Current Events > turns out Jordan Peterson is an awful therapist too

(+) Yeah! (+)

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

What if... now hear me out, what if he has positive and negative traits like the majority of people?

True, but much like Trump, people seem to exacerbate the negative traits about Peterson.
---

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

like are you guys trying to submit the dumbest posts in 2018 or what
---

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

like are you guys trying to submit the dumbest posts in 2018 or what

Because the TC omitted details that were relevant to the story and changes his behavior from unethical to callous (at worst), specifically because he's trying to discredit JP as a person, which is why the discussion has been about the general validity of the arguments JP makes and the issue of trying to discredit him rather than his arguments.
---

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

Because they can't actually read, mostly.
---

BLAKUboy posted...

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

Because they can't actually read, mostly.

which is largely why they buy into ol' Jordy's bullshit in the first place
---

averagejoel posted...

BLAKUboy posted...

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

Because they can't actually read, mostly.

which is largely why they buy into ol' Jordy's bullshit in the first place

Why bother reading when you can get educated through YouTube clips? Because that's totally the same thing and requires little to zero effort
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

averagejoel posted...

BLAKUboy posted...

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

Because they can't actually read, mostly.

which is largely why they buy into ol' Jordy's bullshit in the first place

Why bother reading when you can get educated through YouTube clips? Because that's totally the same thing and requires little to zero effort

the "totally the same thing" part makes me think this is satire, but otherwise it's well within the realm of what an actual supporter would say
---

averagejoel posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

averagejoel posted...

BLAKUboy posted...

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

Because they can't actually read, mostly.

which is largely why they buy into ol' Jordy's bullshit in the first place

Why bother reading when you can get educated through YouTube clips? Because that's totally the same thing and requires little to zero effort

the "totally the same thing" part makes me think this is satire, but otherwise it's well within the realm of what an actual supporter would say

I forgot the /s tag
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

averagejoel posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

averagejoel posted...

BLAKUboy posted...

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

Because they can't actually read, mostly.

which is largely why they buy into ol' Jordy's bullshit in the first place

Why bother reading when you can get educated through YouTube clips? Because that's totally the same thing and requires little to zero effort

the "totally the same thing" part makes me think this is satire, but otherwise it's well within the realm of what an actual supporter would say

I forgot the /s tag

poe's law, man. shit's scary
---

so was asking for specific criticisms just a smokescreen or have I been dismissed/ignored like the OP
---

Balrog0 posted...

so was asking for specific criticisms just a smokescreen or have I been dismissed/ignored like the OP

Let's be honest, specific criticism doesn't matter. At the end of the day, Jordan Peterson is just being used as the new figurehead of anti-SJWism. Everything else is this weird appeal to authority.
---

Balrog0 posted...

so was asking for specific criticisms just a smokescreen or have I been dismissed/ignored like the OP

fwiw I appreciated your post, although obviously i'm not the target
---

At this point Peterson fans are the same as Trump supporters. No amount of information on him will ever dissuade their idolism

Balrog0 posted...

so was asking for specific criticisms just a smokescreen or have I been dismissed/ignored like the OP

I was waiting for the person you responded to to address them, but I'll take a stab. I think a key problem with your response, and Axiom above is a perfect example of this at work, is "Peterson said this wrong thing here, so I'm going to ignore every argument he makes on every topic."

First off let me just lay this down as a foundation: He's said stupid things. He's not an expert in every field, and that leads to things like the infamous lobster analogy. I'd argue you're losing the forest for the trees, though. He says very clear, concise things like "hierarchies must exist in society" or "the individual is paramount in western societies" but then he'll make a lobster or dragon analogy... and THAT becomes the focal point of criticism. Then people see the one dumb thing, hear that he's "anti SJW", and decide that rather than deal with specific points they're just going to handwave his entire career away.

Or take your comment about "woman wanting to be dominated"... this probably ties back to when he let that reporter shadow him for a day and he made the mistake of using specific academic terminology... it's not that hes "redefining words", but he's using academically appropriate words... the kind you'd expect to see in a peer reviewed journal, around people that aren't going to interpret it the same way. That's his fault for not speaking to his audience, but it STILL doesn't make his arguments wrong. It just makes them a bit harder to unravel. Don't fall to the same "so what you're saying is..." level of the people looking rewrite his arguments to make them sound bad.
---

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology
---

Jordan Peterson has some great stuff

He says some stuff I disagree with

Like every other public intellectual...what the hell is with the binary thinking

fwiw I tend to agree with JP more than I disagree. I've watched his maps of meaning lectures, his personality lectures, and his biblical lectures and they are really fun and engaging.

Its a damn shame the politics gets in the way of just enjoying someone's interesting train of thought...but he brings it upon himself since he likes doing interviews with knucklehead journalists who really are trying to trap him in an aha moment...but he's pretty good about not letting it happen.

I'm going to see him at the end of the month and my wife was kind enough to get us VIP tix to meet him for a Father's day gift. If you like lateral thinking about some outside the box ideas on psychology, religion, ideology, and personality, his lectures are fantastic. He talks a lot in metaphor (he says this is really the only way he can describe the metaphysical shit he's discussing) so be prepared

Balrog0 posted...

