Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Intothesea

Anyway folks, it's obvious to me that all that's left to the thread is more obtuse meandering and passive aggressive nonsense to counteract my general observations about Peterson, and my apparent non-blaming stance towards the neo-feminist side.


Hopefully at some point it won't be hard to recognize that what I intended to bring here is a more balanced view, both of Peterson, and of the 'other side' who appear to be causing all the trouble.

But, needless to say, there was no reason for me to presume that the male quotient would be able to step outside the negative territories they were herded into by Ireland's neo-liberal history, and make a move to achieve balance. Anyway, I hope either side can wake up enough to realize that the nature of future success is to reintegrate society and all its apparent factions to the calm unified state we used to be in.

As Peterson has touched on, but conveniently left out, psychological health is only achievable when ego and id are harmoniously integrated.

The system at hand in Irish society is righteous uptakers of an inherently negative system (ego), and the challenging losers in the same system (id). For society to be safe from many deleterious affects over time, all disaffected members have to make their way back to positive mutual regard and self-acceptance.

Peterson's plan is generally a good one, except for where he casts the Id factor as an enemy of success. In this he is shamefully negligent w.r..t his followers. However, you can follow his plan, ignoring the calls to demonize the other, and swap out his mythologies etc. for more local flavored varieties.

It's certain to me that part of the answer to reintegration is to look as far back as possible into Irish culture, to regain the fundamental, native value-set from which to negotiate living again.

Okay, that's it, have at it

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

Anyway folks, it's obvious to me that all that's left to the thread is more obtuse meandering and passive aggressive nonsense

you were starting to play the man and not the points, with posts dripping with sarcasm. Probably best if you bow out.

pumpkin4life

JRant wrote: »

It's one of the most verbose insults I've seen in a while. Basically a long winded way of say his children have more sense than you

Yeah, jaesus Intothesea most of your posts can be summed up in a couple of lines like.

Is there any way you can cut down on the academic jargonie writing?

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

you were starting to play the man and not the points, with posts dripping with sarcasm. Probably best if you bow out.

Yet another exact opposite representation of reality. Very good.


And be proud of the part you played in banding together with other people who can't accept realistic criticism of reality to make it an easy necessity for me to leave. There is just no amelioration possible when there is absolutely no self-doubt about personal perceptions, let's just say.

Intothesea

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Yeah, jaesus Intothesea most of your posts can be summed up in a couple of lines like.

Is there any way you can cut down on the academic jargonie writing?

Pumpkin, there certainly is, general silence can accomplish this :pac:

JRant

Intothesea wrote: »

I'd contend that arguing from a false clueless perspective in an insult to self.

Seriously, some people have a different opinion to you, that's it. To call it a "false clueless perspective" does absolutely nothing to move the conversation along. I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying but I wouldn't call you any of those things. We just view things differently and that's okay. I'd like to think I've taken on board some of the things you've said as they have made me think a little more about the societal issues we face. Unfortunately I get the feeling you haven't taken onboard anything others have posted and are coming at this issue from a position of "superiority". Hopefully I'm wrong.

conorhal

JRant wrote: »

Seriously, some people have a different opinion to you, that's it. To call it a "false clueless perspective" does absolutely nothing to move the conversation along. I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying but I wouldn't call you any of those things. We just view things differently and that's okay. I'd like to think I've taken on board some of the things you've said as they have made me think a little more about the societal issues we face. Unfortunately I get the feeling you haven't taken onboard anything others have posted and are coming at this issue from a position of "superiority". Hopefully I'm wrong.

I'm honestly baffled why you'd bother engaging with a parody of a psudo-intellectual socialist intent on derailment and trolling or his ANTIA LARPing sidekick. All that results in is page after page of unreadable gibberish.

Professor Moriarty

Intothesea wrote: »

Anyway folks, it's obvious to me that all that's left to the thread is more obtuse meandering and passive aggressive nonsense to counteract my general observations about Peterson, and my apparent non-blaming stance towards the neo-feminist side.


Hopefully at some point it won't be hard to recognize that what I intended to bring here is a more balanced view, both of Peterson, and of the 'other side' who appear to be causing all the trouble.

