Need a plate of generic, insipid platitudes with a giant helping of bad science and misogyny?
You must log in or register to comment.
One of my favorite examples of Jordan Peterson stupidity is when he was lecturing about some ancient civilization artwork that showed two serpent creatures creating humanity. He said that because the snakes were drawn in a double helix that this ancient civilization knew about and wanted to represent DNA.
Snakes coil around one another in a double helix when they mate. The snake creatures in the art were just fucking.
Source is at 1:15:39 in this vid: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=MPWip62wkrMX_bP7
Stuff like this is why I will never understand people following him. Like, I get it. It’s the bigotry. And when it comes to that, nothing else matters. I understand it on paper.
But at the same time… why? When he’s constantly wrong, or when they have to constantly lie about the things he says, why keep listening to him? Why are they like this?
Because he ‘sounds’ smart, so they latch on to that as their plausible legitimacy as to why what he says must be true.
When he talks/writes, he says a lot of words that communicate nothing. You have no idea what his point is.
Which is a kind of superpower that makes him hard to criticize. Whenever he commits to a fact or something, that’s easy to disprove, and people do it all the time. But, when he just says something about cultural marxism or whatever, it’s so hard to unpack what he’s actually saying that it’s hard to prove he’s wrong.
That lets his followers say that he’s so smart that even the leftist intellectuals can’t take him down. Obviously they don’t understand what he’s saying either, but that doesn’t matter. It lets them adore him as some kind of intellectual hero.
Peterson’s got the act of a public intellectual down pat. He’s never seen without a suit or with a smile, he has a distinguished haircut and a trimmed beard. He shows no sense of humour and uses big sciencey-sounding words.
That lets him have a symbiotic relationship with incels. He makes money selling them things like books, they get to point to a “public intellectual” who’s on their side.
He gish gallops word salads.
But not in an obvious way like say Ben Shapiro. He does it using words that sound plausibly scientificalish.
I just want someone to say to him “So, they say when you truly understand something, you can break it down so that other people can understand it. So, break down what ‘cultural marxism’ is so that one of these poor young men you worry so much about can understand what you mean”.
I’m sure he’d try to deflect, try to gallop, try something. But, I would bet that a good interviewer, just keeping him focused on those two words, would show he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Oh I know this one, it’s called being “Not Even Wrong”
I don’t think so. Not even wrong is for something where you can understand what they’re saying, but what they’re saying is so nonsensical that it’s not even wrong. Peterson instead uses words that seem like they could belong together but that are borrowed from many different fields to end up with something that sounds like it could plausibly mean something if you could unpack the words he’s using, for example, in a debate he said this: “We lose the metaphorical substrate of our ethos.”
That’s not “not even wrong”, it’s just words that have never been used in that order by anyone else, so they could essentially mean anything. Unless you can get him to explain what he means by those words, you can’t say that he’s wrong. But, he’s using those words to deliberately obfuscate what he’s saying, and if you ask him to explain what it means, he’ll just drive the conversation somewhere else.
I can easily deduce from his inability to elaborate, that he has no idea what he means and likes those words together.
A lot of young boys don’t have positive role models and feel lost. I think that, in many ways, we are transitioning as a society and young boys are trying to figure out what it means to be a man.
That said, there are better role models than Peterson. He really seems to think that he has expertise in every area he touches on (and he can’t help but touch everywhere).
Don’t forget the time he wanted to quit benzos to show how masculine he was. His doctors wanted to taper him down so his brain didn’t fry (benzo addiction alters brain chemistry and withdrawal can seriously screw you up or kill you if you stop), but trying to taper off over several years wasn’t manly and powerful. So he flew to Russia and got a few potentially sketchy doctors to put him in a medical coma for a month, and that’s part of why he’s so fucked up now.
Oh, or the part where his daughter convinced him to only ever eat red meat, and literally nothing else.
Even though facing the road to recovery like a man is manlier than an easy band-aid fix where you go nap-nap for a little bit and wake up crazy, but unaddicted.
