Social Is there something wrong with Jordan Peterson?

[Sano]

For a smart person, Peterson says a lot of dumb stuff. He's been wrong on so many accounts it's staggering and he clearly either doesn't understand the literature he cites or he deliberately misinterprets it.

 

[AWilder]

For a smart person, Peterson says a lot of dumb stuff. He's been wrong on so many accounts it's staggering and he clearly either doesn't understand the literature he cites or he deliberately misinterprets it.

How dare you make such accusations without any evidence!!!!

 

[James Bomb]

I took a quick look at the videos and whatnot. The first one appears to be about Trump.

Maybe you should go and read it again. It covered comments that Jordy made about the incel van killer. His defenders will always say “it’s just academics, you’re not understanding him” but Peterson’s views on this topic, as usual, aren’t shared by mainstream academics.

The 2nd one is just him responding to something the manosphere said. He reframes their qualm into what he thinks is rooted in something deeper.

what he responds with is a lame attempt to reinforce the manosphere’s original misogynistic argument. What citations does he have to support this conclusion?

With regard to the quote about female leadership, I am not sure what you find misogynistic about it. Acknowledging gender differences in personality (some of it being sexually selected) isn't being a misogynist. My own sisters would agree with Peterson's response. We have had similar conversations about that topic.

There are lots of strong female leaders worldwide, and the trend is clearly going in the opposite direction of Peterson’s hypothesis.

And with the growing gender gap in higher education, it’s likely that the leadership gap will end up flipping the other way.

I don’t really know what your big sisters agreeing with you has to do with anything.

Some of you apply a rather 1st year urban feminist's perspective about what it means to be a misogynist. Maybe you can be more specific.

You sound like a 14 year old Jordan Peterson fan that fell in love with his squeaky voice on Joe Rogan’s podcast and mashed on that like and subscribe button ever since.

The idea that you guys won’t even concede that Peterson is a misogynist is hilarious. Because it’s obvious that he is, you’ll move the goalposts to “well, misogyny isn’t bad, it’s just traditional values” and “women will eventually go back to traditional roles because they were happier”.

All of this pointless legwork to defend a fad scientist that stole your heart between commercials for manscaping and male enhancement products.

 

[gspieler]

My bad, meant to tag @gspieler

All I did was ask you for a source to a claim you made, because it sounded absurd. Took you like 10 posts of deflecting, ad hominems, “oh man I’m too busy living life to post”(as you continue to post), etc. to provide anything. Then when you finally do, the source doesn’t even remotely support your claim.

If you meant the claim as humor; fair enough. But you can’t just admit that, so you keep doubling down and wasting people’s time. Offer something of substance, or stop tagging me.

 

[Limbo Pete]

"I think Jordan Peterson is a muppet voiced pig-douche."
"bUt WhEre Is yOuR SOuRce?!?"

 

[gspieler]

How dare you make such accusations without any evidence!!!!

Yeah, because saying “Petersen says dumb stuff” and “Petersen supports rape” are totally equivalent.

 

[Bojka]

Maybe you should go and read it again. It covered comments that Jordy made about the incel van killer. His defenders will always say “it’s just academics, you’re not understanding him” but Peterson’s views on this topic, as usual, aren’t shared by mainstream academics.


what he responds with is a lame attempt to reinforce the manosphere’s original misogynistic argument. What citations does he have to support this conclusion?


There are lots of strong female leaders worldwide, and the trend is clearly going in the opposite direction of Peterson’s hypothesis.

And with the growing gender gap in higher education, it’s likely that the leadership gap will end up flipping the other way.

I don’t really know what your big sisters agreeing with you has to do with anything.


You sound like a 14 year old Jordan Peterson fan that fell in love with his squeaky voice on Joe Rogan’s podcast and mashed on that like and subscribe button ever since.

The idea that you guys won’t even concede that Peterson is a misogynist is hilarious. Because it’s obvious that he is, you’ll move the goalposts to “well, misogyny isn’t bad, it’s just traditional values” and “women will eventually go back to traditional roles because they were happier”.

