Jordan Peterson interview on C4

JRant

Intothesea wrote: »

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.



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.

You'll have to rephrase that first question because I haven't got the foggiest what you are asking.

What I am say is that he does discuss neo-liberalism, the effect of the Parents distribution within such systems and the inequality that comes from this.

Canada would not be a neo-liberalism society in the same way the States would be. They have State health care and high taxation. It is a very progressive liberal society. It's much more feasible that the rise in radical leftists, epecially in University, is a result of the humanities being predominantly extremely left leaning.

pumpkin4life

Sidenote:

Neo liberalism is seen as this free market term/idea, when it's actually the reverse.

All you have to do is look at the government spending as a percentage of GDP over the past century or so. It's increased in pretty much every western country.

The world in general has become increasingly socialist and increasingly anti-capitalist, not less.

Though maybe a lad can argue that over a long enough timespan, the free market or a free marketish country will end up with more government intervention anyway.

U.S graph post WWII:

Earthhorse

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

That's an assertion you're going to have to explain.

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

Aside from your point above I can perfectly follow and I'm not being disingenuous. Like I said to Playboy, please lose the condescension, it's not appreciated.

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.

And I've already pointed out the problem(s) with that statistic.

Intothesea

JRant wrote: »

You'll have to rephrase that first question because I haven't got the foggiest what you are asking.

Okay, I don't think it's hard to parse the different parts of the statement and also notice that I'm not asking any questions. However, I wasn't saying anything about Peterson's fundamentally lacking edition of the cause of the negative social issues he demonises that I haven't repeatedly addressed in detail for the last few pages.

What I am say is that he does discuss neo-liberalism, the effect of the Parents distribution within such systems and the inequality that comes from this.

Well, that's very generous of him. How does he account for the rise of very specific new features of spiritual malaise and social discontentment when the Pareto principle has always produced a constant affect across time?

Canada would not be a neo-liberalism society in the same way the States would be. They have State health care and high taxation. It is a very progressive liberal society. It's much more feasible that the rise in radical leftists, epecially in University, is a result of the humanities being predominantly extremely left leaning.

It is possible for a country to orient itself as economically neo-liberal while retaining important social-democracy related features. Ireland would be a good example of this. Did Ireland avoid negative social affects due to the action of neo-liberal policy during the boom and crash due to it retaining a mixed format?

Why is it much more feasible? Is it not more feasible and likely that young people in the Canadian system are absorbing, retaining, and transmitting to others the key useful attitudes and critical thinking styles they feel psychologically compelled to engage in order to deal with a reality that they perceive is unfavorable for them? As well, as I understand it, the numbers graduating from liberal arts courses in Canada that include the teaching of neo-modern critical thinking styles wouldn't be anywhere near enough to have the affect Peterson complains of. This means there's a strong uptake factor in the community for this style of thinking, based on a commonality of political and social position relative to the neo-liberally infused right that presumably a large cohort of young Canadians find themselves in. If Peterson is genuine in blaming universities for these issues, he can be accused of pretty lazy thinking.

The only question I can have after that is: why?

JRant

Intothesea wrote: »

Okay, I don't think it's hard to parse the different parts of the statement and also notice that I'm not asking any questions. However, I wasn't saying anything about Peterson's fundamentally lacking edition of the cause of the negative social issues he demonises that I haven't repeatedly addressed in detail for the last few pages.



Well, that's very generous of him. How does he account for the rise of very specific new features of spiritual malaise and social discontentment when the Pareto principle has always produced a constant affect across time?



It is possible for a country to orient itself as economically neo-liberal while retaining important social-democracy related features. Ireland would be a good example of this. Did Ireland avoid negative social affects due to the action of neo-liberal policy during the boom and crash due to it retaining a mixed format?