Thanks for connecting the dots for my dumb ass - it was on the tip of my frontal lobe but I just couldn’t quite make it…
I can only assume he played a bit too much Assassin’s Creed before coming up with that one.
Richard Dawkins has a pretty fun comment about that https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NvzMJqkZV74
That’s hilarious! I had no idea there was more to this. Thanks for sharing.
Now I gotta track down Rogan and Peterson talking about Dawkins.
If you’re a fan of extreme cringe, Jordan Peterson’s podcast episode with Richard Dawkins is the source for all that. But the double helix thing was probably the most entertaining one.
20 minutes of rambling builds up to Jordan Peterson saying he thinks people can comprehend DNA by moving their consciousness down to the micro level. Dawkins just repeats that back baffled. Then before he can even give a proper response, Peterson says: “I have have taken extremely high doses of psilocybin.”
The best cringe.
How the fuck do you “move consciousness” and what is the “micro level”,
I understand all of these words, but they are meaningless in this order!
Holy crap, I just listened to it, it’s a monologue by Peterson. He’s just talking at Dawkins, it’s incredible. Completely oblivious.
Of course Dawkins and Peterson are rubbing elbows, I mean Peterson is basically the top person on Harris’ speed dial.
Isn’t Richard Dawkins a bigger transphobe than Peterson, having literally compared being trans to wearing blackface?
deleted by creator
Because Dawkins shouldn’t get a prize for being merely “Not as insane as the other bigot!”
What’s your understanding? Because he literally had humanitarian awards for basically being the biggest piece of shit ever when it came to women and transpeople, especially if they were both!
Lobster Peterson: “The way these snakes are drawn in resemblance to the structure of DNA, it is evident that ancient civilizations were familiar with the concept of DNA.”
Bro, they fucking
Joke’s on you. The crazy hair guy explained that ancient aliens taught Egyptians how to pyramid dna. Pwned!
It takes a super-advanced alien race to master the forbidden technology of triangles.
I love the hidden racism in those theories. Ancient Egyptians couldn’t possibly have been smart enough to build the pyramids! It must’ve been aliens!
I suppose that’s true for some people.
I revere Ancient Egyptians and think that the disbelief (not denial, mind you) of their accomplishments relates to the sophistication of their math and architecture skills. Same as my disbelief at Ancient Rome’s ability to build a massive colosseum. How anyone could build anything massively impressive that still stands today before the Enlightenment astonishes me.
I love that channel. It’s one of the best channels I’ve discovered all year. A perfect balance of entertainment with deep dives into current hot topics. It’s like John Oliver but triple the length and even more sarcasm.
Really? He’s on the “Ancient Super Humans were Super Geniuses!” pack? I expected him to have a higher level of research than fucking Spirit Science, but naw.
Hell even if they had ladder double helixes the most reasonable explanation would be a laborer did some psychedelics and either blew a priest’s mind with it or decided to incorporate the thing that blew their mind into some detailed work. It’s not difficult structure to imagine while tripping and ancient people sure did trip from time to time.
In general, assume ancient people were on drugs before you assume ancient people had knowledge of the complex structures they didn’t have the tools to observe.
deleted by creator
To be fair, the DNA Helix as we understand it is literally based on an acid trip had by some scientists
Is he the guy that went to Russia for coma treatment?
Yup, to cure benzo habit.
“Depression is a myth; tidy your room. Also, I’ve been clinically depressed for my whole adult life and I shamble from one crisis to another.”
Does he say depression is a myth? And when you get a little respite from the darkness, picking up the depression den a bit feels amazing.
He definitely doesn’t say that.
And then he had to do physical therapy afterwards for months to recover from the medically induced coma that only Russia allows since the rest of the world doesn’t allow the procedure since it isn’t backed by any science.
That guy.
