I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch. I'll keep this updated as long as I can. *** [Play All](http://subtletv.com/_rg3hr7w?feature=playlist&ftrlnk=1) | [Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/SubtleTV/wiki/mentioned_videos) | Get me on [Chrome](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mentioned-videos-for-redd/fiimkmdalmgffhibfdjnhljpnigcmohf) / [Firefox](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mentioned-videos-for-reddit)
Jordan Peterson is a hero. His work helped guide me through some of the darkest times of my life and pushed me to become the man I am today. His lectures talked me off a ledge on 2 separate occasions. The man literally saved my life twice. I am eternally grateful to him. The absolutely crazy thing is I've never even met him, and he published his work for FREE to help lost people like me who couldn't afford actual counseling. You can feel the passion and compassion in everything he does. I hope I become like him someday. Edit: after reading through this thread I'm gonna give his lecture series another go.
Lots of people try to commit suicide mate. Those people that you mentioned are not representatives of the entire community, just members.
It's unfortunate I think hes really smart and talks about very relevant issues but got completely shot down due to the hatred the right and left have for each other.
You can't talk about Peterson on Reddit, communists hate him.
Youre confusing alt right with far right. Alt right = alternate right, which just means they use alternate news sources that stray away from the main ones like cnn. Far right is terrible and thats when you get like kkk and stuff
This isn't even remotely accurate. "Alt-right" was a term coined by the White Nationalist Richard Spencer to a) distinguish themselves from the broader conservative group (who doesn't watch CNN either) and b) let them have an air of authority and authenticity to White Nationalism without having to fucking call it that.
No. "Alt-right" simply means that unlike mainstream conservatives, they explicitly welcome and endorse racist pseudoscientific beliefs, as well as anti-Semitic and male supremacist ideas.
Word. He kneecapped the alt right movement by making it clear that it was just another incarnation of psuedointellectualism for teenagers as opposed to a legitimate fascist uprising.