Its none of the above. If you live in a country that prohibits polygamy then you are already living in a construct Peterson talks about. And chances are your freedom of speech isn't restricted because of it.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Its none of the above. If you live in a country that prohibits polygamy then you are already living in a construct Peterson talks about. And chances are your freedom of speech isn't restricted because of it.
people who worry about the manliness of future generations are weirdos who should be driven from public life
its crazy how people take peterson seriously. him being known at all in public can all be traced back to a simple law he either deliberately misunderstood to advance alt right talking points or is too thick to understand
that law was clearly written by black chaos
Agree with you yet again. Articles and critiques of him, at least from the mainstream press, are generally driven by ad hominem and hyperbole. It is very difficult to find a balanced and informative critique of his opinions. Which is why I choose to go to the source instead.
he's just popularising the scientific consensus...
Direct me to it and I can give an opinion when I get home.
Edit: and just to clarify, I disagree with Peterson on several topics! I understand why many do not like him. And I also understand why many like him. I try to remain objective.
All the links Silva and I have posted of peterson in his own words in the last page or two
My opinion really isn't that interesting you know... haha. I will take a look and listen to the arguments and provide my POV.
Best to actually read one of his books or watch one of his lectures in its entirely than these one off drive by tweets or clips that don't contextualize his views properly.
I'll admit I haven't given Peterson's work a full-read and so can't judge it fully, but even a list of quotes attributed to him from his works reveal him to be fairly bloated and stating the obvious through disguised means. This is one of his most-liked quotes on Goodreads...
He's basically saying you should always be looking to learn stuff. But in a way that's badly written and overly long.
He's basically saying you should always be looking to learn stuff. But in a way that's badly written and overly long.
Edit - apart from the obvious criticisms of this, I want to add that Marx's "opiate of the masses" full quote is actually somewhat sympathetic to religious belief. He was clear that removing religion would not alleviate suffering. I think @Synco had a good take on this in some other thread.
I'm generally not a fan of his. Not for the substance of what he says, which after looking into them are generally accurate, but rather because he's long-winded and spends 10 minutes talking about something that could be easily fleshed out in 2 or 3.
some of my best friends are things I dont know
That's just one. This is another amusing one...
Actions have consequences. So does inaction. Or something like that.
Isnt that a rush lyric?
Absolutely agree with this. He's far too wordy. When speaking, he also jumps around so quickly and it makes him very irritating to listen to. Couldn't ever imagine paying to listen to such a guy. He needs to work on being an effective communicator, although I assume his fans like that aspect of it, as if they are part of an exclusive club that has a greater understanding of the topics.
He's too much of a lecturer and not enough of a presenter imo.
Going off the hype, you'd think he had mastered the latter. Far from it, and I wondered what I'd been missing when I eventually bothered to check out one of his talks.
he just hits the right buttons
"we're being forced to call people their prefered pronouns"
"i won't call a student their prefered pronoun"
"enforced monogamy will make men less violent"
"i benched 225 pounds"
"clean your room and chaos won't shout at you"
Not a serious person.
He's just not built for soundbites, which is odd given his rise on social media.
I ended up getting recommended videos of this Peterson bloke, presumably as a result of reading this thread. He's really not very thought provoking.
I actually quite like a meandering, stream of consciousness type of talk, at least in part as an antidote to eerily polished talks from the other talking heads. He just doesn't say anything new, and the only time he becomes interesting is when he disregards the research and just makes things up.
He's not so bad when his ideas are anchored on the literature but every now and then he just throws that out the window and jumps into pure ideological nonsense. His one about women's make up above is absurd but there's less outrageous ones. Like this...
The reason he wants everyone to be married isn't just because he believes it makes men less aggressive, but bevause he essentially thinks all people are "trouble" and if not for this legal and religious bind, one person will eventually see the other person as trouble and then want to move on. And divorce is a non lethal cancer. Pretty much destroys your life. Give up on the idea of having any success after that. So just lock everyone up in this voluntary slavery otherwise the world starts to crumble.
Someone who jumps into that kind of mode so easily, so often shouldn't have much credibility. Surprised @Raoul thinks he's generally accurate.
I actually quite like a meandering, stream of consciousness type of talk, at least in part as an antidote to eerily polished talks from the other talking heads. He just doesn't say anything new, and the only time he becomes interesting is when he disregards the research and just makes things up.
