Jordan Peterson

[inthesomeday]

But people are saying Peterson is a liberal in the North American sense, which can mean anything from center-right people like the Clintonists,

Right wing

to real centrists like Obama,

Center right

to modestly leftish people like Elizabeth Warren

Centrist

to center-leftists like Bernie Sanders.

And finally, social democrat (0.001 ticks to the left of center), but I get your point

"Liberal" in the sense it's used by the far left is generally not how most people understand the term.

I guess, but the way the far left uses it is a lot more accurate and useful in actual political discourse

Some of the intellectual forebears of liberalism, like Hobbes, Townsend, Malthus and Ricardo, are pretty viciously right-wing. But some of the big names of classical liberalism, like Smith and Mill, were fairly explicit anti-capitalists. The logic of Smith's Wealth of Nations is that removing the privileges of the monopoly capitalists, and allowing the workers to combine to advance their interests, would produce a surfeit of capital that would ultimately lead to ever-increasing wealth for all. Mill openly stated that if "progress" were to continue, in future traditional business would be replaced by enterprises in which workers associated as equals and elected managers accountable to them.

I’ve noticed that the more academically inclined left is generally willing to be willing to rehabilitate Smith in the sense where they go “He’s not REALLY what you think” and I guess there’s certainly some degree of reason to this, I mean he did essentially pioneer value theory even for labor value, but then they refuse to do the same for Mills. I’ve always wondered about this because it seems like they have a number of close similarities in their analyses, but they receive very different moral treatment. I am more in the camp that neither is a particularly shining example of anti capitalism but I also recognize their importance to economic theories.

The far left generally considers liberals to be right-wing because the key element of liberalism, as they see it, is "reformism" which to them means that liberals fail to meaningfully oppose capitalism. The most lazy lines of thought go as far as to see "liberals" as indistinguishable from fascists, and fascist rule as indistinguishable from bourgeois democracy (this was actually the official position of the USSR for a brief period in the '30s).

I meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeean

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess, but the way the far left uses it is a lot more accurate and useful in actual political discourse

It looks to me like the far left as you are representing fails to understand the meaning of far. You seem to disallow anyone to the right of this "far left" being anything but "right," or at best "center." By definition, the "far" left has to allow for room in the left but not as far left as us range.

 

[Lexicus]

I’ve noticed that the more academically inclined left is generally willing to be willing to rehabilitate Smith in the sense where they go “He’s not REALLY what you think” and I guess there’s certainly some degree of reason to this, I mean he did essentially pioneer value theory even for labor value, but then they refuse to do the same for Mills. I’ve always wondered about this because it seems like they have a number of close similarities in their analyses, but they receive very different moral treatment. I am more in the camp that neither is a particularly shining example of anti capitalism but I also recognize their importance to economic theories.

I mean, I don't like utilitarianism very much but I can dig Mill for the most part other than that.

I guess, but the way the far left uses it is a lot more accurate and useful in actual political discourse

It isn't always about 'accuracy' though, sometimes it can be about mutual understanding.

 

[Narz]

He doesn't actually oppose trans people though, that's just a lie. I don't know about the other stuff, but lying about that one things means I have less faith in the other assertions. And I don't think you can really claim that being opposed to Marxism makes you right wing.

Peterson claims to get mail from trans people all the time thanking him for fighting against those who want to co-opt them for their own agenda. Obviously can't verify this but I dont see why he would lie about it. I've listened to a fair bit of him and I find it strange that he's so controversial.

I mean bits that turn me off are mainly that you need religion to have morality and his ranting about cultural Marxism seems a bit inane. The guy is totally and utterly harmless but it seems human beings just aren't happy unless they have some sort of ideological enemy.

 

[Narz]

..., propagates the two genders myth

All gender are a myth if you want to get technical, only sex exists.

 

[inthesomeday]

Peterson claims to get mail from trans people all the time thanking him for fighting against those who want to co-opt them for their own agenda. Obviously can't verify this but I dont see why he would lie about it. I've listened to a fair bit of him and I find it strange that he's so controversial.

