Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Redpatio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s a bit of a cop out and not even an attempt to address anything I said.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that his positions on so many topics align with the American right? -Apart from stand up straight, shoulders back and tidy your room.

It's just a genuine question, as judging from your posts Jordan Peterson's opinions really bother you.

I don't know all of his opinions, but let's say most of his opinions align with the American right? Why does that bother you, he's allowed have his own opinions?

El_Duderino 09

kubjones wrote: »

That's a fair point.

His career isn't in the domain of politics though. If right wing people align with his views, it would be because he has fairly conservative views, though has labelled himself as Classical Libertarian in the past (which I guess modern left would currently identify as right-from-center).

When asked about gay marriage in a recent interview, he said that he couldn't consider it a bad thing, however it is a recent social milestone and we would have to wait to see whether it was a good idea or not in regards to results.
He's not wrong.
In saying this I couldn't see how gay marriage could possibly be a negative and I'm not sure what negatives could come of it, but that's fair enough. Again, his domain isn't in politics save for his objection to Bill C16, which is arguably more of a sociological matter anyway.

And even if he does align more with the political right, all this means is that he has slightly different opinions to ours. He has raised concerns about mass immigration in the same way people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have, but clearly from a statistics standpoint and hasn't flat out denounced it, unlike the latter two.

He's shared some opinions that I personally wouldn't agree with, but his opinions and lectures are completely different matters.

EVEN to take it to the extreme, he came out demonstrably and fervently against gay marriage, would it not be worth listening to considering his background?
For him to hold such a reasonable opinion on many issues which are backed by peer-reviewed studies, and rarely does he give opinions without backing them up with evidence, why does this man inspire resentment?

It’s funny that anyone who disagrees with him must ‘resent’ him. I disagree that he’s some kind of honest broker who assimilated academic information and reaches conclusions based on the evidence. He’s a right wing character, creating content for right wing consumers. When he’s right, he’s right, but he’s always creating right wing friendly content.

Using your example of gay marriage above. He couldn’t just say he supports gay marriage because it wouldn’t be well received by his base. So he just smudged it all over instead of answering one way or the other.

You could make the same observation of heterosexual marriage, it makes sense to wait and see if hetero marriage works out in the long term.

El_Duderino 09

Redpatio wrote: »

It's just a genuine question, as judging from your posts Jordan Peterson's opinions really bother you.

I don't know all of his opinions, but let's say most of his opinions align with the American right? Why does that bother you, he's allowed have his own opinions?

It’s fine if he’s seen as a Sean Hannity type figure who’s creating content for his fans. But I think he’s seen as an honest broker who just follows evidence to his conclusions, which he definitely isn’t.

Redpatio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s funny that anyone who disagrees with him must ‘resent’ him. I disagree that he’s some kind of honest broker who assimilated academic information and reaches conclusions based on the evidence. He’s a right wing character, creating content for right wing consumers. When he’s right, he’s right, but he’s always creating right wing friendly content.

Using your example of gay marriage above. He couldn’t just say he supports gay marriage because it wouldn’t be well received by his base. So he just smudged it all over instead of answering one way or the other.

You could make the same observation of heterosexual marriage, it makes sense to wait and see if hetero marriage works out in the long term.

I'd argue Hetero marriage doesn't really work out, it denies people's true sexual nature which is not monogomous, I think this maniifests itself in the form of depression, mental health issues and drug and alcohol problems. It's been great for civilisation however.

Would I be right in saying he gets under your skin because you believe he has an alterior agenda which he hides?

xckjoo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If all he said was stand up straight, shoulders back and clean your room, then I wouldn’t object. It’s all the other stuff that goes along with it. It’s either a coincidence that he aligns so closely with the American right wing, or it’s by design.

I mentioned a few right wing issues he points to in the last post. Guess which side of the gay matriage debate he stands on?

Where did he come out against gay marriage? Only video I could find is this one, where he clearly says his opinions on it are a bit muddled (agrees with it if marital vows are taken seriously which would therefore improve integration of gay people into society but worries about the long-term effects of the change on traditional modes of being). I personally think it can only be a good thing, but my views on family structures are a bit different from his in general.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I would make a prediction without googling, that he is pro 2nd amendment in the US. I bet he is in favour of some gun control in principle but almost no control in practice.

It’s just a product designed for the American right wing. From god to gays, he’s careful to be on the right side of the debate.