I see a lot of people here talking about how unpersuasive his arguments are. So I think this misses the real issue at hand. Countless young men do find him persuasive. They feel abandoned by everyone else and there is this man who comes along and convinces them he knows “the way”. Talking about how “unconvincing” his arguments are won’t stop this from happening. If anything it will impower in-group type thinking. It’s much more important that we tackle these problems at their source: combat the emotional abandonment of young men
goes out to adopt 1,000 young men
Yes officer that one
Not that young. I mean the 18-35 crowd.
deleted by creator
You can’t solve emotional needs with logic
deleted by creator
You’re trying to tackle the problem at the problem rather than prevent it all together. Peterson is a symptom not the real issue
deleted by creator
Do you? Because educated people still fall for this bullshit.
deleted by creator
I suggest FD signifier’s video as a starting point to familiarize with the issues.
Countless young men do find him persuasive. They feel abandoned by everyone else and there is this man who comes along and convinces them he knows “the way”. Talking about how “unconvincing” his arguments are won’t stop this from happening.
There really isn’t a way to stop this from happening, short of a complete shake up of American culture and government. The only reason young men gravitate towards JP is because he is telling them what they want to hear.
For the first time in American society, young white men with degrees are no longer guaranteed the middle class life they have always been told they deserve. Instead of realizing that that has been the status quo for literally every other person in the country, and that the system is inherently corrupt…
They are told that they should feel angry, they are told they need to fight to maintain the status quo and domination of power. Jordan Peterson isn’t combating the emotional abandoment of men, he’s stoking it. His only care is to maintain the social norms racial and sexual supremacy.
Also… I don’t buy that young men have been emotionally abandoned, at least not moreso than any other time in history. Just compared to 30 years ago when I was a kid, men now a days have a plethora of ways to connecting to people, or seeking help.
It’s the worst kind of job. Taking advantage of developing teens and their self-issues to make money like that.
How did you steal my alt account? I thought I was the only dipshit on here.
He is such a disappointment to me. Early Peterson was just a clinical psychologist who actually gave a shit about men’s mental health. You could filter out his religion and actually get something out of it. Then he turned into… something else.
I think this is right. I always thought of him (when I thought of him at all) as a mostly apolitical self-help guy, then I noticed that he’d become a kind of villain for the left so I looked into it and he really does seem to have gone off the rails at some point.
There’s some kind of radicalizing feedback cycle at work with guys like Peterson --to name only one prominent example-- and I’m not sure that it’s simply that they were always assholes to begin with. You see a similar dynamic with Elon Musk; it’s almost like they take personal offense at any criticism and instead of thinking about it, they just double down.
Some of it is just inherent to being rewarded for certain things. You don’t have to consciously choose to go that way, but whenever you stray that direction you get social and financial feedback.
Yup as an avid TVO watcher he still has a very seminal discussion on “the meaning of man” that I highly recommend to this day.
https://youtu.be/7uYengUXFG0?si=OP_EJrTpYB9EiFFT
The problem as I see it is the kids ain’t alright and men in particular are struggling with this shifting dynamic in the world. He saw it, as do many of us, but Jesus Christ did he fly off the rails once the pronoun debate started.
He’s been oppressed by the soviet propaganda posters he hangs inside his house. You can’t just take those things down! You must remember!
Yes, around a decade (or a bit more) ago I also found him interesting, based on a few short youtube videos or things I’ve read. Was never a fan, but as some other comments mentioned, young men were/are looking for these types of belonging and guidance.
Then I of course grew up, formed my own opinions of the world, and the same time he went further and further to the unhinged side, so yi can’t take him seriously anymore.
Transphobia reliably causes brainrot. It’s weird how much faster and harder the effect seems to be relative to other bigotries, but look at Graham Linehan and how he burned his life to the ground.
deleted by creator
He was so much better 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘰𝘧𝘧.
Nah mate, this now is who he always was.