I think it’s obvious why he’d lie about it??? Or why the people emailing him would lie about being trans??? So that people (like you) say “NO look he loves trans people”

I mean bits that turn me off are mainly that you need religion to have morality and his ranting about cultural Marxism seems a bit inane. The guy is totally and utterly harmless but it seems human beings just aren't happy unless they have some sort of ideological enemy.

Us poor extremists

All gender are a myth if you want to get technical, only sex exists.

True, including the two proposed

 

[Narz]

I think it’s obvious why he’d lie about it??? Or why the people emailing him would lie about being trans??? So that people (like you) say “NO look he loves trans people”

The argument is that much of his audience is far-right so wouldn't he not want to look like he accepts them?

Even assuming he's lying/exaggerating wouldn't the fact that he wants to appear as if he loves teh transes be a good sign?

Us poor extremists

It's everyone, I kinda like getting my panties in a bunch sometimes, it's energizing, but as a lifestyle it's exhausting.

True, including the two proposed

The current ones have some utility tho.

 

[Synobun]

Some of the intellectual forebears of liberalism, like Hobbes, Townsend, Malthus and Ricardo, are pretty viciously right-wing. But some of the big names of classical liberalism, like Smith and Mill, were fairly explicit anti-capitalists. The logic of Smith's Wealth of Nations is that removing the privileges of the monopoly capitalists, and allowing the workers to combine to advance their interests, would produce a surfeit of capital that would ultimately lead to ever-increasing wealth for all. Mill openly stated that if "progress" were to continue, in future traditional business would be replaced by enterprises in which workers associated as equals and elected managers accountable to them.

The far left generally considers liberals to be right-wing because the key element of liberalism, as they see it, is "reformism" which to them means that liberals fail to meaningfully oppose capitalism. The most lazy lines of thought go as far as to see "liberals" as indistinguishable from fascists, and fascist rule as indistinguishable from bourgeois democracy (this was actually the official position of the USSR for a brief period in the '30s). Marxists also follow the basic capitalist ontology that identifies capitalism with markets and private property rather than seeing, as the early anti-capitalists did, capitalism as the political control of capitalists over the system of markets and private property.

I began to write a reply to this earlier and ended up deleting it, but I guess I'll give it another go since I keep thinking about it.

I don't disagree with you that the foundation and origin of liberalism can be, and has been, navigated by right-wing adherents. My issue with the equating angle is that it ignores how reality actually played out. That the original theory was welcoming of a right-wing perspective doesn't take into consideration that the actual application of liberalism has ended up with core tenets that are vehemently opposed by right-wing ideals. I believe it's disingenuous to say that liberalism is explicitly right-wing, even if you take its early history into consideration.

Early theory is nice but ultimately irrelevant when compared to practical application. Liberalism may have had the potential of being a right-wing tool but today it's very clearly not.

I generally view far-leftism as radicalism but even with that in mind I don't think it's a great idea to just redraw the political compass so that anyone not as far left as you is a right-wing blowspout. It defeats the purpose of the compass and is a dishonest way to have a discussion with others about political leanings and terminology when you're redefining terms.

 

[inthesomeday]

The argument is that much of his audience is far-right so wouldn't he not want to look like he accepts them?

Peterson’s audience includes those yet to be radicalized to the right, and his product must seem tolerant or else the argument that us SJW cultural marxists are intolerant seems less viable.

Even assuming he's lying/exaggerating wouldn't the fact that he wants to appear as if he loves teh transes be a good sign?

Not really. Southern slave owners said they loved black people, billionaires donate money to charities about poverty, it’s a valuable tool for oppressors to appear friendly to their victims.

It's everyone, I kinda like getting my panties in a bunch sometimes, it's energizing, but as a lifestyle it's exhausting.

You must understand that a UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR hailed as some kind of political force railing against trans people is not so much of a disagreement for the trans people, it poses an existential threat, especially combined with the institutional transphobic program of the government. Leftists, who like trans people and want them to stay alive, aren’t just “looking for ideological enemies”. They’re looking to prevent extended transphobic violence.

The current ones have some utility tho.

True, they’re very good at oppressing people based on the genitals they get born with.

