Jordan Peterson

[Bootstoots]

I know, buddy. You'd think anyone over the age of 15 would have long ago abandoned naive logical positivism but...

Someone clearly wasn't a STEM major. Most of those are naive logical positivists - which is why simple frameworks like libertarianism are common there. In the philosophy of science class I was taking as an elective when I was a physics major in undergrad, my mind was blown when it was pointed out that philosophers had actually found major problems with logical positivism and largely abandoned it in the 1930s. I then proceeded to learn practically nothing else and end up a libertarian myself for the next year and a half, under the influence of my "logical" physics/math major friends, before I actually realized there really were major problems with it. My humanities-majoring friends, whom I always had been closer to and never understood why, had to bring me up to speed in long phone calls after graduating.

I will say I was much happier under the delusion that all problems could be solved by scientific reasoning and the free market. Realizing that the "free market" depends on state intervention to exist and has severe structural flaws, that the existence of problems like global warming and resource depletion were truly systemic in a way that could never be accounted for by privatization schemes and which impose significant constraints on laissez-faire capitalism, and that scientific reasoning rarely gives results that actually do much to solve human problems - that was my red pill moment. I have never been as happy since 2011 as I was before it, because philosophical problems really stick in me for whatever reason. To add insult to injury, a bunch of internet misogynists had to go and steal "red pill", robbing me of my favorite metaphor/cultural reference! FML.

edit: The Department of the Redundancy Department for Redundancy pointed out a redundant redundancy that was so obvious and noticeable that it was embarrassingly humiliating. I removed and deleted it.

 

[Lexicus]

Someone clearly wasn't a STEM major

I was saying that ironically

I will say I was much happier under the delusion that all problems could be solved by scientific reasoning and the free market. Realizing that the "free market" depends on state intervention to exist and has severe structural flaws, that the existence of problems like global warming and resource depletion were truly systemic in a way that could never be accounted for by privatization schemes and impose significant constraints on laissez-faire capitalism, and that scientific reasoning rarely gives results that actually do much to solve human problems - that was my red pill moment. I have never been as happy since 2011 as I was before it, because philosophical problems really stick in me for whatever reason. To add insult to injury, a bunch of internet misogynists had to go and steal "red pill", robbing me of my favorite metaphor/cultural reference! FML.

Yeah, it's annoying because that movie is partially about realizing the gender binary is crap too.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

I think that Peterson is to psychology what Dawkins is to philosophy: a trivial thinker, with base and crude thematology, and ultimately a fad.
Although it is even worse in Peterson's case, cause his own academic field is psychology...

I wouldn't discard Jordan Peterson as a fad. People said Trump would not get anywhere, and yet here we are. It's better to be prepared than dismiss someone as a joke and have them come bite you in the butt later on.

I watched that YouTube video posted a few pages ago which takes a close look at Peterson's ideas, but I think the best takeaway from that video for me is that the "left" and our society in general indeed is very prohibitive at the moment. In the video, she says people are told what not to do: don't be a rapist, don't be a bad guy, don't do this, don't do that. Then there is the whole idea of postmodernism that everything is "socially constructed", which leaves people guessing: now what? I am not dismissing any of that, but if you constantly tell people how bad everything is without offering any alternatives, they ARE going to be lost.

It's easy to tell boys not to be rapists, but how many role models are there for men at the moment? Every week we find out that some powerful or influential dude is a serial rapist (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby), a sex trafficker (R Kelly), a plain idiot (Kanye West), or some other type of jackass. Who can young men even look up to, when all we have is a bunch of trashbags? Compared to the people I listed, Jordan Peterson is like a beacon of knowledge and reason.

Jordan Peterson is partially popular because he says what young men want to hear and partially because he actually offers solutions. Instead of telling people what not to do, he tells them what to do: clean your room. Instead of giving a hard time to figure things out, he gives them easily digestible answers: the leftists are out there to destroy the Western civilization. He is not as crazy as Alex Jones, and he is not a simple provocateur like Milo Yiannopoulos. He actually has a university degree and at least talks like he has some substance. He says, "here are the rules of life, and if you follow them, you will succeed".

This article was written about Trump and Kanye West https://www.theroot.com/how-the-west-was-lost-1825559084, but I think a lot of things there apply to Peterson and his popularity:

But Trump and Kanye speak the language of emotion and sides; in American culture, that has become the dominant tongue. They communicate in the nebulous, hackneyed jargon of fortune cookies, astrologers and self-help gurus. It all brings to mind the grand conceit of a magic act: A magician can only trick an audience if it is willing to make itself complicit. If we want to be fooled, inanity and incoherence look like magic.

