Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[ShanDog]

Peterson is not a figure for debate based upon his use of empirical data. That's one of the hats he tries to wear, but none of it has come up in anything Ive seen or read other than his personality traits explanations. I'd like to see how he defines agreeability or the other ones, but that isn't why he is being debated.

Regarding the personality stuff, you should be able to find that info in papers he's written if you have access through universities/schools still. It's pretty rigorous.

I think the multiple subject area aspect of what he does is (usually) a strength. What's the old saying? "A well rounded man is a warrior, artist and philosopher"? When you want to tackle existential issues you need to draw from many angles to support and inform. You can't be expert in all, but it's far more impactful and holistic if done well. A single lens approach to anything will only ever produce an image framed by that lens.

Whether he gets it all right or not is a different issue.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Peterson is not a figure for debate based upon his use of empirical data.

Then it can't be dismissed either.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I'm just waiting for someone to accuse him of being a Christian-Scientist now......Oh wait, I think Chief, he of unmatched wisdom, already did that.

One can have an appreciation for Peterson's work without being a fanboi about it.

There's plenty there to both agree & disagree with him on.....Not sure all these 'scientific critiques' are quite on the mark though....They rather more miss the point altogether.

Oh noes, he uses mythology, allegory & metaphor.....Ring the arbitration police quick-smart.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If you follow the news stream, it seems that virtually every right-thinking left-leaning (pun intended) journalist, blogger, and social media maven agrees: Peterson is an alt-right wolf in professorial sheep’s clothing, a self-serving charlatan who dresses up old-school misogyny, racism, and elitism in faux-intellectual, fascist mystical garb.

I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm…

The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels…

The Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it…

I realize that Peterson has at times said things that I disagree with and might even find offensive. But I’m much more concerned with—and disgusted by—the endless stream of tendentious and dishonest articles from leftists critics that grab onto such statements and blow them out of proportion, while aggressively erasing everything else the man has ever said or done from the record.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/25/jordan-peterson-left-wing-smear-machine/

 

[Moshie The Mook]

His momentum is such that every criticism is automatically viewed as a leftard smear campaign.

He has put in the hard yards though.

The fuse is lit. Burn baby burn.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Actually, almost all of the criticisms I have seen are "leftard", in the sense that they are intellectually baseless and emotionally driven. The EQ on display is in deficit. He's a threat, they know it, they can't intelligently neutralise him, so they engage in absurd extrapolations and schoolyard bully smear campaigns.

The greatest threat to the "radical left" politically is that Peterson has become a polarising agent in "left" politics as he resonates with traditional "left" leaning folks (of which I would include myself to some extent). The world can thank Trudeau's radical stupidity for creating the "new left's" version of Frankenstein's monster, otherwise this bloke would still be pottering around his university campus, lecturing and researching in relative anonymity.

 

[Procrastinator35]

His momentum is such that every criticism is automatically viewed as a leftard smear campaign.

He has put in the hard yards though.

The fuse is lit. Burn baby burn.

Why must you turn everything into a Pepsi/Cola competition?....Hegelian dialectical lackey.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Actually, almost all of the criticisms I have seen are "leftard", in the sense that they are intellectually baseless and emotionally driven. The EQ on display is in deficit. He's a threat, they know it, they can't intelligently neutralise him, so they engage in absurd extrapolations and schoolyard bully smear campaigns.

The greatest threat to the "radical left" politically is that Peterson has become a polarising agent in "left" politics as he resonates with traditional "left" leaning folks (of which I would include myself to some extent). The world can thank Trudeau's radical stupidity for creating the "new left's" version of Frankenstein's monster, otherwise this bloke would still be pottering around his university campus, lecturing and researching in relative anonymity.

Peterson is such a calm voice of moderate reason in today's media.

When he is interviewed by women in mainstream media, they nearly always veer towards definitions of feminism and equality of opportunity. When he gives a reasoned and initialled answer they ignore the entirety of his answer and push on with their 'feelings' on the issue.