Yeah you’re not wrong, I just wish there wasn’t a mask.
deleted by creator
I used to like him. I fell for the crap. To my 16 year old brain what he said made a lot of sense. He had a handful of good points, and it made me believe the rest of the shit he peddled.
I see him now, I look back on how I hung onto his words like a lost lamb, and I can only facepalm.
I realised that the only thing he is good at is marketing, not psychology…
It’s understandable - back in the day, he had some reasonable points and an academic veneer. If course, what he was saying tended to have a strong bias, and didn’t stand up to scrutiny, but it’s hard to fault a 16 year old looking for guidance for falling for it. Hindsight is 20 20 - particularly when the negative tendencies ratcheted up rapidly over time.
Since his Russian benzo coma (remember, kids - clean your room and don’t criticise others or systemic issues unless your life is perfect… pay no attention to my crippling addiction as I peddle that advice), things took a hard turn. I honestly think he suffered non-trivial brain damage. He’s far more erratic, bursts into tears at the drop of a hat (while trying to sell “traditional” masculinity, his takes have lost their academic veneer and are self-evidently stupid. There’s a reason he may be stripped of his accreditation.
TL;DR: Peterson went from being a pseudo-intellectual preacher to a lolcow, and (to me) the benzo coma seems to have been the catalyst for that shift.
I didn’t know about the benzo thing. And that was the advice from him I appreciated; the clean your room, etc.
I didn’t realise he was a walking blackout the entire time.
And I think his as following grew, so did his ego, and he began to think he knew way more than he actually did.
Ah well. An oversized ego is as bad as a termite infestation - if you let it grow it’ll eventually make things collapse…
Oversized ego is generally a problem with people who take it upon themselves to give advice to society in general. Sometimes you can work around it. The guy has some interesting things to say, and he’s an eloquent look into the rationalization certain people give for the problematic beliefs they already have.
You just have to learn how to approach these people without thinking they have some special right to think and you don’t, because a little thoughtful examination shows much of what he says for the bs it is. That ability frequently comes with age and self sufficiency, which is probably why ye targets the people he does.
Yeah - it speaks to his long-term lack of principles and integrity, but that’s not on you as a teenager. I’m just glad you grew from it, acknowledged when you were wrong, and grew from it - that’s no easy thing to do.
Being 16 is the best excuse you could have for believing anything that cretin says. You’re good bro.
He has some good advice (and some batshit crazy certainly), but not anything stoics weren’t saying 2300 years ago. And he sprinkles on top of that a weird religious-adjacent theories that are perhaps due to his psychedelic use. People seem to confuse that rambling with wisdom, like they usually do with cult leaders.
Still, I think it’s quite probable that he was a fine psychologist and was completely capable of helping individuals in whatever their struggles were. It’s his moving to a youtube stardom that caused all the problems.
Meh, all of the good advice he gives you can get from some other internet guru that isn’t such a grifter.
“clean your room” and “wash yourself” really aren’t that profound.
I dare say that we have plenty of men (and some women) who need advice as lowly as that. If Peterson reaches them, it could be a net positive. Too bad there’s a lot crap in his advice as well.
I’m still pissed that because he badly quotes and misinterprets Jung all the time, people assume Jung is bullshit by association.
I think that Jung is bullshit for reasons entirely unrelated to JBP. His ideas are interesting, but not scientifically sound.
lots of people thought Jung was bullshit way before JBP came around.
I did what I did for everything, and I took it with a grain of salt. This had the unfortunate side effect of just not following others and keeping up with the latest trends. Oh well, I feel happier than ever before
Removed by mod
But by that logic, there’s a terrifying number of adults who also shouldn’t vote.
How so? An adult has a fully-functioning brain, unlike a 16-year-old.
Anyone above 65 for example.
Even dementia patients still have right to vote.
Removed by mod
And we keep that in check how? I ask because I’ve never seen it done successfully and sustainably - even well intentioned autocracies lead to terrible outcomes in pretty short order.
Voting age should be 25, since that’s the age when your brain becomes fully mature.