But, needless to say, there was no reason for me to presume that the male quotient would be able to step outside the negative territories they were herded into by Ireland's neo-liberal history, and make a move to achieve balance. Anyway, I hope either side can wake up enough to realize that the nature of future success is to reintegrate society and all its apparent factions to the calm unified state we used to be in.

As Peterson has touched on, but conveniently left out, psychological health is only achievable when ego and id are harmoniously integrated.

The system at hand in Irish society is righteous uptakers of an inherently negative system (ego), and the challenging losers in the same system (id). For society to be safe from many deleterious affects over time, all disaffected members have to make their way back to positive mutual regard and self-acceptance.

Peterson's plan is generally a good one, except for where he casts the Id factor as an enemy of success. In this he is shamefully negligent w.r..t his followers. However, you can follow his plan, ignoring the calls to demonize the other, and swap out his mythologies etc. for more local flavored varieties.

It's certain to me that part of the answer to reintegration is to look as far back as possible into Irish culture, to regain the fundamental, native value-set from which to negotiate living again.

Okay, that's it, have at it

So no superego? That's not going to work out well.

Intothesea

JRant wrote: »

Seriously, some people have a different opinion to you, that's it. To call it a "false clueless perspective" does absolutely nothing to move the conversation along. I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying but I wouldn't call you any of those things. We just view things differently and that's okay. I'd like to think I've taken on board some of the things you've said as they have made me think a little more about the societal issues we face. Unfortunately I get the feeling you haven't taken onboard anything others have posted and are coming at this issue from a position of "superiority". Hopefully I'm wrong.

Well, this is yet another mulberry bush to tour. If you look at the entire thread, I put up easily verifiable statements about Peterson's omissions and misinterpretations, and met with nothing but a tidal wave of what I would consider to be obtuse reactionary responses. How do I perceive this? By having to spell out different aspects of the same thing over and over again... I don't believe there is much of a possibility that a group of guys could all be incapable of perceiving the truth in what I'm saying, or acknowledging at least its potential existence without apparently losing something. To my mind, it's much more honest and acceptable to say, I see what you're saying, but Peterson's message is so essential to my needs that his logical misdeeds just don't matter to me, or something approaching it. There's certainly no shame in it anyway.


As well, I came into it from the mid-point between any two camps in the modern debate, and I understand and have sympathy for both sides, who I perceive to both be victims of neo-liberal policy, and in different ways. I think the need for Peterson is worrying overall, as it indicates how far people are from psychological comfort and self-acceptance at this point, 10 years on from the crash. And I know another rising wave of cash won't erase these issues for people, so, part of my effort here was to stir up some alternate views of how to approach things. With an unregulated rental market and NAMA properties waiting for the highest wave, it certainly looks as if the government is gunning to do it all over again, or come perilously close to it anyway.

Intothesea

conorhal wrote: »

I'm honestly baffled why you'd bother engaging with a parody of a psudo-intellectual socialist intent on derailment and trolling or his ANTIA LARPing sidekick. All that results in is page after page of unreadable gibberish.

Keep working on accurate identification of features of reality, Conor. I'm sure you'll get there, one day :pac:

JRant

conorhal wrote: »

I'm honestly baffled why you'd bother engaging with a parody of a psudo-intellectual socialist intent on derailment and trolling or his ANTIA LARPing sidekick. All that results in is page after page of unreadable gibberish.

So am I to be honest but I like to give people the benefit of doubt.

Intothesea

JRant wrote: »

So am I to be honest but I like to give people the benefit of doubt.

Well, when there's a banded effort to run someone out of a thread because they evidently say something unwelcome, I pretty much come to the end of giving people here the benefit of anything. So with that in mind...

conorhal

JRant wrote: »

So am I to be honest but I like to give people the benefit of doubt.

I think 10 pages of gibberish leaves things beyond a doubt TBH, I just can't tell from that word salad if the drugs are wearing off ,or if they're just kicking in..

s7ryf3925pivug

conorhal wrote: »

ANTIA

I've had to look up a lot of terms on this thread but this one google wont tell me.

A lot of fancy terms dressing up a lot of inane melodramatic sh!te; that's my analysis. I must be a Communist so; just have delusions of rational centrism because I'm brainwashed or something. Guess I should have spent my time learning about why my life is unfair instead of learning how to make it comfortable for me and my family.

conorhal

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

I've had to look up a lot of terms on this thread but this one google wont tell me.

