Jordan Peterson

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119383369#Comment_119383369

Claiming to be an expert in anything he fancied has always been part of his MO. What's different this time is his staggering ignorance. Put simply, he's overreached and badly at that. Previously, he dressed in a suit and applied his expertise in psychology to modern social life with a degree of legitimacy. Now, he resembles a conspiracy theory-spouting crackpot. Gotta keep them Patreon dollars coming I suppose.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119384178#Comment_119384178

Have you seen Peterson’s latest rant published in the National Post 27 July 2022? For example, what does he mean by the statement: “Everyone is asking: just what in the hell is going on in the Great White North?” when referring to the changing view of several European countries of Canada? Is he referring to the weather in this label?

Then again Canada does have a large amount of arctic tundra. This label was just tossed in like so many things he says, with the interpretation left to the reader. Jacques Derrida would have a field day deconstructing Peterson’s signature. Or perhaps he would not consider him of philosophical importance?

Fathom

Elon Musk unbanned Jordan Peterson. Peterson now does a host of makeup tweets. They appear to be politically right in content and context.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119933897#Comment_119933897

Peterson has been a fan of Musk for a long time. He apparently admires disruption but only from a certain part of the political spectrum.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119934070#Comment_119934070

Wonders about Peterson’s philosophical orientation towards X-president Donald Trump? In terms of the content and context of statements (tweets, Fox and Friends interviews, political rallies, etc) made by Trump from 2015 to present? When interviewed by Piers Morgen after the 2022 midterm election, Peterson suggested that Trump had been subject to “more demonization” than any USA president.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120119921#Comment_120119921

I don't think there's anything to wonder about here. Peterson's shtick is that he nominally abhors extremism from all sides but of course he's only ever interested in criticising one side.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120119943#Comment_120119943

Could Peterson be acting as a faux apologist for Trump, not because he supports the content, context, and meaning of what Trump says; rather, that Peterson hopes to draw attention to himself by playing with yet another controversy?

Joe1919

Just my opinion but I think the philosophical position of conservativism or more specifically paleoconservatism is central to any discussion here. For example, Peterson's book 12 rules of life could be considered a re-write of Aristotles Nichomachean ethics. His positions are fairly standard conservative positions often taken by older and certain type of voters, and (imo) of the type that Trump's election strategy successfully used to win his election back in 2016. To some extent, Conservativism is more a question of taste or values that some/many will find appealing (imo).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120119989#Comment_120119989

I think he's nothing more than a grifter at this point, trading on his former status as an academic for profit on the right wing networks.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120122474#Comment_120122474

12 Rules a “rewrite of Aristotle’s Nichomachean ethics.” Interesting observation. Are you referring to the 11 moral virtues? I cannot recall if Peterson gives Aristotle credit.

Not sure where Peterson’s lobster paradigm fits with Aristotle’s ethics in chapter 1 of 12 Rules?

Akrasia

When Peterson gleefully said he managed to monitise social justice warriors. What he really meant was he learned how to monitise anti social justice warriers

Not many SJWs are giving him money every month on patreon

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120123040#Comment_120123040

To sell books, seminars, and clicks on his site?

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120123061#Comment_120123061

”Peterson... managed to monitise” controversy?

Akrasia

Not random controversy. Alt right anti SJWs are the people who buy his books, pay him for life coaching sessions, go to his live events etc.

He's extracting money from these groups by getting them all riled up about 'wokeness'

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120123085#Comment_120123085

I think it's more about building a brand, ie establishing himself as someone who's firmly anti-woke. This will of course feed into more book sales, media appearances on friendly networks, more people buying tickets to his live events and so on. Rowan Atkinson dabbles in this a little bit such as when he was going on about how comedy is supposed to offend just as his bee thing came on Netflix. For Peterson, it's more of a long term thing. There's no money to be made in reasoned, drawn out debate after all.

Joe1919

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120123052#Comment_120123052

I am inclined to think that Peterson would not quote Aristotle in the same way as say Roger Scruton or indeed Thomas Aquinas did to show that their beliefs were tenable or even desirable. Peterson after all is a professor of Psychology, which I presume is a strict science discipline, so to appeal to philosophical tradition could be considered unscientific and would show that he was a traditionalist at heart.

