Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You have no response to this.

His IQ doesn't defeat my argument.

The notion that it does is dependent on your intellectual credibility as the person making the argument.

The fact you are wanting to compare IQs on a football forum means you've essentially ruled yourself ineligible to be considered intelligent.[/QUOTE]

Then why are you making arguments on a footy forum?

Run along and attend your Jenny Craig meeting.

You also screwed up a simple quote which makes your post unreadable. Get your broke arse act together.[/QUOTE]
Dude. You're bragging about your IQ on a football forum.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The great shame is that there were a couple of bits which actually would have been interesting if they were given more thought and explanation, and not sandwiched in between the typical smug critique style of one-upmanship writers.

Whaddya gunna do mate?

A hell of a lot of people are threatened by him and will do whatever they can to take him down.

Well, aside from undermine his actual statements. They don't seem to be able to do that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Then why are you making arguments on a footy forum?

Run along and attend your Jenny Craig meeting.

You also screwed up a simple quote which makes your post unreadable. Get your broke arse act together.

Dude. You're bragging about your IQ on a football forum.

No I wasn't bragging about my IQ. I just pointed out you have a few issues.

You spend so much time here it is almost sad.

I would offer to help with your personal problems via PM, but really, what would be the point?

WTF are you on about champ?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

There is a shitload of rubbish intellectual floggery among Peterson fans. It's not just incels justifying why they can't get a root, it's genuinely weird imitation screeds. And plenty have this weird habit of making pictures or weird arty images of ole Jordy. It's cultish.

It's not all his supporters, just more than a few. Why are they attracted to him and his ideas? They convince each other they're elite, high IQs etc.

Im actually a lot more on board with his ideas than most lefties. But he attracts some weird campaigners.

 

[ShanDog]

There is a shitload of rubbish intellectual floggery among Peterson fans. It's not just incels justifying why they can't get a root, it's genuinely weird imitation screeds. And plenty have this weird habit of making pictures or weird arty images of ole Jordy. It's cultish.

It's not all his supporters, just more than a few. Why are they attracted to him and his ideas? They convince each other they're elite, high IQs etc.

Sure, probably a fair bit of truth that.

So?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Sure, probably a fair bit of truth that.

So?

Why?

 

[ShanDog]

Why?

Why does that happen? Probably because I think Peterson fills a massive chasm that has opened up between science and mythology, and left and right politics. There's a shitload of people in the middle of those polar opposites who just don't know. And for the first time I can really think of, someone with credentials who can captivate people with his speaking is actually saying the things that brings those people together and validates their middle-ness. That can make you feel pretty good. It can probably appeal to the egotists among them too.

But again - so? Why does it matter what a minority of chumps do? Aren't we always talking about not using the exception as the rule when it comes to other stereotypes and social issues? Why do the bad egg followers matter? What should matter is what he has to say.

 

[EasternTiger]

Why does that happen? Probably because I think Peterson fills a massive chasm that has opened up between science and mythology, and left and right politics. There's a shitload of people in the middle of those polar opposites who just don't know. And for the first time I can really think of, someone with credentials who can captivate people with his speaking is actually saying the things that brings those people together and validates their middle-ness. That can make you feel pretty good. It can probably appeal to the egotists among them too.

But again - so? Why does it matter what a minority of chumps do? Aren't we always talking about not using the exception as the rule when it comes to other stereotypes and social issues? Why do the bad egg followers matter? What should matter is what he has to say.

Maps Of Meaning is flawless.

 

[AM]

That's not at all what it looks like to anyone reasonable.

So your notion of reasonable is to attack the author! A very accomplished one who academic and highly regarded lawyer Josh Bornstein regards as “one of the best writers”, and doing so without showing one iota of rigour. Different definition of reasonable to mine but one that would no doubt appeal to the Peterson flock.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Why does that happen? Probably because I think Peterson fills a massive chasm that has opened up between science and mythology, and left and right politics. There's a shitload of people in the middle of those polar opposites who just don't know. And for the first time I can really think of, someone with credentials who can captivate people with his speaking is actually saying the things that brings those people together and validates their middle-ness. That can make you feel pretty good. It can probably appeal to the egotists among them too.

