Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
16
-
13
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
@weedyp At 44:00 Helen: your belief that lobsters say the thing you want to talk about Marxist ideology... JP: How do lobsters say that?
[What Jordan, you just explained how lobsters address Marxism two minutes ago.]
Let's punch in to Dr. God Complex at like 20:00. 'What if the patriarchy is composed mostly of women is it still a patriarchy? If it is a structure that is composed mostly of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy? So how do we get something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy? So if it's 50/50 then its not a tyrannical patriarchy? So you think the hallmark of a tyrannical structure is the predominance of one gender?
[Notice that Peterson uses the 'So you are saying...' trick from Cathy Newman.
So you are saying if it is composed of women it is still a patriarchy?
So you are saying if it is 50/50 then it is not a tyrannical patriarchy?
No Jordan, she didn't say any of those things.
She corrected your error that 'composed of mostly women would be a patriarchy'...that's matriarchy dude, you are welcome.
And aren't you a little embarrassed with your condescending tone her, talking down to
Helen like she is a four-year old who didn't put away her toys properly?]
"The ignorant Left says that you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism. That's wrong. It's not just a little bit wrong. Its unbelievably wrong."
[Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the Full Oxford lecture you stated that capitalism creates a situation where the rich use power to profit off the work of others and the poor stack up at the bottom and that is a bad thing? Maybe keep notes of what you say in lectures so you don't contradict yourself in another one.]
==================
'Cognitive systems and interpretation of the world has axiomatic levels, some fundamental presuppositions are more fundamental, you find out how the axioms are nested, how you hierarchically arrange them, there are deeper axioms, power is based on the power of identity groups, the axiomatic substructure, I try and diagnose the axiomatic substructure, what is the metaphysical presumption structure of the radical Left, it is you are your group engaged in arbitrary warfare....
[Word salad much Jordan? Let me help you out here. You are trying to claim that egalitarian measures cause females to retreat further into traditional roles. Your theory is 100% wrong for the US. My advice, use precise language and don't over generalize. I am pretty sure you are doing what you have said is weak logic.]
We have the instinct of the way. The marker for that is meaning. I will speak scientifically. You are adapted to reality. Your instincts orient you in the world. They direct your cognition in ways you can barely comprehend. The instinct of meaning. The purpose of memory is not recollection. I can't tell the difference between houses on my street.
[JP speaking scientifically? Chuckle, wake me up when that happens.]
JP: 'The culture war is about 'what is the proper framework within which to view human identity, and what is the relationship between the individual and the group in relation to that identity, the Leftist answer its all group and its all power.'
[Wait doesn't JP claim to be careful to use precise wording? The relationship between the individual and the group, its all group and its all power? Sorry, ambiguous as heck, the opposite of precise.]
At 15:30 'Forgetting and remembering are very sophisticated cognitive processes, we reduce it to its significance and we let go of the details, when you write fiction you don't write down every thing the character does or thinks, you write down the significant, very sophisticated psychological processing, the purpose of your memory is to extract wisdom, the purpose of memory isn't recollection as such...'
[Why does JP feel that he needs to explain what forgetting and remembering are for? Does he feel that we all just arrived on this planet and don't know anything? When you write a novel you don't write everything the character thinks and does? Sure, but why are you telling us that? You can learn from your mistakes in the past? Duh. The purpose of memory isn't recollection as such? What does 'as such' mean? The purpose of memory is to recall things Jordan. I am not sure how you could have missed that. More conservative logic I guess.]
The feminine is represented as chaos. The patriarchy is represented with masculine symbols. It is a foregone conclusion that the patriarchy is order the masculine system is used by feminists to represent order. If you are a man and you are trying to embody productive order, you make an advance on a female and you are rejected that puts chaos into your existence, the purpose of order by men is to be attractive.[What absolute nonsense.]
Feminists are always calling for the masculine to be re-ordered, how would you symbolize what it is that calls for for order to be re-ordered if you wouldn't symbolize it as chaos...?]
At 39:00... I am going to speak scientifically, you know the difference between a high level conversation and a low level conversation, you are focused on the content and time disappears... [Time disappears? That is Peterson speaking scientifically? This guy is definitely one of a kind. "The conversation is manifesting itself in your deepest instincts as meaning, in the right place between chaos and order...". Question, why is Beck nodding at this nonsense? Peterson is manifesting himself in a conversation about meaning and chaos.... with no meaning and all chaos.]