Mom: clean your room
Teen: shut up femoid!
JP: you need to clean your room to slay the dragon of chaos
Teen: OMG so true!
Never take advice on personal responsibility from a guy who intentionally put himself in a coma to avoid taking responsibility for his addiction to a narcotic with zero medicinal properties.
It’s so weird for me that he seemed surprised that benzos are, in fact, highly addictive with severe withdraw symptoms. Isn’t he a psychologist and potentially someone who is allowed to prescribe such drugs?
I don’t think psychologists are allowed to prescribe medicine/ drugs. Psychiatrists yes, but not psychologists.
Your ignoring 2 facts about him. He’s a liar and he likes taking drugs. A simple Google search will tell you how dangerous it is to abuse. J-dawg didn’t care because he likes taking drugs.
The fact that he got addicted to anti anxiety medication when his personal philosophy involves fighting monsters and dragons is hilarious pathetic.
Also, I dare you to Google “Jordan Peterson Grandma”.
Why…
Seriously what does it mean. He needs to be checked by a Freudian psychologist.
You couldn’t torture that shit out of me. St. Peter could ask me to admit to it to get into heaven, and I’d walk straight past him into hell.
Yes, he’s just a liar
Wasn’t it benzos? They are used to treat anxiety.
Yeah, benzos are not too be fucked with but saying they have no medical purpose is just flat out wrong
Oh? I had heard it was ketamine
He’s so smart and articulate! Yeah, if you ate lead paint chips as a kid, or decided that huffing glue as a past time was a great idea.
Why is it that the cringiest fucking weebs like this guy? Does the suit give him some sort of weird dominion over them? These losers should be case and fucking point as to why you need Critical Thinking classes in schools…and it should also fucking highlight why Republicans are desperately trying to make public schools systematically dumber. A generation of highly educated people is detrimental to the conservative ideology (unless your making literally millions of $$$).
A lack of visible positive role models is a big part of it. When nobody else wants to engage with isolated and directionless young white men, people like Peterson will fill the vacuum. Couple that with amoral algorithms of social media generating engagement at any cost, and they soon have an audience.
Ensuring everyone has opportunities and and a sense of inclusion would go a lot further than just trying to teach everyone to recognise false shepherds. That’s just treating the symptom and not the cause, and would likely end up with them falling prey to another wolf with a better sheepskin.
Oh, I don’t disagree. There’s many systemic failures that have to occur for this to happen. YouTube thankfully has gone through efforts to remove it’s radicalization issue, so hopefully we’ll start to see it slow down or peter out over the next decade or so. However, I’m worried that the damage is already done.
I think it’s partly they see a little bit of themselves in him, so it’s like a “I’m you but better so listen to me” thing. But it’s also because she focuses on the Canadian government, which is really easy to make fun of and ridicule policy wise as of late. So these men see him “owning” the Liberal Canadian government for their many bad policies and they idolize him.
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with. I am curious why people would be against his statements as his ‘clean your room’ style is very general
I also believe nobody knows what he teaches and likes to circlejerk against him
Tell me one thing he says (other than his religious takes or takes on trans) that you disagree with.
I mean, that’s like saying “tell me one thing Hitler says (other than racism and politics) that you disagree with”…
His “teachings” are completely entangled with religion and culturally conservative dogma. This aspect of his character isn’t really separable from his teachings or his actions.
To be honest, his actual “philosophy” is just a bunch of word salad that individuals can gleem meaning from when it suits them.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism. The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view. I think you can dissect that from his philosophy and religious teachings.
Except hitler is known for his politics and racism.
And Jordan Peterson isn’t famous for his anti-trans dogma, or crazy fusion of religion and “philosophy”?
The meme was about mens health and how he is a bad resource for that view.
And I am staying that his religious and anti-trans attitude is a key reason of why he is a bad resource for that view. His views of religion and trans people are a inseparable part of his world view.
