Jordan Peterson interview on C4

benjamin d

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'm bored of this now. Unfollowing.

YFlyer

benjamin d wrote: »

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'm bored of this now. Unfollowing.

Its like reading the comments on Indymedia on difference between Socialist Party and SWP.

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You said this:

"I assure you I’ve looked quite hard. Your view is not a common one even among the left"

What are the ideologies of "the left"?

Your question makes no sense, I ascribed no ideology to the left. I simply referenced the group that’s left of the centre.

But of course you already know that

Intothesea

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's almost as if he is so caught up in the false dichotomy of left-right politics that he can't bring himself to blame the right for anything or else he knows his goose is cooked if he does or he just isn't the intellectual heavyweight he seems to believe he is.

Hehe, true enough. I'd say it isn't a case of the eye evading what the mind doesn't want to acknowledge. I know he's Canadian, but he can't be that out of the western social/political loop. Hopefully the vague smell of just-rendered goose fat will help to prevent different types of attack on humanities departments across America, for example :pac:


To his credit, it seems as though he's adopting a lovingly outraged paternal persona to model a daring intellectual iconoclasm, aimed solely at, and for the benefit of, lost young people. At the same time, he's lining his pockets to an unknown tune, stirring up directive passion, and ignoring some basic identities in his own argument. A suitably cynical Martin Luther King for the cynical age, maybe

GerryDerpy

Am I the only one that watches the interview every day???

Makes me smile every time.

GerryDerpy

Intothesea wrote: »

Hehe, true enough. I'd say it isn't a case of the eye evading what the mind doesn't want to acknowledge. I know he's Canadian, but he can't be that out of the western social/political loop. Hopefully the vague smell of just-rendered goose fat will help to prevent different types of attack on humanities departments across America, for example :pac:


To his credit, it seems as though he's adopting a lovingly outraged paternal persona to model a daring intellectual iconoclasm, aimed solely at, and for the benefit of, lost young people. At the same time, he's lining his pockets to an unknown tune, stirring up directive passion, and ignoring some basic identities in his own argument. A suitably cynical Martin Luther King for the cynical age, maybe

And have you considered the other possibility that he is genuine? That we are getting the real man?

Intothesea

GerryDerpy wrote: »

And have you considered the other possibility that he is genuine? That we are getting the real man?

No, I make off-the-cuff judgments about social campaigners because I'm a neo-liberal snowflake :pac:

On first approach I thought him to be genuine and supremely mindful of the potential effect of his utterances. After viewing more of his talks, it seems his directives to young people could bring about more polarization in society with a stronger likelihood of bringing down the west, as Peterson seems to fear.

It's also evident that his logical edition of 'the cause' is missing some key, and utterly obvious factors to someone as educated and obviously clever as he is. So, while his efforts to help young men shake off their malaise, and infuse them with positive attitude, will, and sense of self are very valuable, it seems that the foundations of his arguments are prone to collapse, let's just say.

I'm sure time will tell, and of course, he might decide to change his analysis and presentation over time. No one can discount the idea that he's such a fan of neo-liberal thinking that he simply can't address the elephant in the room, so to speak.

GerryDerpy

Intothesea wrote: »

No, I make off-the-cuff judgments about social campaigners because I'm a neo-liberal snowflake :pac:

On first approach I thought him to be genuine and supremely mindful of the potential effect of his utterances. After viewing more of his talks, it seems his directives to young people could bring about more polarization in society with a stronger likelihood of bringing down the west, as Peterson seems to fear.

It's also evident that his logical edition of 'the cause' is missing some key, and utterly obvious factors to someone as educated and obviously clever as he is. So, while his efforts to help young men shake off their malaise, and infuse them with positive attitude, will, and sense of self are very valuable, it seems that the foundations of his arguments are prone to collapse, let's just say.

I'm sure time will tell, and of course, he might decide to change his analysis and presentation over time. No one can discount the idea that he's such a fan of neo-liberal thinking that he simply can't address the elephant in the room, so to speak.

But he doesn't have an agenda. He is a clinical physiologist. His advice is tuned from thousands of hours of counselling.

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

No, I make off-the-cuff judgments about social campaigners because I'm a neo-liberal snowflake :pac:

On first approach I thought him to be genuine and supremely mindful of the potential effect of his utterances. After viewing more of his talks, it seems his directives to young people could bring about more polarization in society with a stronger likelihood of bringing down the west, as Peterson seems to fear.