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Dr_Hoops_McCann iIf you can't find anything smart JP said, don't worry. I can't either. Just a short list of Peterson being an arrogant prick in the GQ interview:
1. Who says we have over population? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfZgMcygec&t=33s]
2. In what way is society male dominated? [Most men hold most money and power, duh you dork.]
3. That is your theory? That is a foolish theory. [It is foolish to credit the women's movement? What an idiot JP is.]
4. I can replace you with someone else and then you are not here, and that is not good.
5. Man alive, how can you say something like that? It is so cliché. [You get paid for your job dipstick,]
6. All the democrats have done is inflame tribal tendencies.
7. He tells her she is wrong on lobster serotonin when she is right and then says 'I know my neurochemistry'.
Here are some details:
[The Best of JP GQ Interview] Let's see how much of an jerk JP is just randomly punching in at like 7:30. Her: 'Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive'. JP 'No, it makes them more dominant, no that's not right, serotonin makes humans more dominant but less aggressive, I know my neuro chemistry, so if you want to play neuro chemistry lets go and do it.' 'I don't believe the most fundamental orientation people have in their lives is career, I don't believe that is true for most people, the evidence supports that claim quite straightforwardly.' Her: 'But it is the only thing you get paid for under capitalism.' JP 'Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliche'd, it is so painful to hear that, its not capitalism for God's sake.'
[What a monster jerk this guy is. She says you get paid for your career, duh, and he goes off on her like some devils advocate supreme ego psychopath. It is so painful for JP to hear that people get paid for their jobs? What an absolute idiot, coupled with complete arrogant jerk-hood.' He claims to be an expert in neurotransmitters and mood drugs.... and he is in rehab for abusing mood drugs? He is also full of crap and totally over generalizing the lobsters and serotonin thing. Here is from the journal Phys/Org: 'When free moving lobsters are given injections of serotonin they adopt aggressive postures similar to the ones displayed by dominant animals when they approach subordinates.' JP full of crap, what a surprise.]
5
-
4
-
@francismallard5892 Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. 3% of a skewed sample group does not equal 'widely held view'. I guess you can teach psychology even at Harvard without having a basic grasp on scientific and mathematical analysis. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sirweebs2914 ok we agree, Peterson was an arrogant prick...At 1:01:00: Helen, you get paid for your career. JP: Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliché. It is so painful to hear that.
[Watch his demeanor here. What a prick. You get paid for your job dork brain.]
20:20 'If is a structure that is dominated by women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Heads up Jordan, look up words you don't know before you use them.]
41:00 Her: Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive. JP: No, that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive. I know my neurochemistry. [Well maybe you know your neurochemistry, but you don't know how to listen to what someone says before you call them wrong.]
40:00 Our hierarchies are based on competence, not power. [You look a little smug and preachy here Jordan. So what are you saying: Bezos, Trump, Zuckerberg have power entirely based upon competence? I can help you out here. Sure competence moves you up the hierarchy, and so does power. If you can talk and chew gum at the same time you may get this concept. Remember your belief in multi-variate? Did you forget it at this point in the interview?]
42:30: 'The absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchies are a secondary consequence of western civilization and capitalism, which is as preposterous theory as you could possibly develop about anything, hierarchies are a third of a billion years old.'
[Let me help you arrange your toys here Jordan. Every third grader knows that animals establish hierarchies. Try not to look like you are the only one who knows it. You look dumb when you pretend to be smart when you are not. Are you saying that hierarchies, i.e. inequity of power and money are not fostered by capitalism? Try this; Pretend your comments are darts trying to hit a target called reality. I hope that helps.]
Let's check in to Pretenderson randomly at 48:00: 'If you know the literature you know that animals organize themselves into hierarchies.' [Uh Ok LegoBrain; you needed to read gobs of literature to realize what every middle schooler already knows? You look super preachy here. Did Helen say that animals don't create hierarchies? I didn't hear her say that, so why are you speaking down to her like she is a 4 year old who didn't put her toys away properly?]
4
-
E Valstar Why do most published reviews call Peterson an idiot, comically befuddled, the stupid person's smart person? At 1:01:00: Helen, you get paid for your career. JP: Man alive, how can you say something like that, it is so cliché. It is so painful to hear that.
