Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Intothesea

@Rugbyf

It seems you haven't looked at enough of Peterson's videos to know that he directs, in a very clear way, his followers to act against liberal university departments.

That's where anyone without a tin foil hat would have to sit up and take more critical notice, in my opinion.

Also, Peterson's educational background and profession don't preclude him from having a personal-value approach to his apparent politics. Why would it. Do you mean to say that we should take his overall intention as entirely suitable and adroit because of his credentials? That's what it sounds like anyway.

Intothesea

@ConorHal

Yes, because of Peterson's declared political position, he's entitled to ignore key elements of causality in the system he's critiquing and partially demonizing.

I don't think it's too hard to spot that what I'm saying here is tolerable until I declare my lack of total faith in neo-liberal policy and affects. This is the moment when I'm responded to as glaringly heretical in this Peterson kool-aid-drinking zone

Relax folks, you can still follow your hero and cash in big time in the next neo-liberally engineered wave -- unless people start to retreat just enough from the official party line to consider modifying neo-liberal-policy handling in Ireland enough to profit in a more sustainable and less socially-damaging way.

Ireland took up neo-liberal policy in a 'third-way' format initially, which went out the window with the boom and IMF restructuring after the crash. Only the people of Ireland can prevent the short-sighted government of Ireland from practicising neoliberal policy with their eyes relatively closed.

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

@ConorHal

Yes, because of Peterson's declared political position, he's entitled to ignore key elements of causality in the system he's critiquing and partially demonizing.

I don't think it's too hard to spot that what I'm saying here is tolerable until I declare my lack of total faith in neo-liberal policy and affects. This is the moment when I'm responded to as glaringly heretical in this Peterson kool-aid-drinking zone

Relax folks, you can still follow your hero and cash in big time in the next neo-liberally engineered wave -- unless people start to retreat just enough from the official party line to consider modifying neo-liberal-policy handling in Ireland enough to profit in a more sustainable and less socially-damaging way.

Ireland took up neo-liberal policy in a 'third-way' format initially, which went out the window with the boom and IMF restructuring after the crash. Only the people of Ireland can prevent the short-sighted government of Ireland from practicising neoliberal policy with their eyes relatively closed.

So what you're sayin is.... I've not a shred of evidence that Peterson is an ardent supporter of neo-liberalism, but by his failure to decry it (I haven't watched all his videos, perhaps he has) he's therefore clearly a supporter of it?
I'm also not sure how sticking to his own area of competency in his commentary, psychology rather then economics, constitutes some sort of glaring failure.

Intothesea

conorhal wrote: »

So what you're sayin is.... I've not a shred of evidence that Peterson is an ardent supporter of neo-liberalism, but by his failure to decry it (I haven't watched all his videos, perhaps he has) he's therefore clearly a supporter of it?
I'm also not sure how sticking to his own area of competency in his commentary, psychology rather then economics, constitutes some sort of glaring failure.

So, this is your official excuse on Peterson's behalf for not addressing the elephant in the room of the system he's addressing, and where the elephant in question unravels his concept of good vs bad and defeatable?!

What a coincidence. As Earthhorse has it a few pages ago, without ignoring issues on the right, his political goose is cooked. That's about as simple and obviously true as it gets.

However, we'll overlook all this because Peterson is a psychologist and not a politician, and therefore incapable of clocking a full picture of reality...

Here's a question, why are you okay with accepting his overall analysis if you know he's functionally blind to the big picture?

Or are you denying that economic policy that has known and negative social and therefore psychological affects is relevant here?

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

So, this is your official excuse on Peterson's behalf for not addressing the elephant in the room of the system he's addressing, and where the elephant in question unravels his concept of good vs bad and defeatable?!

What a coincidence. As Earthhorse has it a few pages ago, without ignoring issues on the right, his political goose is cooked. That's about as simple and obviously true as it gets.

However, we'll overlook all this because Peterson is a psychologist and not a politician, and therefore incapable of clicking a full picture of reality...

Here's a question, why are you okay with accepting his overall analysis if you know he's functionally blind to the big picture?

Or are you denying that economic policy that has known and negative social and therefore psychological affects is outside relevance here?

I'm sure there's a coherent point in there somwhere, but I can't see it with all the strawmen in the way.

"However, we'll overlook all this because Peterson is a psychologist and not a politician, and therefore incapable of clicking a full picture of reality..."