It's also evident that his logical edition of 'the cause' is missing some key, and utterly obvious factors to someone as educated and obviously clever as he is. So, while his efforts to help young men shake off their malaise, and infuse them with positive attitude, will, and sense of self are very valuable, it seems that the foundations of his arguments are prone to collapse, let's just say.

I'm sure time will tell, and of course, he might decide to change his analysis and presentation over time. No one can discount the idea that he's such a fan of neo-liberal thinking that he simply can't address the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Well that's a long winded way to say noting at all but, yeah, I don't like the guy, for 'reasons'.

Intothesea

GerryDerpy wrote: »

But he doesn't have an agenda. He is a clinical physiologist. His advice is tuned from thousands of hours of counselling.

I'm pretty sure he has an agenda, that ostensibly relates to healing what he sees as widespread malaise issues in the west. It's difficult to tell if his key concern is the apparent fall of the west, or if this is a theatrical prop for his production, along with deliberately misidentifying the cause of the malaise.

Being a clinical psychologist doesn't preclude someone from fighting a good fight for the wrong reasons, or a bad fight for the right ones, regardless of the source or genuineness of the driving concern. Why would it?

Intothesea

conorhal wrote: »

Well that's a long winded way to say noting at all but, yeah, I don't like the guy, for 'reasons'.

And that's a short way to say that you don't like my observations about Peterson. What are your 'reasons'? :pac:

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

And that's a short way to say that you don't like what my observations about Peterson. What are your 'reasons'? :pac:

Observations? Of what?

Regards that interview, here's somebody capable of them!

It seems that Channel 4 doesn't care for actual opinions......
According to Karen Straughan
"Within ten minutes of this video going up, Channel 4 had hit me with a copyright takedown. I filed a dispute based on fair use and it's now viewable again."

For a video 39 minutes long, that's an interesting approach from C4 considering they couldn't have actually watched it, it's almost as if they didn't want this critique. And it's a great critique BTW. Possible a definitive one.

Intothesea

conorhal wrote: »

Observations? Of what?

Well, the eye definitely evades what the mind can't acknowledge here. Or, you could say that referring to, but denying the existence of certain unwelcome criticisms is evidence of untenable cognitive dissonance

I'm glad to inform you that you have perfect analogues on the other side of the apparent ideological dichotomy: your friendly neighbourhood neo-feminists :pac:

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

Well, the eye definitely evades what the mind can't acknowledge here. Or, you could say that referring to, but denying the existence of certain unwelcome criticisms is evidence of untenable cognitive dissonance

I'm glad to inform you that you have perfect analogues on the other side of the apparent ideological dichotomy: your friendly neighbourhood neo-feminists :pac:

Is your mastermind specialty subject, word salad that means nothing?

Intothesea

conorhal wrote: »

Is your mastermind specialty subject, word salad that means nothing?

Is yours making yourself look brainless because you don't like someone's take?

It's entirely your call.

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

Is yours making yourself look brainless because you don't like someone's take?

It's entirely your call.

So, 'what you're saying' is, I have no understanding of irony...:D

Intothesea

No, more that you're invalidating your own invalidating efforts by making a laughably lazy move to ignore based on the pretense of your own ignorance.

As Peterson would doubtlessly say: Stand up and tell the truth! Stand up straight and counteract something you believe to be untrue! Don't sink to the bent and twisted techniques of the opposing side! Pretending a criticism you don't like is ignorable because you don't agree with it is the type of intellectual dishonesty that is bringing down the west, it's a showcase of post-modernist destruction!


Anyway, good evening.

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

No, more that you're invalidating your own invalidating efforts by making a laughably lazy move to ignore based on the pretense of your own ignorance.

As Peterson would doubtlessly say: Stand up and tell the truth! Stand up straight and counteract something you believe to be untrue! Don't sink to the bent and twisted techniques of the opposing side! Pretending a criticism you don't like is ignorable because you don't agree with it is the type of intellectual dishonesty that is bringing down the west, it's a showcase of post-modernist destruction!


Anyway, good evening.

Bye!







Anyway, people should watch Karen Straughan's analysis and response to the interview. She's a formidable woman and possibly smarter and certainly more direct than Peterson.

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

Your question makes no sense, I ascribed no ideology to the left. I simply referenced the group that’s left of the centre.

But of course you already know that

Who are the people in 'the group that's left of centre'? What are their defining features?

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Who are the people in 'the group that's left of centre'? What are their defining features?