[Watch his demeanor here. What a prick. You get paid for your job dork brain.]
20:20 'If is a structure that is dominated by women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Heads up Jordan, look up words you don't know before you use them.]
41:00 Her: Serotonin makes lobsters more aggressive and humans less aggressive. JP: No, that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive. I know my neurochemistry. [Well maybe you know your neurochemistry, but you don't know how to listen to what someone says before you call them wrong.]
40:00 Our hierarchies are based on competence, not power. [You look a little smug and preachy here Jordan. So what are you saying: Bezos, Trump, Zuckerberg have power entirely based upon competence? I can help you out here. Sure competence moves you up the hierarchy, and so does power. If you can talk and chew gum at the same time you may get this concept. Remember your belief in multi-variate? Did you forget it at this point in the interview?]
42:30: 'The absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchies are a secondary consequence of western civilization and capitalism, which is as preposterous theory as you could possibly develop about anything, hierarchies are a third of a billion years old.'
[Let me help you arrange your toys here Jordan. Every third grader knows that animals establish hierarchies. Try not to look like you are the only one who knows it. You look dumb when you pretend to be smart when you are not. Are you saying that hierarchies, i.e. inequity of power and money are not fostered by capitalism? Try this; Pretend your comments are darts trying to hit a target called reality. I hope that helps.]
Let's check in to Pretenderson randomly at 48:00: 'If you know the literature you know that animals organize themselves into hierarchies.' [Uh Ok LegoBrain; you needed to read gobs of literature to realize what every middle schooler already knows? You look super preachy here. Did Helen say that animals don't create hierarchies? I didn't hear her say that, so why are you speaking down to her like she is a 4 year old who didn't put her toys away properly?]
4
-
4
-
4
-
@canadianroot JP 16:30: 'The doctrine I am opposed to is that the best way to view history is as a tyrannical patriarchy, biologically ridiculous, ungrateful...' Helen: Who is ungrateful? JP: I mean Us are ungrateful. Helen: I am grateful. [Whoops Jordan, clearly you are labeling feminists if not everyone as ungrateful, you are sitting next to a feminist who says she is incredibly grateful. Remember at the start of this interview where you stated that no one in 50 years has had a discussion on the relation between meaning and responsibility, and now you are stating you know that everyone is ungrateful? Try this. Don't say stupid stuff, in this case pretending that you know what everyone else thinks.]
JP: 'That isn't commensurate with your claim that you are the benefit of a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Are you listening to voices in your head Jordan? Did she make that claim? Are these voices telling you that you know that no one discusses responsibility also? Look at how preachy JP is here. The guy is so full of himself for no discernable reason whatsoever. Massive amounts of confidence mixed with practically no intellect.]
At 19:00 JP: 'That is for sure, it is purely not. When you describe it as a tyrannical patriarchy then you describe it as purely that. Merely to define it as a patriarchy implies unidimensionality.' [Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the John Anderson Dave Rubin interview (around 43:00) where you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely an oppressive patriarchy? There is a big difference between something being purely something and being partly something? Here is my suggestion. If you are not sure what you are talking about, or if you can't remember what you said on the same issue in a prior interview, don't look so smug about it. When you act like a preachy know it all while directly contradicting yourself...well you get my point. Remember that time you called yourself a credible scientist? Credible scientists don't pretend they know what everyone thinks and are generally careful to not contradict themselves.]
Let's punch in to Pretenderson at 34:30: 'You can't lump all occurrences of non equal treatment as identity politics.' [Ok sure JP, but she didn't say that. If you are trying to pull a monster straw man I give you a high score]. Politics based on identity is not the definition of identity politics. [Could JP be more stupid if he tried?] Helen 4 Jordan 0.
4
-
4
-
@gamemage4750 Thanks for taking the time with all this detail. My main problem with JP is a guy who is arrogant and pretends to be smart but isn't. Not a role model. If he has said something smart and useful, please paste it here.
Most of your stuff is just rambling insults, so I will just address the stuff that is based on stuff JP says:
1. Masculine hierarchy does not equal male dominated:
[Wrong, if masculine traits lead to dominance in a hierarchy, then males will dominate. Just like if female traits lead to dominance then females would dominate.
2. Power does not equal competence.
[I never said that. JP says 'Our hierarchies are of competence, not power'. He is full of crap. Both power and competence move you up a hierarchy.]
