Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

He has a PhD in Clinical Psychology; his main focus is on the application, research and cause of mental illness. This might have small facets of biology, neurology and cognitive sciences; but of the group of psych backgrounds, clinical is one of the broadest of the bunch and often only dips toes in said fields. Further, even if that were the case, his statements made as metaphorical/factual arguements(I don't care of which anymore) are so mindbendingly wrong and shallow that again, it shows that he's lost himself in the awards he received from Clinical Psychology PhD. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] They often take part more in statistical analysis than actually using biological backgrounds.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130518] JP Says: "Men interact with women differently than they do with men, and their limitations are based on socially acceptable practices founded in childhood" Poster hears:"I want to be allowed to hit women/I regret not being able to hit women" Everything Jordan peterson says requires unpacking. That should be plainly obvious by now. [/QUOTE] [IMG]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W18_asgRkfY/Wm-qDV5-XCI/AAAAAAAADUQ/yvdcOyk6ef08tUfkYgrzhymfwHDTEhRsgCLcBGAs/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-01-29%2Bat%2B6.04.39%2BPM.png[/IMG] I just found this tweet and I'd love you to unpack it for me. how is it consistent with Peterson's 'free speech' beliefs (let's disregard his wrongthink detector for now, which everyone conveniently skims over). since when was beating the shit out of each other conducive to proper conversation? do we oppose pathological dudes by fucking them up? I thought Antifa got Peterson's panties in a twist.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53133486][IMG]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W18_asgRkfY/Wm-qDV5-XCI/AAAAAAAADUQ/yvdcOyk6ef08tUfkYgrzhymfwHDTEhRsgCLcBGAs/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-01-29%2Bat%2B6.04.39%2BPM.png[/IMG] I just found this tweet and I'd love you to unpack it for me. how is it consistent with Peterson's 'free speech' beliefs (let's disregard his wrongthink detector for now, which everyone conveniently skims over). since when was beating the shit out of each other conducive to proper conversation? do we oppose pathological dudes by fucking them up? I thought Antifa got Peterson's panties in a twist.[/QUOTE] Peterson is a fucking moron for thinking that women are some how immune to violence but I'm pretty sure he's saying that you should only be able to hit women if their behavior demands physical retaliation - it's just that men can't because they are chivalrous paragons of virtue and domestic abuse is a myth. This is actually a pretty good example of what we've been talking about in this thread because look at both of these wildly different interpretations of what Peterson is trying to convey here and in the related discussions that sparked the tweet (that I assume we have both seen). Does Peterson think that physical retaliation is appropriate in response to certain kinds of speech or ideologies? How much physical retaliation is acceptable? Is he even talking about punching women? What constitutes a pathological woman in Peterson's mind? Neither of us have any fucking idea what Peterson is talking.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53133486][IMG]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W18_asgRkfY/Wm-qDV5-XCI/AAAAAAAADUQ/yvdcOyk6ef08tUfkYgrzhymfwHDTEhRsgCLcBGAs/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2018-01-29%2Bat%2B6.04.39%2BPM.png[/IMG] I just found this tweet and I'd love you to unpack it for me. how is it consistent with Peterson's 'free speech' beliefs (let's disregard his wrongthink detector for now, which everyone conveniently skims over). since when was beating the shit out of each other conducive to proper conversation? do we oppose pathological dudes by fucking them up? I thought Antifa got Peterson's panties in a twist.[/QUOTE] The impression I get from Peterson is that he puts way too much stock in underlying psychological influences that may or may not even exist, and jumps to unreasonable conclusions based on those patterns and phenomena. Thankfully, humans are not slaves to underlying psychological influences and we conduct ourselves according to our morals and the social contract, as well as our inherent senses of empathy and justice. It really is exhausting to see people fall for whatever spills out of Petersons mouth just because of the position he speaks from. His ideas on sociology are almost hilariously absurd and out of touch, particularly those relating to gender relations. It's obvious why he outwardly struggles with his attempts at sociology so much, and that's because he tries to get from point A (clinical psychology, his wheelhouse) to point B (sociology) without actually having any of the knowledge or expertise to get there or make those connections in the first place.