Why is it much more feasible? Is it not more feasible and likely that young people in the Canadian system are absorbing, retaining, and transmitting to others the key useful attitudes and critical thinking styles they feel psychologically compelled to engage in order to deal with a reality that they perceive is unfavorable for them? As well, as I understand it, the numbers graduating from liberal arts courses in Canada that include the teaching of neo-modern critical thinking styles wouldn't be anywhere near enough to have the affect Peterson complains of. This means there's a strong uptake factor in the community for this style of thinking, based on a commonality of political and social position relative to the neo-liberally infused right that presumably a large cohort of young Canadians find themselves in. If Peterson is genuine in blaming universities for these issues, he can be accused of pretty lazy thinking.

The only question I can have after that is: why?

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. It's been a long day and to be honest I would rather give a more detailed response tomorrow when I can actually string a coherent argument together.

Intothesea

JRant wrote: »

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. It's been a long day and to be honest I would rather give a more detailed response tomorrow when I can actually string a coherent argument together.

Cool beans, and same here, with a component of terminal point-repetition fatigue setting in

Charmeleon

Intothesea wrote: »

Okay, I don't think it's hard to parse the different parts of the statement and also notice that I'm not asking any questions. However, I wasn't saying anything about Peterson's fundamentally lacking edition of the cause of the negative social issues he demonises that I haven't repeatedly addressed in detail for the last few pages.



Well, that's very generous of him. How does he account for the rise of very specific new features of spiritual malaise and social discontentment when the Pareto principle has always produced a constant affect across time?



It is possible for a country to orient itself as economically neo-liberal while retaining important social-democracy related features. Ireland would be a good example of this. Did Ireland avoid negative social affects due to the action of neo-liberal policy during the boom and crash due to it retaining a mixed format?

Why is it much more feasible? Is it not more feasible and likely that young people in the Canadian system are absorbing, retaining, and transmitting to others the key useful attitudes and critical thinking styles they feel psychologically compelled to engage in order to deal with a reality that they perceive is unfavorable for them? As well, as I understand it, the numbers graduating from liberal arts courses in Canada that include the teaching of neo-modern critical thinking styles wouldn't be anywhere near enough to have the affect Peterson complains of. This means there's a strong uptake factor in the community for this style of thinking, based on a commonality of political and social position relative to the neo-liberally infused right that presumably a large cohort of young Canadians find themselves in. If Peterson is genuine in blaming universities for these issues, he can be accused of pretty lazy thinking.

The only question I can have after that is: why?

There isn’t a strong ‘uptake factor’ in the community, that was the point of the graphs posted earlier. Universities are becoming more homegenously far-left when the general population remains balanced.

It isn’t capitalism or conservatism that is to blame for this divisive identity politics and oppression olympics. Japan has a capitalist economy (albeit with state subsidies and protectionism towards core export industries) and a strongly socially conservative main part yet doesn’t fit your diagnosis of the problem. The alarming rise of ‘ism’ cults and identity politics among the most privileged, well educated generation in the West, who have vastly more opportunities and equality than people who are genuinely being oppressed is not a reaction to conservatism or capitalism per se.

I think the rise of feminism and identity politics among privileged, well educated and economically well off youth is rooted in post-colonial and slavery guilt among left wing intellectuals. In order for academic western female feminists to side step their enormous privilege, in global terms, they have to increasingly amplify their imagined oppression so they can continue to count themselves among the favoured group, The Oppressed. They cite the correlation between disparity in outcomes and ignore or deny the enormous gains in equal opportunities to back this up.

johnp001

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Sidenote:

Neo liberalism is seen as this free market term/idea, when it's actually the reverse.

All you have to do is look at the government spending as a percentage of GDP over the past century or so. It's increased in pretty much every western country.

The world in general has become increasingly socialist and increasingly anti-capitalist, not less.

Though maybe a lad can argue that over a long enough timespan, the free market or a free marketish country will end up with more government intervention anyway.

U.S graph post WWII:

And the period with a downtrend between 1992-2001 is the period between the end of the cold war and 9/11 when military spending which is a major component of government spending in the US went down.

weemcd

johnp001 wrote: »

And the period with a downtrend between 1992-2001 is the period between the end of the cold war and 9/11 when military spending which is a major component of government spending in the US went down.

