Jordan Peterson

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121254103#Comment_121254103

If we continue to play the numbers game, using the number 11 noted in two above posts, as opposed to 12 on two of Peterson’s books, those believing in numerology may claim 11 to be a good, perhaps better choice for Peterson. Per numerology.com: “The number 11 is at one with the universe. It is open to vast spiritual concepts and the presence of a greater power. It is a channel for truth and answers…”

As noted earlier in this thread, Peterson exhibited a traditional messianic Judeo-Christian undertone in his writings, as well as having directly presented many vids exploring his religious views online.

Are such “truth and answers” derived from Peterson’s 12 rules books, and if so, why not relabel them 11 rules in both cases? Then again, to what extent was the 12 number in both books somewhat arbitrary and capricious by Peterson, rather than attempting to claim a deeper philosophical meaning? Rather than suggesting “aesthetic” intentions by Peterson, why not something as simplistic and superficial as: A dozen of this added to a dozen of that?

Of course we could then cite all the claims regarding the number 12 made by the numerology source, all of which appear to be more akin to superstitions pseudo scientific beliefs systems rather than something a bit more empirically objective.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121254747#Comment_121254747

Just listened to an interview conducted on Piers Morgan Uncensored online that’s dated 2 weeks ago titled “Piers Morgan vs Jordan Peterson.”

Admittedly, I struggled to continue listening to their exchange. Why? Because it overall sounded like a rambling “word sandwich” that stumbled all over the place without a unified theme.

Furthermore, I observed that the “vs” in the title was a misnomer. Rather it appeared as two members of a self-appreciation society, especially when Morgan would frequently make such comments as: “I agree with everything you say.” Peterson would frequently smile and make similar appreciations towards Morgan’s statements.

There appeared to be a few trolling statements by Peterson, perhaps hoping to get a later adverse reaction from online viewers? (Fathom looks in mirror and nods)

For example, Peterson claimed that “the online world is a matriarchy,” without any data or citations to support his controversial statement. Another apparent toll was to make the wide sweeping all inclusive statement that the woke mob has taken over the university system, once again without evidence to support his position.

In @ancapailldorcha quoted post above, Peterson was interested “in promoting himself for personal gain.” Aside from Peterson’s repetitious affirmations of past positions found in his books and prior interviews, something popped out after half the interview had transpired. Peterson has a new book to sell.

We who wrestle with God by Jordan Peterson. Was there an interview statement by Peterson that would suggest what the content and context was based upon? Peterson: “Everything that happened in the Bible happened.”

Joe1919

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121255337#Comment_121255337

Maybe the reason he uses 12 instead of 11 is that he doesn't want to be accused of being 'one short of a dozen'.

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/one_short_of_a_dozen

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121261753#Comment_121261753

In like spirit, perhaps he could use a baker’s dozen?

Just viewed a 3 months ago Telegram podcast “Jordan Peterson: The radical Left is guilty tripping the west into oblivion.”

As the title suggests, no one is value free (Max Weber, Economy and Society, 1968 translation); including Jordan Peterson, whom often claims scholarly support, but conveniently omits citations.

As noted in several posts above, Peterson frequently commits the logical fallacy of broad sweeping generalizations in his arguments when interviewed. For example, all the Left is this or that, as if they were homogeneous and completely lacking in individual differences. Or he claims that the public education system is a failure, as if there are no differences between thousands of schools in North America and Canada.

During this interview, Peterson would quickly shift from claiming scholarly support, without citation, to Biblical arguments as if they both had reliably and validity (aka, Peterson’s “truth”). For example, he treated the Book of Jonah and the 3 days that Jonah supposedly lived in a whale at the bottom of the ocean as one of these truths, although he did offer a second citation when referring to his newest book for sale.

ancapailldorcha

I know it's not great form to just paste links but hopefully I can get an exception. I've been listening to these chaps for over half a decade now and they've released the second part of their two-parter on Peterson:

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1716469776032182454

I've not caught up on Origin Story yet but I'm very much looking forward to this.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121277415#Comment_121277415

MOD: No worries.

growleaves

Peterson seems to have become a conscious self-parody now. In the below video he can't fully suppress a grin as he promotes his home-grown alternative to 'traditional education'. I find it amazing that anyone could believe that a degree from Peterson Academy will allow them entry to the "upper echelons" of any "employment hierarchy". (Also I don't consider Freud, Jung and Piaget among the greatest minds in history - though that is perhaps one of Peterson's less controversial opinions vis-á-vis the mainstream.)