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53133565]Humans [B][I]are[/I][/B] slaves to ignoble instincts. Empathy and justice flips against other human beings in no time. That's how we had slavery, Nazi Germany, USSR and countless tyrannies. You take western civility for granted, that's all.[/QUOTE] Well, ideally we hope to learn from our mistakes in the past and move forward with our history in mind. Yours sounds like a bit of a pessimistic view of the world. I'd say it's very easy to say that the time and conditions we live in are better than theyve ever been, and that's because we have been learning and moving forward. Hopefully that trend continues.

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53133520]I see that you subtly imply that it is always possible to have "proper conversation"? Ha.[/QUOTE] are you just drawing some arbitrary line of disagreement? any examples?

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53133616]Yeah, ideally. Desirably. Utopically. But, in reality, Trump gets elected to be the president riding off of appalling rhetoric. I have reasons to be pessimistic. If that is not worrying I don't know what is. It's funny you deleted your little Antifa comparison. What's arbitrary about it? Psychopathic individuals only respect physical power, you can't have "proper" conversation with them, they will wait a physical response from you. People with low IQ won't be able to participate in sophisticated conversation, you can't have proper conversation with them. Sociopaths? Only as long as they want something from you. Etc. Then. If you punch a male colleague in the workplace, it's possible to be brushed off afterwards by both parties and society, with the workplace returning back to normal. It's absolutely unthinkable for a man to hit woman in the workplace. Meanwhile, the phenomenon called "battered wives" exist, so it's not like physical violence between genders doesn't happen, but it's an absolute taboo in public places. It goes without saying that I'm strongly against violence like any socially functional adult, but I'm not naive to say that we can make it so that it doesn't happen ever and I know that the line between physical and verbal is not as solid as some people want to believe.[/QUOTE] Why are we talking about psychopaths now? Peterson defines feminism as pathological and thus it's logical to think that feminists are pathological women, no? In that case are Nazis pathological? You can have my Antifa comparison back now, because it seems the Antifa way of doing things fits just fine within the confines of what Peterson is advocating for. [QUOTE]If you punch a male colleague in the workplace, it's possible to be brushed off afterwards by both parties and society, with the workplace returning back to normal.[/QUOTE] I dunno any job where you could lamp a co worker and have it brushed off. [QUOTE]People with low IQ won't be able to participate in sophisticated conversation, you can't have proper conversation with them. [/QUOTE] are we battering these people now too? I'm not sure what you're getting at with that. Low IQ people are pathological? Looks like we're playing 101 ways to interpret again

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53133616]Yeah, ideally. Desirably. Utopically. But, in reality, Trump gets elected to be the president riding off of appalling rhetoric. I have reasons to be pessimistic. If that is not worrying I don't know what is. [/QUOTE] I don't think it's exactly utopian to think that people ought to be/are capable of being respectful and good to one another. On the whole, there's very little to suggest that. Plenty of Trump voters I've met are great people that got misled or were largely ignorant. I feel like complacency and ignorance are our two biggest problems rather than outward malice and ignoble instincts. And while Trump was indeed elected on the backs of that complacency and ignorance, I think it's been a learning experience and it isn't exactly a secret that a majority of the country doesn't approve of him or his rhetoric. We can't make sweeping statements about the nature of human interaction and society over what could amount as nothing more than an anomaly.

Sounds like Peterson ought to stop talking about the ones of femminists who think like that

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53130368]So because I don't think he's a nazi mouth piece I'm a weak willed easily persuaded person Okay I guess if I just go with you I'm not? Right?[/QUOTE] [B]Dude stop rushing in and putting words in people's mouths[/B]. You are so scared about being mislabeled that you are no physically throat fucking people with your fist filled with words they didn't say.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53134297][B]Dude stop rushing in and putting words in people's mouths[/B]. You are so scared about being mislabeled that you are no physically throat fucking people with your fist filled with words they didn't say.[/QUOTE] I feel like you've replied way out of sync with the rest of the thread I don't really care anymore, but suffice it to say that when you speak the way rusty does, you usually drive people away from the point you're trying to make now, go ahead and turn that around on me like I'm saying something I'm not, but he quite literally called anyone who "falls" for petersons points as being vulnerable to persuasion If you were told by a right winger in a thread you were arguing against that you were just indicative of the power of persuasion, you'd likely say something about it. I always find it fascinating when people say "This isn't about you" while talking more or less, directly to you, about you, using terms and group labels to put you into a place that makes it the easiest to discount said person. We see it constantly, but if I point it out, you'll just shit on me for being "sensitive" or something equally stupid

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134347]now, go ahead and turn that around on me like I'm saying something I'm not, but he quite literally called anyone who "falls" for petersons points as being vulnerable to persuasion[/QUOTE] I may have missed a post but in the one that you quoted, what he said was that Peterson's persuasive techniques were very effective, not that the people that are persuaded by him are weak willed or vulnerable to persuasion.