Agreed. Just because they are spending more money does not mean that government spending is more socialist. Bulk of that money probably goes to the defence budget, banks, insurers and property investors.

johnp001

weemcd wrote: »

Agreed. Just because they are spending more money does not mean that government spending is more socialist. Bulk of that money probably goes to the defence budget, banks, insurers and property investors.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more socialist".
Government spending on "banks, insurers and property investors" is certainly antithetical to the free market. e.g. if you are referring to programs like TARP, it was widely derided by advocates of the free market as it socialised losses in the financial sector.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "more socialist".
Government spending on "banks, insurers and property investors" is certainly antithetical to the free market. e.g. if you are referring to programs like TARP, it was widely derided by advocates of the free market as it socialised losses in the financial sector.

Authoritarian socialists would have nationalized the banks. Libertarian socialists would have allowed them to fail, as would Right libertarians.

TARP etc were crony capitalism. Pure and simple. The banks took risks safe in the knowledge they would be bailed out.

Charmeleon

Brian? wrote: »

Authoritarian socialists would have nationalized the banks. Libertarian socialists would have allowed them to fail, as would Right libertarians.

TARP etc were crony capitalism. Pure and simple. The banks took risks safe in the knowledge they would be bailed out.

Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail.

Intothesea

Charmeleon wrote: »

There isn’t a strong ‘uptake factor’ in the community, that was the point of the graphs posted earlier. Universities are becoming more homegenously far-left when the general population remains balanced.

It isn’t capitalism or conservatism that is to blame for this divisive identity politics and oppression olympics. Japan has a capitalist economy (albeit with state subsidies and protectionism towards core export industries) and a strongly socially conservative main part yet doesn’t fit your diagnosis of the problem. The alarming rise of ‘ism’ cults and identity politics among the most privileged, well educated generation in the West, who have vastly more opportunities and equality than people who are genuinely being oppressed is not a reaction to conservatism or capitalism per se.

I think the rise of feminism and identity politics among privileged, well educated and economically well off youth is rooted in post-colonial and slavery guilt among left wing intellectuals. In order for academic western female feminists to side step their enormous privilege, in global terms, they have to increasingly amplify their imagined oppression so they can continue to count themselves among the favoured group, The Oppressed. They cite the correlation between disparity in outcomes and ignore or deny the enormous gains in equal opportunities to back this up.

It's not possible to accurately deconstruct and understand the apparent relationships between cause and effect in Japanese society, given that it's an arch-collectivist culture, with many attendant spiritual, moral, and social values that we, as native Western lens users, would find curious and inscrutable. That's not to say you couldn't transpose an interpretation from one system to the other, but that it would likely take a lot of study to have a meaningful chance of deriving a serviceable understanding, let's say.


Universities are becoming more homogeneously left, why? Can the affect that Peterson complains of in society truly be attributable to what is happening in these universities? Young ostensibly privileged people in the West are taking up apparently point-missing ungrateful destructive stances toward reality. Why? Why are their heads so apparently tuned to a destructive naïve need to control the affective face of society so that it doesn't impinge on their entitled selfish conception of what a just world is, where this illogical 'demand' list is so extensive that it can stretch to the very distant territory of white guilt, as you have it?


That is, in general terms, what is it about these youngsters that leaves them without their feet on solid ground, without enough pressing issues of their own that they can take to dictating their immature self-referential concept of perfect reality to all and sundry?


To my mind, it's a complex mix of the effects of factors related to the modern age. Among the many factors throwable into this mix are, for example, the superficial identity-concept mollycoddling power of social media and the internet, emotionally, spiritually and almost physically absent parents, a rising lack of emotional intelligence in society, and a socially-received schema of value that gives practical and ultimately financial rectitude top billing (in America), to start.

As this list is completed, it is possible to note that many of the apparent causes have their source in modern economic policy. Neo-liberal policy social effects and affects are well known and easily clocked. I've already described how these factors create or intensify a 'value-field' that would seem to bring about a particular kind of narcissistically unbalanced irresponsible purveyor of superficial reality dictation. After this, it's ostensibly a case of how many of these players would precipitate in these conditions, and how they co-opt in the modern age, amongst other things. This is an effective uptake factor, at least.