Yeah JBP is famous outside of his mentor crowd for different reasons. Some people flock to him for guidance, and others look at his other takes and judge him as a whole. It would be akin to having a conversation about good leadership skills and bringing up Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome. I am not talking about Hitlers history of racism or politics.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues. They come for a fatherly role model. I want you to criticize that not his stance on whatever philosophical problem because they can be seperated. If you can show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
I see what you’re saying “you can dig through this pile of shit (racism, homophobia, and other bigotry) and find a nugget of gold (basic ass advice on self help and leadership)” and that’s as true for JP as it is for Hitler.
I think what everyone else is saying is “WHY?!??” why are you fighting so hard to dig through the shit. There are many people handing out that gold with very little shit digging required.
When you fight so hard for the right to dig through that much shit to find small amounts of easily accessible gold, people are going to rightfully start to think it’s not just the gold you’re after.
Im losing confidence that you have anything to bring to the table other than dog whistle style messages. I am not trying to defend the guy on all moral positions, i am just looking for this one thing. Its either you know or you dont.
I just want you to acknowledge that many people dont come to JBP for his stance on religion or trans issues.
That’s kinda how propaganda works… Even if you don’t come for the trans and religion dogma, you will be exposed to it.
Hitler as a good model for using effective communication skills for uniting his base regardless of the outcome.
Lol, it’s the same model… Invent a boogie man, lie, cheat, steal, and hurl abuse at those who oppose you. Yes, it would be like bringing up hitlers “leadership skill”. But, then ignoring the reality of what that “leadership” really entailed.
show me an example where it needs to be together then that is acceptable.
You can’t separate the two because he does not separate them. His philosophy leads him to believe in, and justify his own dogmatic views.
This is not a “separate the art from the artist” as this person’s art is getting people to embody his own philosophy.
Thats not how propoganda works. Im asking you to formulate an opinion on one subject matter. I can talk about the bible on how it is the most important piece of literature of all time and not be indoctrinated.
You can take a quote of his, show me that it is both intended to bolster his dogmatic philosophy while also empowering young men. That would be an acceptable example. If you can show me that he does this I will give this to you.
Without writing a thesis and deepdiving into his rhetoric - He’s not a philosopher, yet often makes references to well known philosophical platitudes from people like Gödel in efforts to argue conservative and religious viewpoints. For example: Argument on Existence of God Notice how he takes a common sense observation, and then applies it to an idea. That’s okay, your supposed to do that. My issue with him is that he then makes another assumption, then another…then another. And soon, he’s making conclusions built upon a shaky bridge of assumptions that lead back to a small kernel of actual wisdom.
If your paying attention to him, it’s very similar to how conspiracy theories are created, you take a solid kernel of truth or seed of wisdom that you can use to anchor the idea…to someone that doesn’t know better, that’s all they need to believe everything else.
Jordan Peterson is not always wrong, I think he makes genuine points on some subjects when it’s based on his actual areas of expertise, but he’s sort of a smart sounding jack-of-all-trades when it comes to anything else. For example, he’s a psychologist…why did he come up with an all/mostly-meat diet? Because it worked in a niche case with his daughter? It’s entirely anecdotal, not researched, divergent from common sense dietary advice, and frankly dangerous.
deleted by creator
I said dont give a religious example as that is open to much criticism. I am talking in reference to his points on self-improvement and how everyone here believes they should be ignored. Please give an example on that.
I gave you an example of his argument style that I have issues with, not specifically an argument about religion that I disagree with. I noticed that a lot of his arguments try to use a strong basis on moral or objective reasoning and then provide flimsy but intellectually sounded deduction to stretch further and further towards his ultimate objective. I’ve given an example of it, and technically a second in regards to his promoted dietary practices. Do with them what you will. :)
Women wear make up ONLY to signal sexual arousal. Healthy women want kids (so do unhealthy women; healthy women can also want kids). “Sorry, not beautiful” about a woman. Telling people on Twitter to off themselves.