But again - so? Why does it matter what a minority of chumps do? Aren't we always talking about not using the exception as the rule when it comes to other stereotypes and social issues? Why do the bad egg followers matter? What should matter is what he has to say.

You're projecting here. And I say this as Western chauvinist; he appeals to me in many ways. But he is not appealing to their middleness. When he wears his political figurehead hat, he knows exactly who he is appealing to.

But it's more than that. When you read some of these forums, the focus of the fans is so often on who is worthy enough to post. Who's IQ is high enough to be treated seriously. Who isn't 'elite'. Which groups aren't elite. They're wanting to erect an online moat between the elite and the rest. They'll post some bit of nonsensical word soup showing off to the page that they should be considered among the elite.

Even socialists would agree in the notion of a hierarchy of competence. But these rusted on Peterson fans would argue these hierarchies are permanent, unchanging. Im sure you can see the root of an undemocratic politics embedded in this.

You're read more of this bloke than I have. Is this a misreading of him, or the logical extension?

 

[EasternTiger]

They'll post some bit of nonsensical word soup showing off to the page that they should be considered among the elite.

ShanDog don't get suckered in.

 

[Chief]

I say, I say, I say.

I don't know. What does he say about children born inside unstable relationships?

It’s OK if Peterson has holes in his dogma. He isn’t perfect.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[EasternTiger]

It’s OK if Peterson has holes in his dogma. He isn’t perfect.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Maps of Meaning showed has no holes.

You actually need to read some of his stuff before you criticise. If you haven't read any of his material, then why do you care what he has to say?

 

[ShanDog]

You're projecting here. And I say this as Western chauvinist; he appeals to me in many ways. But he is not appealing to their middleness. When he wears his political figurehead hat, he knows exactly who he is appealing to.

But it's more than that. When you read some of these forums, the focus of the fans is so often on who is worthy enough to post. Who's IQ is high enough to be treated seriously. Who isn't 'elite'. Which groups aren't elite. They're wanting to erect an online moat between the elite and the rest. They'll post some bit of nonsensical word soup showing off to the page that they should be considered among the elite.

Even socialists would agree in the notion of a hierarchy of competence. But these rusted on Peterson fans would argue these hierarchies are permanent, unchanging. Im sure you can see the root of an undemocratic politics embedded in this.

You're read more of this bloke than I have. Is this a misreading of him, or the logical extension?

I feel like his political appeals are driven by altruism. Maybe I'm just a sucker though.

As far as the fans go, I'm in a few FB groups about Peterson. They reflect what's seen here to some degree - online environments bring out the worst in people and they see any exchange as a competition to be won for some reason. Like it matters. I do it sometimes - I'm not perfect. You do it. We all do. In those FB groups and other social media there are plenty of people who genuinely want to hear the ideas and discuss them on merit. Then there's the fringe element who want to position themselves as elitist and all-knowing. And the fringe element who just want to fanboi or character assassinate for whatever reason.

What I'm sure of is that the majority of people just see someone whose ideas are appealing and advice is sound. I don't know why we give in to the shitfight back and forth with the fringe.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Maps of Meaning showed has no holes.

You actually need to read some of his stuff before you criticise. If you haven't read any of his material, then why do you care what he has to say?

No.

It's perfectly fine to state you agree with the premise of a book. To claim something has no holes is cultish nonsense.

 

[ShanDog]

Maps of Meaning showed has no holes.

You actually need to read some of his stuff before you criticise. If you haven't read any of his material, then why do you care what he has to say?

Nobody's work has no holes or areas that aren't 100% right. Peterson would be the first to point that out to you, as he has done in lectures.

 

[EasternTiger]

No.