3. but its not just power and the more corrupt a hierarchy becomes the less competence and the more power is used to climb it.
[Why are you telling me this? I already know that.]
4. No its not entirely a patriarchy, but by virtue of historical context and gender differences, it is to some extent. In order to further ANY of your points you have to adopt this classic binary, this way or that way, mindset that makes you looks ignorant about the ambiguity and imprecision of the world.
[Agreed, the classic binary simplifying everything to black and white makes you look ignorant. Precisely why Peterson looks ignorant all the time... The West isn't an oppressive patriarchy, our hierarchies are of competence, not power...agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace...there is nothing random about dreams. Glad we agree JP is ignorant.]
5. Women weren’t barred from jobs because of men: they just couldn’t do them.
[Wrong. Barred from jobs means you are prohibited from doing them, not that you are incapable of doing them.]
6. You do understand that physical limitations like that still exist.
[Why are you telling me this? I don't know that the top women's tennis player is about as good as the 300th male player?]
BTW: The research on serotonin on lobsters is done by scientists, not psychologists. Also did you note that JP cited a paper on Marxism in academia to prove Helen wrong that proved her right. JP: 'I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic, look it up in Haidt's work'....whoops Jordan, it was not done by Haidt and it proves Helen's point that equality of outcome is not a widely held view, she said she sees it almost never in the world and the paper you cited agrees with her; a tiny minority faith.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ZroBangerz Have you heard of the concept of evidence? That would mean you listen to the interview, then you quote the part that proves your point. Try that. I realize ideas based upon evidence and reality is not really Peterson's strong suit, but try it anyway.
Here is how to do it> Peterson #1: If you say its an oppressive patriarchy then you say its only that. Peterson #2: The West is an oppressive patriarchy, but is not just an oppressive patriarchy. I guess Peterson can't conceptualize what he says from one lecture to the next. At 21:00 JP 'So you are saying that...' Whoops Peterson just pulled a Cathy Newman. If Cathy Newman is an idiot, then Peterson is also right? They both do the same thing.
'So you are saying If it is a structure dominated by women then it is a tyrannical patriarchy?' [Heads up JP, you just pulled another Cathy Newman, and no she didn't say that, she corrected you that female dominated would be a matriarchy. I am not sure why you are being preachy to her here, since her vocabulary on this issue is better than yours.]
========
Here is another one for you: AT 8:00 JP 'What do you think emancipated women in the 20th century?' Helen: 'The pill helped, and legal changes.' JP: 'I don't advise men to be nice, ever. I wouldn't call the invention of the tampon nice, its not nice... he saw that his wife was suffering with her period, and he thought he would do something about it.'
'To look back in time and say men took the upper hand and persecuted women in a tyrannical patriarchy is a dreadful misreading of history, it is a horrible thing to inflict upon men.'
'You don't think the pill was a primary force in the emancipation of women? Toilets and tampons. You are thinking instead it was the action of courageous feminists in the 1920's? That is a foolish theory.'
[Let's unpack this: 1. The guy who invented the tampon did it because his wife was suffering. 2. Peterson calls this not him doing something to be nice to his wife. Could Peterson be any stupider and more annoying if he tried? Doing something to help the suffering of another person is not an act of being nice?
Peterson doesn't ever advise men to be nice? And how is this guy helping humanity exactly if he doesn't think men should be nice to women? I would say he is causing more harm than good, but most relevant is his dumbing down on the composite intellect of humanity.
She said the pill was one of the factors, and then Peterson says that her not crediting the pill as one of the factors is foolish? She just said the pill was a factor 20 seconds ago LegoBrain… your span of attention can't last that long? Who is reading history as a tyrannical gender battle Jordan? Helen didn't say that. Straw man. Oh I get it, you saw a tiny window of opportunity to fit in one of your fake smart guy words 'tyrannical patriarchy'. The term wasn't needed. It wasn't relevant to the issue at hand, but you got it in anyway. A bit narcissistic maybe?
And how exactly in about one minute did JP jump from: I don't advise men to be nice, to how the tampon was invented, to tyrannical patriarchy, and then to calling her foolish for agreeing with you that the pill was a factor? I wonder if Peterson had a bad shroom trip and it never wore off, or maybe he just shrooms up prior to these debates and lectures. What else explains his hyperactive nonsense better than that? Antidote to chaos? The guy's brain is chaos ground zero.]
