Jordan Peterson on real time with Bill Maher

[MiniCraque]

The thing about Peterson is that he doesn't consider himself an intellectual and has said many times his lectures are a sort of thinking out loud, or externalized internal dialogue. The guy is humble and is free to admit his flaws. Yet his detractors insist on assigning egotistical attributes to him that Peterson does not claim to have. It's not a good look.

That's a cop out. It's like when shitdoggers post uneducated shit, get called out and say "hey bro that's just my opinion".

Even still, what egotistical attributes do people pin on him? All I can think of are the accusations of how he plays his cult-like following, but even that is more due to a marketing strategy than any sort of self-aggrandizement.

 

[Bald1]

That's a cop out. It's like when shitdoggers post uneducated shit, get called out and say "hey bro that's just my opinion".

Even still, what egotistical attributes do people pin on him? All I can think of are the accusations of how he plays his cult-like following, but even that is more due to a marketing strategy than any sort of self-aggrandizement.

See, the "marketing strategy" bit is just another empty criticism closely related to (paraphrasing) "he's just in it for the money".

The cop out bit - if you're so inclined listen to Peterson and Weinstein on the JRE. They had disagreements in pursuit of understanding. To me he never appeared to play coy or blow off points where he wasn't on point.

Egotistical attributes - people seem to assume that Peterson sees himself as some towering intellect.

I honestly think at the very least some of the negative views of Peterson are non-charitable understanding of a guy they view as playing for the other team.

Shrug. Think what you wil..

 

[MiniCraque]

See, the "marketing strategy" bit is just another empty criticism closely related to (paraphrasing) "he's just in it for the money".

The cop out bit - if you're so inclined listen to Peterson and Weinstein on the JRE. They had disagreements in pursuit of understanding. To me he never appeared to play coy or blow off points where he wasn't on point.

Egotistical attributes - people seem to assume that Peterson sees himself as some towering intellect.

I honestly think at the very least some of the negative views of Peterson are non-charitable understanding of a guy they view as playing for the other team.

Shrug. Think what you wil..

Do keep in mind I haven't made those particular accusations myself. I'm very aware that he's a salesman and not some truth-seeking crusader (and he doesn't claim to be the latter). We all gotta make a living somehow and he struck big with the way he chose to sell himself.

I can't say I've seen many people say he sees himself as a towering intellect though, just that his followers see him as such. That's a very important distinction.

 

[Bald1]

Do keep in mind I haven't made those particular accusations myself. I'm very aware that he's a salesman and not some truth-seeking crusader (and he doesn't claim to be the latter). We all gotta make a living somehow and he struck big with the way he chose to sell himself.

I can't say I've seen many people say he sees himself as a towering intellect though, just that his followers see him as such. That's a very important distinction.

Point conceded on the second paragraph. He does have his worshippers. Fair enough.

As to the first paragraph. How long have you been following the Peterson story? I'm telling you the guy was an emotional mess when he was thrust into the spotlight due to his refusal to have words put in his mouth. He sure didn't seem like a salesperson making a pitch.

 

[MiniCraque]

Point conceded on the second paragraph. He does have his worshippers. Fair enough.

As to the first paragraph. How long have you been following the Peterson story? I'm telling you the guy was an emotional mess when he was thrust into the spotlight due to his refusal to have words put in his mouth. He sure didn't seem like a salesperson making a pitch.

Oh I don't think he thrust himself anywhere, I'm just saying he chose a very particular way of leveraging his (initial) 15 minutes of fame.

 

[n...not crazy]

Damn, you could just title a thread "Jordan Peterson does something" and get 200 replies these days

 

[Bald1]

Oh I don't think he thrust himself anywhere, I'm just saying he chose a very particular way of leveraging his (initial) 15 minutes of fame.

He was published, had his own practice and lectured before all this happened. I don't fault him for making lemonade out of the lemons thrown his way.

I suppose my outlook stems from a more tolerant place when it comes to Peterson. If it turns out later on that he's coming from a place of ill intent then that might change, but as of now I see no harm in his actions, indeed I see nothing but an attempt to do good.

Like I said, shrug. I'm not here to change your mind, but rather to figure out where the negativity comes from.


