Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Run n Spread]

The populist left is overpopulated with morons that are easy pickings for the likes of Peterson.

I'd actually like to see him debate someone of his intellect, like the very impressive David Graeber.

Not bad. Thing is thou Peterson is a trained Psychologist. So his answers to these things come from his research, experience and his specialisation in anthropology and behaviour. And that is his a handy perspective on economics to have or anything. This guy isn't bad but he is looking more at human organisation rather than behaviour.

Thing is when the lefties try debate him they always pick up on something he says which they don't like, veer the debate off course to his territory and unsurprisningly get swatted.

Dude has his head so far up his own arse it's ridiculous.

Of course he does. He has essentially become world famous giving a standard 9-5 lecture and debating people who have NFI what they're talking about.

Jordan does seem to spend a lot of time hanging out with complete nuts.

maybe it reinforces his own self image,

There are some good speeches and lectures he gives. But if he debated the opposing view on anthropology or the evolution of human behaviour it would be as boring as bat s**t and attract no one. So he just debates those who don't know what they're saying.

Needs to debate another doctor or one of the rouge specialists who questions the validity of psychology as a science. Then he would be forced to justify his claims (some are good, some are bad imo like anyones) in a more detailed way.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Not bad. Thing is thou Peterson is a trained Psychologist. So his answers to these things come from his research, experience and his specialisation in anthropology and behaviour. And that is his a handy perspective on economics to have or anything. This guy isn't bad but he is looking more at human organisation rather than behaviour.

Thing is when the lefties try debate him they always pick up on something he says which they don't like, veer the debate off course to his territory and unsurprisningly get swatted.

Graeber isn't a "leftie", he's an anarchist (a proper one, not the w***er version).

 

[Run n Spread]

Graeber isn't a "leftie", he's an anarchist (a proper one, not the w***er version).

Wasn't referring to him specifically. But Graeber is debating economic theory Peterson is not.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Needs to debate another doctor or one of the rouge specialists who questions the validity of psychology as a science. Then he would be forced to justify his claims (some are good, some are bad imo like anyones) in a more detailed way.

I'd of thought psychology to belong more in the realm of the humanities, rather than any scientific field....I know the behavioural sciences attempt to legitimise themselves on measurable & verifiable actions & behaviours, but really, these guys are just kidding themselves & are out of touch with the true metaphysical nature of all things pertaining to human conscious behaviour.....In other words, they attempt to both justify & legitimise their field of endeavour prefaced upon a shoddy assumption to begin with, in handing over to the sciences by default, the grounds of any ontological efficacy - when it comes to human behaviour - whatsoever.....Peterson does not attempt to dissuade himself from the traditional metaphysical roots, upon which the humanities is grounded within.

And all the more power to him I say.

 

[ShanDog]

I'd of thought psychology to belong more in the realm of the humanities, rather than any scientific field....I know the behavioural sciences attempt to legitimise themselves on measurable & verifiable actions & behaviours, but really, these guys are just kidding themselves & are out of touch with the true metaphysical nature of all things pertaining to human conscious behaviour.....In other words, they attempt to both justify & legitimise their field of endeavour prefaced upon a shoddy assumption to begin with, in handing over to the sciences by default, the grounds of any ontological efficacy - when it comes to human behaviour - whatsoever.....Peterson does not attempt to dissuade himself from the traditional metaphysical roots, upon which the humanities is grounded within.

And all the more power to him I say.

I disagree - you can certainly quantify and study human behaviour with the scientific method underpinning the process and produce accurate and informative results. There's a gap between that and metaphysics that can't be bridged though. They are equally valid epistemological approaches that should inform each other, not be pitted against each other.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I disagree - you can certainly quantify and study human behaviour with the scientific method underpinning the process and produce accurate and informative results. There's a gap between that and metaphysics that can't be bridged though. They are equally valid epistemological approaches that should inform each other, not be pitted against each other.

I guess that's where so many of the critiques on Peterson emanate from, given he seems to have a foot in each camp or, a 'bob each way' so to speak....Of both the Platonic/Jungian/Rationalist tradition combined with the Aristotelian/Empirical one.....Hence the charge of pseudo-scientism.

FWIW, I reckon he manages to achieve a rather balanced & happy amalgam between both the visible & invisible.....The metaphorical & the practical. Which is rather what his job entails anyhow.....The knitting together of our physical being & our spiritual being into an integral whole.

 

[ShanDog]

I guess that's where so many of the critiques on Peterson emanate from, given he seems to have a foot in each camp or, a 'bob each way' so to speak....Of both the Platonic/Jungian/Rationalist tradition combined with the Aristotelian/Empirical one.....Hence the charge of pseudo-scientism.

FWIW, I reckon he manages to achieve a rather balanced & happy amalgam between both the visible & invisible.....The metaphorical & the practical. Which is rather what his job entails anyhow.....The knitting together of our physical being & our spiritual being into an integral whole.

Yes exactly. It's why I enjoy listening to him, particularly when talking about his subject matter expertise - meaning making, mythology and psychology. I don't know of anyone else who ties together those subjects in the way he does with the scientific and the philosophical.

