Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[yebiga]

I just watched this. The uncut version seems no better. The only difference is he says something and then tries to repeatedly weasel out of what he just said.

He honestly seems somewhat intellectually cowardly. If anyone ever attacks his weirdly misogynistic point then he keeps insisting he didn't say what he just implied. At least in the edited version it makes him look like he has some sort of conviction.

I noticed my friend who loves him was doing the same thing when I spoke to her. She would imply something heavily and then go back on it when I questioned it and insist she never said it. Intellectual dishonesty.

You know a genius still remains a flawed human - with all the frailties we all are riddled with?

 

[Monkey King]

I found it on Rationalwiki. There were a few eyebrow raising things there for example how he believes snakes motifs from antiquity are related to the double helix and how women who complain about sexual harassment at work are hypocrites if they're wearing makeup. Nonetheless, I will watch the earlier recommendations tonight.

I sense this is a misrepresentation. Can you provide a direct quote for where he actually says this?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

I sense this is a misrepresentation. Can you provide a direct quote for where he actually says this?

It's in the video and then also the following video where we continued to discuss the quote.

 

[Monkey King]

It's in the video and then also the following video where we continued to discuss the quote.

No it’s not. Amidst several minutes of explanation, he answered affirmatively to a question posed by the interviewer and that question wasn’t “are women who complain about sexual harassment hypocrites if they wear makeup”.

Peterson’s position seems pretty clear from his paradigm; not wanting sexual harassment in the workplace but partaking in sexual display in the workplace aren’t congruent positions.

 

[yebiga]

No it’s not. Amidst several minutes of explanation, he answered affirmatively to a question posed by the interviewer and that question wasn’t “are women who complain about sexual harassment hypocrites if they wear makeup”.

Peterson’s position seems pretty clear from his paradigm; not wanting sexual harassment in the workplace but partaking in sexual display in the workplace aren’t congruent positions.

I think that needs editing
To :not want sexual flirtation in the work place is not congruent with sexual display.

 

[Monkey King]

I think that needs editing
To :not want sexual flirtation in the work place is not congruent with sexual display.

Unwelcomed sexual flirtation is otherwise known as ... ?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

No it’s not. Amidst several minutes of explanation, he answered affirmatively to a question posed by the interviewer and that question wasn’t “are women who complain about sexual harassment hypocrites if they wear makeup”.

Peterson’s position seems pretty clear from his paradigm; not wanting sexual harassment in the workplace but partaking in sexual display in the workplace aren’t congruent positions.

The question verbatim is: 'Do you feel a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace that she is somewhat being hypocritical?'

He says yes and then waffles on about how makeup is makeup is a sexual display. Of course, he ignores that women don't only wear makeup to sexualise themselves.

If you disagree, do you think that male newsreaders use makeup on camera to sexualise themselves?

 

[Monkey King]

The question verbatim is: 'Do you feel a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace that she is somewhat being hypocritical?'

He says yes and then waffles on about how makeup is makeup is a sexual display. Of course, he ignores that women don't only wear makeup to sexualise themselves.

If you disagree, do you think that male newsreaders use makeup on camera to sexualise themselves?

Verbatim, it appears you’ve reverse engineered his one word response to this question and distilled it into a “Peterson believes” misrepresentation. This was my whole point to begin with when asking you for a quote that matched your claim. There isn’t one. What we have is a question, an answer to that question, and further elucidation which you’ve now consigned to being merely “waffles on”.

Of course not all makeup is a sexual display and I sure hope you’re not suggesting that this is Peterson’s belief. I mean, he’d have celebrated enough Halloween’s to realise that surely?

Peterson provided examples of what he sees as constituting sexual display. So if you can do likewise and provide me with some examples of male newsreaders wearing red lipstick, high heels and rouge, then I’ll have a genuine example from which to answer your question in the correct context.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Verbatim, it appears you’ve reverse engineered his one word response to this question and distilled it into a “Peterson believes” misrepresentation. This was my whole point to begin with when asking you for a quote that matched your claim. There isn’t one. What we have is a question, an answer to that question, and further elucidation which you’ve now consigned to being merely “waffles on”.

Fair but I really don't believe his qualification added much more value to the discussion. I think it would be more relevant if we were discussing this in an era where makeup was a new development but this just seems like he wants to remove all nuance from why women wear makeup.

Peterson provided examples of what he sees as constituting sexual display. So if you can do likewise and provide me with some examples of male newsreaders wearing red lipstick, high heels and rouge, then I’ll have a genuine example from which to answer your question in the correct context.

That's a fair point. I didn't consider the obvious differences there.

 

[Monkey King]

Fair but I really don't believe his qualification added much more value to the discussion. I think it would be more relevant if we were discussing this in an era where makeup was a new development but this just seems like he wants to remove all nuance from why women wear makeup.

That's a fair point. I didn't consider the obvious differences there.

I think his qualification is more core to his belief than his one syllable response to a question phrased by another person.

Peterson comes from a discipline that has, at times, elicited some pretty strange responses from people placed in certain situations, for which they may be able to rationalise post hoc, but neither explain nor predict. While people bristle at the notion of not always being the conscious agent of their own actions, you can’t dismiss this as being integral to the paradigm from which Peterson speaks.

To properly respond to your point though, I’d need to know what nuance exactly you think Peterson is removing?

 

[yebiga]

Unwelcomed sexual flirtation is otherwise known as ... ?

Flirtation interruptous?

 

[yebiga]

I think his qualification is more core to his belief than his one syllable response to a question phrased by another person.