 

[Narz]

You must understand that a UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR hailed as some kind of political force railing against trans people is not so much of a disagreement for the trans people, it poses an existential threat, .
.... They’re looking to prevent extended transphobic violence.

Hyperbole, he's not railing against trans people.

True, they’re very good at oppressing people based on the genitals they get born with.

Must have some utility since they're adopted by all human cultutes (with some additions from what I've heard in some Native American and Indian cultures). And I'd reckon 99.9% of people have no problem being a man or a woman. And the .1% is welcome to switch or make up their own, we can't really have too many new bathrooms tho, bathrooms are really expensive.

I'm probably polyamours which is a minority preference (imo it's probably not really but people are biased against it and scared of it) but I don't need society to change or checkboxs to appear in my census form to validate my existence. You kinda have to just validate your own existence. Saying you have to have a good reason to alter textbooks and legal terms isn't 'phobic', it's just practical. Like saying 'mankind' instead of 'folkkind'.

 

[Farm Boy]

Actually, darnit. The more stuff I listen to by Peterson, the better I'm liking him. I'm starting to see why his ideological opponenets hate him so badly. He speaks effectively, and that's the most cardinal sin. Fire the tongs!

 

[aelf]

"The reason why they hate me/him/them is because I'm/he's/they're right!"

Said every ideological warrior.

 

[Farm Boy]

I really should remember to stay logged in to preserve preferences, but it should be trivially true that if one changes the words in order to take issue with the new meaning, they're probably just lying.

 

[Kyriakos]

Surely it depends on what you're talking about, more broadly what society is talking about, and for what purpose you're a liberal. Someone identifying themselves as liberal, for the purposes of an economic conversation, is likely to be placed on the right. Someone who identifies themselves as a liberal for the purpose of a socia issue, is likely to be placed on the left. It's easy for someone to stake a claim to being on the left by pointing to the fact that they're a 'liberal', when they're actually identifying as an economic liberal. It happens less the other way around (a social liberal trying to place themselves on the right when they're economically leftist), but would be theoretically possible.

Then again the US democrat party certainly is economically liberal (ie to the right of things, in this sense). Both the dem and the gop parties are economically liberal. Also, one can reasonably claim that both parties are overall right-wing (with the gop being even more to the right)

 

[Lexicus]

I began to write a reply to this earlier and ended up deleting it, but I guess I'll give it another go since I keep thinking about it.

I don't disagree with you that the foundation and origin of liberalism can be, and has been, navigated by right-wing adherents. My issue with the equating angle is that it ignores how reality actually played out. That the original theory was welcoming of a right-wing perspective doesn't take into consideration that the actual application of liberalism has ended up with core tenets that are vehemently opposed by right-wing ideals. I believe it's disingenuous to say that liberalism is explicitly right-wing, even if you take its early history into consideration.

Early theory is nice but ultimately irrelevant when compared to practical application. Liberalism may have had the potential of being a right-wing tool but today it's very clearly not.

I generally view far-leftism as radicalism but even with that in mind I don't think it's a great idea to just redraw the political compass so that anyone not as far left as you is a right-wing blowspout. It defeats the purpose of the compass and is a dishonest way to have a discussion with others about political leanings and terminology when you're redefining terms.

Oh yeah. I'm not actually trying to claim liberalism is right-wing. Liberalism is a sort of "big tent" that includes both right and left-wingers, at least as I understand the world. Also, as I'm sure you noticed, I don't think being a liberal is incompatible with being a socialist. My post was mostly meant to illustrate the far-left's perspective on liberalism.

 

[aelf]

I really should remember to stay logged in to preserve preferences, but it should be trivially true that if one changes the words in order to take issue with the new meaning, they're probably just lying.

Quit whining. Only lawyers put exact words over the point, which you know applies just as much to "speaks effectively".

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Been some time since I've seen a thread with this much passive-aggressiveness venturing into personal territory, especially from the side of the staunch Peterson defenders.