Edit: damned spelling mistakes

 

[MiniCraque]

He was published, had his own practice and lectured before all this happened. I don't fault him for making lemonade out of the lemons thrown his way.

I suppose my outlook stems from a more tolerant place when it comes to Peterson. If it turns out later on that he's coming from a place of ill intent then that might change, but as of now I see no harm in his actions, indeed I see nothing but an attempt to do good.

Like I said, shrug. I'm not here to change your mind, but rather to figure out where the negativity comes from.


Edit: damned spelling mistakes

Nor do I tbh. Not even sure how we got entangled in this particular aspect of his work.

To be quite clear, my dislike of him comes from his political views. Specifically, his degeneration theory and this obssession with "postmodern Marxism" which is either fruit of dishonesty or just blatantly wrong understanding of what each part of that term entails. I don't know and I don't think knowing would make him look less obnoxious. Blaming postmodernism, whatever form of Marxism he thinks is into play or this bizarre hybrid that doesn't exist for political correctness or hivemind mentality in college campuses is just dumb. Trying to paint it as some sort of concentrated effort is even worse, and I think I've explained why over the course of this thread.

I'm also not a fan of the way he courts alt righters. All that talk about Marxism, the radical left, feminism or whatever political bogeyman he focuses on at any particular moment just screams dog whistling to me. That fact that his self-help work seems to target the same people (disenfranchised young men) just reinforces that theory.

Finally that Vice interview really rubbed me the wrong way. He sounded like a freaking neanderthal saying makeup and high heels are sexual signaling and innapropriately fuel sexual tension in the work place. All that while being asked about sexual harassment. I'm still kinda befudled about that particular appearance.

So yeah, those are my dislikes of Peterson. Make of them what you will.

 

[AFCrookie]

Some call him the idiot's intellectual.

I was attempting to diplomatically say something similar.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

A one off comment? Once the attention was off Peterson the whole panel was going on about Trump. American media is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. They are obsessed with him and cannot go more than a few minutes without talking about him.

Why does the news keep talking about Trump?
I don't understand why people on the right talk about this "Trump Derangement Syndrome" as if there was no reason for it. You guys keep acting like it's just 'sour grapes', or 'libtards hating republicans'.

If Obama had been fucking pornstars at golf resorts, was calling football players "sons of bitches that need to be fired", went on daily Twitter tirades, had multiple cabinet members of his staff caught misusing public funds, and the evergrowing list of bullshit that guy has going on--do you really think that shit wouldn't have dominated the news? I mean, really.
It's absurd that you guys keep ignoring all the completely bizarre shit that's going on in this presidency, and act as if this is the norm. Trump is doing and saying things that NO other president has done or said before--THAT is why the news talks about him nonstop.
It's absurd to think that any other president wouldn't of gotten talked about nonstop under the same conditions.

 

[Andy Capp]

What videos have you watched? He usually talks for 2 hours and mainly focuses on self-improvement, psychology, philosophy, religion and the importance of family. The media only focuses on Peterson's political points and it is a small percentage of what he talks about. Dr. Peterson's latest video was on the death and resurrection of Christ. Lately, Peterson has been talking far more about religion than anything else. The Maher panel seemed more interested in talking about Trump.

Sorry, the way he talks is so monotone and the subject matter so dry, I can't listen to any more than a few minutes of it. However, I'm not going to dispute what he is talking about without giving it my full attention so until I do, my comments are restricted to his public statements about political correctness and whatnot, and in that arena, he just sounds whiny to me and not worth my time.

 

[Andy Capp]

In general, do you think it is at all possible that the more educated a person becomes, the more open-minded, or 'liberal' they become?

Or would you say that someone acquiring more knowledge, more critical thinking skills, more ideas, learning new perspectives, etc etc etc., is more of a close minded, 'conservative' activity?

If academic institutions weren't by their very nature bastions of liberal thought, Jordon Peterson would've never had the foundation to form the opinions he currently holds.

Not going to read t he whole of this thread, been away for awhile and failed to keep up, but did Der Eisbar admit to purposefully conflating liberals and far right extremists yet?

 

[Andy Capp]

The thing about Peterson is that he doesn't consider himself an intellectual and has said many times his lectures are a sort of thinking out loud, or externalized internal dialogue. The guy is humble and is free to admit his flaws. Yet his detractors insist on assigning egotistical attributes to him that Peterson does not claim to have. It's not a good look.