Particularly this part: "A magician can only trick an audience if it is willing to make itself complicit." Many people are willing to be complicit, and many people want someone to come into their lives and solve their problems, and Peterson does precisely that.

And if your answer is "well, people are dumb haha", then Peterson will only grow in popularity. Unless you offer and alternative, show that there are other men who can be role models, and explain to young men that they can successful without sexually harassing women online, people like Jordan Peterson will continue to offer their solutions and evangelize more people for their cause.

 

[inthesomeday]

Jordan Peterson is the 21st century Confucius change my view

 

[Synobun]

Jordan Peterson is the 21st century Confucius change my view

How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

 

[Yeekim]

Promoting women to positions of power would be a great start.

Guarantee raises for competency, and make them automatic. Have management initiate conversations about additional pay increases. Be more open about employee salaries, and what is expected of employees to earn pay increases. Encourage female and minority leadership.

There are tons of things companies can actively do, I don't know why you're asking a question whose rhetorical purpose is to make that seem difficult. It's not, really.

As FarmBoy said, this is standard union fare.
Those things are being done - as they should be - and they help to lessen the gap, but I wouldn't have thought of them as "rethinking the entire structure of a professional workplace".
They also haven't lead to equality of outcome and I doubt they will.

 

[aelf]

And if your answer is "well, people are dumb haha", then Peterson will only grow in popularity.

And yet that's what right-wing neckbeards/fedora dudes do. Doesn't seem to have impeded them.

Unless you offer and alternative, show that there are other men who can be role models, and explain to young men that they can successful without sexually harassing women online, people like Jordan Peterson will continue to offer their solutions and evangelize more people for their cause.

There are so many examples of successful men who don't seem to sexually harass women. Just because you have Trump and Harvey Weinstein, suddenly there are no good male role models? Yeah, sure.

Piss poor excuse.

 

[Lexicus]

Jordan Peterson is the 21st century Confucius change my view

Ah, dude, have you ever read Confucius?

 

[inthesomeday]

Ah, dude, have you ever read Confucius?

Never read Peterson neither

 

[Lexicus]

Well having read some of both comparing the two is a massive undeserved compliment for Patar-son

 

[Kyriakos]

I wouldn't discard Jordan Peterson as a fad. People said Trump would not get anywhere, and yet here we are. It's better to be prepared than dismiss someone as a joke and have them come bite you in the butt later on.

I watched that YouTube video posted a few pages ago which takes a close look at Peterson's ideas, but I think the best takeaway from that video for me is that the "left" and our society in general indeed is very prohibitive at the moment. In the video, she says people are told what not to do: don't be a rapist, don't be a bad guy, don't do this, don't do that. Then there is the whole idea of postmodernism that everything is "socially constructed", which leaves people guessing: now what? I am not dismissing any of that, but if you constantly tell people how bad everything is without offering any alternatives, they ARE going to be lost.

It's easy to tell boys not to be rapists, but how many role models are there for men at the moment? Every week we find out that some powerful or influential dude is a serial rapist (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby), a sex trafficker (R Kelly), a plain idiot (Kanye West), or some other type of jackass. Who can young men even look up to, when all we have is a bunch of trashbags? Compared to the people I listed, Jordan Peterson is like a beacon of knowledge and reason.

Jordan Peterson is partially popular because he says what young men want to hear and partially because he actually offers solutions. Instead of telling people what not to do, he tells them what to do: clean your room. Instead of giving a hard time to figure things out, he gives them easily digestible answers: the leftists are out there to destroy the Western civilization. He is not as crazy as Alex Jones, and he is not a simple provocateur like Milo Yiannopoulos. He actually has a university degree and at least talks like he has some substance. He says, "here are the rules of life, and if you follow them, you will succeed".

This article was written about Trump and Kanye West https://www.theroot.com/how-the-west-was-lost-1825559084, but I think a lot of things there apply to Peterson and his popularity:

Particularly this part: "A magician can only trick an audience if it is willing to make itself complicit." Many people are willing to be complicit, and many people want someone to come into their lives and solve their problems, and Peterson does precisely that.

And if your answer is "well, people are dumb haha", then Peterson will only grow in popularity. Unless you offer and alternative, show that there are other men who can be role models, and explain to young men that they can successful without sexually harassing women online, people like Jordan Peterson will continue to offer their solutions and evangelize more people for their cause.