It's starting to seem like he's not so much designed for either side, but the perfect foil to be claimed or disowned at will. The actual content of what he's saying is being glossed over so that people can rush to outrage and condemnation.

kubjones

xckjoo wrote: »

It's starting to seem like he's not so much designed for either side, but the perfect foil to be claimed or disowned at will. The actual content of what he's saying is being glossed over so that people can rush to outrage and condemnation.

I haven't seen an entire thread be elucidated so succinctly.

I said it before but you said it perfectly. I'm not sure whether people are ignoring what he says on purpose, or whether they just can't grasp the concepts he communicates.

El_Duderino 09

Redpatio wrote: »

I'd argue Hetero marriage doesn't really work out, it denies people's true sexual nature which is not monogomous, I think this maniifests itself in the form of depression, mental health issues and drug and alcohol problems. It's been great for civilisation however.

Would I be right in saying he gets under your skin because you believe he has an alterior agenda which he hides?

And if you’re a ‘classic libertarian’ you’ll obviously vote to allow the choice to get married whether heterosexual or homosexual. But Peterson didn’t want to make that ‘classical libertarian’ point because it wouldn’t be what his audience wants to hear.

I didn’t say the gets under my skin. He’s a political character making content for his audience. That’s grand. So too is Sean Hannity and Alex Jones. He isn’t honestly trying to reach conclusions, he’s trying to argue right wing conclusions.

I think Alex Jones is convincing to people who aren’t clever enough to see through it. I think Sean Hannity is convincing to slightly cleverer people who aren’t clever enough to see through it. And I think Peterson is convincing to fairly clever people who are t clever enough to see through it. The thing all three groups gave in common is that they’re happy to be convinced be an argument that leads to the conclusion they already hold.

He was an academic for a long time before he was famous. He became famous on a right wing issue and he's continued to cultivate his right wing audience.

I think you can see it plain as day when he dies his usual thing with a topic that Irish people wouldn’t agree with. His religious stuff is absolutely typical of the rest of his speech but Irish people are likely to see it as woefully inadequate because they're less likely to believe in god than your average right wing American.

It’s all about working backwards from the conclusion.

xckjoo

kubjones wrote: »

I haven't seen an entire thread be elucidated so succinctly.

I said it before but you said it perfectly. I'm not sure whether people are ignoring what he says on purpose, or whether they just can't grasp the concepts he communicates.

To be fair it's not isolated to Jordan Peterson, but symptomatic of the times we live in. And even then it's probably not a new thing, but modern technology and communication makes it more obvious and intrusive.

It would be nice to be able to discuss the stuff he actually says, but everything quickly devolves into two camps racing to the bottom to tag the other group with the worst association they can think of.

kubjones

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And if you’re a ‘classic libertarian’ you’ll obviously vote to allow the choice to get married whether heterosexual or homosexual. But Peterson didn’t want to make that ‘classical libertarian’ point because it wouldn’t be what his audience wants to hear.

I didn’t say the gets under my skin. He’s a political character making content for his audience. That’s grand. So too is Sean Hannity and Alex Jones. He isn’t honestly trying to reach conclusions, he’s trying to argue right wing conclusions.

Despite him not being a political figure, could you recommend a public rhetorician that would be worth listening to for those that are smart enough to see past Peterson's guile ruse?

Redpatio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And if you’re a ‘classic libertarian’ you’ll obviously vote to allow the choice to get married whether heterosexual or homosexual. But Peterson didn’t want to make that ‘classical libertarian’ point because it wouldn’t be what his audience wants to hear.

I didn’t say the gets under my skin. He’s a political character making content for his audience. That’s grand. So too is Sean Hannity and Alex Jones. He isn’t honestly trying to reach conclusions, he’s trying to argue right wing conclusions.

I think Alex Jones is convincing to people who aren’t clever enough to see through it. I think Sean Hannity is convincing to slightly cleverer people who aren’t clever enough to see through it. And I think Peterson is convincing to fairly clever people who are t clever enough to see through it. The thing all three groups gave in common is that they’re happy to be convinced be an argument that leads to the conclusion they already hold.

He was an academic for a long time before he was famous. He became famous on a right wing issue and he's continued to cultivate his right wing audience.

I think you can see it plain as day when he dies his usual thing with a topic that Irish people wouldn’t agree with. His religious stuff is absolutely typical of the rest of his speech but Irish people are likely to see it as woefully inadequate because they're less likely to believe in god than your average right wing American.

It’s all about working backwards from the conclusion.