As well, the graph above can be interpreted in different ways to counteract what I appear to be saying or basing my arguments on. However, regardless of spending patterns of any government, the social reality that people live in today tends to a strict meritocracy defined by money, or ability to generate money, at least in the American locale. This is an evident social affect of neo-liberal policy.


As well, it's not possible for anyone to diagnose Western ailments, much as some of us would like to, including Peterson


And I can't understand why western feminists would seek to destroy their own territories and future lives due to a misplaced sense of responsibility or guilt. Ostensibly, they'd have to be mad and hate themselves to move like this. From my own interactions with neo-feminists and reading online, guilt doesn't seem to be the cause of their unethical fight. If you believe that they feel and appreciate the weight of their relative privilege in the West, it's easy to miss the political nature of what they're fighting for, and the reasons for it. Overall, the would-be society destroying stance is a red-herring to give legitimacy to their claims on total equality with men in the only way that equality matters in the modern age: the ability to make money or otherwise survive in the strict meritocracy created by neo-liberal policy.


If you consider what the vista of reality looks like to young women today, they're no longer valued as stay-at-home parents in the new regime, they've lost a fundamental source of security in being able to trust the economic system to give fairly stable employment to their spouses and themselves, and they're aware that the government is now tuned to a frequency of cutting back supports for people who end up in trouble. Add to this the availability and social acceptance of divorce, amongst other things -- it's not hard to imagine that young women are very worried about their personal ability to hack it in the brave new world.

This is ostensibly why they're casting themselves as major victims of 'the patriarchy', and lobbying the government to create an equality dictatorship, quotas, for example -- this is a way to escape the strict meritocracy that men are now subject to.


In my opinion, their fears and desires are understandable but their politics are damaging, lamentable, and have a high potential to create negative social consequences in the future. I believe the defining feature driving this unethical and damaging approach to the problem is reactive or affective narcissism, one of the most well known affects of the value-freedom afforded by neo-liberal policy affects.

Brian?

Charmeleon wrote: »

Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail.

Allowing individual banks to fail while propping up others actually proves my point.

Charmeleon

Brian? wrote: »

Allowing individual banks to fail while propping up others actually proves my point.

Not sure how that thinking works? After Lehman Brothers fell it became starkly apparent that the banks were so indebted to each other across intercontinental borders that letting another one fail would cause a worsening domino effect. That would almost certainly have led to an almost complete global banking collapse along with a global depression.

NIMAN

Watched that piece and I was struck by how many times the professor uttered lines like

"...I didn't say that"

" ...thats not what I said"

The presenter is obviously a very intelligent person, but isn't it strange that she heard him saying things he clearly didn't on quite a few occasions.

Canis Lupus

NIMAN wrote: »

Watched that piece and I was struck by how many times the professor uttered lines like

"...I didn't say that"

" ...thats not what I said"

The presenter is obviously a very intelligent person, but isn't it strange that she heard him saying things he clearly didn't on quite a few occasions.

I don't have the time or to be fair, inclination to double check but on one point in the C4 interview he said he would call a person by their preferred pronoun if they asked him to and then when I watched another unrelated clip he was asked if he would do the same and said no.

I don't know if he changed his standpoint later but that's at least one discrepancy for someone who says he chooses his words very carefully.

AllForIt

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I don't have the time or to be fair, inclination to double check but on one point in the C4 interview he said he would call a person by their preferred pronoun if they asked him to and then when I watched another unrelated clip he was asked if he would do the same and said no.

I don't know if he changed his standpoint later but that's at least one discrepancy for someone who says he chooses his words very carefully.

It's a while since I watched it but I think he said that if a person personally asked him to refer to them by their preferred pronoun he would do so but if he was forced to do so generally by some group ( don't recall what group he was referring to here maybe some angry social justice mob) he wouldn't. No discrepancy there at all.

Dyr

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I don't have the time or to be fair, inclination to double check but on one point in the C4 interview he said he would call a person by their preferred pronoun if they asked him to and then when I watched another unrelated clip he was asked if he would do the same and said no.

I don't know if he changed his standpoint later but that's at least one discrepancy for someone who says he chooses his words very carefully.