Peterson's views are far from radical, far from sexist, and it's this moderacy that has attracted such an audience who feels they have someone who is speaking common sense

 

[Contra Mundum]

Interesting review in the TLS: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/

 

[Chief]

Interesting review in the TLS: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/

top lobster, by contrast – occupying the best shelter, getting some good rest, finishing a good meal – parades his dominance around his territory, rousting subordinate lobsters from their shelters at night, just to remind them who’s their daddy. The female lobsters (who also fight hard for territory during the explicitly maternal stages of their existence) identify the top guy quickly, and become irresistibly attracted to him. This is brilliant strategy, in my estimation. It’s also one used by females of many different species, including humans.​

Peterson’s advice is primarily directed towards, and has resonated with, a very particular audience: those predominantly white, straight, cis, and otherwise privileged men who fear being surpassed by their historical subordinates – people of colour and white women, among others – and losing their loyal service. Greater equality of opportunity is of course a necessary condition and symptom of social progress. (Although it is very far from sufficient when it comes to social justice – and such progress is often concentrated in the upper echelons of society.) But new opportunities and better odds for at least some members of historically subordinate social groups cannot be expected to come as good news to all of history’s traditional winners. It may result not only in disappointment and shame among some of them, but also resentment and violent outbursts among others. Peterson recognizes the existence of these corrosive reactions, but not their social locus. When it comes to diagnosing and treating these ills, he misses the mark spectacularly.

(Just a quote to make sure none of his fans in this thread read the article )

 

[ShanDog]

Interesting review in the TLS: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/

Leaving aside the obvious ideological foundation for the critiques, Im not sure the author has considered the main chapter she takes umbrage with against the others. For instance, she highlights Peterson's recognition of heirarchy as too encompassing and then takes him to task for not recognising that very element to the racist mass shooters and incel guy. It's the same thing, just different heirarchies they found themselves at the bottom of and soight vengeance for.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Leaving aside the obvious ideological foundation for the critiques, Im not sure the author has considered the main chapter she takes umbrage with against the others. For instance, she highlights Peterson's recognition of heirarchy as too encompassing and then takes him to task for not recognising that very element to the racist mass shooters and incel guy. It's the same thing, just different heirarchies they found themselves at the bottom of and soight vengeance for.

What is the “obvious ideological foundation”? ....but lobsters


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ShanDog]

What is the “obvious ideological foundation”? ....but lobsters


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Something something white males, something something patriarchy, something something smash.

 

[CheapCharlie]

top lobster, by contrast – occupying the best shelter, getting some good rest, finishing a good meal – parades his dominance around his territory, rousting subordinate lobsters from their shelters at night, just to remind them who’s their daddy. The female lobsters (who also fight hard for territory during the explicitly maternal stages of their existence) identify the top guy quickly, and become irresistibly attracted to him. This is brilliant strategy, in my estimation. It’s also one used by females of many different species, including humans.​

Peterson’s advice is primarily directed towards, and has resonated with, a very particular audience: those predominantly white, straight, cis, and otherwise privileged men who fear being surpassed by their historical subordinates – people of colour and white women, among others – and losing their loyal service. Greater equality of opportunity is of course a necessary condition and symptom of social progress. (Although it is very far from sufficient when it comes to social justice – and such progress is often concentrated in the upper echelons of society.) But new opportunities and better odds for at least some members of historically subordinate social groups cannot be expected to come as good news to all of history’s traditional winners. It may result not only in disappointment and shame among some of them, but also resentment and violent outbursts among others. Peterson recognizes the existence of these corrosive reactions, but not their social locus. When it comes to diagnosing and treating these ills, he misses the mark spectacularly.

(Just a quote to make sure none of his fans in this thread read the article )

The term 'cis' male or female is a real turn off for me

 

[Chief]

The term 'cis' male or female is a real turn off for me

I don't even know what it means, so it can't hurt me.

