Jordan Peterson interview on C4

7aubzxk43m2sni

AfterLife wrote: »

There's a lot of that on both "sides" I suppose. You say that any questions are met with mob mentality but are you perceiving it that way because it upsets you?



You might say a small percentage but it was fairly nasty as far as I could see. I don't have a massive problem with Peterson. I think he's just another Libertarian along to soak up the angst of young men. He's a bit like Anton Levay and his "Church of Satan" in the 90's. Lots of middle class selfishness but nothing that his followers won't grow out of.

Would you mind expanding on the idea of middle class selfishness and how its a trait of Peterson's fans?

kubjones

AfterLife wrote: »

If you're willing to pay to see anybody discussing religious, sociological, political theory you are cracked. We have free education in this country.

That's just the most special thing I've read all week...

.. And I've been to Buzzfeed.

AfterLife

kubjones wrote: »

That's just the most special thing I've read all week...

.. And I've been to Buzzfeed.

Since you've rereged you have posted on the Tommy Robinson thread, the Islam thread, the Peterson thread, a transgender thread and a sexism thread. Relax bud.

kubjones

AfterLife wrote: »

Since you've rereged you have posted on the Tommy Robinson thread, the Islam thread, the Peterson thread, a transgender thread and a sexism thread. Relax bud.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to imply. I'm not sure if you're aware but all of these topics are the most popular topics on the website at the moment and are big talking points in general these days.

I also like cars, sports, long walks on the beach and hate wars, in case you were wondering.

quintana76

AfterLife wrote: »

Since you've rereged you have posted on the Tommy Robinson thread, the Islam thread, the Peterson thread, a transgender thread and a sexism thread. Relax bud.

Good try. I see what you are doing here. Putting Peterson in the same category as Tommy Robinson. The liberal left are terrified of Jordan Peterson. They cannot debate him and have no answer to him so therefore, they try and discredit him by any possible means.
Next they will be comparing him to Hitler. Oh wait!

seannash

I think a lot of people think that if you support Peterson you completely believe every single belief he himself has which is total nonsense.
His religious angle, it has no relevance to me and I don't buy it. that doesn't mean I don't find some value or merit in other things he talks about.


I agree with the course of action he took about the bill for compelled speech in Canada and I think it was good that he highlighted where we were going if we didn't speak up about these things.
I sought out new information and questioned some things that were considered a given in modern society such as the gender pay gap, affirmative action etc etc. after listening to him last year


I don't think anyone in the O2 believed 100% what Peterson believes and a larger number of people were there to see Sam Harris who has a view much more alligned with me personally.


In terms of the discussion it was nothing new. If you've heard any of them talk before they didn't bring up any new ideas or evidence but to hear them hypothesize about how you justify being born in a western country and recognizing its just down to luck and what you should do to balance out that luck was interesting as well as borders and immigration.



I think that if you cant find anything of merit or even truth in anything Peterson is saying then you are not open to debate. His beliefs allign with a lot of other well respected economists and social theorists (Thomas Sowell being one of them) but this is an uncomfortable truth for some so what tends to happen is name calling instead of debate as its very hard to debate when one side is using reason and facts to back up their argument (Aside from the religious stuff)


Take this video for example. After watching it I cant reconcile in my mind my stance on the issue it talks about.
If anything its provokes debate but it also gives me an angle that I have personally never considered before watching it.

xckjoo

AfterLife wrote: »

No! I think he's a toad. I wouldn't go see a comedian either but that's down to personal taste. I would pay 100 odd quid to see Black Sabbath in the Point let's say. That's entertainment. If you're willing to pay to see anybody discussing religious, sociological, political theory you are cracked. We have free education in this country.

That's a depressing thing to read. You've had free education your whole life and now think education is valueless. The flip side of free university is that we've devalued it. Everyone goes but nobody knows why anymore.

We live in an age where nearly every single topic of information is indeed available for free somewhere online. We've passed the age where gathering that information was the hurdle. Now we've too much information and quality crosses the spectrum from trash to brilliant, via the avenue of totally wrong and dangerous. Ask me a question and I can find lots of webpages with very different answers. They can't all be right. The challenge these days is being able to determine what is good and relevant. To be able to comprehend that our understanding is evolving and some of the old "facts" have now been found to be untrue or not quite accurate. Unfortunately our education system is still focused on rote learning. This won't stand in our favor. Do we really need to know the dates of every major event in history or the correct syntax for 3 different programming languages when it's available in your pocket at all times? But we do need to know how to determine which of the millions of webpages Google returns has the correct information.