It's perfectly fine to state you agree with the premise of a book. To claim something has no holes is cultish nonsense.

You are welcome to present the obvious holes in the book.

You can't though. You won't though.

You are too dumb.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I feel like his political appeals are driven by altruism. Maybe I'm just a sucker though.

As far as the fans go, I'm in a few FB groups about Peterson. They reflect what's seen here to some degree - online environments bring out the worst in people and they see any exchange as a competition to be won for some reason. Like it matters. I do it sometimes - I'm not perfect. You do it. We all do. In those FB groups and other social media there are plenty of people who genuinely want to hear the ideas and discuss them on merit. Then there's the fringe element who want to position themselves as elitist and all-knowing. And the fringe element who just want to fanboi or character assassinate for whatever reason.

What I'm sure of is that the majority of people just see someone whose ideas are appealing and advice is sound. I don't know why we give in to the shitfight back and forth with the fringe.

Do you think Peterson has an undemocratic politics embedded in his worldview?

Genuine question. Lots of his supporters do.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You are welcome to present the obvious holes in the book.

You can't though. You won't though.

You are too dumb.

Peterson himself is smart enough to know he'd have holes in his stuff.

 

[EasternTiger]

Nobody's work has no holes or areas that aren't 100% right. Peterson would be the first to point that out to you, as he has done in lectures.

First of all, you need to look for where the holes are. Do you know where they exist?

The bloke studied Nietzsche, Jung, and Freud.

There is no one on this forum that can even unpack where he is right, let alone inform us of where he is wrong.

 

[ShanDog]

First of all, you need to look for where the holes are. Do you know where they exist?

The bloke studied Nietzsche, Jung, and Freud.

There is no one on this forum that can even unpack where he is right, let alone inform us of where he is wrong.

Yes and literally thousands of scholars as equally smart as Peterson have picked holes in all those people he draws on. What makes you think he's the Messiah who has got it all right? You've gone too far down the rabbit hole dude...

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

First of all, you need to look for where the holes are. Do you know where they exist?

The bloke studied Nietzsche, Jung, and Freud.

There is no one on this forum that can even unpack where he is right, let alone inform us of where he is wrong.

If you're not as smart as him (i.e. sub-optimal non-elite IQ), why should your opinion be credible?

 

[EasternTiger]

Yes and literally thousands of scholars as equally smart as Peterson have picked holes in all those people he draws on. What makes you think he's the Messiah who has got it all right? You've gone too far down the rabbit hole dude...

What rabbit hole? The guy is a psychology professor.

He has basically stuck to his circle of competence; oh and free speech.

Cant have anyone questioning free speech.

 

[ShanDog]

Do you think Peterson has an undemocratic politics embedded in his worldview?

Genuine question. Lots of his supporters do.

Absolutely not. Peterson champions the foundational ethical framework of western society, which is where his accusations of traditionalism come up. But the sovereignty of the individual - and by extension IMO democratic process - is central to that. He constantly refers to our current social structure as the best we've yet attained, argues capitalism (while imperfect) has brought an unprecedented amount of wealth to the world and reduced poverty exponentially, and most of all, he's always maintained that the left and right political viewpoints co-existing and keeping each other in check is absolutely necessary to a healthy political system and society. He often talks about how political affiliation is highly correlated to personality aspects (conscientiousness and openness etc) which in turn translates to strengths in different aspects of social building - 'liberals' tend to be high in openness and big on ideas, while 'conservatives' are high in conscientiousness and are very adept at maintaining those systems. It's a symbiotic relationship in some regards. This is the sort of stuff that makes me say Peterson appeals to the centrist.

 

[ShanDog]

What rabbit hole? The guy is a psychology professor.

He has basically stuck to his circle of competence; oh and free speech.

Cant have anyone questioning free speech.

The professor also warned about people claiming to have all the answers, and about low-resolution problem solving which you are engaging in right now by deifying him.