JP at 1:10:00: 'I am not hearing what you think, I am hearing how you are able to represent the ideology you were taught, I can replace you then you are not here, you are not synthesizing something that is genuine and surprising and engaging as a narrative consequence, its not good. Why have a conversation?'
[Could this guy be a bigger prick if he tried? I know what JP will say on most issues, e.g. hierarchies and post modernism. Does Peterson himself generate any content that is genuine and surprising? Surprisingly stupid for sure, e.g. there is nothing random about dreams, there are no models of animal industriousness, in 100 years there will be too few people.]
Helen: What do you think I think about transgender issues?
JP: I suspect you think gender identity is a social construct. But I could be wrong.
Helen: Nope, there are biological differences between the sexes, gender is a powerful social structure that we have built on top of that.
[So JP says he can replace her with someone else because he already knows what she thinks, and then he says 'I could be wrong.' Try this JP, don't say something if you already know you could be wrong. Remember that lecture when you said 95% of what you say is garbage? I guess this would be one of those times.]
4
-
@francismallard5892 Apparently you think you can outsmart me. I should warn you that you don't stand a chance. But let's find out. Helen is for progressive tax policy. Peterson's ridiculous strawman retort is that she makes more than a caveman and a Indian sheep herder. She isn't a hypocrite anymore than someone who is for homeless solutions but won't just let homeless people move into their house, so you lost that one. Helen was correct on identity politics since the US was founded on full rights for white males. You lost again. As for your feelings that she couldn't grasp that competence can lead to success... Quote where that happened. It didn't, you made it up but prove me wrong. Did you notice that Peterson said let's get our definitions straight on identity politics...and then proceeded to not define it? Helen defined it so score for Helen.
JP 16:30: 'The doctrine I am opposed to is that the best way to view history is as a tyrannical patriarchy, biologically ridiculous, ungrateful...' Helen: Who is ungrateful? JP: I mean Us are ungrateful. Helen: I am grateful. [Whoops Jordan, clearly you are labeling feminists if not everyone as ungrateful, you are sitting next to a feminist who says she is incredibly grateful. Remember at the start of this interview where you stated that no one in 50 years has had a discussion on the relation between meaning and responsibility, and now you are stating you know that everyone is ungrateful? Try this. Don't say stupid stuff, in this case pretending that you know what everyone else thinks.]
JP: 'That isn't commensurate with your claim that you are the benefit of a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Are you listening to voices in your head Jordan? Did she make that claim? Are these voices telling you that you know that no one discusses responsibility also? Look at how preachy JP is here.)
At 19:00 JP: 'That is for sure, it is purely not. When you describe it as a tyrannical patriarchy then you describe it as purely that. Merely to define it as a patriarchy implies uni-dimensionality.' [Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the John Anderson Dave Rubin interview (around 43:00) where you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely an oppressive patriarchy? There is a big difference between something being purely something and being partly something? Here is my suggestion. If you are not sure what you are talking about, or if you can't remember what you said on the same issue in a prior interview, don't look so smug about it. When you act like a preachy know it all while directly contradicting yourself...well you get my point.)
Let's punch in to Pretenderson at 34:30: 'You can't lump all occurrences of non equal treatment as identity politics.' [Ok sure JP, but she didn't say that. If you are trying to pull a monster straw man I give you a high score]. Politics based on identity is not the definition of identity politics. [Could JP be more stupid if he tried?] Helen 4 Jordan 0.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hf4229 What analysts prove him wrong? That is not what I said, try and keep up. I said most published analysts call him an intellectual fraud. Here are clips from 11 of them:
Most published analysts agree with me. A couple of my favs: 'the stupid person's smart person', his book should be titled 'a bunch of crap I made up', 'devoid of evidence and reason'....: You may like this Peterson analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfZgMcygec
1. Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train.
2. Jordan Peterson's thought is filled with pseudo-science, bad pop psychology, and deep irrationalism. In other words, he’s full of shit.