The point he usually makes is that your identity is a negotiation between you and the world and he would make a decision depending on his own judgement rather than be compelled by law

Intothesea

For those in terminal doubt that neo-liberal policy can affect social and individual psychology, here for your perusal, from the American Psychological Association, is a report and overview on modern psychological practice as it relates to the neo-liberal status quo, and the ethics of same. This type of analysis is within the domain of theoretical and philosophical psychology, an area Peterson would apparently have quite a bit to do with...

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/teo-a0038960.pdf


Some quotes:

"Neoliberalism has managed to make itself invisible by becoming common sense. I then turn to its effects seen in the kinds of persons we are becoming--effects that, in Sennett’s (1998) words, corrode character and the loyalty and commitment by which it is accomplished."


"Neoliberalism is reformulating personhood, psychological life, moral and ethical responsibility, and what it means to have selfhood and identity. Neoliberalism is now, and should be, of great concern."


On Foucault, the guy Peterson thinks is an anti-christ of some kind... Hmm, an anti-christ to neo-liberal thinking?

"Foucault discovered a connection between neoliberal styles of government and subjectivity. By government or “governmentality,” his invented term, Foucault meant broadly, features and functions of sociopolitical institutions that shape and regulate the attitudes and conduct of individuals. Governmentality links political power to subjectivity.

Foucault drew attention to the governmentality at work in neoliberal political structures emerging in the 1970s and firmly in place by the 1980s in the United States and United Kingdom. He saw “enterprise” as a form and function of governmentality that was becoming generalized beyond neoliberal sociopolitical institutions to all corners of human action and experience, including the shaping of individual life."


"Along with increased risk, the current emphasis on choice, autonomy, and self-reliance insinuates failure as self-failure, for which one is expected to bear sole responsibility. There is diminishing appreciation that individuals’ predicaments are a product of more than simply their individual choice, and include access to opportunities, how opportunities are made available, the capacity to take advantage of opportunities offered, and a host of factors regarding personal histories and the exigencies of lives."


"Orbach (2001) contends that the life narratives of neoliberal selves are fragmented and more resemble a checklist of capacities than a coherent life story. Such checklists, Orbach believes, are not psychologically nourishing and are inadequate for a deeply meaningful experience of self and identity. Orbach also suggests that the convenient corporate solution to the neoliberal fragmenting of time, loss of place, and overwhelming sense of personal insignificance is branding. The buying and wearing of brands has become our way to belong, find our place, and lend coherence to our identities."


Anyway, I'm sure the next argument will be that Ireland is not America. True, but I'm sure it's guessable that neo-liberalism is just getting underway in Ireland, relatively speaking. With the unhinged boom and destructive bust, Irish society suffered with a crash course of neo-liberal effects. In the meantime, the place is still imbued with enough social democratic features that there's still hope to avoid the worst.

s7ryf3925pivug

Googling "Peterson paranoid" retrieves a pretty good blog post outlining some of his weird paranoid nonsense .

http://nicemangos.blogspot.ie/2017/07/professor-jordan-peterson-charlatan.html?m=1

tritium

Intothesea wrote: »

For those in terminal doubt that neo-liberal policy can affect social and individual psychology, here for your perusal, from the American Psychological Association, is a report and overview on modern psychological practice as it relates to the neo-liberal status quo, and the ethics of same. This type of analysis is within the domain of theoretical and philosophical psychology, an area Peterson would apparently have quite a bit to do with...

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/teo-a0038960.pdf


Some quotes:

"Neoliberalism has managed to make itself invisible by becoming common sense. I then turn to its effects seen in the kinds of persons we are becoming--effects that, in Sennett’s (1998) words, corrode character and the loyalty and commitment by which it is accomplished."


"Neoliberalism is reformulating personhood, psychological life, moral and ethical responsibility, and what it means to have selfhood and identity. Neoliberalism is now, and should be, of great concern."


On Foucault, the guy Peterson thinks is an anti-christ of some kind... Hmm, an anti-christ to neo-liberal thinking?