Please show me a source for this assertion, because I have seen no indication that this is true.

 

[Andy Capp]

Sorry, the way he talks is so monotone and the subject matter so dry, I can't listen to any more than a few minutes of it. However, I'm not going to dispute what he is talking about without giving it my full attention so until I do, my comments are restricted to his public statements about political correctness and whatnot, and in that arena, he just sounds whiny to me and not worth my time.

Edit:
I also can't contradict what this guy is saying based upon what I know, and upon what Peterson said:

It seems obvious that the reaching out needs to be to the people who were voting for Trump because they hated Hillary or loved Bernie, or were just plain undecided. It's one thing to keep berating Trump because he deserves it for continually doing shit worthy of berating, but it's pointless to keep beating the "Trump supporters are dumb as he is" drum.

 

[Deleted member 263856]

Nor do I tbh. Not even sure how we got entangled in this particular aspect of his work.

To be quite clear, my dislike of him comes from his political views. Specifically, his degeneration theory and this obssession with "postmodern Marxism" which is either fruit of dishonesty or just blatantly wrong understanding of what each part of that term entails. I don't know and I don't think knowing would make him look less obnoxious. Blaming postmodernism, whatever form of Marxism he thinks is into play or this bizarre hybrid that doesn't exist for political correctness or hivemind mentality in college campuses is just dumb. Trying to paint it as some sort of concentrated effort is even worse, and I think I've explained why over the course of this thread.

I'm also not a fan of the way he courts alt righters. All that talk about Marxism, the radical left, feminism or whatever political bogeyman he focuses on at any particular moment just screams dog whistling to me. That fact that his self-help work seems to target the same people (disenfranchised young men) just reinforces that theory.

Finally that Vice interview really rubbed me the wrong way. He sounded like a freaking neanderthal saying makeup and high heels are sexual signaling and innapropriately fuel sexual tension in the work place. All that while being asked about sexual harassment. I'm still kinda befudled about that particular appearance.

So yeah, those are my dislikes of Peterson. Make of them what you will.

It's all good to disagree with him politically but I think going after his character and the character of the people who draw inspiration from his work is a bit much. I can't speak to his view on postmodernism or Marxism or how they manifest themselves in society since I haven't studied the subject but I'd wager there would be a lot of people in academia who share your view and some that share his.

I think the term dog whistling is overused these days. Any opinion controversial or not can be considered dog whistling. He was pressed on a CBC interview why he kept trying to reach alt righters and he basically said "What would you like to happen? Do you want no one to talk these people and try and get them out of that mind set? If you push them away you might have a real mess in the future." I think he's genuine in this regard.

That vice interview was clearly edited to make him look extremely snappy and bad but I agree that was probably one of the worst interviews he's done. But if you look what he said he didn't say anything wrong. Biologists agree pretty unanimously that blush and high heels are meant to indicate sexual arousal and readiness to mate, even though I'm sure most women don't have that intention when they get dressed in the morning. (We are not that far separated from apes my friend) Then the interviewer posed him the question "do you think high heels should be banned from the workplace?" and he said "I don't know, maybe" When faced with a hypothesis that you don't know the answer to any decent academic would respond the same way. Like he said later on "I was thinking it over".

It's fine to disagree with him but I don't think he's the disingenuous boogeyman you make him out to be.

 

[MiniCraque]

It's all good to disagree with him politically but I think going after his character and the character of the people who draw inspiration from his work is a bit much. I can't speak to his view on postmodernism or Marxism or how they manifest themselves in society since I haven't studied the subject but I'd wager there would be a lot of people in academia who share your view and some that share his.

I think the term dog whistling is overused these days. Any opinion controversial or not can be considered dog whistling. He was pressed on a CBC interview why he kept trying to reach alt righters and he basically said "What would you like to happen? Do you want no one to talk these people and try and get them out of that mind set? If you push them away you might have a real mess in the future." I think he's genuine in this regard.