A lot of fancy terms dressing up a lot of inane melodramatic sh!te; that's my analysis. I must be a Communist so; just have delusions of rational centrism because I'm brainwashed or something. Guess I should have spent my time learning about why my life is unfair instead of learning how to make it comfortable for me and my family.

Perhaps because I failed hard spelling Antifa, and perhaps because it wasn't aimed at you?

Wibbs

conorhal wrote: »

I think 10 pages of gibberish leaves things beyond a doubt TBH

Even though I would have a more than a few issues with regard to Mr Peterson and might be inclined to agree with Intothesea on a few levels, I'm with you on that front. The pseud is strong and reminds me of the Bard when he said: "He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument". See what I did there..

With Peterson I can see why he is striking so many chords with people, particularly young men on the interwebs, particularly young men on the interwebs who have been overexposed to the imported American collegial adolescent, post modernist and divisive mind wankery. And mind wankery it most certainly is. As is much, if not the majority of post modern "philosophy".

Now it's still mostly confined to those campuses and the pages of Twitter and Tumblr, so the actual "threat" to widespread society is low enough. It is gaining some ground mind you, particularly in certain sections of the corporate world, but since I don't operate next nor near that and I'm not 20 no fecks are given by me. Generally speaking.

My concern would be that backlashes have started and they're rarely too measured and have the same tendency as the current ideals they wish to lash out at of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

johnp001

Wibbs wrote: »

Even though I would have a more than a few issues with regard to Mr Peterson and might be inclined to agree with Intothesea on a few levels, I'm with you on that front. The pseud is strong and reminds me of the Bard when he said: "He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument". See what I did there..

With Peterson I can see why he is striking so many chords with people, particularly young men on the interwebs, particularly young men on the interwebs who have been overexposed to the imported American collegial adolescent, post modernist and divisive mind wankery. And mind wankery it most certainly is. As is much, if not the majority of post modern "philosophy".

Now it's still mostly confined to those campuses and the pages of Twitter and Tumblr, so the actual "threat" to widespread society is low enough. It is gaining some ground mind you, particularly in certain sections of the corporate world, but since I don't operate next nor near that and I'm not 20 no fecks are given by me. Generally speaking.

My concern would be that backlashes have started and they're rarely too measured and have the same tendency as the current ideals they wish to lash out at of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

They were definitely some very long and verbose arguments.
The main problem I had with them wasn't their verbosity though but the fact that they were based on the assumption that "neo-liberalism" was prevalent in the western world and that it was innately harmful.
I can't see how the western economies are anything remotely approximating a free market as would be the case if we were currently living in a neo-liberal utopia/dystopia (delete according to taste)
I don't personally believe that neo-liberalism is innately harmful and the arguments made as to why it is were very vague and subjective.

Bob Harris

Intothesea wrote: »

Anyway folks, it's obvious to me that all that's left to the thread is more obtuse meandering and passive aggressive nonsense to counteract my general observations about Peterson, and my apparent non-blaming stance towards the neo-feminist side.


Hopefully at some point it won't be hard to recognize that what I intended to bring here is a more balanced view, both of Peterson, and of the 'other side' who appear to be causing all the trouble.

But, needless to say, there was no reason for me to presume that the male quotient would be able to step outside the negative territories they were herded into by Ireland's neo-liberal history, and make a move to achieve balance. Anyway, I hope either side can wake up enough to realize that the nature of future success is to reintegrate society and all its apparent factions to the calm unified state we used to be in.

As Peterson has touched on, but conveniently left out, psychological health is only achievable when ego and id are harmoniously integrated.

The system at hand in Irish society is righteous uptakers of an inherently negative system (ego), and the challenging losers in the same system (id). For society to be safe from many deleterious affects over time, all disaffected members have to make their way back to positive mutual regard and self-acceptance.

Peterson's plan is generally a good one, except for where he casts the Id factor as an enemy of success. In this he is shamefully negligent w.r..t his followers. However, you can follow his plan, ignoring the calls to demonize the other, and swap out his mythologies etc. for more local flavored varieties.