But in the end, he takes a very traditional position in terms of defending hierarchies and differences between people. His 'means' of doing this may differ from Aristotle's, but his 'end' or what he wants to defend is the same. Aristotle, for example, had a very structured idea of friendship in terms of whats good as Peterson does. Aristotle had this view of the 'Magnanimous man' who had greatness of heart and spirit and was deserving of greatness. Peterson lobster paradigm (and his ideas of winners and losers) is perhaps an attempt to defend this position, which is very important from a traditional or conservative point of view, as it gives some moral justification to wage and other inequalities, along with perhaps a defence of social stratification, and also for the use of 'Magnanimous' judges etc who often make moral decisions for us.

Fathom

Interesting summary of Peterson’s philosophy by Paul Thagard in Psychology Today (14 February 2018): Jordan Peterson’s Flimsy Philosophy of Life.

Fathom

Peterson is not a philosopher. He is a clinical psychologist by education and experience. His books focus on the self help genera, which appear to favor a male readership and seminar audience.

The content and contexts of these books are not scholarly, and generally do not present a rigorous, research methods foundation for his arguments, discussions, and recommendations. Rather, he offers a common sense appeal to his readers, which appear to be popular given book sales.

Caution should be exercised, in that what is held in common and generates sales may have problematic reliability and validity from a scientific standpoint.

Some have claimed that although Peterson is not a philosopher, he does have a philosophy. Consequently, we can continue to discuss him in our Philosophy forum.

Black Swan

Peterson interviewed 2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Just to comment on a couple issues of a long podcast.

Peterson suggested that the climate crisis was exaggerated, essentially not a crisis today. He played with the extreme apocalypse crisis positions of some, as if all those concerned with climate change were cut from the same ideological quilt.

One of the Ramaswamy platform planks was for America to “define a national identity.” Such an identity may have epistemological implications. For example, was he suggesting that America needed to become a melting pot with this national identity, as opposed to the stew pot it may be today that, although together in the same pot, there continues to be differences between carrots and peas and beans and beef (metaphorically)?

Ramaswamy suggested that big government and large corporations had become a system of control. After the 2008 financial crisis they realized a collaborative position with the Woke Left to invest in climate change initiatives and other woke interests in exchange for the Woke Left “to look the other way.”

Fathom

Peterson has a biblical series of 15 videos. After attempting to listen to one of them (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah), I got the impression that he would have been more predisposed to a career of being a theologian rather than a clinical psychologist. He sounded like a preacher rather than an academic; although he continued within his self help genre, but heavily Judaic Christian in context and content.

Admittedly, I failed to listen to the entire two hours video. He was talking very fast, as if he was mashing words together, almost without spacing. Reminded me of a rambling preacher of a borne again tent service I once randomly visited in central agricultural valley California when traveling north on the I-5. Lots of “you know” and “right” interjections, as well as religious repetitious affirmations.

Relevance to our philosophy forum may be a long stretch to the philosophy of religion? In any case, it may suggest Peterson’s not so subtle religious orientation when discussing other topics.

Black Swan

Beyond Order (2021) was Peterson’s continuation of his Rules book. Once again directed to a male audience and their self help genre interests.

A strong messianic undertone invested this work that suggested more of a self projection of his own personal needs fulfillment than to those of his readers.

If there was anything of a philosophical undercurrent in the content, there may have been a semblance to Nietzsche.

One rule appears to be an elaboration of the obvious: “Do not do what you hate.”

Yet another, “Abandon ideology,” appears to be a straw man fallacy argument the way he misrepresents it when criticizing Jacques Derrida, and others. Ironically and paradoxically suggesting that Derrida reduces behavioral choices to a dichotomy, when in fact Derrida cautions against such either/or mutually exclusive categorizations as being inconsistent with the complexities of the natural world.

As a disclaimer, I find reading Peterson to be an act of unwanted labor. Often breezing through pages simply to get them over without a spark of interest. Perhaps others will find him otherwise?

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120123384#Comment_120123384

”Word salad” Peterson. Revisiting Peterson’s discussions regarding climate change models (Graham Readfearn, The Guardian, 27 January 2022; also Joe Rogan’s earlier 4 hour podcast with Peterson).