 

[ShanDog]

I don't even know what it means, so it can't hurt me.

You only don't know because you are one, full of all that privilege.

 

[Chief]

You only don't know because you are one, full of all that privilege.

I lied. I do know.

 

[CheapCharlie]

I don't even know what it means, so it can't hurt me.

Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Cisgender may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex".[1] It is the opposite of the term transgender.[2][3]

Related terms include cissexism and cisnormativity.

 

[fleabitten]

Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Cisgender may also be defined as those who have "a gender identity or perform a gender role society considers appropriate for one's sex".[1] It is the opposite of the term transgender.[2][3]

Related terms include cissexism and cisnormativity.

In other words, about 99.5% of the population.

 

[CheapCharlie]

In other words, about 99.5% of the population.

99.99% really
Cis gender is a word that doesnt need to be used
I cringe a little when people do

 

[Taylor]

Cis is normal, standard.

Trying to label the norm is to grant status to the different, the label of both means they are both categories of the total "us". Equal parts as equal definitions of how we are, by labelling the different without the norm you segregate them and that those segregated feel bad for that difference - but labeling both (or all) everyone fits a group, there is no longer a normal. Normal is to be in a group and the groups are different.

In reality the power of the different is apparent in any society. Different is interesting. When different is not something to be ashamed of, or perceived to be something of that nature, it is celebrated and championed. It makes that person stand out and they allow their difference to embody their personality.

The embodiment of their difference in their personality doesn't require the perception of acceptance though, I question the health of doing it at all.

I am a mother, a woman, a white person, a Black, a great lay, a partner, an Australian.

There is comfort in defining myself by any of those, but that is hiding from the reality.

I am Taylor. I'm not good enough at some things, I am at others. I am definition fluid.

Humanity is on a quest to find meaning in the random, to find a place to hide from the dangers against a giant, cold glass mirror. Desperate not to look at it in case we see ourselves for the monsters we all can be.

Rambles rambles rambles

 

[Scotland]

99.99% really
Cis gender is a word that doesnt need to be used
I cringe a little when people do

It's essentially an 'except for' function.

And a load of nonsense.

 

[ShanDog]

Cis is normal, standard.

Trying to label the norm is to grant status to the different, the label of both means they are both categories of the total "us". Equal parts as equal definitions of how we are, by labelling the different without the norm you segregate them and that those segregated feel bad for that difference - but labeling both (or all) everyone fits a group, there is no longer a normal. Normal is to be in a group and the groups are different.

In reality the power of the different is apparent in any society. Different is interesting. When different is not something to be ashamed of, or perceived to be something of that nature, it is celebrated and championed. It makes that person stand out and they allow their difference to embody their personality.

The embodiment of their difference in their personality doesn't require the perception of acceptance though, I question the health of doing it at all.

I am a mother, a woman, a white person, a Black, a great lay, a partner, an Australian.

There is comfort in defining myself by any of those, but that is hiding from the reality.

I am Taylor. I'm not good enough at some things, I am at others. I am definition fluid.

Humanity is on a quest to find meaning in the random, to find a place to hide from the dangers against a giant, cold glass mirror. Desperate not to look at it in case we see ourselves for the monsters we all can be.

Rambles rambles rambles

Almost as though group identity isn't as important as individuality!

If only some smooth talking academic would come out and really say that...

 

[Procrastinator35]

Almost as though group identity isn't as important as individuality!

If only some smooth talking academic would come out and really say that...

Hey dude.....Don't we all follow & support a group identity on these boards?....In fact, isn't that the shared common-denominator for why we're all here on big footy in the first place?

oopsies.

 

[Taylor]

Hey dude.....Don't we all follow & support a group identity on these boards?....In fact, isn't that the shared common-denominator for why we're all here on big footy in the first place?

oopsies.

And our worst moments are when we blindly follow the crowd of our group over the rational, considered alternative.