All of this pointless legwork to defend a fad scientist that stole your heart between commercials for manscaping and male enhancement products.

I haven't watched a Jordan Peterson video in months. I usually only follow his videos about Canadian specific topics as he's the only prominent Canadian conservative political commentator.

Women becoming more represented in leadership isn't any indication that it should be 50:50 especially when those increases are largely being met with DEI initiatives. Justin Trudeau for example making half his cabinet female by default "because it's 2015" is no indication that there aren't average differences with regard to how much men and women will sacrifice to be at the very top or how well they tolerate the stress of being there.

Girls are doing better in school, but that isn't a proxy for leadership potential or even desire since, as a student, you are a pure subordinate. It isn't like males and females study the same things anyway and it isn't like all degrees are equivalent.

But, speaking of how we "sound," since I like to have some idea about who I'm arguing with, I looked up some of your past posts on here and in virtually every single one you are e-fighting with someone. But I'm the "14 year old." I actually used to be like you around the age of 14. lol. Using buzz words like "junk science" ad nauseam doesn't make you some kind of intellectual.

 

[AWilder]

All I did was ask you for a source to a claim you made, because it sounded absurd. Took you like 10 posts of deflecting, ad hominems, “oh man I’m too busy living life to post”(as you continue to post), etc. to provide anything. Then when you finally do, the source doesn’t even remotely support your claim.

If you meant the claim as humor; fair enough. But you can’t just admit that, so you keep doubling down and wasting people’s time. Offer something of substance, or stop tagging me.

You're still not addressing the evidence. Quite the dick tuck. I'll send you a target gift card.

 

[Sano]

How dare you make such accusations without any evidence!!!!

Unironically I have a lot of sources after I spent time looking into his scientific claims including lobster anatomy, primate hierarchies, IQ testing, climate change and so on. Seems like he's moved onto full blown culture war nonsense at this point though. Although that has always informed his world view.

 

[AWilder]

"I think Jordan Peterson is a muppet voiced pig-douche."
"bUt WhEre Is yOuR SOuRce?!?"

You called Jordan Muppet. Well where is your evidence? Where is the stick on his hand? Is Jim Henson elbow deep in his ass? Where's the evidence?

 

[gspieler]

You're still not addressing the evidence. Quite the dick tuck. I'll send you a target gift card.

Yes. I watched the clip. At no point does he mention anything resembling a promotion of rape. He specifically denounced it, and suggests we change our perceptions of it, so that men can be thought of as “protectors” of women. It sounds like mostly overly-worded nonsense, but cannot by any reasonable means, be thought of as an endorsement of rape(it’s actually the opposite; where it might be construed as mysogonistic is in the assumption that women are incapable of defending themselves in a “man’s world”, for lack of a better term).

I watched it once, so probably more nuance there then my interpretation. But certainly you using that clip as evidence of endorsement of rape is a comically bad attempt at critical thought.

Anyway, I’m done spending time replying to a low-level troll. That is all.

 

[AWilder]

Yes. I watched the clip. At no point does he mention anything resembling a promotion of rape. He specifically denounced it, and suggests we change our perceptions of it, so that men can be thought of as “protectors” of women. It sounds like mostly overly-worded nonsense, but cannot by any reasonable means, be thought of as an endorsement of rape(it’s actually the opposite; where it might be construed as mysogonistic is in the assumption that women are incapable of defending themselves in a “man’s world”, for lack of a better term).

I watched it once, so probably more nuance there then my interpretation. But certainly you using that clip as evidence of endorsement of rape is a comically bad attempt at critical thought.

Anyway, I’m done spending time replying to a low-level troll. That is all.

At not one point did I say this clip is him endorsing rape. It's an example of his misogynistic rhetoric. Another JBP dork is the one who posted about rape in a strawman argument, which you are now repeating. The clip I shared shows him dismissing female autonomy and equality. He is weirdly trying to make some insane rhetorical argument that rape isn't that bad unless there are men that get mad about it.