The dude is in trouble for calling himself a neuroscientist and evolutionary biologist ffs. I mean, do I need to go on? Or do you think it’s fair to say that his religious and trans arguments aren’t the only issues he’s currently facing removal of his licensure over?
This has nothing to do with empowering young men.
This comment has nothing to do with your original comment, but if you need me to tie together how his misogyny hurts young men that follow him we can go over that
Show me an example of misogyny, please
Show me you can read my first comment, please.
That wasnt in respnse to what I said though. You just started spewing misogyny stuff
“The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”
About Alek Minassian, a man accused of killing six people after running them over with a van in Toronto: “He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Oh, some incel murdered 6 people, must of been a woman’s fault somehow…
Is defending a literal misogynist terror attack enough evidence for you?
Send link if you can
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn’t empower young men? That is literally telling young men that women are subservient to them…
Who exactly is stealing the power away from these young men? And what exactly are they taking away?
Can you give us a example of how JP actually empowers men?
Saying that women only do things to serve or benefit men doesn’t empower young men
I have never heard JBP say this. I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable… but thats not the same thing.
Dont turn this on me. I asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men(which is the point of this meme). You cant reverse uno and ask me the same question
have never heard JBP say this.
I mean you asked for a quote and someone provided a quote. You can look up the quote and find articles about it.
It’s just one of the misogynistic lies he spews on the regular. I believe in the same interview he stated that high heels were invented to lengthen the legs of women to make them more attractive… In reality high heels were first worn by men to keep shit from getting in their shoes.
I have heard him say that agreeable people tend to be stepped on and that women tend to be agreeable… but thats not the same thing.
Lol, so much better… It’s your fault you are being stepped on, not the generations of oppression and systemic disenfranchisement. Does that apply to everyone? Is he saying that Africans were just to agreeable so we had to enslave them… Broken as logic.
asked if you could provide an example of how he isnt effective at empowering young men
Yes, I’m going to first prove God doesn’t exist, then I will work on proving the negative with JP … You can’t prove a negative my dude. If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it’s up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
If you are making the claim that he empowers young men, it’s up to you to provide the evidence that proves it.
Im just going to respond to this because im kinda over this. The claim was initially made by the meme. I am questioning this, yet you are here asking me for proof of the contrary.
This kind of post is what I was hoping to leave behind with Reddit.
JP fan spotted
deleted by creator
I’d probably say Andrew Tate is closer to that.
I listened to him for a little bit and sounded sensible, but I see a lot of people hate him and sounds like he found some fans and double down and a shit show to cater to them. I don’t know enough to have an opinion lol
The problem with him and people like him is that they start off with truth, and then slowly devolve into a conclusion they drew from that kernel of truth and before you know it they’re operating completely on their conclusions and personal ideas instead of the actual data they began with. Teaching as if their conclusions are just as valid.
It’s a similar strategy to how most religious leaders operate, when giving a sermon. They read the text and then change its meaning to whatever fits their narrative and interpretation best, then they spend the next hour preaching their ideas with the root authority of the audience largely unmentioned after that.
Completely agree. I initially agreed with a lot of what he said, but he slowly tries to drown you in the deep end.
He’s such an oddity to me in that it sounds like he’s speaking very well and in an articulate manner. But then you try to actually parse out what he’s saying, and realize it’s barely coherent a lot of the time. It seems to be the same model as Scientology as far as I can tell.
Yeah, eloquence only works if you actually have a point to make. He seems like he’s talking in circles for the most part.
90% of his advice is pretty much just boilerplate self help stuff you can find in thousands of books on Amazon. That stuff gets you in the door and is meant to develop a sense of trust because you might see initial improvement and feel good from the advice.
It’s when he does the rug pull and starts introducing trad nonsense into it that determines how willing a person is to keep following through on listening to him.