None of us have the time to learn everything about all topics. We stick to our own areas of expertise (career area, hobbiest interests, etc.) and listen to people who have put the time into investigating a topic deeply and accurately. We can all look up videos about plumbing on YouTube, but 9/10 of us are calling the plumber if the toilet backs up and starts regurgitating your deposits all over the bathroom floor.

The fact that you think there's no value in paying to hear educated, curated information on a topic of interest is stunning. Particularly since we live in the "Information Age" where every business seems to be building their future on gathering and parsing information. Good information has become more valuable than most physical things.
And how do you think that education and learning doesn't count as entertainment? It's the best

kubjones

xckjoo wrote: »

That's a depressing thing to read. You've had free education your whole life and now think education is valueless. The flip side of free university is that we've devalued it. Everyone goes but nobody knows why anymore.

We live in an age where nearly every single topic of information is indeed available for free somewhere online. We've passed the age where gathering that information was the hurdle. Now we've too much information and quality crosses the spectrum from trash to brilliant, via the avenue of totally wrong and dangerous. Ask me a question and I can find lots of webpages with very different answers. They can't all be right. The challenge these days is being able to determine what is good and relevant. To be able to comprehend that our understanding is evolving and some of the old "facts" have now been found to be untrue or not quite accurate. Unfortunately our education system is still focused on rote learning. This won't stand in our favor. Do we really need to know the dates of every major event in history or the correct syntax for 3 different programming languages when it's available in your pocket at all times? But we do need to know how to determine which of the millions of webpages Google returns has the correct information.

None of us have the time to learn everything about all topics. We stick to our own areas of expertise (career area, hobbiest interests, etc.) and listen to people who have put the time into investigating a topic deeply and accurately. We can all look up videos about plumbing on YouTube, but 9/10 of us are calling the plumber if the toilet backs up and starts regurgitating your deposits all over the bathroom floor.

The fact that you think there's no value in paying to hear educated, curated information on a topic of interest is stunning. Particularly since we live in the "Information Age" where every business seems to be building their future on gathering and parsing information. Good information has become more valuable than most physical things.
And how do you think that education and learning doesn't count as entertainment? It's the best

Give that man a Harrumph.

Huntergonzo

Heard a lot of Peterson on Youtube, he seems to make some very good points about the dangers of compelled speech and favouring group identity over the individual among other things.

However his big blind spot is undoubtedly religion, he's a self confessed religious apologist and often gives very vague, evasive answers when pushed on his religious beliefs.

His interview with Cathy Newman was brilliant though, she was clearly disgusted that his beliefs aren't in line with modern feminist propaganda and done her best to discredit him. Thanfully this backfired spectacularly!

DickSwiveller Returns

kubjones wrote: »

Give that man a Harrumph.

Could be a woman...

xckjoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Could be a woman...

Or one of those other genders :pac:

Akrasia

AfterLife wrote: »

Why is it a market? Why are people paying to go see him? Its nuts. I went to see Noam Chomsky speak on a live link in UCD 15 years ago. It was free.

Its nuts. This guy is making up to 89 thousand dollars per month from his social media subscribers (he doesn't publish his earnings, stat is from here https://graphtreon.com/creator/jordanbpeterson)

and that doesn't include his book sales or media appearance fees or tour fees

The vast majority of these Patreon subscribers can get the vast majority of his content for free, but they pay because they like him so much that they think he deserves a million dollars a year to make his podcast

It's similar with Sam Harris btw, he's making an enormous amount of money from his social media subscribers and still spends half of every podcast shilling for more money.

I get the point of patreon. It's a way to support content providers that you like to allow them to do it full time and produce more, or higher quality content. I'm not sure why someone is motivated to support the begging letters of millionaires who are using their podcasts as a platform to sell drive their profile and earn income in other ways too.