He's not so bad when his ideas are anchored on the literature but every now and then he just throws that out the window and jumps into pure ideological nonsense. His one about women's make up above is absurd but there's less outrageous ones. Like this...
The reason he wants everyone to be married isn't just because he believes it makes men less aggressive, but bevause he essentially thinks all people are "trouble" and if not for this legal and religious bind, one person will eventually see the other person as trouble and then want to move on. And divorce is a non lethal cancer. Pretty much destroys your life. Give up on the idea of having any success after that. So just lock everyone up in this voluntary slavery otherwise the world starts to crumble.
Someone who jumps into that kind of mode so easily, so often shouldn't have much credibility. Surprised @Raoul thinks he's generally accurate.
This is an interesting criticism and one I have to push back against. First to someone who is 40+ and well read nothing is going to sound new. No one talking in 2018 in pop media is saying anything "new". Its all just rehashed, regurgitated old ideas. Obama said nothing new, Trump said nothing new. The only people really saying "new" things are academics and researchers who rarely get any pop media time unless its something controversial. or something related to helping old rich men get more sex.
But the thing some of us have to realize, is that just because something is "not new" to a 40 year old well read person, it *is* still new to 14-25 year olds who haven't heard a lot of it before. Heck, some people have even heard it before but because it came from their parents or family members they just fecking tuned it out. So I don't think not saying anything new is a valid criticism of anything. Its not about whether something is new. Its about whether the repackaging can reach an audience and have a beneficial influence.
I'm still rummaging through Peterson's critiques of post-modernism as a disguise for marxism after the latter become discredited when the Soviet Union went wrong. This is one area where I think he has some serious exposure to criticism imo.
I completely agree on that level. I think when he is in the realm of personality and psychology and self-help related to that, he is relatively uncontroversial and not much to even criticize. But its the when he gets into attacking post-modernism and cultural marxism where he just doesn't get things accurate.
On a very basic level he seems to miss the point that a lot of the post-modern deconstructionists entire point is to criticize grand systems and Marxism is a famous grand system they criticize. He really doesn't get the intellectual history correct here.
I think I mentioned it before, but its a shame Richard Rorty isn't alive because Rorty really would be the perfect person to correct Peterson on post-modernism since both Peterson and Rorty are big American Pragmatists.
I'll check out that video, cheers
He is an academic, though. I found it odd for an academic to have so little of his own ideas or so few references of his own work. I'm not saying popularising ideas is less important than devising new ones at all. I appreciate his supposed value comes from the former. I just thought it odd for someone in his position to have none of the latter, is all.
I'm 27 and not particularly well read, so I think we're being overprotective of the young folk here. His ideas are already well established and I don't think they're being repackaged in a way that makes them more palatable for a new audience. I'd be very surprised if he remained relevant for long.
I can understand your views and I thought similar a short while ago but I've spent about a month trying to read/watch learn up on Peterson and I think there are basically two different Petersons. One is the academic psychologist who stays in his wheelhouse and talks about mostly dull topics like personality and self-improvement. The other is the firespark "free speech" champion who attacks post-modernism and cultural marxism as the same thing and goes outside his specialty but attracts far more followers. I think its important to separate the two.
Similar in a lot of ways like Slavoj Zizek another super popular one among that age group. Literally nothing Zizek says is new. Its all repackaged ideas and I know a former Philosophy major that thinks he has zero appeal. But reality is, Zizek actually does have appeal because he can speak to people that have different foundations than myself or maybe even you, just slightly outside the 14-25 bracket I mentioned and certainly different to a 45 year old Philosophy PhD.
These might not be the people I would choose to represent different ideas. I wish more people knew Richard Rorty or Amos Tversky or Henri Tajfel. But these are the people we have to work with so let's make the best of it. I pour myself a scotch and soda now haha
and dragons and chaos and shit
and wimmins being the cause of all evil on the planet
So basically, what Peterson is saying can be brought down to; men have become pussies, men should be more manly and start clubbing each other on the head.
Also, dragons.
?
Also, dragons.
?
Not the impression I got, but I am definitely willing to look at any links
Last edited:
aww someones angry his fanboys turned out to be stupid