+1

I do agree that Peterson is filling a gap, and that in the overall accesible media-celebrity thinkers/"thinkers" he is better than most. Yet he is still pretty low-level, imo. I suppose, though, that i can agree that at least he deserves his current position, given as you noted there isn't much of a higher level elsewhere in the media/web world.
He just isn't a serious thinker. But, yes, ultimately if people want to find such they can read (more/other) books.

Verdict: not guilty by reason of (general public's) insanity ^_^

 

[Hygro]

He hardly needs to tell alienated young men to blame the world. They're entirely capable of doing that by themselves. What he provides is a framework for explaining an already-existing sense of isolation, a rationale for an already-existing resentment. He may not tell them to blame others, but he provides a list of who to blame and for what, should one feel so inclined.

Whether or not this is Peterson's intention is sort of besides the point as to whether his rhetoric contributes to a process which channels loneliness into the alt-right and similar politics. Roads to hell and all that.

"My life sucks, it must be because of the people who are saying my identity is too powerful"
In walks JP "no dawg, the world is pain. For everyone. Make it less of a hell."

 

[metalhead]

As FarmBoy said, this is standard union fare.
Those things are being done - as they should be - and they help to lessen the gap, but I wouldn't have thought of them as "rethinking the entire structure of a professional workplace".
They also haven't lead to equality of outcome and I doubt they will.

How many professional workplaces operate like that? The union workplace paradigm is virtually nonexistent outside of traditionally unionized businesses and government. Applying such a structure to white collar workplaces would require rethinking and restructuring the entire workplace paradigm.

By themselves, no, they will not eliminate the gaps. That's why women in leadership is another integral part of it. As is strict no tolerance of workplace harassment.

Ah, dude, have you ever read Confucius?

Isn't he the "woman who fly upside-down have crackup" guy?

 

[Bootstoots]

"My life sucks, it must be because of the people who are saying my identity is too powerful"
In walks JP "no dawg, the world is pain. For everyone. Make it less of a hell."

That's a thing I like about him as a self-help guy. He's much better for people who are depressed and have a lot of existential despair, because he gets that and speaks to it. His book has a lot of "all life is suffering" and none of the usual self-help platitudes. If I read stuff like "sometimes we have negative thoughts, but we can learn to be mindful and not identify with them", I rarely make it past page 10. That stuff is true but not particularly useful - it's only a minor palliative that doesn't motivate any real action from me.

His combination of simplified existentialism and religious mythology works a lot better. Not, like, well - I'm a lazy and unmotivated person except when it comes to learning random things and fooling around on the internet - but somewhat effective on the basic "clean your room" level.

 

[inthesomeday]

Existentialism? You sure?

 

[Lexicus]

He seems to think that most existentialist philosophers are postmodern cultural Marxists tbh

 

[Ajidica]

Don't think this has been posted in the thread.

 

[Bootstoots]

Existentialism? You sure?

He seems to think that most existentialist philosophers are postmodern cultural Marxists tbh

Yeah, actually - there's a fair amount of simplified existentialism in his thinking. He's obsessed with Nietzsche, often cites Kierkegaard, and Camus and Heidegger make occasional appearances as well. He hates Sartre because he was a commie, but he's a fan of most of the other existentialists. It's the post-structuralists that he loathes.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, then surely those bureaucratic union leveling agents should be doing work. Primary educators, university secretaries, train engineers and conductors, heavy machinery operators, and the Caterpillar lines should be amongst our most equitable and evenly distributed by gender employment categories? I haven't checked, are they?

Edit: Police Officers too. I'm just trying to hit the biggest employment sectors I can think of with strong traditional union controls. Policing is interesting in that patrol is more traditionally "blue collar" and telecoms share more traits with "white" though given the education requirements they both wind up being "blue." And I think the unionization trends with de-deputizing telecoms departments plays that out. Legit looking for opinions - I haven't crunked on the numbers, seems like a good way to waste a morning sometime.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, actually - there's a fair amount of simplified existentialism in his thinking. He's obsessed with Nietzsche, often cites Kierkegaard, and Camus and Heidegger make occasional appearances as well. He hates Sartre because he was a commie, but he's a fan of most of the other existentialists. It's the post-structuralists that he loathes.

He does know that Nietzsche said that knowledge and power are inseparable long before Foucault did....right?