I will be completely honest in that I did not read most of his scientific publications (they also do not interest me in the slightest) and am only familiar with Jordan B. Peterson as a self declared "cultural critic", "philosopher" and author of prominent self-help books. So I will just assume that he is a very knowledgeable and capable psychologist since I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

His rhetoric is incredibly revealing about his true agenda, imo. In one of the YouTube videos briefly mentioned here, aptly titled "IQ Differences exist, but now what?" there comes a point where Jordan is talking about all the "80 IQ people". He characterizes them as completely incapable, specifically he says that they require more work than they can offer back in terms of productivity, which is why they aren't (and should not, that is implied) be working in the armed forces and similiar institutions.

Petersons overt focus on "usefulness", "productivity" and so forth seems like a resurgence of Benthamism, with the only difference being that the greater good is now some obscure "general productivity" that we should strive for. This is where part of his appeal comes from, he really manages to latch onto people who don't really know what they're doing with their time and need a quick excuse to feel good about themselves. "Clean your room, bucko" is the ultimate mantra of procrastination, but Peterson aims to elevate it. Cleaning ones room is often not a goal unto itself, it is usually a goal by proxy - "I can think a lot clearer when my desk is not clogged".

I think what everyone is overseeing really is the conclusion to the IQ-debate which, like it or not, is eugenics. A society that puts productivity and usefulness as their foremost pursuits will always leave those behind that don't fit the societal norm of "useful". The example I gave earlier is highly revealing I think. What do we do with people who, according to Petersons logic, do more harm than they do good? The implication is obvious, I think. And this is how Peterson perfectly fits into that niche of intelligence professionals like there are so many:

from Blumenbach, Cuvier, Humboldt to Rushton, Jensen and Gould, Peterson is merely the logical conclusion to this line of thought. Note that while scientists like Jensen and Rushton constantly push their agenda that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ in the low 80s, meaning they, on average, are very close to "mentally deficient" in terms of intelligence, they never offer any solution. Why could that be? Why is there never the idea of helping these people? Their conclusions have already been drawn tacitly. Of course someone with a tenure from a respected university cannot easily come out and ask for the sterilization of entire southern Africa, but that is what they are driving toward. Note: I have done my own research and found vastly different (higher) numbers for IQ in sub-saharan Africans, but I wanted to represent Jensen et al the way they represent themselves.

Which now leads me to the topic of Petersons IQ. I have actually never doubted his claims that he got 150 in a test. He has probably done many in his life, maybe with varying results. I'm sure he chose to lowest in order to be humble For one second though, let's be for real. What exactly does a 150 IQ even mean if all you use it for is write lowbrow bastardizations of thinkers that were infinitely more brilliant than you were? What exactly is a 150 IQ useful for if you write a run-of-the-mill self-help novel with mediocre prose that offers nothing new? What exactly is a 150 IQ good for if, in your entire professional career, you haven't even made one significant contribution to philosophy or the cultural sciences and all you are famous for is refusing to call some person by their preferred pronoun?

If Peterson genuinely helped one of you, that makes me happy. Sometimes even astrology or tarot cards help a person to find their way. Sometimes it's some fringe religion or the anonymous alcoholics or some indian mystic. And sometimes it's some pseud who sounds like Kermit the Frog. Have a nice day y'all

 

[Kyriakos]

Been some time since I've seen a thread with this much passive-aggressiveness venturing into personal territory, especially from the side of the staunch Peterson defenders.

I will be completely honest in that I did not read most of his scientific publications (they also do not interest me in the slightest) and am only familiar with Jordan B. Peterson as a self declared "cultural critic", "philosopher" and author of prominent self-help books. So I will just assume that he is a very knowledgeable and capable psychologist since I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

His rhetoric is incredibly revealing about his true agenda, imo. In one of the YouTube videos briefly mentioned here, aptly titled "IQ Differences exist, but now what?" there comes a point where Jordan is talking about all the "80 IQ people". He characterizes them as completely incapable, specifically he says that they require more work than they can offer back in terms of productivity, which is why they aren't (and should not, that is implied) be working in the armed forces and similiar institutions.