Not really, at least not with a honest definition of the term. The fact that Peterson makes a lot of vague implications and constantly (and I do mean CONSTANTLY) adds little statements that are poorly connected to the point he's trying to make but very well connected to something a lot his followers are undoubtly extracting (hims talking about Jews overrepresented in political movements and IQ immediatelly comes to mind) are what lead to accusations of dog whistling. If you keep having to say "that's now what I'm saying" (almost a trademark of his by now), at some people will think that perhaps you're not this unfairly misrepresented guy but rather you're not making yourself clear (checks out) and/or is dog whistling.

That vice interview was clearly edited to make him look extremely snappy and bad but I agree that was probably one of the worst interviews he's done. But if you look what he said he didn't say anything wrong.

Holy apologism Batman. So it was the worst interview he ever did, was heavily edited AND nothing he said was wrong? I'm guessing an uncut interview of his must sound like words directly from God.

I've watched the unedited version. He still sounded like a creepy neanderthal bringing up makeup and high heels when talking about sexual harassment (remember what I said about bringing up stuff and refusing to weave the actual argument that stuff would support?). The edit didn't put words in his mouth.

Biologists agree pretty unanimously that blush and high heels are meant to indicate sexual arousal and readiness to mate, even though I'm sure most women don't have that intention when they get dressed in the morning. (We are not that far separated from apes my friend) Then the interviewer posed him the question "do you think high heels should be banned from the workplace?" and he said "I don't know, maybe" When faced with a hypothesis that you don't know the answer to any decent academic would respond the same way. Like he said later on "I was thinking it over".

It's fine to disagree with him but I don't think he's the disingenuous boogeyman you make him out to be.

Yeah... no, they don't. They might agree that seemingly enlarged hips and a blushed face are signals of sexual availability, but they don't say that these fashion props are MEANT to indicate that. Please don't make stuff up. Women wear makeup and high heels because they think it makes them look prettier (it does) and because it's a traditional appearance. Women do wear makeup do meet friends and family, after all. When Jane from HR comes to work with whatever color of lipstick, she's signaling that she cares about her appearance, it's not a goddamn mating call. What the fuck dude.

 

[helltoupee]

Not going to read t he whole of this thread, been away for awhile and failed to keep up, but did Der Eisbar admit to purposefully conflating liberals and far right extremists yet?

No. He was acting a little perturbed that academia is dominated by "liberal" thought.

I don't know why that's so surprising. I thought that it was common knowledge that in general the more educated a person becomes, usually the more liberal they are.

 

[Deleted member 263856]

Not really, at least not with a honest definition of the term. The fact that Peterson makes a lot of vague implications and constantly (and I do mean CONSTANTLY) adds little statements that are poorly connected to the point he's trying to make but very well connected to something a lot his followers are undoubtly extracting (hims talking about Jews overrepresented in political movements and IQ immediatelly comes to mind) are what lead to accusations of dog whistling. If you keep having to say "that's now what I'm saying" (almost a trademark of his by now), at some people will think that perhaps you're not this unfairly misrepresented guy but rather you're not making yourself clear (checks out) and/or is dog whistling.


Holy apologism Batman. So it was the worst interview he ever did, was heavily edited AND nothing he said was wrong? I'm guessing an uncut interview of his must sound like words directly from God.

I've watched the unedited version. He still sounded like a creepy neanderthal bringing up makeup and high heels when talking about sexual harassment (remember what I said about bringing up stuff and refusing to weave the actual argument that stuff would support?). The edit didn't put words in his mouth.


Yeah... no, they don't. They might agree that seemingly enlarged hips and a blushed face are signals of sexual availability, but they don't say that these fashion props are MEANT to indicate that. Please don't make stuff up. Women wear makeup and high heels because they think it makes them look prettier (it does) and because it's a traditional appearance. Women do wear makeup do meet friends and family, after all. When Jane from HR comes to work with whatever color of lipstick, she's signaling that she cares about her appearance, it's not a goddamn mating call. What the fuck dude.

My god you're insufferable. You're quite honestly what's wrong with discourse today. Instead of having a conversation and responding calmly you start putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me without any basis. Talking to people like you means that I have to put a disclaimer infront of every sentence so you don't get your panties in a bunch. As I said he didn't come of well in the interview but he didn't say anything blatantly false either. High heels arch a womans back indicating she's ready for sex. Now I clearly said most women don't think about this when they get dressed in the morning nor did I ever say that high heels or make up should be banned at work nor did I say men should take this as invitation for sex but you ignored all of this because you were too busy getting offended. I thought after your last posts with bald1 you would be able to have a discussion but forget about it. I think Peterson has to say "that's not what I mean" so much because people like you insist on putting words in his mouth or assigning misguided meanings to his speeches because you can't tolerate difference of an opinion. My god, could it be... Cathy Newman is that you?