 

[pugsville]

Peterson missing the point, saying dumb things as usual. Saying the people need purpose and the money isn't a problem. Well poverty is a problem. Lackc of money in capitalist society is a problem. His dismssal saying give people purpose/ people cannot leave by bread alone. Misses the fundamental point they need the Bread, purpose wont work without it. Yup meaningful lives does help. Buyt his deflected onto another topic. The whole piont of universal income is to enable people so they don't have doubt uncertainly, grinding poverty and sigma of not working, which will help people find a purpose. His sidetracking to relevancy and actually address teh question is typical of the stream of consciousness non debate style of the Peterson.

he goes on to say that one of his clients had a drug problem and only when he had money was it really a problem, implying that poverty solves drug problems.
really? does anyone not just see the problem with incredibly dumb statements like that? Drug addicts don;'t resort to crime when they can no longer legitimately support their habit? Sure Petersen may well be right about this one case. But it as a general rule it is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[its free real estate]

Peterson missing the point, saying dumb things as usual. Saying the people need purpose and the money isn't a problem. Well poverty is a problem. Lackc of money in capitalist society is a problem. His dismssal saying give people purpose/ people cannot leave by bread alone. Misses the fundamental point they need the Bread, purpose wont work without it.

No one in capitalist societies wants for bread. Feeding people is a solved problem, and capitalism is really good at it, if not the absolute best system at it.

The question with UBI is: what do people do with their free time? Hopefully, they spend it fruitfully. But in the US, people on welfare and disability have spiralled into opioid dependency and death.

UBI might feed people, but it might also create a massive underclass that has no means to escape their station in life.

 

[Taylor]

Misses the fundamental point they need the Bread, purpose wont work without it

It seemed more to me that he thought through it a bit further than putting money in people's hands when they find their jobs replaced by machines.

The issue to him will be finding a purpose for these people more than simply providing for their survival.

In the hypothetical future society of abundance and no need to work, will we be happy? If you consider universal basic income not as a financial mechanism but as a providing of your basic needs directly, will human beings find contentment in that world without purpose.

 

[Todman]

Peterson missing the point, saying dumb things as usual. Saying the people need purpose and the money isn't a problem. Well poverty is a problem. Lack of money in capitalist society is a problem. His dismissal saying give people purpose/ people cannot leave by bread alone. Misses the fundamental point they need the Bread, purpose wont work without it. Yup meaningful lives does help. But his deflected onto another topic. The whole point of universal income is to enable people so they don't have doubt uncertainly, grinding poverty and sigma of not working, which will help people find a purpose. His sidetracking to relevancy and actually address the question is typical of the stream of consciousness non debate style of the Peterson.

There are signs in National Parks "Do not feed the animals" because it will mean that the animals will scavange rather than hunt for food.

Don't give money to beggars because if the picking are good then they will stay and not move on. Why get a job when you sit there and do nothing and still make good coin which is tax free and cant be checked and affect your centrelink benefits.

 

[pugsville]

No one in capitalist societies wants for bread. Feeding people is a solved problem, and capitalism is really good at it, if not the absolute best system at it.

The question with UBI is: what do people do with their free time? Hopefully, they spend it fruitfully. But in the US, people on welfare and disability have spiralled into opioid dependency and death.

UBI might feed people, but it might also create a massive underclass that has no means to escape their station in life.

The Whole idea of UBI is empower rather than to create an underclass rather than live in a perpetual emergency payment, to provide the security so a future can be planned rather relentlessly short term outlook that fundamentally does nothing to address the problem.

 

[pugsville]

It seemed more to me that he thought through it a bit further than putting money in people's hands when they find their jobs replaced by machines.

The issue to him will be finding a purpose for these people more than simply providing for their survival.

In the hypothetical future society of abundance and no need to work, will we be happy? If you consider universal basic income not as a financial mechanism but as a providing of your basic needs directly, will human beings find contentment in that world without purpose.

No one is advocating the straw man that people can live by bread alone. Does not mean the bread is somehow not an issue. He has not shown any thought at all. How does the current welfare system empower people to find meaning in their lives. He

Welfare has stigma, is designed as a short term emergency, and reduces the agency of those receiving. Welfare/Unemployment from centrelink focuses on bureaucracy and the job seeker justifying their existence and meaningless hoops to jump through that are waste of time and effort for everyone concerned. Teh whole idea of UBI is reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and clutter and empower the individual able to take long term control over there lives.

 

[FireKrakouer]

The Whole idea of UBI is empower rather than to create an underclass rather than live in a perpetual emergency payment, to provide the security so a future can be planned rather relentlessly short term outlook that fundamentally does nothing to address the problem.

Less people in the workforce means wealth is being generated by less people. If the 1% of elites own all the robots and automation companies doing the work, then they will run the world with an iron fist. What are the 99% on UBI going to do about it? "Would you guys, who are doing all the work, please tax yourselves more so that your wealth is more on par with us?"
The 1% would just laugh and turn off the robot fleet that is keeping that district alive.

This is why providing incentive to keep people skilled and working is so important.

There's a reason that communism always fails, and UBI would be even worse. It would be Hunger Games-esque.