It's certain to me that part of the answer to reintegration is to look as far back as possible into Irish culture, to regain the fundamental, native value-set from which to negotiate living again.

Okay, that's it, have at it

What I don't understand is you type out about 300 words including some really big ones but don't bother typing out 'with regards to'.

rizzles

clean your room

cantdecide

Wibbs wrote: »

Now it's still mostly confined to those campuses and the pages of Twitter and Tumblr, so the actual "threat" to widespread society is low enough.

This ain't the US but I think its fingerprints are all over the higher education stats in the US regarding boys failure, dropout and lack of participation rates and the pervasive attitudes that boys and young men are privileged "tyrants in waiting". It's been increasingly hurting young men for decades, it appears.

It's no wonder JP strikes a chord and although he appears to have less relevance in Europe, by and large, his message is that of hope and relevance for not-quite-fully-cooked and vulnerable young people, that happen to be young men. I'm happy for anyone that can publicly debunk the bunkum without it meaning career suicide.

Playboy

Intothesea wrote: »

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.

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.

Sorry I'm jumping in without reading all the responses but I don't think anything contained in that article contradicts Peterson. In some ways I think that both are making the same end point but the article you shared contained a clearer rationale for how the problem emerged . I think Peterson would agree that there is a sort of existential crisis in our society and that it desperately needs to be fixed. When people lack meaning in their lives they are easily attracted to 'causes' and ideology. You just have to look around to realise that people are lost. When I was a teenager people seemed to turn to drugs and alcohol, the nightclub was our 'church'. It feels like millennial's have turned away from this type of hedonism and instead have turned towards other things to give their life purpose...  Feminism. Men's Rights. Social Justice, Veganism, Animal rights, Antifa, Alt-Right, Gaming Culture, Cosplay, Anti-Gluten crusaders, Attachment Parenting, Cryptocurrency, kekistan etc etc etc. People are flocking to multiple 'causes' that are going to right the wrongs of the world and these 'causes' quickly become communities and echo chambers. You can extrapolate that something will come along that is potentially much more sinister (alt-right for instance) and could sway a significant minority of people to cause some serious social problems. I think in some way Peterson is also benefitting from this as he has attracted followers to his ‘cause’.

 

Peterson is calling out the dangers of ideological thinking but he emphasizes personal responsibility and a return to a more virtuous way of living. I think he is a big believer in the concept of 'locus of control' and how a positive locus of control is correlated with better outcomes for individuals. I think Peterson is a pragmatic thinker in the sense that he is focusing on outcomes like most psychologists would do. But as I said earlier I do agree that the type of analysis you shared is missing from his explanation. To be fair I don’t think he offers much in the way of an explanation for why things are the way they are. He seems to jump from “God is Dead” to WW2 to the gulags and there is a gap between the fall of the Soviet Union and today. My view is that he sees the post-modernist SJW left as being quite a sinister ideology which has potential devastating implications for society if it continues to propagate in modern society at its current pace. He has identified that the reason it is so dangerous is that is cloaked in a veneer of empathy and equality. People do not see the danger and it’s the same trap that the communists have fallen into previously. I don’t think he blames the postmodern left for the spiritual malaise in today’s society, he doesn’t offer much of an explanation at all but I would love to hear one.

Intothesea

Wibbs wrote: »

conorhal wrote: »

I think 10 pages of gibberish leaves things beyond a doubt TBH

Even though I would have a more than a few issues with regard to Mr Peterson and might be inclined to agree with Intothesea on a few levels, I'm with you on that front. The pseud...

Well, thanks for that, but,

I became aware of both neo-feminism and neo-liberalism at the same time, about 3 weeks ago, in part thanks to the Alan Hawe thread. Before this, American culture was mystifying to me for having a strange manifestation of apparently happy people who can't live without mood altering drugs and who can't relate to others in truly honest ways.

Anyway, this is the cause of my meandering presentation. I was scrambling to fix my ideas in an expressible way. The other issue is the style of my thoughts, which can be difficult for me to discern when I'm trying to see the links between systems. I.e. Not everyone appearing to obscure a simple statement is aiming to do so.