It reminds me of the televangelists who ask for donations off poor people and spend them on private jets and ten thousand dollar suits.

kunst nugget

seannash wrote: »

Take this video for example. After watching it I cant reconcile in my mind my stance on the issue it talks about.
If anything its provokes debate but it also gives me an angle that I have personally never considered before watching it.

It's full of great soundbites but it's ultimately meaningless imo. His example of South Korea is simplistic nonsense. They didn't suddenly become rich because they learnt the value of hard-work. It was based on the shrewd economic maneouverings a military dictator and the promotion of a collectivist ideology. Going into a country and paying kids two bucks an hour isn't going to do them any good if you're also holding a country's government to keep conditions as they are for your benefit.

More information on South Korea - https://www.koreaexpose.com/how-did-south-korea-become-so-rich/

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

It reminds me of the televangelists who ask for donations off poor people and spend them on private jets and ten thousand dollar suits.

Do you think that's a fair comparison?

Doctor Jimbob

Akrasia wrote: »

Its nuts. This guy is making up to 89 thousand dollars per month from his social media subscribers (he doesn't publish his earnings, stat is from here https://graphtreon.com/creator/jordanbpeterson)

and that doesn't include his book sales or media appearance fees or tour fees

The vast majority of these Patreon subscribers can get the vast majority of his content for free, but they pay because they like him so much that they think he deserves a million dollars a year to make his podcast

It's similar with Sam Harris btw, he's making an enormous amount of money from his social media subscribers and still spends half of every podcast shilling for more money.

I get the point of patreon. It's a way to support content providers that you like to allow them to do it full time and produce more, or higher quality content. I'm not sure why someone is motivated to support the begging letters of millionaires who are using their podcasts as a platform to sell drive their profile and earn income in other ways too.

It reminds me of the televangelists who ask for donations off poor people and spend them on private jets and ten thousand dollar suits.

I don't know enough about him to really have an opinion either way, although based on what I've read on here I probably wouldn't think too highly of his ideas. That said, he can hardly be blamed for taking money from people willing to give it to him. It's not like he's conning anyone.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't know enough about him to really have an opinion either way, although based on what I've read on here I probably wouldn't think too highly of his ideas. .

I think that's why there's often arguments between fans and detractors. The detractors have done a solid job of misrepresenting his arguments to the point where a neutral party is swayed towards not liking his ideas without having given much if any consideration to them.

kunst nugget

The thing about Peterson is that he says a few rational things that he's most likely taken from other more well-informed sources backed by proper research like the notion of the gender pay gap which is always worth debating but throws in absolute batshít crazy ideas like enforced monogamy. That's where he loses credibility for me.

kunst nugget

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I think that's why there's often arguments between fans and detractors. The detractors have done a solid job of misrepresenting his arguments to the point where a neutral party is swayed towards not liking his ideas without having given much if any consideration to them.

What do you think of his notion of enforced monogamy?

Doctor Jimbob

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

I think that's why there's often arguments between fans and detractors. The detractors have done a solid job of misrepresenting his arguments to the point where a neutral party is swayed towards not liking his ideas without having given much if any consideration to them.

Based on both what his fans and detractors have said he seems to be generally right leaning, while I'd generally be left leaning. I'm hardly a neutral party.

RandomName2

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Do you think that's a fair comparison?

Of course he does. He disagrees with his views, so he believes any measures to discredit him are legitimate.

I'd imagine that many of the patreon supporters are using him as the means to ensure open debate is maintained. People like that angry crackpot who was on Joe Duffy (I can't be arsed looking up his name - he doesn't merit it) believe that equating people who don't agree with them to fascists, assuming they can bully them out of the debate, but it doesn't work with Peterson who has weathered the storm of being labelled an extremist, and come out the other side.

Being labelled an extremist for not wanting to be forced by law to say zim and zer is pretty weak, which is why his opponents generally have to misquote him to provide a narrative of him being 'a mean white man' as Michael Eric Dyson so articulately put it.

kunst nugget wrote: »

What do you think of his notion of enforced monogamy?

And here we go. You should really come up with your own ideas.

Doctor Jimbob

RandomName2 wrote: »

Of course he does. He disagrees with his views, so he believes any measures to discredit him are legitimate.