So you think he doesn't even believe much of what he says, that it's essentially a marketing strategy?

kunst nugget

An interesting article about Peterson on Quilette:

https://quillette.com/2018/03/22/jordan-b-peterson-appeals-left/

Why Jordan B Peterson Appeals to Me (And I Am on the Left)

As a writer who identifies as a leftist, and who sympathizes with Noam Chomsky’s anarcho-syndicalism on a root personal level, I should theoretically be joining the chorus of critics who have decided that Jordan Peterson is a reactionary.

In fact, Jordan Peterson has plenty of followers on the left, but watching the media climate surrounding his book release, you’d think he appeals only to the most reactionary, hyper-masculine discontents of the modern world. To be fair to the journalists, it is true that there are two Jordan Petersons. There is the lecturer, who juxtaposes mythological and religious themes with psychology and evolutionary biology, presenting a synthesis of science and religion, and then there is the social media culture warrior. Watching Peterson’s lectures versus watching snippets of him online, in recent interviews, you are watching two different men. It’s what the digital era does to people – it fragments them. Hundreds of hours of brilliant speeches are to be judged based on a few soundbites on Mic or Vice, or whatever dense abstractions can be made to look absurd by a political writer with no interest in Peterson’s field, such as Nathan Robinson.

xckjoo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And if you’re a ‘classic libertarian’ you’ll obviously vote to allow the choice to get married whether heterosexual or homosexual. But Peterson didn’t want to make that ‘classical libertarian’ point because it wouldn’t be what his audience wants to hear.

I didn’t say the gets under my skin. He’s a political character making content for his audience. That’s grand. So too is Sean Hannity and Alex Jones. He isn’t honestly trying to reach conclusions, he’s trying to argue right wing conclusions.

I think Alex Jones is convincing to people who aren’t clever enough to see through it. I think Sean Hannity is convincing to slightly cleverer people who aren’t clever enough to see through it. And I think Peterson is convincing to fairly clever people who are t clever enough to see through it. The thing all three groups gave in common is that they’re happy to be convinced be an argument that leads to the conclusion they already hold.

He was an academic for a long time before he was famous. He became famous on a right wing issue and he's continued to cultivate his right wing audience.

I think you can see it plain as day when he dies his usual thing with a topic that Irish people wouldn’t agree with. His religious stuff is absolutely typical of the rest of his speech but Irish people are likely to see it as woefully inadequate because they're less likely to believe in god than your average right wing American.

It’s all about working backwards from the conclusion.

Your comment doesn't allow for people that are capable of forming their own opinions based by reading another persons opinions and discerning what they think is relevant/true.

kunst nugget

Are Peterson's self help books an appeal to a sense of traditionalism and give life lessons that younger people just aren't getting anymore from their parents/elders?

Are we saying to our children, do whatever makes you happy without giving them any structure or coping skills to be use when their pursuit of happiness goes awry. Is Peterson giving them that sense of structure, especially for young men who feel adrift in the modern landscape? Has a certain innate conservatism become the rebel yell of the younger male?

I don't see anything in him myself but I do want to understand the phenomenon.

kunst nugget

Also, I'd like to read articles about the guy, from both sides, that don't default to a sneery tone.

El_Duderino 09

xckjoo wrote: »

Where did he come out against gay marriage?

He’s very careful not to be on the side of gay marriage because his followers wouldn’t want that. But it would be all to obvious to be opposed to gay marriage. So he smudges it all over with a ‘wait and see’ answer without any indication of WHAT he’s waiting to see.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I would make a prediction without googling, that he is pro 2nd amendment in the US. I bet he is in favour of some gun control in principle but almost no control in practice.

It’s just a product designed for the American right wing. From god to gays, he’s careful to be on the right side of the debate.

It's starting to seem like he's not so much designed for either side, but the perfect foil to be claimed or disowned at will. The actual content of what he's saying is being glossed over so that people can rush to outrage and condemnation.[/quote]

All the time being very careful not to say anything that his base wouldn’t already agree with.

El_Duderino 09

kubjones wrote: »

I haven't seen an entire thread be elucidated so succinctly.

I said it before but you said it perfectly. I'm not sure whether people are ignoring what he says on purpose, or whether they just can't grasp the concepts he communicates.

Some of the concepts he communicates are complete guff. Such as ‘you can’t quit smoking without having a mystical experience’ which in turn is evidence for god. There’s not much to grasp with that statement. It’s theist apologist nonsense.

xckjoo

kunst nugget wrote: »

Are Peterson's self help books an appeal to a sense of traditionalism and give life lessons that younger people just aren't getting anymore from their parents/elders?