"Foucault discovered a connection between neoliberal styles of government and subjectivity. By government or “governmentality,” his invented term, Foucault meant broadly, features and functions of sociopolitical institutions that shape and regulate the attitudes and conduct of individuals. Governmentality links political power to subjectivity.

Foucault drew attention to the governmentality at work in neoliberal political structures emerging in the 1970s and firmly in place by the 1980s in the United States and United Kingdom. He saw “enterprise” as a form and function of governmentality that was becoming generalized beyond neoliberal sociopolitical institutions to all corners of human action and experience, including the shaping of individual life."


"Along with increased risk, the current emphasis on choice, autonomy, and self-reliance insinuates failure as self-failure, for which one is expected to bear sole responsibility. There is diminishing appreciation that individuals’ predicaments are a product of more than simply their individual choice, and include access to opportunities, how opportunities are made available, the capacity to take advantage of opportunities offered, and a host of factors regarding personal histories and the exigencies of lives."


"Orbach (2001) contends that the life narratives of neoliberal selves are fragmented and more resemble a checklist of capacities than a coherent life story. Such checklists, Orbach believes, are not psychologically nourishing and are inadequate for a deeply meaningful experience of self and identity. Orbach also suggests that the convenient corporate solution to the neoliberal fragmenting of time, loss of place, and overwhelming sense of personal insignificance is branding. The buying and wearing of brands has become our way to belong, find our place, and lend coherence to our identities."


Anyway, I'm sure the next argument will be that Ireland is not America. True, but I'm sure it's guessable that neo-liberalism is just getting underway in Ireland, relatively speaking. With the unhinged boom and destructive bust, Irish society suffered with a crash course of neo-liberal effects. In the meantime, the place is still imbued with enough social democratic features that there's still hope to avoid the worst.

I’m confused, you’re basing your rebuttal of Peterson on an academic paper that’s basically an opinion piece (lots of citation, little new data or analysis) by a psychology professor dabbling in economics.

Isn’t that exactly what Peterson’s critics on here have accused him of? Actually it seems worse since Peterson is at least attempting to bring das to the table

ancapailldorcha

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Googling "Peterson paranoid" retrieves a pretty good blog post outlining some of his weird paranoid nonsense .

http://nicemangos.blogspot.ie/2017/07/professor-jordan-peterson-charlatan.html?m=1

Some of that is feckin' nuts:



https://twitter.com/21logician/status/810512872350617600

Dyr

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Googling "Peterson paranoid" retrieves a pretty good blog post outlining some of his weird paranoid nonsense .

http://nicemangos.blogspot.ie/2017/07/professor-jordan-peterson-charlatan.html?m=1

So many jimmies rustled, in a way it's beautiful

Professor Moriarty

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Googling "Peterson paranoid" retrieves a pretty good blog post outlining some of his weird paranoid nonsense .

http://nicemangos.blogspot.ie/2017/07/professor-jordan-peterson-charlatan.html?m=1

Two initial thoughts about this. Any opinion piece about a person that opens with a derogatory and crude anagram of that person's name should be taken with a large dose of salt. Also, the title of the piece "Professor Jordan Peterson: Charlatan Conservative Christian Perpetually Paranoid about Pronouns & Postmodernism" is factually incorrect.

In 2018, Petersen said that he didn't believe in God (but was afraid that he might exist). Again, in 2018, he stated that he doesn't call himself a Christian.

Intothesea

tritium wrote: »

I’m confused, you’re basing your rebuttal of Peterson on an academic paper that’s basically an opinion piece (lots of citation, little new data or analysis) by a psychology professor dabbling in economics.

Isn’t that exactly what Peterson’s critics on here have accused him of? Actually it seems worse since Peterson is at least attempting to bring das to the table

Evidently you're more confused than you recognize. I'm not rebutting Peterson at all, I'm pointing out his complete omission of key social factors of the modern age that he, for some mysterious reason, leaves out of his analysis of modern societies' ills (and that are precisely the factors that make his analysis, books, and Patreon account such hot tickets today).