AHhahahahhahhahaha..... *sigh* if you ever find a politician with a clear view of the full picture let me know, I'd love to have at least one I can vote for.
Peterson isn't offering anybody a full picture and isn't claiming to. One of his areas of research has been into the psychology authoritarian ideologies, but 'watch out for those Marxists and facists, they start with burning books and end with burning people', isn't some endorsement of neo liberalism. Your main bugbear appears to be the fact he hasn't critiqued it and isn't a declared socialist.

Intothesea

conorhal wrote: »

I'm sure there's a coherent point in there somwhere, but I can't see it with all the strawmen in the way.

"However, we'll overlook all this because Peterson is a psychologist and not a politician, and therefore incapable of clicking a full picture of reality..."

AHhahahahhahhahaha..... *sigh* if you ever find a politician with a clear view of the full picture let me know, I'd love to have at least one I can vote for.
Peterson isn't offering anybody a full picture and isn't claiming to.

That's some very strong obvious reality-denial there. Do you really believe that economic policy with known negative social and psychological effects is just a forgettable detail in the big picture of: Peterson's analysis of social reality using psychological and philosophical models?!

I'll take it that you can't be serious, and can't take anything approaching criticism of Peterson. Maybe it would be worthwhile to figure out why you are as functionally blind to key drivers of social systems as you claim Peterson to be?

And yes, my bugbear is obviously something totally unrelated that I'm not declaring up front...


Anyway, I hope enough moderately-minded Peterson followers will take something of value from my post to Playboy, and not be too distracted by the deliberate nonsense put up so far in response.

Playboy

Intothesea wrote: »

@ConorHal

Yes, because of Peterson's declared political position, he's entitled to ignore key elements of causality in the system he's critiquing and partially demonizing.

I don't think it's too hard to spot that what I'm saying here is tolerable until I declare my lack of total faith in neo-liberal policy and affects. This is the moment when I'm responded to as glaringly heretical in this Peterson kool-aid-drinking zone

Relax folks, you can still follow your hero and cash in big time in the next neo-liberally engineered wave -- unless people start to retreat just enough from the official party line to consider modifying neo-liberal-policy handling in Ireland enough to profit in a more sustainable and less socially-damaging way.

Ireland took up neo-liberal policy in a 'third-way' format initially, which went out the window with the boom and IMF restructuring after the crash. Only the people of Ireland can prevent the short-sighted government of Ireland from practicising neoliberal policy with their eyes relatively closed.

For what it's worth I think you are correct. It does seem to be a glaring omission now that you have pointed it out. It's a shame that your genuine  and well considered criticism seems to have upset certain individuals on here. It might be useful to email him your thoughts, he does seem to respond to mail from what I've heard. I had a quick scan though his research work and he doesn't seem to touch on any of the issues you raise so it would be good to hear why.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2

Intothesea

Playboy wrote: »

For what it's worth I think you are correct. It does seem to be a glaring omission now that you have pointed it out. It's a shame that your genuine  and well considered criticism seems to have upset certain individuals on here. It might be useful to email him your thoughts, he does seem to respond to mail from what I've heard. I had a quick scan though his research work and he doesn't seem to touch on any of the issues you raise so it would be good to hear why.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2

Ah, thank you Playboy, and on multiple counts. I've entertained the idea of contacting Peterson, but recognize that his approach to nullifying aspects of reality that don't suit his apparent political aims means that I'm likely to be banging my head off the type of wall on partial view here. I think I will do it though, to stand up straight and fight for the truth as I perceive it in the best interests of humanity. That's one thing of many I agree with and laud in Peterson's general outlay of advice.

Rugbyf565

Intothesea wrote: »

Ah, thank you Playboy, and on multiple counts. I've entertained the idea of contacting Peterson, but recognize that his approach to nullifying aspects of reality that don't suit his apparent political aims means that I'm likely to be banging my head off the type of wall on partial view here. I think I will do it though, to stand up straight and fight for the truth as I perceive it in the best interests of humanity. That's one thing of many I agree with and laud in Peterson's general outlay of advice.

Please give me some evidence of Peterson supporting neo-liberal/laissez faire policies?

Intothesea

Rugbyf565 wrote: »

Please give me some evidence of Peterson supporting neo-liberal/laissez faire policies?

Have you been taking desperate-deflection technique lessons from neo-feminists? :pac:

If you're claiming it's not obvious from the total of what I've posted on the topic that Peterson is ignoring flaming hot key issues in the system he purports to analyse and critique, then I don't know what I can say to rectify the apparent perception or thinking issues that prevent you from carrying out this simple identification.

pumpkin4life

Intothesea wrote: »

Overall, I would recommend investigating the exact nature and aims of neo-liberal policy, its known negative effects on society and individuals, and how these effects 'turn up' lack of social cohesion and group identity to produce different modes of dysfunction across society. On the other side, stake out what happens to individual psychology when society is redefined in terms of a strict money or money-making meritocracy, and also different expressions of distress expressed according to gender (and age: people coming of age during the boom, in particular) in a neo-liberally defined boom and bust (i.e. Ireland's specific case).