More recently, Peterson has continued to stir the politically and right leaning bowl regarding climate change per Readfearn in The Guardian, 1 February 2023. See “The Climate Con” by Peterson. Plus “The Toll of Climate Change Alarmism” vid by Peterson. And Peterson’s interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox 11 March 2023, and Peterson’s salad mixing of scholarly domains in name only (now adding the irony of Carlson’s sudden and coincidental firing from Fox).

Essentially Peterson, who has no qualifications outside of clinical psychology, has challenged the validity and reliability of climate models, suggesting they are useless. He argues that the longer the time frame, the less predictable they are. His critique appears that he may be confusing weather prediction models with climate models.

Furthermore, his word salad arguments, mixing weather and climate, appear to be an attempt to foster political controversy rather than a scientific discussion, thereby drawing attention to himself for other pseudoscience reasons.

Certainly, there may be cautionary suggestions regarding longitudinal climate models, but that does not mean they have no value. Peterson claims that because climate models cannot account for all variables, they cannot be valid. Rather, it has been suggested by Thomas Merton that there may be value in models of the middle range, until more theoretical and experimental studies have been conducted over time.

Peterson interviewed by Carlson attempted to superficially argue that environmental and climate change remedies were more akin to a religious belief than scientific. His “Earth Goddess” reference comes to mind when using an ad hominem to discredit attempts by environmentalists to affect climate change. If Peterson had laid a Civil Religion foundation (see Robert Bellah) before his assault, it may have been an interesting philosophical perspective, but just spouting it as he did gave little merit.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120644016#Comment_120644016

Civil religion may be an interesting new thread in philosophy. Peterson aside. Perhaps examine if what Robert Bellah suggested years ago has merit today when examining the phenomenon of what has been referred to as contemporary political cults (e.g., Trumpworld’s MAGA, etc).

ancapailldorcha

Looks like there's been some controversy surrounding Peterson's latest book:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1692129612619198542

https://twitter.com/JohannaTC/status/1691558767530299563

Peterson himself looks to be completely silent. Not a good look to anyone who isn't a fan.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120990131#Comment_120990131

Curious why there were 12 rules in both of the last 2 books by Peterson? Why 12? Did I miss something?

ancapailldorcha

The best podcast are doing a deep dive on Peterson. Should be riveting.

https://twitter.com/OriginStorycast/status/1713848131719176222

Joe1919

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121120715#Comment_121120715

You may have missed a dozen things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_(number)

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121251067#Comment_121251067

Are you suggesting that there was something meaningful with the repeated use of 12 rules, as opposed to 11 or 22 or whatever number chosen that would add to or otherwise lend additional empirical and substantive support to Peterson’s positions taken in the two books referenced? Or are you humoring us with the citation in your post? Please comment.

Joe1919

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121253067#Comment_121253067

Hi. My answer may seem trivial but to some extent, it can be argued that our ethical preferences are often trivial (from a logical/rational perspective) in that they often can be reduced to what we aesthetically 'value'.

Firstly, I would very much see Peterson's writings as (objectively) trying to defend a conservative and traditional view that like Aristotle, sees 'flourishing' in the individual and in society as the 'good'. Darwin to some extent in the 'Descent of man' could be said to expand on this in his defence of 'Altruism'. A society in which Altruism does not exist (e.g parents don't look after their children) will not flourish.

However there is another more subjective side to ethics that inherits David Hume's fact/value distinction (e.g. logical positivists) and sees that many moral/ethics question are really questions about value. For example, which has the higher value? FREEDOM or LIFE? Is a life in chains worth living? How many lives are worth sacrificing for freedom etc.

It was in this tradition that 'Wittgenstein' famously said that 'ethics and aesthetics are one and the same'.

So back to our number '12'. I don't see any 'objective' significance to the number. But then, as I try to illustrate above, there seems to be an 'aesthetic' dimension to ethics. (The 'good' person values/likes to be good?) The number '12' is a number that we value as I outline in the link above. Its aesthetically pleasing so he arranges his rules around that number and puts it in the book title. (And many people judge the book by the title as well as the cover, so I am sure it also helped him sell more books than if '11' was in the title).

ancapailldorcha

I've seen no indication from Peterson's behaviour, as opposed to his earlier work, that he's interested in anything other than sowing discord to promote himself for personal gain. He consistently argues in bad faith and everything he says is taken verbatim from the right wing, libertarian play book.