I’ve mentioned before that Jordan B Peterson (JBP) first came to my attention when an academic described him as some far-right nutjob (I paraphrase, but only slightly).
Jordan Peterson has helped me more in a few videos than all the school counselors I ever had. He is not afraid to delve into difficult subjects about human spirit that seldom get discussed openly.
Great post. I Like Peterson. And Rogan. And Crawford etc etc. re: your point about false portrayals. Google Rushdoony. Then read his material and form your own opinion. Fascinating.
They don't like Peterson because he's a humanist, not a transhumanist.
I have to say, I haven't watched the Peterson/Dawkins video to the end. Peterson is an excellent speaker, writer, and interviewee, but not so much an interviewer. He can't help but immediately articulate, which might be great to learn something, but makes it a bit annoying for the listeners. Some people have taken up the fight successfully, though, like Camille Paglia.
Yes the Dawkins discussion is not the clearest I've seen JBP - but then I don't think that was the purpose. It was fascinating to listen to - almost like listening to his thought processes. I do think he's lost a degree of sharpness since his recovery from anti-anxiety med dependence, but he's still sharper than any knife I have at my disposal
Our then minister of foreign affairs, Margot Wallström (who managed to get herself declared persona non grata in both Saudi Arabia and Israel due to her big mouth and feminist delusion) tried debating him on live national TV a couple of years back. It didn't go well for her for some obvious reasons to any outside observer, or anyone not woke really.
She is a party creature from childhood, she was annointed as potential successor several decades ago, and she has always been able to simply brush away any and all criticism with the usual po-mo feminist woke buzz words and word salad, not to mention being continously pampered by the press - think Kamala Harris or on PCP.
She famously (well, here for the time) quipped "Crawl back to under your rock!" to him, thinking herself witty since Peterson references lobsters when talking about basic neurological structures and how they impact the rest of the brain even in mammals with our larger, more complex brains.
As for Peterson, sure he's interesting in the "12 rules" but I have to say that anyone finding it revolutionary or radical or new (especially the last one), well, to be frank then you haven't read enough, or diverse enough (no, not diverse in the way the woke means it!). You'll find the same life-lessons in the classics, among the ancients, in the Sagas, or in novels from Verne to Stevenson to Steinbeck or Achebe. Of course, to Peterson's credit as far as I know he never even alludes to being new or radical or anything like that, quite the opposite. To me he gives off an air of "This is self-evident, we all know this or used to know this but for some reason we just stopped acknowledging it and banned it". Which is dangerously close to confirmation bias.
PS: If you'd like to see the former minister of foreign affairs, mrs Wallström open her mouth and remove all doubts as to what a real socialist democrat feminist sound like and how they reason, the clip can be found on Youtube (it's in english): search for "Peterson Wallström debate" and it should pop up. And then imagine living in a nation where she is considered a role-model for women... DS
Yes, 12 Rules is not in any sense 'new' or radical - and nor is it meant to be - it's interesting because of the discussion surrounding the rules which can be viewed of as distilled 'wisdom'.
It came about, if I recall correctly, because of discussions JBP had on Quora (or a similar site) where he was asked about 'rules for life'. JBP has a good deal of academic insight to bring to bear on psychological issues, but he also has a lot of clinical experience to draw on. His desire to help people in a practical way really shines through a lot of his output.
Oh yes, used to watch his lectures, the ones that made him (in)famous. Sound advice, well-reasoned and well-argued and what is very clear to me (since I used the same technique with students) is that he not only contructs his arguments but also tries to pick them apart well before any lecture. The scientific process of the humanities, nowadays almost completely gone or declared as heretical.
For some reason, there's always some students who thinks that they have thought of something new and radical (I was like that as a teen), only to learn that nope, it's neither new nor radical - just to them. The next step is typically "If only"-style logic to make the 'new' idea work. Sadly, most stop there no matter where they are politically. If only everyone agreed to share communism would work. If only everyone agreed to non-aggression principle libertarianism would work. If only the laws of physics were under the control of public opinion... (You're a physicist I gather, you'd love debating professor Moira von Wright - a professor of pedagogy and pro-rector of a the most woke swedish college for several years, who famously stated that gravity is a social construct - yes, for real. The founder of her line, George Wright who emigrated from Dundee to Narva in the 17th century must be spinning in his grave.)
On thing Peterson stated which is certainly true, and very tragic is when you meet a patient who starts rattling off how many therapists, psychologist and psychiatrists they've graced over the years, not being listened to, but that they now meeting you finally has found someone who understands them: "Run. Run away immediately. Get up and leave the office."
The behaviour - shopping for therapists - is a tell for psychopathic narcissism, though not for severity. This is also exactly how feminist groups work, something I've seen from the inside (sociology truly is the most evil of sciences).
Jordan Peterson has helped me more in a few videos than all the school counselors I ever had. He is not afraid to delve into difficult subjects about human spirit that seldom get discussed openly.