The spiritual death of the West.

Whether that began during the 19th century (Nietszche and Dostoyevsky saying hold on a sec lads, this nihilism shìte ain't the best idea) or World War I or even further back than that, that's more up for debate.

Because when a lad be feeling down, what the hell else are you going to do with your time?

Dyr

I see there's a lot of Peterson T-Shirts knocking about, some of which are genuinely funny. The chap is now approaching peak meme.

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/jordan+peterson?ref=search_box

Intothesea

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The spiritual death of the West.

Whether that began during the 19th century (Nietszche and Dostoyevsky saying hold on a sec lads, this nihilism shìte ain't the best idea) or World War I or even further back than that, that's more up for debate.

Because when a lad be feeling down, what the hell else are you going to do with your time?

If I read your obliquely presented assertions correctly here, you're saying that the spiritual death of the West has intellectual and literary antecedents in a century before the modern age.

Well, I don't disagree, and who could.

The modes of thought that Peterson specifically rejects and orders his followers to vanquish originate in 20th century modernity, and have been illogically co-opted by people responding to negative issues in today's neo-liberal social reality.

That is to say, Peterson desires the destruction of modern thinking styles rather than examining the reasons why a section of modern people have taken up obvious abuse of these thinking styles.

Anyway, my response refers to what I think is the assertion that it's not possible to put a finger on primarily neo-liberal, or any one cause of western spiritual malaise.

This is true, though it's possible to say that today's newly-presenting details of Western malaise can be linked directly to modern economic and social affects.

conorhal

Bambi wrote: »

I see there's a lot of Peterson T-Shirts knocking about, some of which are genuinely funny. The chap is now approaching peak meme.

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/jordan+peterson?ref=search_box

If anything it contributes validity to the meme that 'conservatisim is the new counter culture', especially if it gets to the point that Peterson appears on more T-Shirts then Che.

Dyr

conorhal wrote: »

If anything it contributes validity to the meme that 'conservatisim is the new counter culture', especially if it gets to the point that Peterson appears on more T-Shirts then Che.

I reckon counter culture is the new counter culture

It's just subcultures laughing at the fact that they can play the established narrative because it is so literal and senstive, hence the rise of kekistan etc.

xckjoo

Intothesea wrote: »

Here's a question, why are you okay with accepting his overall analysis if you know he's functionally blind to the big picture?

We're all functionally blind to the big picture. The trick is to figure out what bits of "truth" people have and how you can accept and adopt them to improve your own views. The definition of "truth" and "improve" will depend on the individual

Earthhorse

conorhal wrote: »

I'm also not sure how sticking to his own area of competency in his commentary, psychology rather then economics, constitutes some sort of glaring failure.

As far as I can see he regularly speaks about the wage gap, which is economics, and he pretty much built his public reputation on his objections to bill c 16, which is the law, and a law he didn't understand, carrying on with his objections even after being corrected about them by legal scholars on the matter.

He also doesn't appear to have a good grasp on economics given that he appears to think the jobs market is somehow controlled by household spending in his C4 interview.

Dyr

Earthhorse wrote: »

As far as I can see he regularly speaks about the wage gap, which is economics, and he pretty much built his public reputation on his objections to bill c 16, which is the law, and a law he didn't understand, carrying on with his objections even after being corrected about them by legal scholars on the matter.

He also doesn't appear to have a good grasp on economics given that he appears to think the jobs market is somehow controlled by household spending in his C4 interview.

I sense a switch and bai a la James damore

Perhaps list Peterson's objections and said legal scholars rebuutal

Intothesea

xckjoo wrote: »

We're all functionally blind to the big picture. The trick is to figure out what bits of "truth" people have and how you can accept and adopt them to improve your own views. The definition of "truth" and "improve" will depend on the individual

It's ironic that one of Peterson's apparent aims is to teach young people to think for themselves, but that the people most in need of his teaching are such strict adherents to his words that even a fairly straightforward criticism of the overall logicality of his position can apparently provoke a claim for the necessity of blind faith.

Earthhorse

Bambi wrote: »

I sense a switch and bai a la James damore

What in the name of everliving sh*t are you talking about?