 

[Bob Gray]

You have got to be kidding.

The whole “enforced monogamy” theory about violent incel attacks to begin with.

And then there’s his thoughts on the birth control pill


And makeup

And his comments about female leadership.

and lots of other stuff like this:


It’s all a bunch of junk science for dipshits.

Well, look at you, the big free thinker, just hanging off his every word.

Sorry, but the idea that women’s sexual freedom is responsible for violent incel attacks just isn’t supported by scientific research.

Peterson is just trying to duck blame for being part of the corrosive political ideology that is leading to their radicalization.

It’s all junk science, just like his lobster theory.

Well, back from my Magic tournament so I can respond.

First of all, the "enforced monogamy" thing has already been addressed. Its an academic term and if you think he was being misogynistic, or that he was implying that women should be forced into sexual relationships, you dont know what the term means.

On that note, I think we also need to establish what misogynism means. It doesnt mean Peterson has an opinion about women that you dont agree with. It doesnt mean he says something that might be politically incorrect. It doesnt mean that he says something that you personally might argue is sexist. It means he says something that demonstrates an intense dislike or hatred for women as a group. For that reason, Im going to ignore most of what you presented because they have nothing to do with that. Any thing to do with Lobsters or incels or what you might say is junk science has zero bearing on my point. You can argue that every single thing that Peterson has said is factually wrong and, even if you were correct, you still wouldnt contradict my point. So lets stay on topic here. I notice lot of time that if you defend something Peterson says, detractors will throw a million things at you and if you cant defend every one of them then you're WRONG.

I have to guess as to what your arguments are because you dont present any. You just give a big info dump of others peoples arguments and then drop the mic and walk off like you proved something.

The first two videos I dont even know what you're claiming is misogynist. The first one hes talking the polarization of the two parties. But I guess you only meant the latter vid in the post. The poster says hes arguing that birth control led to the destruction of western civilization If this was not a strong enough indication that the poster was an idiot or just completely dishonest, I have no idea what to say. I honestly dont think you watched either vid because neither one of them do anything to argue that Peterson has said anything misogynist. Again, I can only guess as to what you're actual argument is because you present none. Theres nothing about the breakdown of western civilization. WTF? It does mention the breakdown of the institution of marriage. Nor is there anything about women being "robbed" of motherhood (the poster is using quotes for a term Peterson never actually says, further demonstrating the blatant dishonesty). I think youve been duped by a someone using sensational hyperbole.


You post something about makeup and then link a 9 minute video without context. What is your argument?


As far as whatever it is youre trying to present about leadership, again you just present an entire article without and context or argument. What did he say that you are presenting as misogynism?

As for "brutal male domination", of course its a snippet of a greater conversation without context. I remember him bringing it up and he was surmising on why feminists dont focus on fixing areas where there actually is such brutal male patriarchies, like the middle east. He said, as a psychologist, hes interested in what the psychosis of that hypocrisy is and where it comes form. He said the unconscious often desires the opposite of what you seek consciously. Feel free to disagree with it, but it isnt mysogynist. If you want greater context, youll have to spend more than 15 seconds on it:




If you want the entire conversation, which I doubt you do, its here. Middle east conversation pops up around 6 mins



To sum it up, you either dont present an argument, dont understand the argument being made (like thinking Enforced monogamy means something that it doesnt), or you're posting something that has nothing to do with the point.

 

[Bob Gray]

I doubt there many if any people around here who have been exposed to as much Peterson material as I have, I used to be a big fan. I had all his lectures on my phone and listened to them on my commutes.

Despite my liberal leaning, I never had a problem with his interactions with liberals. He was always rational and chose his words consistently and logically. I didn't spend too much time looking at his politics because I didn't care, and even when I saw complaints about his messaging I always gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Those days are over. From C16 on he realized how much money was to be made creating content for the anti SJW algorithm, he even bragged that he'd monetized social justice warriors. Do you know why he left YouTube? He was protesting the banning of Carl Benjamin and was going to try to create his own "free speech" platform with Dave Rubin.