[QUOTE=cbb;53134410]I may have missed a post but in the one that you quoted, what he said was that Peterson's persuasive techniques were very effective, not that the people that are persuaded by him are weak willed or vulnerable to persuasion.[/QUOTE] I really can only read that one way, the more I go back and read it and it's that a non-uniform view of peterson means you were just persuaded into that, and have no rational reason to feel that way

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134347]I feel like you've replied way out of sync with the rest of the thread I don't really care anymore, but suffice it to say that when you speak the way rusty does, you usually drive people away from the point you're trying to make now, go ahead and turn that around on me like I'm saying something I'm not, but he quite literally called anyone who "falls" for petersons points as being vulnerable to persuasion If you were told by a right winger in a thread you were arguing against that you were just indicative of the power of persuasion, you'd likely say something about it. I always find it fascinating when people say "This isn't about you" while talking more or less, directly to you, about you, using terms and group labels to put you into a place that makes it the easiest to discount said person. We see it constantly, but if I point it out, you'll just shit on me for being "sensitive" or something equally stupid[/QUOTE] But that's all Peterson has, we've deconstructed his arguments point by point. That's the hardest part about this; we've shown that his admitted knowledge of postmodernism is based on false facts and conjecture. We've proven that his use of science is flawed at best and often as wildly misinformed as his viewerbase's. We've shown through several disparate tweets and quotes at different times that statements that have been used to be vague are actually how we have interpreted what he meant and as such shown that his positions are traditionalist and conservative. All he has left is the psych background which doesn't come close to grasping and acknowledging or even having the requisite foundation to back up the majority of his most recent claims. This isn't about labels, this isn't about being sensitive. You're turning this into personal attacks while those who've been arguing back that Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about have demonstrated as such. At this point, you [B]are[/B] appealing to emotion, [B]you are[/B] being sensitive because after this entire train wreck of a thread all you have left is feeling personally persecuted. If anything, this is moat and bailey in action, we've shown that Peterson has a flimsy foundation at best for his argument so you have now retreated back to making it about being personally attacked. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] Stop dragging in you presonal feelings about this; you continue to muddy this thread and I am beginning to suspect you're doing this on purpose.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53134764]But that's all Peterson has, we've deconstructed his arguments point by point. That's the hardest part about this; we've shown that his admitted knowledge of postmodernism is based on false facts and conjecture. We've proven that his use of science is flawed at best and often as wildly misinformed as his viewerbase's. We've shown through several disparate tweets and quotes at different times that statements that have been used to be vague are actually how we have interpreted what he meant and as such shown that his positions are traditionalist and conservative. All he has left is the psych background which doesn't come close to grasping and acknowledging or even having the requisite foundation to back up the majority of his most recent claims. This isn't about labels, this isn't about being sensitive. You're turning this into personal attacks while those who've been arguing back that Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about have demonstrated as such. At this point, you [B]are[/B] appealing to emotion, [B]you are[/B] being sensitive because after this entire train wreck of a thread all you have left is feeling personally persecuted. If anything, this is moat and bailey in action, we've shown that Peterson has a flimsy foundation at best for his argument so you have now retreated back to making it about being personally attacked. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] Stop dragging in you presonal feelings about this; you continue to muddy this thread and I am beginning to suspect you're doing this on purpose.[/QUOTE] I feel persecuted and don't like the arguments around the idea of being an alt right mouth piece. You think I'm being malicious with my emotions, fine, but that's part and parcel of what I'm talking about. You have since my first post assumed my intentions to be something they're not. Speaking out against that only makes you think I'm more deceptive, not less.