So, based on the standard AH rules of debate at this stage your either a) taking the piss with a view to at some later stage claiming some victory or superiority based on a semantic point nitpicked from a string of banal questions b) looking to drag yet another tangent out of this thread or c) live under a rock and have never heard of the internet.

So I’m going to do you a HUGE favour!

I’m going to give you a solution, an answer to not only those questions, but also many of the possible future questions you could ask!

Really!






Www.google.com



There you go, something for you to try! You’re very welcome.

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

So, based on the standard AH rules of debate at this stage your either a) taking the piss with a view to at some later stage claiming some victory or superiority based on a semantic point nitpicked from a string of banal questions b) looking to drag yet another tangent out of this thread or c) live under a rock and have never heard of the internet.

So I’m going to do you a HUGE favour!

I’m going to give you a solution, an answer to not only those questions, but also many of the possible future questions you could ask!

Really!






Www.google.com



There you go, something for you to try! You’re very welcome.

So you use a sweeping generalisation that you describe as "the left" and the only definition or explanation of your generalisation that you have to offer is a search engine. Hmmm.

Dyr

Intothesea wrote: »

On first approach I thought him to be genuine and supremely mindful of the potential effect of his utterances. After viewing more of his talks, it seems his directives to young people could bring about more polarization in society with a stronger likelihood of bringing down the west, as Peterson seems to fear.

It's also evident that his logical edition of 'the cause' is missing some key, and utterly obvious factors to someone as educated and obviously clever as he is. So, while his efforts to help young men shake off their malaise, and infuse them with positive attitude, will, and sense of self are very valuable, it seems that the foundations of his arguments are prone to collapse, let's just say.
.

His views are probably a result of being involved in campus life which seems to have taken a turn towards the utterly Orwellian.

Feel free to collapse those arguments while you're here anyway

Ulysses Gaze

conorhal wrote: »

Bye!







Anyway, people should watch Karen Straughan's analysis and response to the interview. She's a formidable woman and possibly smarter and certainly more direct than Peterson.

Excellent video. Thanks for sharing.

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you use a sweeping generalisation that you describe as "the left" and the only definition or explanation of your generalisation that you have to offer is a search engine. Hmmm.

If you really don’t know the distinction between the left and the right then you need more than my help.

If you don’t understand or indeed object to the breath of that well understood term and concept then that’s really a problem for you rather than anyone else

If you haven’t the get up and go to look up the different flavors within that then don’t expect a stranger on the internet to do it for you

If you have an agenda or axe to grind then by all means put it on the page, hell fill your boots.just dont expect me to play your silly games

Hmmmmmm?

inforfun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6qBxn_hFDQ

Quite a few pages ago there was a clip of Peterson being interviewed by Dutch web site Geenstijl.

Here the full interview if anyone is interested. It is almost 2 hours...

Starts with discussing the Channel4 interview

Professor Moriarty

tritium wrote: »

If you really don’t know the distinction between the left and the right then you need more than my help.

If you don’t understand or indeed object to the breath of that well understood term and concept then that’s really a problem for you rather than anyone else

If you haven’t the get up and go to look up the different flavors within that then don’t expect a stranger on the internet to do it for you

If you have an agenda or axe to grind then by all means put it on the page, hell fill your boots.just dont expect me to play your silly games

Hmmmmmm?

So you can't define 'the left'. Maybe you shouldn't use the term in that case. Just a thought.

tritium

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you can't define 'the left'. Maybe you shouldn't use the term in that case. Just a thought.

I already defined the left for you, in the generally accepted fashion -you accused me of a sweeping generalization. Which is a pretty daft claim given it’s one of just three terms that between them encompass the spectrum of political ideology, I.e its meant to be broad

There’s actually an, admittedly slightly loose at times explanation here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Since you struggle with search engines I’ll even give you a compare and contrast for free
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

And for broad completeness

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism

Maybe you should learn to do your own research like the rest of us- just a thought

Now I’m through pulling this off topic at your behest ....

Earthhorse

GerryDerpy wrote: »

But he doesn't have an agenda. He is a clinical physiologist. His advice is tuned from thousands of hours of counselling.

The fact that he's a clinical psychologist doesn't prevent him from having an agenda.

backspin.

Earthhorse wrote: »

The fact that he's a clinical psychologist doesn't prevent him from having an agenda.

So what your saying is he wants to kill us all.

silverharp

Earthhorse wrote: »

The fact that he's a clinical psychologist doesn't prevent him from having an agenda.

that people can lead more fulfilled lived, the bastard