Are we saying to our children, do whatever makes you happy without giving them any structure or coping skills to be use when their pursuit of happiness goes awry. Is Peterson giving them that sense of structure, especially for young men who feel adrift in the modern landscape? Has a certain innate conservatism become the rebel yell of the younger male?

I don't see anything in him myself but I do want to understand the phenomenon.

To a large degree I'd say you've hit the nail on the head, particularly with the bit I highlighted. A lot of what he talks about is what he'd (probably) describe as "archetypal" knowledge that we might be losing with our pursuit of progress.

El_Duderino 09

Redpatio wrote: »

So you think he doesn't even believe much of what he says, that it's essentially a marketing strategy?

Where’s that Cathy Newman pic: so you’re saying...

No. What I’m saying is that his personal opinions are completely separate from his right wing content. He may or may not hold the opinions he puts forward, but he wouldn’t put forward personal opinions that his base wouldn’t want to see.

xckjoo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’s very careful not to be on the side of gay marriage because his followers wouldn’t want that. But it would be all to obvious to be opposed to gay marriage. So he smudges it all over with a ‘wait and see’ answer without any indication of WHAT he’s waiting to see.


All the time being very careful not to say anything that his base wouldn’t already agree with.

Did you listen/watch the link I posted?

Redpatio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Where’s that Cathy Newman pic: so you’re saying...

No. What I’m saying is that his personal opinions are completely separate from his right wing content. He may or may not hold the opinions he puts forward, but he wouldn’t put forward personal opinions that his base wouldn’t want to see.

So what I was saying was correct, you believe the opinions he gives are not necessarily his own, but used for marketing purposes. I take it that's why he gets under your skin.

El_Duderino 09

xckjoo wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He’s very careful not to be on the side of gay marriage because his followers wouldn’t want that. But it would be all to obvious to be opposed to gay marriage. So he smudges it all over with a ‘wait and see’ answer without any indication of WHAT he’s waiting to see.


All the time being very careful not to say anything that his base wouldn’t already agree with.

Did you listen/watch the link I posted?

Yes did you? What he said about gay martial could equally be said about heterosexual marriage if you’re interested in being even handed and do a through investigation of marriage (if they’re taking it seriously, promiscuity as a social problem).

But the last thing he says shows that’s not what he’s interested in. He says poor people are less likely to be married which is not good for them. Presumably he means poor heterosexual people. Because of poor heterosexual people would be better off married then why not poor gay people?

It’s a big smudge with a wink and a nod to traditionalists. He says marriage is traditionally between one man and woman but he is well versed in the bible which has lots of polygamy and some polyandry.

It’s a very selective answer looking for any old reason to not support gay marriage and any old reason to support heterosexual marriage.

Redpatio

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes did you? What he said about gay martial old equally be said about heterosexual marriage if you’re interested in being even handed and do a through investigation of marriage (if they’re taking it seriously, promiscuity as a social problem).

But the last thing he says shows that’s not what he’s interested in. He says poor people are less likely to be married which is not good for them. Presumably he means poor heterosexual people. Because of poor heterosexual people would be better off married then why not poor gay people?

It’s a big smudge with a wink and a nod to traditionalists. He says marriage is traditionally between one man and woman but he is well versed in the bible which has lots of polygamy and some polyandry.

It’s a very selective answer looking for any old reason to not support gay marriage and any old reason to support heterosexual marriage.

Hetero marriage has been around in society for much longer than gay marriage so their is evidence for him to draw a conclusion on the effect of hetero marriage on society. There is not much evidence available yet for gay marriage, so it appears he is being open minded and waiting for the evidence before drawing a conclusion on the effect of gay marriage on society.

kubjones

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes did you? What he said about gay martial old equally be said about heterosexual marriage if you’re interested in being even handed and do a through investigation of marriage (if they’re taking it seriously, promiscuity as a social problem).

       ?
     ?
   ?   ?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

El_Duderino 09

Redpatio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Where’s that Cathy Newman pic: so you’re saying...

No. What I’m saying is that his personal opinions are completely separate from his right wing content. He may or may not hold the opinions he puts forward, but he wouldn’t put forward personal opinions that his base wouldn’t want to see.

So what I was saying was correct, you believe the opinions he gives are not necessarily his own, but used for marketing purposes. I take it that's why he gets under your skin.