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53134764]But that's all Peterson has, we've deconstructed his arguments point by point. That's the hardest part about this; we've shown that his admitted knowledge of postmodernism is based on false facts and conjecture. We've proven that his use of science is flawed at best and often as wildly misinformed as his viewerbase's. We've shown through several disparate tweets and quotes at different times that statements that have been used to be vague are actually how we have interpreted what he meant and as such shown that his positions are traditionalist and conservative. All he has left is the psych background which doesn't come close to grasping and acknowledging or even having the requisite foundation to back up the majority of his most recent claims.[/QUOTE] Honestly, you haven't done nearly what you claim to have done.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134858]I feel persecuted and don't like the arguments around the idea of being an alt right mouth piece. You think I'm being malicious with my emotions, fine, but that's part and parcel of what I'm talking about. You have since my first post assumed my intentions to be something they're not. Speaking out against that only makes you think I'm more deceptive, not less.[/QUOTE] You began speaking out against a phantom opponent and now that I have called you out, you have your opponent. Rejoice, your self-fulfilling prophesy is complete. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53135032]Honestly, you haven't done nearly what you claim to have done.[/QUOTE] And your quip hasn't actually shown otherwise beyond a personal opinion with no backing of sources, knowledge or more.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53135128]You began speaking out against a phantom opponent and now that I have called you out, you have your opponent. Rejoice, your self-fulfilling prophesy is complete. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] And your quip hasn't actually shown otherwise beyond a personal opinion with no backing of sources, knowledge or more.[/QUOTE] You literally said [QUOTE]Stop dragging in you presonal feelings about this; you continue to muddy this thread and I am beginning to suspect you're doing this on purpose. [/QUOTE] As if I would do that intentionally/maliciously You want to have your cake and eat it too apparently.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53135128]And your quip hasn't actually shown otherwise beyond a personal opinion with no backing of sources, knowledge or more.[/QUOTE] This thread has been a mess of people talking around each other, and around Peterson's actual arguments. I don't even know what there is to address.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53135147]This thread has been a mess of people talking around each other, and around Peterson's actual arguments. I don't even know what there is to address.[/QUOTE] Zyler had directly discussed, explored and refuted Peterson's arguments about Postmodernism. We had an actual biologist with extensive knowledge about evolutionary biology disprove Peterson's claims of one important topic as well. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53135143]You literally said As if I would do that intentionally/maliciously You want to have your cake and eat it too apparently.[/QUOTE] That isn't even the point; my point was fairly clear. You've been jumping around the thread demanding we don't victimize and label you. I have moved forward to call you out and thus fulfill your worries. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53135154]Zyler had directly discussed, explored and refuted Peterson's arguments about Postmodernism.[/QUOTE] Which posts are you referring to? I'll go reread them.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53135154]Zyler had directly discussed, explored and refuted Peterson's arguments about Postmodernism. We had an actual biologist with extensive knowledge about evolutionary biology disprove Peterson's claims of one important topic as well. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] That isn't even the point; my point was fairly clear. You've been jumping around the thread demanding we don't victimize and label you. I have moved forward to call you out and thus fulfill your worries. A self-fulfilling prophecy.[/QUOTE] Show me where I said "victimized"? Label, yes. I don't even disagree with many of zylers arguments here, I disagree with people like Rusty or Zilamasters perspective as they were shared in this thread. Zyler didn't get personal, so I don't think he ever did anything like that. I think the over all way this topic is discussed is divisive and I feel you guys play into that and amp up the divisiveness. Sorry, you think that's a self fulfilling prophecy of me being "victimized"(I don't think I said this), but it's really me failing to communicate my point properly, and you seeing whatever element of that you can as malicious intent.

JP made a response to the Vice interview. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zZRTC6Ecs[/media]

[QUOTE=Tudd;53136441]JP made a response to the Vice interview. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zZRTC6Ecs[/media][/QUOTE] I was there :D

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53136809]I was there :D[/QUOTE] How was the rest of the event?