Intothesea

johnp001 wrote: »

Wibbs wrote: »

Even though I would have a more than a few issues with regard to Mr Peterson and might be inclined to agree with Intothesea on a few levels, I'm with you on that front. The pseud is strong and reminds me of the Bard when he said: "He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument". See what I did there..

With Peterson I can see why he is striking so many chords with people, particularly young men on the interwebs, particularly young men on the interwebs who have been overexposed to the imported American collegial adolescent, post modernist and divisive mind wankery. And mind wankery it most certainly is. As is much, if not the majority of post modern "philosophy".

Now it's still mostly confined to those campuses and the pages of Twitter and Tumblr, so the actual "threat" to widespread society is low enough. It is gaining some ground mind you, particularly in certain sections of the corporate world, but since I don't operate next nor near that and I'm not 20 no fecks are given by me. Generally speaking.

My concern would be that backlashes have started and they're rarely too measured and have the same tendency as the current ideals they wish to lash out at of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

They were definitely some very long and verbose arguments.
The main problem I had with them wasn't their verbosity though but the fact that they were based on the assumption that "neo-liberalism" was prevalent in the western world and that it was innately harmful.
I can't see how the western economies are anything remotely approximating a free market as would be the case if we were currently living in a neo-liberal utopia/dystopia (delete according to taste)
I don't personally believe that neo-liberalism is innately harmful and the arguments made as to why it is were very vague and subjective.

Did you read the AMA article I posted earlier? The effects are pretty negative, with some of them already present in Ireland, hence the uptake of neo-feminist post-modern madness, and attendant Peterson-mania.

Intothesea

cantdecide wrote: »

This ain't the US but I think its fingerprints are all over the higher education stats in the US regarding boys failure, dropout and lack of participation rates and the pervasive attitudes that boys and young men are privileged "tyrants in waiting". It's been increasingly hurting young men for decades, it appears.

It's no wonder JP strikes a chord and although he appears to have less relevance in Europe, by and large, his message is that of hope and relevance for not-quite-fully-cooked and vulnerable young people, that happen to be young men. I'm happy for anyone that can publicly debunk the bunkum without it meaning career suicide.

I agree with your take, and likewise hope that men and women will unify to reject this destructive one-eyed vision of plenty good, acceptable, and necessary reality.

As I was getting at earlier in the thread, Peterson points a very positive 'way out', but his overall value is mired by his apparent politics.

The give-aways are his directions to young men to destroy a mode of thinking abused by neo-feminists. This has the effect of stirring up enmity in young men for the troublesome women who abuse this thinking tool.

"As well, if you have a look at his 'Patreon era' videos, (and not his earlier ones, which are free of this) you can hear things such as:

Beware hypergamy! This is the game played by women where they only choose partners either across or up from their positions in the social hierarchy. This is why women can make men feel self-conscious..."

These things invite and stir up division between his target audience and another 'side', the side to blame. It is an unnecessarily political angle to give factual, scientific conclusions.

That's what I've been trying to get at, that he gives great advice, but points young men into the abyss of division. If his mission is what he claims it is, the last thing he'd do is stir up more division,

But rather entreat young men to look with compassion and understanding (which he could well supply, given his talents) at the other side. But to do this, a lot of his audience would likely vaporize, and he would have to talk negatively about a system he obviously idealizes, the neo-liberal order.

As a psychologist, there is just no way he wouldn't know that modern malaise is strongly related to this factor.

Anyway, it's my contention that to undo the logical madness of today, the first step to neutralizing it is to show an awareness of the issues that drive it, and these issues have basically nothing to do with men as a group, and only very very tenuously with 'the patriarchy', and more to do with the social and economic disaster that formerly spoiled and consequently deluded young women find themselves in after living through boom and bust, and other things. I tried to list a few earlier on.

Anyway, that's what I think. Just on the basis that madness that doesn't relate to reality has its source in unacknowledgable truths. This is why recognizing narcissistic entitlement and how it formed is a big part of understanding how to proceed.