You can take anything you like. I have already said he doesn’t get under my skin, I think it’s fine for Sean Hannity or Alex Jones or Jordan Peterson to sell whatever they want.

I think his personal opinions are neither here nor there but yes, its a marketing strategy. He creates content for sale apart from specific instances does he sell his arguments as being his personal opinions?

I never got the impression he was selling it as person opinions apart from when he specifically said it’s his opinion.

El_Duderino 09

Redpatio wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes did you? What he said about gay martial old equally be said about heterosexual marriage if you’re interested in being even handed and do a through investigation of marriage (if they’re taking it seriously, promiscuity as a social problem).

But the last thing he says shows that’s not what he’s interested in. He says poor people are less likely to be married which is not good for them. Presumably he means poor heterosexual people. Because of poor heterosexual people would be better off married then why not poor gay people?

It’s a big smudge with a wink and a nod to traditionalists. He says marriage is traditionally between one man and woman but he is well versed in the bible which has lots of polygamy and some polyandry.

It’s a very selective answer looking for any old reason to not support gay marriage and any old reason to support heterosexual marriage.

Hetero marriage has been around in society for much longer than gay marriage so their is evidence for him to draw a conclusion on the effect of hetero marriage on society. There is not much evidence available yet for gay marriage, so it appears he is being open minded and waiting for the evidence before drawing a conclusion on the effect of gay marriage on society.

What evidence is he waiting for? Promiscuity? Traditional modes of being? Very vague except being careful to question it in a way he’d never do with heterosexual marriage.

El_Duderino 09

kubjones wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes did you? What he said about gay martial old equally be said about heterosexual marriage if you’re interested in being even handed and do a through investigation of marriage (if they’re taking it seriously, promiscuity as a social problem).

       ?
     ?
   ?   ?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The questions could equally be put to heterosexual marriage. But hetero marriage gets his explicit endorsement at the end of the video without any qualifications. It’s not an equally critical evaluation of gay and heterosexual marriage.

Redpatio

Heterosexual marriage was a clever way to make sexually unappealing men productive and help build civilisation. Most men are not sexually appealing to women in general, so by creating marriage it allowed men to work to earn a wife, who more than likely wasn't attracted to him sexually.

kubjones

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The questions could equally be put to heterosexual marriage. But hetero marriage gets his explicit endorsement at the end of the video without any qualifications. It’s not an equally critical evaluation of gay and heterosexual marriage.

That's because heterosexual marriage has been around since pre-Christian history.

Gay marriage is a very new thing in regards to western society, of course he won't know how it works.

He's also quite critical of Heterosexual marriage in other talks. He speaks about the overall benefit but includes the reasons why it wouldn't work.

He also cites studies as to why monogamous successful marriages have a higher rate of creating high-achieving children with a lesser proclivity towards crime.

By the emoji though, I meant that sentence was structured in a way that I couldn't understand what you meant.

xckjoo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes did you? What he said about gay martial could equally be said about heterosexual marriage if you’re interested in being even handed and do a through investigation of marriage (if they’re taking it seriously, promiscuity as a social problem).

But the last thing he says shows that’s not what he’s interested in. He says poor people are less likely to be married which is not good for them. Presumably he means poor heterosexual people. Because of poor heterosexual people would be better off married then why not poor gay people?

It’s a big smudge with a wink and a nod to traditionalists. He says marriage is traditionally between one man and woman but he is well versed in the bible which has lots of polygamy and some polyandry.

It’s a very selective answer looking for any old reason to not support gay marriage and any old reason to support heterosexual marriage.

He very clearly states that he doesn't have a definitive opinion on it and then outlines his reasons why. Is that not acceptable? Does everyone have to have an instantaneous absolute opinion on something so that we can neatly categorize them and decide if they're on "our team" or not?

I'll ignore the rest of you post as it's clearly conjecture based on your opinion of what you think he thinks. The big point you make to cement your proof starts with the word "Presumably". Can you see no issue there

kunst nugget

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The questions could equally be put to heterosexual marriage. But hetero marriage gets his explicit endorsement at the end of the video without any qualifications. It’s not an equally critical evaluation of gay and heterosexual marriage.

I'd be critical of what he says in that youtube video but the point you're making here is a nonsense. He can give an endorsement of heterosexual marriage because it has existed for thousands of years and a mountain of research on it, he can't can't do the same for gay marriage as it has only existed as a legal entity since the Netherlands legalised it in 2001 and it's still outlawed in the vast majority of countries in the world.