Great post. I Like Peterson. And Rogan. And Crawford etc etc. re: your point about false portrayals. Google Rushdoony. Then read his material and form your own opinion. Fascinating.
It's tangential but whenever I hear about Richard Dawkins I wonder about two things.
1. Why did he not speak out at the beginning of convid1984, instead choosing to play along with the pantodemic.
2. Why was he on the Epstein plane Lolita Express?
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughIDWspam/comments/cef528/yikes_pinker_dawkins_dennett_aboard_the_lolita/
Maybe he was selfishly spreading some genes?
more rogan than slogan. Nice! 😀
They don't like Peterson because he's a humanist, not a transhumanist.
I have to say, I haven't watched the Peterson/Dawkins video to the end. Peterson is an excellent speaker, writer, and interviewee, but not so much an interviewer. He can't help but immediately articulate, which might be great to learn something, but makes it a bit annoying for the listeners. Some people have taken up the fight successfully, though, like Camille Paglia.
Yes the Dawkins discussion is not the clearest I've seen JBP - but then I don't think that was the purpose. It was fascinating to listen to - almost like listening to his thought processes. I do think he's lost a degree of sharpness since his recovery from anti-anxiety med dependence, but he's still sharper than any knife I have at my disposal
Our then minister of foreign affairs, Margot Wallström (who managed to get herself declared persona non grata in both Saudi Arabia and Israel due to her big mouth and feminist delusion) tried debating him on live national TV a couple of years back. It didn't go well for her for some obvious reasons to any outside observer, or anyone not woke really.
She is a party creature from childhood, she was annointed as potential successor several decades ago, and she has always been able to simply brush away any and all criticism with the usual po-mo feminist woke buzz words and word salad, not to mention being continously pampered by the press - think Kamala Harris or on PCP.
She famously (well, here for the time) quipped "Crawl back to under your rock!" to him, thinking herself witty since Peterson references lobsters when talking about basic neurological structures and how they impact the rest of the brain even in mammals with our larger, more complex brains.
As for Peterson, sure he's interesting in the "12 rules" but I have to say that anyone finding it revolutionary or radical or new (especially the last one), well, to be frank then you haven't read enough, or diverse enough (no, not diverse in the way the woke means it!). You'll find the same life-lessons in the classics, among the ancients, in the Sagas, or in novels from Verne to Stevenson to Steinbeck or Achebe. Of course, to Peterson's credit as far as I know he never even alludes to being new or radical or anything like that, quite the opposite. To me he gives off an air of "This is self-evident, we all know this or used to know this but for some reason we just stopped acknowledging it and banned it". Which is dangerously close to confirmation bias.
PS: If you'd like to see the former minister of foreign affairs, mrs Wallström open her mouth and remove all doubts as to what a real socialist democrat feminist sound like and how they reason, the clip can be found on Youtube (it's in english): search for "Peterson Wallström debate" and it should pop up. And then imagine living in a nation where she is considered a role-model for women... DS
I'll have a search for that clip - thanks
Yes, 12 Rules is not in any sense 'new' or radical - and nor is it meant to be - it's interesting because of the discussion surrounding the rules which can be viewed of as distilled 'wisdom'.
It came about, if I recall correctly, because of discussions JBP had on Quora (or a similar site) where he was asked about 'rules for life'. JBP has a good deal of academic insight to bring to bear on psychological issues, but he also has a lot of clinical experience to draw on. His desire to help people in a practical way really shines through a lot of his output.
Oh yes, used to watch his lectures, the ones that made him (in)famous. Sound advice, well-reasoned and well-argued and what is very clear to me (since I used the same technique with students) is that he not only contructs his arguments but also tries to pick them apart well before any lecture. The scientific process of the humanities, nowadays almost completely gone or declared as heretical.
For some reason, there's always some students who thinks that they have thought of something new and radical (I was like that as a teen), only to learn that nope, it's neither new nor radical - just to them. The next step is typically "If only"-style logic to make the 'new' idea work. Sadly, most stop there no matter where they are politically. If only everyone agreed to share communism would work. If only everyone agreed to non-aggression principle libertarianism would work. If only the laws of physics were under the control of public opinion... (You're a physicist I gather, you'd love debating professor Moira von Wright - a professor of pedagogy and pro-rector of a the most woke swedish college for several years, who famously stated that gravity is a social construct - yes, for real. The founder of her line, George Wright who emigrated from Dundee to Narva in the 17th century must be spinning in his grave.)
On thing Peterson stated which is certainly true, and very tragic is when you meet a patient who starts rattling off how many therapists, psychologist and psychiatrists they've graced over the years, not being listened to, but that they now meeting you finally has found someone who understands them: "Run. Run away immediately. Get up and leave the office."
The behaviour - shopping for therapists - is a tell for psychopathic narcissism, though not for severity. This is also exactly how feminist groups work, something I've seen from the inside (sociology truly is the most evil of sciences).