Petersons overt focus on "usefulness", "productivity" and so forth seems like a resurgence of Benthamism, with the only difference being that the greater good is now some obscure "general productivity" that we should strive for. This is where part of his appeal comes from, he really manages to latch onto people who don't really know what they're doing with their time and need a quick excuse to feel good about themselves. "Clean your room, bucko" is the ultimate mantra of procrastination, but Peterson aims to elevate it. Cleaning ones room is often not a goal unto itself, it is usually a goal by proxy - "I can think a lot clearer when my desk is not clogged".

I think what everyone is overseeing really is the conclusion to the IQ-debate which, like it or not, is eugenics. A society that puts productivity and usefulness as their foremost pursuits will always leave those behind that don't fit the societal norm of "useful". The example I gave earlier is highly revealing I think. What do we do with people who, according to Petersons logic, do more harm than they do good? The implication is obvious, I think. And this is how Peterson perfectly fits into that niche of intelligence professionals like there are so many:

from Blumenbach, Cuvier, Humboldt to Rushton, Jensen and Gould, Peterson is merely the logical conclusion to this line of thought. Note that while scientists like Jensen and Rushton constantly push their agenda that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ in the low 80s, meaning they, on average, are very close to "mentally deficient" in terms of intelligence, they never offer any solution. Why could that be? Why is there never the idea of helping these people? Their conclusions have already been drawn tacitly. Of course someone with a tenure from a respected university cannot easily come out and ask for the sterilization of entire southern Africa, but that is what they are driving toward. Note: I have done my own research and found vastly different (higher) numbers for IQ in sub-saharan Africans, but I wanted to represent Jensen et al the way they represent themselves.

Which now leads me to the topic of Petersons IQ. I have actually never doubted his claims that he got 150 in a test. He has probably done many in his life, maybe with varying results. I'm sure he chose to lowest in order to be humble For one second though, let's be for real. What exactly does a 150 IQ even mean if all you use it for is write lowbrow bastardizations of thinkers that were infinitely more brilliant than you were? What exactly is a 150 IQ useful for if you write a run-of-the-mill self-help novel with mediocre prose that offers nothing new? What exactly is a 150 IQ good for if, in your entire professional career, you haven't even made one significant contribution to philosophy or the cultural sciences and all you are famous for is refusing to call some person by their preferred pronoun?

If Peterson genuinely helped one of you, that makes me happy. Sometimes even astrology or tarot cards help a person to find their way. Sometimes it's some fringe religion or the anonymous alcoholics or some indian mystic. And sometimes it's some pseud who sounds like Kermit the Frog. Have a nice day y'all

+1

Indeed, if all he writes is of no consequence, and his is only a transitory fame due to the current political climate, it is only fair to point out just what this is about. Much like other 'genius' thinkers of today we see parading on tv or other channels (web etc), Peterson seems to be another sign of the times; how thinkers who have really no reason to exist, instead become discussed for a considerable amount of time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Which now leads me to the topic of Petersons IQ. I have actually never doubted his claims that he got 150 in a test. He has probably done many in his life, maybe with varying results. I'm sure he chose to lowest in order to be humble For one second though, let's be for real. What exactly does a 150 IQ even mean if all you use it for is write lowbrow bastardizations of thinkers that were infinitely more brilliant than you were? What exactly is a 150 IQ useful for if you write a run-of-the-mill self-help novel with mediocre prose that offers nothing new? What exactly is a 150 IQ good for if, in your entire professional career, you haven't even made one significant contribution to philosophy or the cultural sciences and all you are famous for is refusing to call some person by their preferred pronoun?

Did you realize that you are doing to people of high IQ here exactly what you say Jensen et al are doing to those in the 80 range? Their IQ is "rendered meaningless" if they "don't produce" as you deem that they "should."

Peterson is a shmuck because he is a shmuck, not because he has failed to apply his intellect as you see fit.

 

[Synobun]

Did you realize that you are doing to people of high IQ here exactly what you say Jensen et al are doing to those in the 80 range? Their IQ is "rendered meaningless" if they "don't produce" as you deem that they "should."

Peterson is a shmuck because he is a shmuck, not because he has failed to apply his intellect as you see fit.

I think in this case it's fair game. People only ever mention their "high IQ" if they want to browbeat you into compliance with their astounding natural intellect. Yung's point seems more along the lines of, "If you're going to brag about it, you better be capable of using it."