I doubt any of us has any idea what he actually thinks, but I do think he's in it for the money. Nobody taking a critical look at these past five years of so can fail to see it, and apparently he has a questionable history going back decades.

Breaks my heart, really. A Harvard educated professor with a history in Montreal who for years preached a common sense message of personal responsibility, I loved his calm approach when dealing with liberal protestors.

Peterson is very careful with his vocabulary so defending him on technicalities isn't very compelling, judge him by his actions not his words. He aligned himself with anti-feminists years ago and I didn't think much of it, I just steered clear of the people his algorithm recommended.

Are you still defending Matt Walsh?

Will you defend Carl Benjamin? Stefan Molyneux? Dave Rubin?

You posted a lot of info but I dont think a lot of it is relevant to what Im saying. Like I said above, defending Peterson often means people give you a bunch of points or quotes and if you dont cant defend all of them than you're WRONG.

Is he in it for the money? At this point, yeah, definitely. Aligning with Daily Wire definitely hurt his credibility as a left leaning or even centrist minded intellectual. Although I havent actually seen any of his DW content so I cant comment on it. However being right wing or even being employed by DailyWire doesnt mean youre a misogynyst.

Defending Matt Walsh against what? Will I defend these other guys? Well, it depends on what the criticism is. I would also need to find out who Carl Benjamin was.

 

[Bob Gray]

He's saying more or less the same stuff, just with a more hysterical tone because he's off his meds.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone more ad hominem'd and straw man'd than Jordan Peterson.

He strikes me as a really eccentric thinker. They can say things that are really interesting and also go off on some tangents that are pretty wild. I have people like that in my family. My dad can watch Jeopardy and get literally every question correct, but having normal, casual conversation with him can be pretty difficult. He wants to only talk about certain things, doesnt really follow conversations very well and will constantly segue the topic at hand to whatever topic he wants to talk about, generally with long, pontificating monologues. He cant be succinct to save his life.

Peterson kind of reminds me of that but he sort of alternates between not being succinct and also being too succinct and his point needs elaboration.

 

[Andy Capp]

He strikes me as a really eccentric thinker. They can say things that are really interesting and also go off on some tangents that are pretty wild. I have people like that in my family. My dad can watch Jeopardy and get literally every question correct, but having normal, casual conversation with him can be pretty difficult. He wants to only talk about certain things, doesnt really follow conversations very well and will constantly segue the topic at hand to whatever topic he wants to talk about, generally with long, pontificating monologues. He cant be succinct to save his life.

Peterson kind of reminds me of that but he sort of alternates between not being succinct and also being too succinct and his point needs elaboration.

The term you're looking for is attention whore, I think.

 

[m25105]

serious question, why are some of you fans of memerson? He's considered an intellectual midget amongst his peers. His "sort yourself out" self help books is nothing original, he's clueless about marxism yet speaks on it as if he an expert, and his daughter from what I understand banged Tate during his cam girl timeline.

 

[Lead]

I’ve noticed since starting Twitter than anyone who I’ve followed before Twitter will be less pleasant than the other medium I knew them on. Short responses encourage snarkiness and there’s also a lot of pile ons to boot. What’s worse is some of these people I definitely wouldn’t have expected it from. I never understood when I’d hear a pundit say “I’m taking a break from Twitter” but see it now. Makes people in jerks on a routine basis and in the rare instance they stay above it, there will be a constant on slaught of jerks coming at them.

 

[EndlessCritic]

He's considered an intellectual midget amongst his peers.

Off topic: What's the name of the logical fallacy where you appeal to authority but don't even name the authority you're appealing to?

 

[Bob Gray]

Off topic: What's the name of the logical fallacy where you appeal to authority but don't even name the authority you're appealing to?

Pretension