You realize that this paper is one of many thousands looking at the social and psychological effects of neo-liberal policy in modernity, right? And that this paper is a discussion written by a suitably qualified candidate drawing on many studies carried out by suitably qualified candidates? That is, psychology academics?

That is to say, there is voluminous work and studies already carried out investigating the relationship between neo-liberal economics and significant negative social affects.

For Peterson to leave this out entirely, while purporting to address the great big picture of 'what is creating malaise in young men', while simultaneously directing his followers to destroy certain methods of thinking is just a very strong sign that he's at something.

That is, while his messages may be very coherent and convincing, do they really make sense? Overall, I would advise his would-be followers to step back and perceive with caution, and of course, always do your own thinking.

Will I Am Not

Bambi wrote: »

So many jimmies rustled, in a way it's beautiful

This post kind of sums up a lot for me. The only thing that matters is getting one over on “the other side”

It’s the same with every online discussion these days. It’s so tedious.

conorhal

Intothesea wrote: »

For those in terminal doubt that neo-liberal policy can affect social and individual psychology, here for your perusal, from the American Psychological Association, is a report and overview on modern psychological practice as it relates to the neo-liberal status quo, and the ethics of same. This type of analysis is within the domain of theoretical and philosophical psychology, an area Peterson would apparently have quite a bit to do with...

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/teo-a0038960.pdf


Some quotes:

"Neoliberalism has managed to make itself invisible by becoming common sense. I then turn to its effects seen in the kinds of persons we are becoming--effects that, in Sennett’s (1998) words, corrode character and the loyalty and commitment by which it is accomplished."

I think there's validity to your argument regards neoliberalism, personally I think neoliberalism has managed to make itself invisible is because the left have shrunk away from economic argument and instead focused on intersectional identity politics.
I think that the left ALSO tend to ignore neoliberalism because, in an odd way, it's philosophy dovetails quite neatly into identity politics.
Neoliberalism redefines the individual and identity as a series of consumer choices, all of which are equally valid as long as your spending money on them. It's not just Peterson with something of a blind spot to this

Take the latest PR debacles by L'Oriel. Their racist trans model and the hilarious irony backfire that was promoting hair care products using a woman in a hijab.
Both of these moves were as lauded by 'progressives' as they were decried by conservatives.
Here's the thing. L'Oriel's motives could hardly be described as 'progressive'. They promoted these particular models because trans-representation is a talking point amongst the young demographic they want to market to and because it will gain them free publicity through every article that discusses their ad. They see Muslim women as a growing demographic they could also market to.
In other words, they see marketing demographics and free PR and many right on progressives all clapped like seals because L'Oriel's marketing strategies neatly dove tailed with their identity based politics, thus creating an unholy alliance of corporatism and the kind of people that should oppose it, but don't, because the cynicism of the move is also invisible to them due to the lefts new view of identity as an 'individual consumer choice'.

Intothesea

@ConorHal

I'm sure you've noticed that I term 3rd-wave feminists as 'neo-feminists', that is, they are completely complicit with neo-liberal concepts. When was there any argument otherwise?

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

Evidently you're more confused than you recognize. I'm not rebutting Peterson at all, I'm pointing out his complete omission of key social factors of the modern age that he, for some mysterious reason, leaves out of his analysis of modern societies' ills (and that are precisely the factors that make his analysis, books, and Patreon account such hot tickets today).

You realize that this paper is one of many thousands looking at the social and psychological effects of neo-liberal policy in modernity, right? And that this paper is a discussion written by a suitably qualified candidate drawing on many studies carried out by suitably qualified candidates? That is, psychology academics?

That is to say, there is voluminous work and studies already carried out investigating the relationship between neo-liberal economics and significant negative social affects.

For Peterson to leave this out entirely, while purporting to address the great big picture of 'what is creating malaise in young men', while simultaneously directing his followers to destroy certain methods of thinking is just a very strong sign that he's at something.

That is, while his messages may be very coherent and convincing, do they really make sense? Overall, I would advise his would-be followers to step back and perceive with caution, and of course, always do your own thinking.

or its just picking your battles, he seems to be just advising people how to get on in the system they grow up in and that current lefty ideas like feminism and identity politics are not the answer