[QUOTE=Tudd;53137239]How was the rest of the event?[/QUOTE] He didn't get past rule 1, lol. Overall it was super interesting and a reconfirmation of the fact that he isn't any manner of -ist. He covered the pareto principle, and the lobster argument, and, moreover, his argument in terms of the benefit of courage rather than safety in the face of the suffering of the world. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] Oh and, to top it off, a captain from the Canadian army came up during question period, and thanked Jordan Peterson for his lectures which, according to him, helped the people in his troop to overcome their PTSD. He was emotional, and gave JP a token as a thank you (I don't know what it was).

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53137576]He didn't get past rule 1, lol. Overall it was super interesting and a reconfirmation of the fact that he isn't any manner of -ist. He covered the pareto principle, and the lobster argument, and, moreover, his argument in terms of the benefit of courage rather than safety in the face of the suffering of the world. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] Oh and, to top it off, a captain from the Canadian army came up during question period, and thanked Jordan Peterson for his lectures which, according to him, helped the people in his troop to overcome their PTSD. He was emotional, and gave JP a token as a thank you (I don't know what it was).[/QUOTE] Oh dang, that is awesome, especially the Canadian Captain part! I am sure this thread could use the Lobster bit seeing how some people were arguing about that for a few pages here or in the Channel 4 interview thread. The Captain most likely gave one of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge_coin]these[/url].

He didn't address what he said about women's hypocrisy except to reiterate that makeup = I'm ready for sex. So: [QUOTE=01271;53124168][media]https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/962197738438975488[/media] It's right here. Here's the clipped part out in the video. He thinks that women who wear makeup in the workplace are hypocrites because it's "encouraging sexual harassment". As soon as they put it on it's open season for cocks to come out. "Do you feel like a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace that she's being somewhat hypocritical?" "Yeah. I do think that." As we all know as soon as she has red lips or a pair of high heels... she's asking for it.[/QUOTE] still applies.

[QUOTE=01271;53137844]He didn't address what he said about women's hypocrisy except to reiterate that makeup = I'm ready for sex. So: still applies.[/QUOTE] First off; He prefaced that whole thing (which is cut-out in your clip); "Now I am NOT saying people shouldn't be able to use sexual displays in the workplace." And second of all; Seeing how they did a 2 hour interview, and that clip is seemingly edited to transition to a completely different topic as if the interview had no reply (unlikely), I would love to see the full interview to make sure Vice didn't leave out a deeper explanation. Though I really do have to say that your, "As we all know as soon as she has red lips or a pair of high heels... she's asking for it." is such a strawman of this conversation, and Jordan Peterson would never agree with such a statement that implies he is green-lighting men to sexually harass.

[quote]He didn't address what he said about women's hypocrisy except to reiterate that makeup = I'm ready for sex.[/quote] I don't think he was being articulate, but I'd say the spirit of his point does apply. We are approaching a double standard on masculinity and femininity which is closely impacted by ideological and cultural conflicts we are witnessing. I believe this is why with Cathy Newman he stated masculinity is in a crisis, or at least temporarily detached from its traditional roots and struggling to reshape itself (which is cheered by one side as progressive and disdained by the other as socially dysfunctional). While the sexual expressions of both are pretty black and white, one is active the other is passive, as forms of sexuality they are still tied to power and status. I believe this is why JP rejects the idea of femininity as traditionally oppressed. If we assume that at the root of much of human behavior and psychology is sex, and that for most of human history the division of labor was very much gender-based (*especially* after the discovery of agriculture), then we can understand why as we abolish old social divisions and become more inclusive we will be encountering social conflicts and questions we've never dealt with before and struggle to form new social standards (i.e. as leveled by the right, the Prussian school environment is inappropriate for boys and leads to drugging them, but is complementary to girls' behavior) in a sharply politicized, culturally divided environment. I think that's where his ultra-pessimistic rejection of the question of forming new standards entirely (when he says women and men can't work together, etc.) and opposition to the cultural left comes in. He seems to reject relativism, egalitarianism, blank-slate ideas and narratives of systemic oppression, basically all the ambitions of the intersectional and cultural warrior types to liberate people from all social structures in this age of abundance, as conflicting with human nature and our inherent behavior as social creatures that evolved in condition of scarcity. I imagine he believes this leads to a particular focus on de-clawing what have become excesses of masculinity since it's more active in sexual expression than femininity, and that the latter is more compatible with the world we are heading towards because as far as I know women are generally more agreeable, open, and thinking of the long-term.