3. But his regular pearl-clutching, skirt-gathering episodes of the vapours signify that he is a far more simple creature. He just wants to be taken seriously, goddammit. Being exposed by someone who is so obviously smarter than him and is therefore immune to his pseudo-intellectual schtick is Jordan Peterson’s Room 101, it’s entitlement Kryptonite. It re-erects the prison walls of his mediocrity and unoriginality. This is why he is forever posting items on how much he has sold, how many views his YouTube videos have had. The void must be fed constantly.
4. It’s easy to assume Peterson is deserving of respect. A lot of what he says sounds, on the surface, like serious thought. It’s easy to laugh at him: after all, most of what he says is, after fifteen seconds’ consideration, completely inane. I’m just going to say it: Spend half an hour on his website, sit through a few of his interminable videos, and you realize that what he has going for him, the niche he has found, he never seems to say “know” where he could instead say “cognizant of”—is that Jordan Peterson is the stupid man’s smart person.
5. Peterson’s allusive style makes critiquing him like trying to nail jelly to a cloud, but I have tried to indicate alternatives to his assumptions about morality, individualism, reality, and the meaning of life. If you go for Christian mythology, narrowminded individualism, obscure metaphysics, and existentialist angst, then Jordan Peterson is the philosopher for you. But if you prefer evidence and reason, look elsewhere.
6. Banal, superficial, and insidious...Peterson has nothing to offer but his tawdry philosophical sloganeering. .. a tedious first chapter about both lobsters and wrens defending their turf and striving to achieve social dominance in their supposed hierarchies, all behaviors that humans are endlessly exhorted by Peterson to emulate: “You step forward to take your place in the dominance hierarchy, and occupy your territory” ..
To occupy your territory, means (wait for it) you actually have to stand up: “Standing up means voluntarily accepting the burden of Being” Later on, continuing to capitalize bogus terms, Peterson says that this standing up to take responsibility means that you move from Being to “Meaning with a capital M” . None of this is ever explained in any detail, of course. It is a neat trick to sound clever and profound while having nothing of substance or originality to say, : an intense boredom-induced drowsiness made all the worse by the leaden prose..
7. I wouldn't say Peterson's “Peterson, even at his most rigorous, is not rigorous at all..."Religion, Sovereignty, Natural Rights, and the Constituent Elements of Experience” is in the worst 1% of the countless social science and humanities articles that I read -- merely the worst 5%. Ultimately, I am struck by its arrogance and uselessness...Peterson indeed goes deep -- deep into muddy arguments, murky obscurities, and maddening amounts of bullshit.
8. “His now-questionable relationship to truth, intellectual integrity and common decency, which I had not seen before. His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down. He was a preacher more than a teacher, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact… it’s not clear from the language he uses whether he is being manipulative and trying to induce fear, or whether he is walking a fine line between concern and paranoia, In Jordan’s hands, a claim which is merely ridiculous became dangerous.”
9. According to Peterson, there is an “unspeakably primordial calculator, deep within you, at the very foundation of your brain, far below your thoughts and feelings,” that “monitors exactly where you are positioned in society.” “Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster, with its 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight, with your shoulders back.” But in asking us to consider the lobster, he’s cherry-picking one model of social behavior when there’s a whole ocean full of equally relevant examples.
10. Peterson fails to understand that the liberal left is dominated by neither post-modern nor Marxist thought. When he speaks of the political left, Peterson riles against a fictitious caricature of extreme progressive ideology. Peterson’s imaginary antagonist..
11. It’s that last part I want to focus in on – the claim to any kind of scientific legitimacy. Because anyone with even the most basic understanding of science should be able to quickly figure out that Peterson is not relying on the “stunning revelations” of “scientific research.” But instead, is propping up his intellectually feeble ideas with either a serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science. I’m not sure which is more embarrassing.
Now, I can’t claim to know what Peterson’s motives are. But it is difficult to reconcile his demonstrable lies and reliance on easily-disprovable junk science with his purported belief in rational, logical discourse and the precision of language. Or the fact that when someone criticizes him or says something that he doesn’t like, he says things like this Tweet: “And you call me a fascist? You sanctimonious prick. If you were in my room at the moment, I’d slap you happily.”
Oof. Peterson sounds, dare I say, triggered? A bit snowflakey? Regardless, the actual subtitle of his “12 Rules” book is: “An Antidote to Chaos.” Yet considering all the above, I have to wonder, would a more fitting title be:
“12 Rules: A bunch of crap I made up and supported with some embarrassing pseudoscience.”
3