Perhaps list Peterson's objections and said legal scholars rebuutal

Here's the rebuttal from Brenda Crossman, a professor of law at the University of Toronto:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

And a document from the Canadian Bar Association wherein theY address concerns over the bill's impact on freedom of expression:

http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f

Playboy

Earthhorse wrote: »

conorhal wrote: »

I'm also not sure how sticking to his own area of competency in his commentary, psychology rather then economics, constitutes some sort of glaring failure.

As far as I can see he regularly speaks about the wage gap, which is economics, and he pretty much built his public reputation on his objections to bill c 16, which is the law, and a law he didn't understand, carrying on with his objections even after being corrected about them by legal scholars on the matter.

He also doesn't appear to have a good grasp on economics given that he appears to think the jobs market is somehow controlled by household spending in his C4 interview.

There was different legal opinions on his objections to C-16. Some disagreed with him and some agreed. I think he was to some extent proven right re the risks by the Lindsey Shepard debacle.

He said that women made 80% of consumer decisions in the Newman interview. I have no idea if that statistic is correct but I think you are misrepresenting the point he was making.

It’s fine to disagree with him and in fact I think he is open to criticism from what I have seen of him. But please don’t fall into the trap of strawmanning his views, it’s in some sense worse than following him uncritically as many do.

BurnUp78

Never heard of this Peterson guy before but i just watched him on the Joe Rogan experience and he's a very interesting man.

Earthhorse

Playboy wrote: »

There was different legal opinions on his objections to C-16. Some disagreed with him and some agreed. I think he was to some extent proven right re the risks by the Lindsey Shepard debacle.

The point is that he speaks outside his area of expertise and doesn't leave it to the experts in those fields to duke it out.

He said that women made 80% of consumer decisions in the Newman interview. I have no idea if that statistic is correct but I think you are misrepresenting the point he was making.

Here's the transcript of the relevant part:

Peterson: Well I can give you an example very quickly. So I worked with women who worked in high-powered law firms in Canada for about 15 years. And they were as competent and put together as anybody you would ever meet. And we were trying to figure out how to further their careers. And there was a huge debate in Canadian society at that point, that basically ran along the same lines as your argument. That if the law firms didn’t use these masculine criteria then perhaps women would do better. But the market sets the damn game! It’s like..

Newman: And the market is dominated by men!

Peterson: No it’s not! It’s not! The market is dominated by women! They make 80 percent of the consumer decisions. That’s not the case at all. Eighty percent!

Newman: If you’re talking about people who stay at home looking after children, by and large, they are still women. So they’re going out doing the shopping. But that is changing, …

Peterson: They make all the consumer decisions.

So I am not misrepresenting his point. They are talking about the job market. He makes the point that women make 80% of consumer decisions and that they therefore dominate the market. They are not the same market.

It’s fine to disagree with him and in fact I think he is open to criticism from what I have seen of him. But please don’t fall into the trap of strawmanning his views, it’s in some sense worse than following him uncritically as many do.

I have not engaged in strawmanning. Please don't be so condescending, it's not appreciated.

JRant

I really don’t agree with the premise that JP’s philosophy is rooted in Neo-Liberalism. He is very much from the Burkean Conservative school of thought.

It is also patiently wrong to say he ignores the ‘Id’ as described by Jung. In fact he goes to great pains to say the exact opposite. It is only by examining the Id that we truly understand human nature and how everyone has the capability for evil if it’s not controlled.

Dyr

Earthhorse wrote: »

So I am not misrepresenting his point. They are talking about the job market. He makes the point that women make 80% of consumer decisions and that they therefore dominate the market. They are not the same market.



I have not engaged in strawmanning. Please don't be so condescending, it's not appreciated.

You're misrepresenting his point because you don't even understand it, it's not a reference to the jobs market at all

The market is the customer, who in this instance is the consumer and he's saying that women make 80% of the decisions in the consumer market (do they? I don't know). The customer doesn't care about the work/life balance in your company they care about meeting their own needs.

He's made this point before about high flying legal types, saying their firms can try to have more friendly work life balance to retain women but when you have a high value customer who's paying silly money, then they expect you to be on the end of the phone when required regardless of time it is in your part of the world.

Intothesea

JRant wrote: »

I really don’t agree with the premise that JP’s philosophy is rooted in Neo-Liberalism. He is very much from the Burkean Conservative school of thought.

It is also patiently wrong to say he ignores the ‘Id’ as described by Jung. In fact he goes to great pains to say the exact opposite. It is only by examining the Id that we truly understand human nature and how everyone has the capability for evil if it’s not controlled.