If people want an alternative to the 'traditional education system' they should get creative, e.g. perhaps attend a trade or vocational school. If you're in the EU you could go to Germany and receive practical instruction in specialised areas of manufacturing or engineering then bring that tradecraft back to your home country. An online degree from a web site just teaching conventional lit and theory is not a great 'alternative' imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zq8jRqOMeg

erlichbachman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121277415#Comment_121277415

why doesn't Mr Dunt then focus on Andrew Tate, as he seems to have done better in life, if that is his barometer, these lads are like a couple of giggling shcoolkids sitting down the back of the classroom after the teacher has read an essay and it has completely gone over their heads, I fear half a decade of listening to them may have done some irreversible brain damage ancap

they laugh at JP claiming to be centrist, but yet seem far from centrist themselves?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468966#Comment_121468966

If he did, you'd be offering the same bad faith argument about Joe Rogan, Elon Musk or someone else.

erlichbachman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469129#Comment_121469129

10-15 years ago if a topic was on the likes of JP, Joe Rogan or Elon on boards then it would have roughly 50/50 pro/con, maybe 60/40 or even 70/30, nowadays when we look at the X thread, this JP thread, haven't seen a Joe Rogan one though I'm sure there is one somewhere but likely same as these, it looks to me these are now 10/90 pro/con

is it just me or does anyone else feel an excessive culture shift on boards.ie the last few years? and if so would this shift be considered organic or derived?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469180#Comment_121469180

I'd prefer to discuss the thread topic as opposed to the site in general.

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469180#Comment_121469180

Not sure where you are getting these numbers for past and present comparisons (“50/50” to “10/90”) of the content and context of boards.ie, or in particular, as pertains to this Philosophy forum and the thread discussion of Jordan Peterson?

They appear to be quantitative measures, but without quantitative evidence to support your arguments. Darrell Huff suggests in his book How to Lie with Statistics that such argument constructions may be misleading or perhaps spurious.

Further, you also use two conceptual words, “organic” and “derived” without defining them, as if everyone knows what they mean in the content and context of your discussion.

Please explain. And if you wish to be more compelling in your discussion, define your concepts, provide objective evidence, and philosophical support.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468645#Comment_121468645

Thanks growleaves for linking and discussing this Peterson Academy vid. It was obviously a not so subtle advertisement for a proposed November 2023 academy launch.

To reiterate an earlier post in this thread, Peterson (and the other academy promoter) made a broad sweeping fallacy generalization about the “university system is broken,” suggesting that the thousands of public and private universities about the world are all part of a “system.”

Aside from their simple minded fallacy, and the bias that may be associated with Peterson Academy vested interest self-promotion, philosophically this flies in the face of John Henry Newman’s idea of a university.

Added to this, Peterson throws out a hypothetical statement: what if there was an alternative to this broken system that was “95 percent less expensive?” Well such alternatives have existed for years, and are not new to Peterson’s academy. For example, edX has hundreds of online courses in numerous disciplines from hundreds of accredited universities that are free, thereby beating Peterson’s “95 percent less” threshold.

Plus there are dozens of accredited universities about the world that offer tuition free degree programs to their citizens, many with additional student financial support (including living expenses, etc). Beats Peterson’s 95 percent less.

Hermy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469180#Comment_121469180

Perhaps it's not Boards that has shifted but rather the people and topics being discussed becoming more polarised and polarising over time.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121516034#Comment_121516034

MOD: There is a forum that is better suited to the discussion of the changing audience, content, context, purpose, etc, of boards.ie in general; e.g., Feedback.

Then again, we welcome discussions in this thread that focus more specifically on matters pertaining to the philosophical orientation and related issues of Jordan Peterson. If you wish to continue your polarization topic above, perhaps you could expand with one or more of the 5 Ws applied to Peterson specifically (who, what, where, when and why)? Your call.

Fathom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121469129#Comment_121469129

According to Spencer Dalke, reporter for Campus Reform, 31 October 2023, Peterson Academy founders Jordan and Mikaila Peterson claimed that they are pursuing accreditation (which could take years to accomplish if they attempt this in the USA or Canada). Then again, Peterson claims that employers will become de facto accreditors.

Added to this, they said “We want to reduce the cost of a bachelors degree to $4000.”

Question: How will future employers differentiate between the many unaccredited degree mills, where you can allegedly buy your degrees, and the ones earned at an unaccredited academy? Peterson claims that he will work with employers to build credibility. But he doesn’t suggest how precisely he will do this with an extraordinary number of employers in North America or the millions worldwide.

Question: The Peterson’s state “Courses, virtual classrooms, community, (will be) devoid of ideology.” How precisely will this be achieved? From a philosophical standpoint, to paraphrase Max Weber, no one is value free.

Furthermore, Newman suggests a different approach from the Peterson’s devoid. Newman suggests the opposite with a diversity of ideologies in his idea of a university (i.e., university of ideologies not a devoid).

Question: To what extent will Peterson Academy be similar or different from the unaccredited and now defunct Trump University?

Black Swan

Court demands social media training for Peterson. What’s this about?

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122303381#Comment_122303381

Eh? I did a Google News search on his name and got nought.

Professor Moriarty

January 2024: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jordan-peterson-court-challenge-rejection-1.7086681

Fathom

Nathan J Robinson. The Process of Leaving Jordan Peterson Behind. Politics (June 2023).

An emic evaluation of Peterson’s effect on psychologically vulnerable males, how they may relate to Peterson’s writings, feel compelled to follow his teachings, and how one or more may later wish to get away from him and his right wing ideologies.