I'd imagine that many of the patreon supporters are using him as the means to ensure open debate is maintained. People like that angry crackpot who was on Joe Duffy (I can't be arsed looking up his name - he doesn't merit it) believe that equating people who don't agree with them to fascists, assuming they can bully them out of the debate, but it doesn't work with Peterson who has weathered the storm of being labelled an extremist, and come out the other side.

Being labelled an extremist for not wanting to be forced by law to say zim and zer is pretty weak, which is why his opponents generally have to misquote him to provide a narrative of him being 'a mean white man' as Michael Eric Dyson so articulately put it.

Are you sure that wasn't just Joe Duffy himself?

RandomName2

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Are you sure that wasn't just Joe Duffy himself?

The main problem with Joe Duffy is that he rarely owns his views, but rather has 'random' people on air to forward his views on his own behalf.

Doctor Jimbob

RandomName2 wrote: »

The main problem with Joe Duffy is that he rarely owns his views, but rather has 'random' people on air to forward his views on his own behalf.

I'd argue the main problem with Joe Duffy is the fact he's allowed on the radio at all, but that's a fair point too.

7aubzxk43m2sni

kunst nugget wrote: »

What do you think of his notion of enforced monogamy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn60-8Ql_44

Given his clarification in this video, I don't see anything I disagree with.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Based on both what his fans and detractors have said he seems to be generally right leaning, while I'd generally be left leaning. I'm hardly a neutral party.

That's fair enough. I'd highly recommend having a watch of some of his content and forming your own opinion if you've time at some point.

seannash

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's full of great soundbites but it's ultimately meaningless imo. His example of South Korea is simplistic nonsense. They didn't suddenly become rich because they learnt the value of hard-work. It was based on the shrewd economic maneouverings a military dictator and the promotion of a collectivist ideology. Going into a country and paying kids two bucks an hour isn't going to do them any good if you're also holding a country's government to keep conditions as they are for your benefit.

More information on South Korea - https://www.koreaexpose.com/how-did-south-korea-become-so-rich/

I'm not sure that what he is saying. My read is he's saying if you deny companies going into impoverished countries and pay them poor wages you are denying them the chance to ratchet it up until they get to a standard that the western world deems acceptable. Governments facilitating that are also a factor I guess.

If you insist that they get paid a similar wage to Europeans from the get go they will never attract companies to them in the first place, they will go elsewhere.
Of course in between then there will be all sorts of hurdles to overcome and correct decisions to make which help or hinder progress but his point stands that if we deny them the chance to make 1 dollar a day we could be denying them to make more in the future.



I think the link was broken that I posted


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0mne8bAdiY

seannash

kunst nugget wrote: »

The thing about Peterson is that he says a few rational things that he's most likely taken from other more well-informed sources backed by proper research like the notion of the gender pay gap which is always worth debating but throws in absolute batshcrazy ideas like enforced monogamy. That's where he loses credibility for me.

I don't understand why you cant just separate the good from the bad. You're basically saying that if all his views don't align with yours in everything hes not credible in your eyes.
I've already said I don't buy his religious stuff but some of his other theories have merit. His idea that I do deem valuable don't lose value because of some of his other idea to which I don't subscribe to.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

The thing about Peterson is that he says a few rational things that he's most likely taken from other more well-informed sources backed by proper research like the notion of the gender pay gap which is always worth debating but throws in absolute batshcrazy ideas like enforced monogamy. That's where he loses credibility for me.

Jesus Christ. It's really obvious what he meant and it's obvious that the most prosperous and tolerant societies are the ones where monogamy is prevalent.

kunst nugget

seannash wrote: »

I don't understand why you cant just separate the good from the bad. You're basically saying that if all his views don't align with yours in everything hes not credible in your eyes.
I've already said I don't buy his religious stuff but some of his other theories have merit. His idea that I do deem valuable don't lose value because of some of his other idea to which I don't subscribe to.

Probably because the topics I've seen him tackle that I might be interested in, I've seen other people tackle them in a much more interesting manner. I can't say I find the guy very interesting. That video that someone posted above about his clarification on his enforced monogamy views says absolutely dick about anything - it's a couple of soundbites and nothing more.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

That video that someone posted above about his clarification on his enforced monogamy views says absolutely dick about anything - it's a couple of soundbites and nothing more.

I thought you said it was bat**** crazy.