There's no premise presented that his philosophy is rooted in neo-liberalism, but that he fails to address neo-liberally derived social forces in the large tableau of aberrant social reality that he purports to address.

As well, while Peterson may talk adroitly about the need to integrate ego and id harmoniously in the psyche to reach full psychological maturity in the individual, he seems to wantonly ignore the analogous system of right and reactionary left in society.

JRant

Intothesea wrote: »

There's no premise presented that his philosophy is rooted in neo-liberalism, but that he fails to address neo-liberally derived social forces in the large tableau of aberrant social reality that he purports to address.

As well, while Peterson may talk adroitly about the need to integrate ego and id harmoniously in the psyche to reach full psychological maturity in the individual, he seems to wantonly ignore the analogous system of right and reactionary left in society.

I respectfully disagree. In many of his videos he questions the validity of neo-liberalism and goes into great detail of the effects that the Pareto distribution has on society, notably the inequality of income this produces. He discusses this in great detail with Dr Martin Daly in one of his podcast and I would recommend a listen if you can.

While he does discuss the similarities between far right and far left ideologies, I can understand why he focuses on the far left element as they are the ones with so much sway in Canadian Universities and public life. He seems genuinely perplexed by the apparent double standard that the Nazi/far right are rightly condemned yet marxist ideals are welcomed with open arms when it has led to the deaths over approximately 100 million people in the 20th century.

Earthhorse

Bambi wrote: »

You're misrepresenting his point because you don't even understand it, it's not a reference to the jobs market at all

Either I misunderstand his point or I misrepresent it, make up your mind.

The market is the customer, who in this instance is the consumer and he's saying that women make 80% of the decisions in the consumer market (do they? I don't know). The customer doesn't care about the work/life balance in your company they care about meeting their own needs.

He's made this point before about high flying legal types, saying their firms can try to have more friendly work life balance to retain women but when you have a high value customer who's paying silly money, then they expect you to be on the end of the phone when required regardless of time it is in your part of the world.

Yes, so he is painting a link between the consumer market i.e. what gets spent and the jobs market i.e. who gets hired. Like yourself I have no idea whether his statistic is correct but even assuming it is, what does it mean? Does controlling 80% of decisions mean those decisions account for 80% of consumer spending? Not at all, indeed they may well only count for 20% of spending. We don't know.

Further, is consumer spending the only type of spending. Let's take the example you say he's used to make his point before; that of high flying legal types and the firms that employ them. Who are their customers? Are they the general consumer? Unlikely. How about wealthy people? Seems more likely. And what is the breakdown of spending in those households? And what other clients might they have? Maybe industry; big firms and the like. And who is in charge of making decisions in those firms predominantly?

In short, the claim that controlling 80% of consumer decisions results in the workplace culture in high flying legal firms is not a strongly evidenced one.

Intothesea

JRant wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. In many of his videos he questions the validity of neo-liberalism and goes into great detail of the effects that the Pareto distribution has on society, notably the inequality of income this produces. He discusses this in great detail with Dr Martin Daly in one of his podcast and I would recommend a listen if you can.

You respectfully disagree that Peterson fails to address some of the key negative social issues he fancies are ruining western society as aspects of the consequences of neo-liberal policy, rather than attributing these negative features to mysterious happenstance, or a simple result of the Pareto principle. I have to say, I'm not sure how it's possible to do that.

While he does discuss the similarities between far right and far left ideologies, I can understand why he focuses on the far left element as they are the ones with so much sway in Canadian Universities and public life. He seems genuinely perplexed by the apparent double standard that the Nazi/far right are rightly condemned yet marxist ideals are welcomed with open arms when it has led to the deaths over approximately 100 million people in the 20th century.

Hmm, I wonder why these left-leaning viewpoints are gaining such traction in Canadian society? Could it be that a significant section of the society are in a political position relative to the dominant neo-liberally aligned right that they manifest a psychological need for post-modern and post-Marxist thinking styles to process their experience and present alternatives. As well, these modern thinking lenses are not tools instrinsically capable of the crimes you seem to be charging them of. No thinking style is.

Dyr

If you misunderstand a point you will misrepresent it.

And now you've managed to link two separate examples in an attempt to create a single argument that you can attack for not making sense

Either you can't follow what's being written or you are being disingenuous.

Lets assume its the former: the customer (the market) drives the companies strategy, due to competition. Newman tried to rescue her argument by claiming that the market is male, Peterson countered that it is not and gave a statistic to back it up.

Newman made a similar (and stupid) mistake when she complained that women have to pay extra for a pink bicycle helmet when she missed the entire point that it could be womens willingness to pay extra for that specific colour that set the price