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology

I wouldn't agree that his most popular argument is to conflate neo marxism with post modernism. I'd say it's either:
1. compelled speech laws, which got him famous in the first place
2. identity politics being incompatible with western ideals of individualism
3. the role of responsibility versus rights
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology

He's responded many times to the fact that he knows post modernism and marxism are incompatible

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

In case you're interested

s0nicfan posted...

He's not an expert in every field, and that leads to things like the infamous lobster analogy

But it's not argued as an analogy. He's literally trying to argue certain things work in certain ways in humans because they work in lobsters that way. But the argument is extremely flawed and shallow.
---

Liberals are so triggered by Jordan Peterson. Its great.
---

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

He's not an expert in every field, and that leads to things like the infamous lobster analogy

But it's not argued as an analogy. He's literally trying to argue certain things work in certain ways in humans because they work in lobsters that way. But the argument is extremely flawed and shallow.

His lobster argument is simply to show that dominance hierarchies are older than humans and clearly not brought about by "the patriarchy"

Romes187 posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

He's not an expert in every field, and that leads to things like the infamous lobster analogy

But it's not argued as an analogy. He's literally trying to argue certain things work in certain ways in humans because they work in lobsters that way. But the argument is extremely flawed and shallow.

His lobster argument is simply to show that dominance hierarchies are older than humans and clearly not brought about by "the patriarchy"

Seems strange to devote an entire chapter to standing up straight in relation to lobster physiology and serotonin then.
---

what's weird is everyone acts like they have never said anything wrong...the guy has put 100's of hours of his thoughts out there.

it would be a miracle if everything was 100% perfect...but the hostility which he gets is weird

COVxy posted...

Romes187 posted...

COVxy posted...

s0nicfan posted...

He's not an expert in every field, and that leads to things like the infamous lobster analogy

But it's not argued as an analogy. He's literally trying to argue certain things work in certain ways in humans because they work in lobsters that way. But the argument is extremely flawed and shallow.

His lobster argument is simply to show that dominance hierarchies are older than humans and clearly not brought about by "the patriarchy"

Seems strange to devote an entire chapter to standing up straight in relation to lobster physiology and serotonin then.

Did you read the book yet? or even the chapter? Did you notice how much he talks about dominance hierarchies in that chapter? Please tell me you actually read the chapter....because the last topic I kept asking you if you did and you said you didn't want to

so...like I don't know where to go from here guy.

Pillowpantz posted...

Liberals are so triggered by Jordan Peterson. Its great.

uhhhhh most of his audience is liberal. he himself is what I would describe as "peak liberalism"
---

Romes187 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology

He's responded many times to the fact that he knows post modernism and marxism are incompatible

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

In case you're interested

The only argument he makes here is that Foucault and Derrida were Marxists even though they protested that description, because their formulation of societal relations reminds him of Marxism. He doesn't explain why they are or why he thinks they are, just that they are even though he knows they can't be both, and even though he knows both claim not to be.

This didn't help me understand him at all
---

Balrog0 posted...

Romes187 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

I'm on mobile so hopefully I can respond more fully when I have more time but I don't think that he is. doing that for the most part. The fact that his most popular ideological argument is to conflate neo Marxism and post modernism despite the lack of academic acceptance that those are the same thing seriously undercuts that argument, IMO, though I still admit to not being an expert in evolutionary psychology

He's responded many times to the fact that he knows post modernism and marxism are incompatible

https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/

In case you're interested

The only argument he makes here is that Foucault and Derrida were Marxists even though they protested that description, because their formulation of societal relations reminds him of Marxism. He doesn't explain why they are or why he thinks they are, just that they are even though he knows they can't be both, and even though he knows both claim not to be.

This didn't help me understand him at all

If viewing society as governed by power relations doesn't speak of Marxism to you I'm not sure what else to say. I guess it's a difference of opinion.

But it'd hard to deny the ideologues who are attempting to get rid of categories (say, gender) don't also have a Marxist slant to them

But I guess we all see what we see

Again, all this is secondary to his maps of meaning lectures. I'd really recommend those if you're interested in understanding where he's coming from. If not I get it (it's about 40 hours of lectures) but they helped me see his viewpoint

Or also - see the radical subjectivism that is taking over in some cases...your opinion counts more if you are group X, because power differences.

Seems straightforward to me

Godnorgosh posted...

Postmodernists do not necessarily deny the possibility of knowledge.

How can knowledge exist without objective truth (a claim made by the postmodernists)

I guess it depends on how you are defining knowledge

Godnorgosh posted...

Romes187 posted...

Godnorgosh posted...

Postmodernists do not necessarily deny the possibility of knowledge.

How can knowledge exist without objective truth (a claim made by the postmodernists)

I guess it depends on how you are defining knowledge

Postmodernism is characterized by a skepticism and rejection of (at least some of) the assumptions of modernism in particular, which is not the same as the radical skeptic's rejection of the possibility of knowledge in general.