Edit: Here's a disclaimer: I don't think Peterson is right all or half the time but I'm happy people are draving inspiration from him and that he's able help said people. I work in the healthcare field and voted Democrat in the last election and will probably do so again. I'm for LGBT rights and I'm insanely happy that they have the freedom to express them selves. I'm for controlled immigration and I can't believe that I have to say this but I think rape is always wrong. And yes I think condescending morons like you drive people in to the arms of the far right. Happy now you silly shit?

 

[RubberGuard5]

Not really, at least not with a honest definition of the term. The fact that Peterson makes a lot of vague implications and constantly (and I do mean CONSTANTLY) adds little statements that are poorly connected to the point he's trying to make but very well connected to something a lot his followers are undoubtly extracting (hims talking about Jews overrepresented in political movements and IQ immediatelly comes to mind) are what lead to accusations of dog whistling. If you keep having to say "that's now what I'm saying" (almost a trademark of his by now), at some people will think that perhaps you're not this unfairly misrepresented guy but rather you're not making yourself clear (checks out) and/or is dog whistling.


Holy apologism Batman. So it was the worst interview he ever did, was heavily edited AND nothing he said was wrong? I'm guessing an uncut interview of his must sound like words directly from God.

I've watched the unedited version. He still sounded like a creepy neanderthal bringing up makeup and high heels when talking about sexual harassment (remember what I said about bringing up stuff and refusing to weave the actual argument that stuff would support?). The edit didn't put words in his mouth.


Yeah... no, they don't. They might agree that seemingly enlarged hips and a blushed face are signals of sexual availability, but they don't say that these fashion props are MEANT to indicate that. Please don't make stuff up. Women wear makeup and high heels because they think it makes them look prettier (it does) and because it's a traditional appearance. Women do wear makeup do meet friends and family, after all. When Jane from HR comes to work with whatever color of lipstick, she's signaling that she cares about her appearance, it's not a goddamn mating call. What the fuck dude.

Proximal vs ultimate explanation.

 

[MiniCraque]

My god you're insufferable. You're quite honestly what's wrong with discourse today. Instead of having a conversation and responding calmly you start putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me without any basis. Talking to people like you means that I have to put a disclaimer infront of every sentence so you don't get your panties in a bunch. As I said he didn't come of well in the interview but he didn't say anything blatantly false either. High heels arch a womans back indicating she's ready for sex. Now I clearly said most women don't think about this when they get dressed in the morning nor did I ever say that high heels or make up should be banned at work nor did I say men should take this as invitation for sex but you ignored all of this because you were too busy getting offended. I thought after your last posts with bald1 you would be able to have a discussion but forget about it. I think Peterson has to say "that's not what I mean" so much because people like you insist on putting words in his mouth or assigning misguided meanings to his speeches because you can't tolerate difference of an opinion. My god, could it be... Cathy Newman is that you?

Edit: Here's a disclaimer: I don't think Peterson is right all or half the time but I'm happy people are draving inspiration from him and that he's able help said people. I work in the healthcare field and voted Democrat in the last election and will probably do so again. I'm for LGBT rights and I'm insanely happy that they have the freedom to express them selves. I'm for controlled immigration and I can't believe that I have to say this but I think rape is always wrong. And yes I think condescending morons like you drive people in to the arms of the far right. Happy now you silly shit?

I didn't get offended, but you certainly seem to feel that way. Also the way this exchange went wasn't much different than the one with the previous poster, it's just that you have soft skin.

btw, I couldn't care less about whether people draw inspiration from him. His self-help work is nothing to be amazed at, but I have no qualms about it. It's whatever. It's when he starts yapping about the postmodern cultural Marxist ***NOT JEWISH AT ALL*** conspiracy that I think he sounds like an idiot. Also the same people who feel inspired about his "clean your room" schtick end up taking those words to heart which just spawns more idiocy.