Peterson comes from a discipline that has, at times, elicited some pretty strange responses from people placed in certain situations, for which they may be able to rationalise post hoc, but neither explain nor predict. While people bristle at the notion of not always being the conscious agent of their own actions, you can’t dismiss this as being integral to the paradigm from which Peterson speaks.

To properly respond to your point though, I’d need to know what nuance exactly you think Peterson is removing?

I sense he is unconscious on a number of levels regarding his thoughts. Brilliant and naive at the same time. His own biography seems somewhat sheltered as his clearly not comfortable discussing women at all. He has nt thought thru as he has the male archetypes. He flounders with the subject of females.
Similarly, the core of his thoughts have innumerable ramifications which he is at best dimly conscious of.
And this too stems from a somewhat sheltered Canadian biography- or so it seems to me.

I imagine his post grads will develop his ideas to their fullness in time.

 

[VicPark Bitter]

Unwelcomed sexual flirtation is otherwise known as ... ?

I busted a move that was rebuffed ie: I'm not interested /Sorry I'm married

 

[Monkey King]

I sense he is unconscious on a number of levels regarding his thoughts. Brilliant and naive at the same time. His own biography seems somewhat sheltered as his clearly not comfortable discussing women at all. He has nt thought thru as he has the male archetypes. He flounders with the subject of females.
Similarly, the core of his thoughts have innumerable ramifications which he is at best dimly conscious of.
And this too stems from a somewhat sheltered Canadian biography- or so it seems to me.

I imagine his post grads will develop his ideas to their fullness in time.

Aren’t we all to some degree?

I haven’t read his books. I watched a handful of videos a while back, but I don’t follow his online content. So without identifying what you consider his core thoughts and their ramifications, there’s not much else I can respond to. Although I will say, one may flounder with a subject overall and it not exclude them from valuable insights in isolation.

Is Peterson a graduate professor? I wouldn’t have thought so.

 

[yebiga]

Aren’t we all to some degree?

I haven’t read his books. I watched a handful of videos a while back, but I don’t follow his online content. So without identifying what you consider his core thoughts and their ramifications, there’s not much else I can respond to. Although I will say, one may flounder with a subject overall and it not exclude them from valuable insights in isolation.

Is Peterson a graduate professor? I wouldn’t have thought so.

In a number lectures interviews he alluded to working collaboratively with graduates.

The core of his ideas are a different kind of expansion on social/cultural/theological Darwinism informed by myth narrative and modern psychology

I’m especially taken with his analysis of myths and bible stories to reveal meta human truths and merging it with heiddegers phenomenology

That’s pretty cool stuff

If he is right - and I believe it all feels right - at least - then there are significant ramifications for :- religion, capitalism/economics, politics, childhood development, education, marriage... and more I’m sure.

Take religion for example - the new atheists like Dawkins would do well to heed JPs ideas. JP fills the gap or weakness in their thoughts - namely properly explaining the persistence of religion in the face of its own failing. Rather than being petulant and dismissive JPs ideas enable them to retain the profundity of religion without conceding to the existence of god.

I could go on but it’s xmas eve

 

[Snake_Baker]

Peterson & Rubin are leaving Patreon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp9ZJiFFBnU

 

[CheapCharlie]

Peterson & Rubin are leaving Patreon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp9ZJiFFBnU

Not sure how they can replace patreon
The attempts that have been made are basically blocked by paypal and the like.
Even a slow move away would surely cost them $$

 

[Snake_Baker]

You either have principals. or you don't.

 

[ShanDog]

You either have principals. or you don't.

I agree, but there's a point where it's better to lose the battle than forfeit the war. Not always easy to tell with battle to pick - that's the biggest problem.

 

[Taylor]

I think it's a high risk but potentially massive reward.

I think they are setting up their own facility for it.

That will make them money not just directly from contributions to them, but also the fees and percentage cut from anyone else who comes across to their platform.

So demonetised by YouTube, cut off by patreon and pushed into an even stronger financial position.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I agree, but there's a point where it's better to lose the battle than forfeit the war. Not always easy to tell with battle to pick - that's the biggest problem.

They're too big to falter now.

 

[fleabitten]

Looks like I might be going to see the man when he's in Melbourne. My daughter bought tickets to go with her boyfriend but now they've broken up. I'm looking forward to being heckled outside the venue more than anything else.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I agree, but there's a point where it's better to lose the battle than forfeit the war. Not always easy to tell with battle to pick - that's the biggest problem.

Peterson claims he has lost about 25% of his patreons since the Sargon bans started (might be wrong on that stat). Will those 25% reappear if they can pay direct to Peterson?
They are setting up direct web pages with donations options. Rubins page is easier to use than Petersons at the moment. You can use credit card or paypal for both, but Petersons looks like its is Bitcoin only on his setup.
Creators lose 7-15% with Patreon with processing fees etectera, so there might be a higher return if receiving donations direct, but what % of people will migrate over?

WIll Paypal ban payments to these guys? be interesting what happens there.

There needs to be an alternative to Patreon for people that they can have one central place to control everything. There have been a number come and go, and supporters will get jaded if having to continually change who they use

 

[Snake_Baker]

Jordan has enough coin already anyway.

If I had to choose, I would sponsor someone needier who Patreon/Paypal have censored.

 

[ShanDog]

Jordan has enough coin already anyway.

If I had to choose, I would sponsor someone needier who Patreon/Paypal have censored.

It's a good point actually - he is making a LOT of money. I mean, good for him and no issue with that, but while his Patreon money is a significant amount, it's relatively small compared to how much he makes with book sales, tours and his other business ventures. Might be better to give elsewhere if you inclined to.