One of those is grand narratives. Which means they don't believe there is any path to objective truth. So while they may believe it exists, we can't create any tools to find it. So how would we go about gaining knowledge in the post modernist viewpoint would be my next question, assuming it's possible

Did someone really call him a fascist ITT? That's why I don't take accusations of fascism seriously.

Why are sjws so obsessed with Peterson?

Romes187 posted...

If viewing society as governed by power relations doesn't speak of Marxism to you I'm not sure what else to say. I guess it's a difference of opinion.

so I still do want to respond more fully to s0nicfan and dont really have the time or inclination to do that as of yet, but this is exactly the problem, though

the other side: you don't see how defending hierarchies and specifically the patriarchy makes him alt-right?

his side: you don't see how believing X actually means he's a Marxist?

Isn't that the same thing?

you don't get to be the dude who wants to be the adult in the room and then lower your rhetoric down to the absolute lowest level like that
---

Balrog0 posted...

the other side: you don't see how defending hierarchies and specifically the patriarchy makes him alt-right?

He doesn't defend hierarchies. He says they exist, and not because of the patriarchy.

This is a big problem with critics of Peterson. Saying something exists does not equate to defending.... He wants to solve or at least ameliorate the inequality that does occur due to hierarchies, but thinks the aim is way off target.

And not sure of your point on the Marxism claim. Iyo does viewing society as a set of power struggles lend itself well to Marxist doctrine?

Balrog0 posted...

the other side: you don't see how defending hierarchies and specifically the patriarchy makes him alt-right?

his side: you don't see how believing X actually means he's a Marxist?

Isn't that the same thing?

No.

There's a fundamental difference between the two, both in level of effort put into their arguments and on the intended effect of the conclusion. "The other side" is trying to bucket him in with the same label that's also reserved for the KKK and using that as justification for deplatforming him. "his side" believes that Derrida's deconstructionist movement shares a lot of common ground with marxism in part due to his marxist background, and that's reason to question the efficacy of those specific policy positions being proposed by that movement. Derrida literally wrote a book on how to inherit "the spirit of marxism". It's literally called something like the Spectre of Marxism.

There's far more nuance to "his side's" argument than his detractors, and "his side" isn't attempting to silence anyone. It's like comparing a basic math problem and calculus and saying they're the same because they're both math.
---

the only difference is that you guys agree with him and are therefore more charitable towards his arguments
---

And he does defend hierarchies, don't be silly. He doesn't idealize them but he specifically claims that they arise because of differences in competence rather than the dynamics of 'power' per se
---

Balrog0 posted...

the only difference is that you guys agree with him and are therefore more charitable towards his arguments

The argument against him goes like this

1. There is inequality in our society
2. This inequality tends to displace minorities and women more than men and whites
3. Systemic racism and the patriarchy are solely or mostly to blame
4. Jordan Peterson does not believe this to be the case
5. Jordan Peterson does believe that systemic racism and the patriarchy do create SOME hierarchies based on power instead of authority, but that most sustainable long term hierarchies are based on competence
6. Therefore he is defending systemic racism / the patriarchy

Where I differ is that last point...I don't feel like he is defending things.

What say you

Balrog0 posted...

And he does defend hierarchies, don't be silly. He doesn't idealize them but he specifically claims that they arise because of differences in competence rather than the dynamics of 'power' per se

Interesting...do you disagree with that claim?

And you equate that to defending?

Balrog0 posted...

the only difference is that you guys agree with him and are therefore more charitable towards his arguments

How the hell can I be more charitable towards "Peterson is a secret alt-right figure even though he openly and repeatedly claims to be left wing"? Like... where's the nuance that allows me to even consider additional charity?

Seriously, are you actually arguing that there's no difference between a debate on Derrida's particular ideological slant and a label given with little justification?
---

Discussion of hate and political factions aside:

I'm sure Jordan Peterson is right about some things sometimes. But the problem is that he can be very wrong about others; and even more critically, his reasoning when arriving at conclusions is also questionable.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Discussion of hate and political factions aside:

I'm sure Jordan Peterson is right about some things sometimes. But the problem is that he can be very wrong about others; and even more critically, his reasoning when arriving at conclusions is also questionable.

And there is value in engaging with each argument individually, as you and others in this topic have said they do. There's no value in trying to slap a label like "alt right" on him and using that as justification to dismiss every single argument he makes.
---

So just to summarize: No one is going to even try to defend him being a shitty therapist, throwing his patients to the wayside just so he could be a "celebrity"?
---

BLAKUboy posted...

So just to summarize: No one is going to even try to defend him being a shitty therapist, throwing his patients to the wayside just so he could be a "celebrity"?

s0nicfan posted...

ShutTheF---_Up posted...

Can someone explain to me why people are responding to a topic displaying how unethical JP was at his mental health profession with "LMAO WHY ARE LIBRULS SO BUTTHURT BOUT DIS GUY GAWD"

like are you guys trying to submit the dumbest posts in 2018 or what

Because the TC omitted details that were relevant to the story and changes his behavior from unethical to callous (at worst), specifically because he's trying to discredit JP as a person, which is why the discussion has been about the general validity of the arguments JP makes and the issue of trying to discredit him rather than his arguments.

---

I thought Balrog0 and I were having a good conversation :)