Like you mentioned, this is an extremely common tactic used by religious leaders as well as cults. Back in the mid 20th century when the whole self help craze started, many cults took to framing themselves as self help groups to attract outsiders. NXIVM is probably the most infamous example of this. The first few meetings should seem like a normal support group but would soon start ramping up into full on cult mode.
Bold of you to assume he started with actual data
Most charlatans do, it’s just cherry picked for the topic with all context ignored. Once again, just like religious leaders.
operating completely on their conclusions and personal ideas instead of the actual data they began with
Do you have a source for Peterson having done this?
This video shortly and succinctly shows this a few times: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=rCJA_3-QaANHSQX9
shortly and succinctly
The video is three hours long!
Yeah, that’s the joke he makes in the video.
Critical thinking and listening to him speak.
So that’s a no.
What you’re asking is like proof that I’ve made this comment, you don’t need me to show you that I wrote it because the evidence is automatic based on your ability to comprehend what I’m saying.
Jordan Peterson makes conclusions based on evidence and then uses them to argue his points. The proof is you just need to observe the facts he uses (and I’m being generous here, assuming the data isn’t taken out of context or something) and then listen to his arguments to discern when he’s using what the data suggests to explain his point versus when he’s using the conclusion he drew from the data to explain his point.
I think you’ll find it’s more often the latter than you initially realized, the man is good at talking in circles both because it makes it difficult to call him out on his bullshit as well as providing an air of expertise and intelligence.
What you’re asking is like proof that I’ve made this comment
No. What I’m asking for is links or references to the material which you used to form your opinion. Not necessarily all of it but at least something which supports what you’re saying. That’s what’s meant by the word “sources” in this context.
proof is you just need to observe the facts he uses
I’m asking you where I can observe his uses.
listen to his arguments
I’m asking you where I can listen to such arguments.
He laces practical advice with misogynistic and bigoted undertones. He tells people to adhere to the “natural order” and you shouldn’t try to improve the world but only strive to improve yourself and be a better worker bee. He stopped practicing psychology and teaching it because what is taught in psychology doesn’t agree with his political views. Recently he has chosen to be a right-wing voice for the daily wire to personally profit off of airing his grievances with society at large. He calls his fellow colleagues in his profession “butchers” for giving gender affirming care and he might lose his license because he is maligning the profession he himself was a part of. He seems that he would rather nuke his credentials to further his career as a pundit. He is a deeply disturbed man that has yet to get his house in order lecturing young people, mostly men, about what it means to be a productive member of society.
he would rather nuke his credentials to further his career as a pundit.
Yep, and to him and the people he takes advantage of, he’d be dumb not to do this. When you value money above all else, it’s a big brain move to do the thing that gets you the most money. He’s good at his game, but it’s an entirely different game than what mature and reasonable adults play.
deleted by creator
Thank fuck I’m 38.
Haven’t heard about him in ages. I just assumed Joe Rogan had nicked his audience.
Oh God. He’s on his supervillain arc (this isn’t even his final suit).
God damnit he can’t even dress like a supervillain right. Why are both legs red🤦♂️
Right? It just looks like they said “fuck it” when it was time to do the pants.
deleted by creator
I just want to say that if you are/were a young man, and found some value in some of what this guy was saying to you…thats’s OK. Don’t feel bad, or embarrassed or mad at yourself or whatever. We are all learning all the time, and doubly so when we’re young. Never think that you can’t take what is useful and reject what isn’t. Fuck knows there is plenty to reject about what this dude says!
I don’t know if it’s a new trend or something, but lots of people have something interesting to say, and say lots of hogwash besides and everyone gobbles it all up including the hogwash. You don’t have to go all in when reading someone’s work. For example, I read Freud and it was quite interesting. Most of it was horseshit (although historically interesting), but he still made the point that we don’t do all that we do consciously , which was hugely important.
Ideas and memes (in the original sense) are there to be examined and weighed against one another, not followed blindly.
So Petersen (I’m not really sure who that is), why not, he might have some salient points, even though he seems to be a controversial figure, apparently rightly so.