Intothesea

Playboy wrote: »

Sorry I'm jumping in without reading all the responses but I don't think anything contained in that article contradicts Peterson. In some ways I think that both are making the same end point but the article you shared contained a clearer rationale for how the problem emerged . I think Peterson would agree that there is a sort of existential crisis in our society and that it desperately needs to be fixed. When people lack meaning in their lives they are easily attracted to 'causes' and ideology. You just have to look around to realise that people are lost. When I was a teenager people seemed to turn to drugs and alcohol, the nightclub was our 'church'. It feels like millennial's have turned away from this type of hedonism and instead have turned towards other things to give their life purpose...  Feminism. Men's Rights. Social Justice, Veganism, Animal rights, Antifa, Alt-Right, Gaming Culture, Cosplay, Anti-Gluten crusaders, Attachment Parenting, Cryptocurrency, kekistan etc etc etc. People are flocking to multiple 'causes' that are going to right the wrongs of the world and these 'causes' quickly become communities and echo chambers. You can extrapolate that something will come along that is potentially much more sinister (alt-right for instance) and could sway a significant minority of people to cause some serious social problems. I think in some way Peterson is also benefitting from this as he has attracted followers to his ‘cause’.


Peterson is calling out the dangers of ideological thinking but he emphasizes personal responsibility and a return to a more virtuous way of living. I think he is a big believer in the concept of 'locus of control' and how a positive locus of control is correlated with better outcomes for individuals. I think Peterson is a pragmatic thinker in the sense that he is focusing on outcomes like most psychologists would do. But as I said earlier I do agree that the type of analysis you shared is missing from his explanation. To be fair I don’t think he offers much in the way of an explanation for why things are the way they are. He seems to jump from “God is Dead” to WW2 to the gulags and there is a gap between the fall of the Soviet Union and today. My view is that he sees the post-modernist SJW left as being quite a sinister ideology which has potential devastating implications for society if it continues to propagate in modern society at its current pace. He has identified that the reason it is so dangerous is that is cloaked in a veneer of empathy and equality. People do not see the danger and it’s the same trap that the communists have fallen into previously. I don’t think he blames the postmodern left for the spiritual malaise in today’s society, he doesn’t offer much of an explanation at all but I would love to hear one.

Hello Playboy, and thank you for your thoughtful post, as ever. I'll reply with more later, but for now, I can say that I posted up the AMA article to counter scepticism earlier in the thread that neo-liberal policy could negatively affect society and the psychology of individuals.

As well, it wasn't intended to counter anything Peterson has said, but was to highlight the perplexing lack of very relevant enquiry and knowledge relating to modern malaise that, presumably, Peterson would have at least a strong intuitive if not well-researched knowledge of.

Intothesea

Bob Harris wrote: »

What I don't understand is you type out about 300 words including some really big ones but don't bother typing out 'with regards to'.

If the 'really big' ones forced you to use a dictionary and potentially learn something, that's a win, surely?

As well, w.r.t. Is an auto-contraction of 'with respect to', and is due to my study of experimental physics.

Pac1Man

Well this thread has turned to sh1t.

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

Hello Playboy, and thank you for your thoughtful post, as ever. I'll reply with more later, but for now, I can say that I posted up the AMA article to counter scepticism earlier in the thread that neo-liberal policy could negatively affect society and the psychology of individuals.

As well, it wasn't intended to counter anything Peterson has said, but was to highlight the perplexing lack of very relevant enquiry and knowledge relating to modern malaise that, presumably, Peterson would have at least a strong intuitive if not well-researched knowledge of.

Im still left with so? Ive a young teenage son and oddly he stumbled on to Peterson without any input from me, I think it was from the H3H3 Youtube channel that interviewed him. So I basically said, seems like a good guy and it is worth watching his videos. So am I being a bad dad? am I promoting "neoliberalism"?

Intothesea

Pac1Man wrote: »

Well this thread has turned to sh1t.

I'd have to query your use of 'turned to' in this statement. /jk

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

Im still left with so? Ive a young teenage son and oddly he stumbled on to Peterson without any input from me, I think it was from the H3H3 Youtube channel that interviewed him. So I basically said, seems like a good guy and it is worth watching his videos. So am I being a bad dad? am I promoting "neoliberalism"?

I have difficultly believing these are serious points, but in any case, that's a judgment for you to make, based on your overall take on Peterson's value to your family. It's also up to you whether you want to make your family aware of the negative facets of neo-liberal reality (though history has already given a clear lesson on that), and whether you want to be fully complicit with this new order. In short, not a thing to do with anyone else.