 

[pugsville]

Less people in the workforce means wealth is being generated by less people. If the 1% of elites own all the robots and automation companies doing the work, then they will run the world with an iron fist. What are the 99% on UBI going to do about it? "Would you guys, who are doing all the work, please tax yourselves more so that your wealth is more on par with us?"
The 1% would just laugh and turn off the robot fleet that is keeping that district alive.

This is why providing incentive to keep people skilled and working is so important.

There's a reason that communism always fails, and UBI would be even worse. It would be Hunger Games-esque.

Sigh Really have you not thought about things at all? It's about the structure of income support for those not in long term employment. Are people best kept struggling form payment to payment in an emergency welfare system or in a longer term setup that enables to get on with their life. UBI actually empowers people to help them find meaningful occupation and direction rather than the borderline poverty and perpetual emergency of welfare, which is the key concept behind the idea that Peterson has failed to grasp at all.

 

[its free real estate]

No one is advocating the straw man that people can live by bread alone. Does not mean the bread is somehow not an issue. He has not shown any thought at all. How does the current welfare system empower people to find meaning in their lives. He

Welfare has stigma, is designed as a short term emergency, and reduces the agency of those receiving. Welfare/Unemployment from centrelink focuses on bureaucracy and the job seeker justifying their existence and meaningless hoops to jump through that are waste of time and effort for everyone concerned. Teh whole idea of UBI is reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and clutter and empower the individual able to take long term control over there lives.

Don’t you think that having your entire income provided by UBI will have a stigma?

 

[pugsville]

Don’t you think that having your entire income provided by UBI will have a stigma?

The Idea that it's universal. That segments of the population cannot be isolated the way they are now.
It's not necessarily;y a complete magic bullet for the stigma side of things, but I think the carnage of mindset would generally be positive on teh psychological front. It would help some, how much hard to say.

 

[Toump Ass]

I don't believe the UBI derives people of purpose.

You want a beautiful house and a large automobile? Travel the world? You're not going to get it spending your basic income on drugs (especially in this country where we charge more than anyone else in the world for some stepped on cocaine).

How many people are satisfied with a s**t job with less responsibility and money just because they have enough to live?

I don't mind some of Peterson's work but he goes a bit mental in this one. Sounds like my old maths teacher cracking it because no one could be ****ed doing their homework.

"BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE PURPOSE, THAT'S WHY HE'S IN A DITCH SEE?

 

[Richard Pryor]

Politics aside, not sure about associating with this con artist:

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Dude has his head so far up his own arse it's ridiculous.

He is rediculous.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Politics aside, not sure about associating with this con artist:

"On brand" as they say.

The guy appeared in friggin PragerU clips, it's just pure grift.

 

[CheapCharlie]

 

[ShanDog]

I think the language barrier played big part in communication between Peterson and a couple of the guests, particularly the female politician. Bit of a shame but hard to do anything about.

 

[eastfreo75]

Peterson missing the point, saying dumb things as usual. Saying the people need purpose and the money isn't a problem. Well poverty is a problem. Lackc of money in capitalist society is a problem. His dismssal saying give people purpose/ people cannot leave by bread alone. Misses the fundamental point they need the Bread, purpose wont work without it. Yup meaningful lives does help. Buyt his deflected onto another topic. The whole piont of universal income is to enable people so they don't have doubt uncertainly, grinding poverty and sigma of not working, which will help people find a purpose. His sidetracking to relevancy and actually address teh question is typical of the stream of consciousness non debate style of the Peterson.

he goes on to say that one of his clients had a drug problem and only when he had money was it really a problem, implying that poverty solves drug problems.
really? does anyone not just see the problem with incredibly dumb statements like that? Drug addicts don;'t resort to crime when they can no longer legitimately support their habit? Sure Petersen may well be right about this one case. But it as a general rule it is complete and utter nonsense.

UBI seems have been a success in second and third world countries.

Do you have any successful examples in the first world? do you have links?

By the way, I like both Petersen and UBI.

Calling someone dumb because they have concerns that UBI may destroy motivation to better yourself is pretty closed minded.

 

[pugsville]

UBI seems have been a success in second and third world countries.

Do you have any successful examples in the first world? do you have links?

By the way, I like both Petersen and UBI.

Calling someone dumb because they have concerns that UBI may destroy motivation to better yourself is pretty closed minded.

I did not call Peterson dumb, I said he was saying dumb things which may seem an overly fine distinction but they are two different things, I think Petersen is a smart man, but often says dumb things. Exactly why is hard to say. maybe it's call outs to his base who fund him.

To wit.

Talking about UBI and saying man cannot live by bread alone is missiing the point no one is arguing that particular straw man., but they cannot live without Bread which is the question UBI is concerned with and Petersen totally fails to engage with the core concept here. Saying the UNI misses the point that people need goals and motivation is to miss the point.

And his example of his client with drug problems as some sort of straw man that people are better off with poverty. Really, does anyone thing that drugs problems are solved by simple application of poverty? It's incredibly dumb, naive and stupid things to say.

are you saying Petersen did not say these things or that they were not dumb and missing the point?