Jordan Peterson interview on C4

7aubzxk43m2sni

kunst nugget wrote: »

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.

It clarifies what he meant by enforced monogomy.

Care to offer any subject at all that Peterson has tried to tackle, which has been tackled by someone else in a much more interesting manner?

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

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

The problem is that socially enforced monogamy is as plain as the nose on your face. People are criticized for sleeping around. Affairs are taboo and generally secret. Open relationships are very unusual. Nobody is calling for the legalization of polygamy.

You can't say that there isn't socially enforced monogamy, because there clearly is. The solution to the problem is to just avoid discussing the topic entirely. This is only a problem though if you believe that 'enforced monogamy' was some sort of smoking gun to discredit the guy.

He's bound to trip up sometime, keep digging.

seannash

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

It clarifies what he meant by enforced monogomy.

Care to offer any subject at all that Peterson has tried to tackle, which has been tackled by someone else in a much more interesting manner?

Playing devils advocate I'd say Thomas Sowel handles economics better than Peterson.
They both sing from the same hymn sheet but Sowel is much more concrete with the findings I find

7aubzxk43m2sni

seannash wrote: »

Playing devils advocate I'd say Thomas Sowel handles economics better than Peterson.
They both sing from the same hymn sheet but Sowel is much more concrete with the findings I find

Cheers I'll check him out

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

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

It's batshít crazy when it's posited as a way to stop incels running people over in a truck.

RandomName2

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's batshít crazy when it's posited as a way to stop incels running people over in a truck.

It is pretty crazy alright. I mean, just look at what he says.



Peterson: ..the case that monogamous social norms, which are pretty much universal around the world, by the way, even though some people have some tendency towards multiple partners, the reason that monogamous social norms emerged was partially to keep male aggression under control. That's not controversial - anybody who knows the anthropological literature understands this.

Marian Finucane: That's the purpose of it?

Peterson: Well.. there's a variety of purposes but that's definitely one. Polygamous societies are way more violent. Not a little bit more violent - way more violent. Yeah, so that's part of the purpose - there's a variety of purposes: you want people to have long-term stable partners because that's probably for men and women in general -

Marian Finucane: Love?

Peterson: Well, yes, that would be good if it can be managed [...] The primary reason that monogamy is enforced socially is for children, as far as I can tell, because obviously children are dependent for very long periods of time

kubjones

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's batshít crazy when it's posited as a way to stop incels running people over in a truck.

You offer about as much substance as an empty soap dispenser.

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Do you think that's a fair comparison?

They're not the same as each other, I think the prosperity gospel preachers are much worse in the harm that they do and the greed in their demands, but there are comparisons between religious evangelists living the high life off donations from their supporters, and Peterson, a self help author milking his own supporters for all their loose change.

He started out as an academic, now he's basically retired from being a formal educator, and is a preacher, not that much different from gurus of other faiths.

In fact, he is now deliberately trying to undermine the institutions of formal education in which he himself was a part of until he realised that he can make an awful lot more money telling people things they want to hear

RandomName2

Akrasia wrote: »

In fact, he is [was?] now deliberately trying to undermine the institutions of formal education in which he himself was a part of until he realised that he can make an awful lot more money telling people things they want to hear

How's not saying zim and zer undermining the academic prowess of the institution he was a part of?

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

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

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

And what about his opinions on Divorce? He is opposed to divorce in most circumstances and thinks people should be pressured to remain in their marriages even when they are unhappy, unfulfilling or they are not being treated well by their spouse.

The world according to Peterson is
Get married young, promiscuity is bad, monogamy is good, so people should be 'pressured by society' to marry one of their first sexual partners because if you want to have sex you need to be married in case you get pregnant

Never get divorced because you committed to the marriage so tough sh1t if he happens to be a drunken layabout or she happens to be a cold hearted bitter jealous woman or whatever the problems in the marriage might be, you should stay in the marriage and fix the problems or else you're just running away

7aubzxk43m2sni

Akrasia wrote: »

They're not the same as each other, I think the prosperity gospel preachers are much worse in the harm that they do and the greed in their demands, but there are comparisons between religious evangelists living the high life off donations from their supporters, and Peterson, a self help author milking his own supporters for all their loose change.

He started out as an academic, now he's basically retired from being a formal educator, and is a preacher, not that much different from gurus of other faiths.

In fact, he is now deliberately trying to undermine the institutions of formal education in which he himself was a part of until he realised that he can make an awful lot more money telling people things they want to hear

He is debating and discussing rather than preaching.

He wrote a book years ago before he was a celebrity, and published his lectures completely free of charge on youtube. I think it's fairly evident that's he's genuine in his beliefs, and that it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The idea that he is saying what people want to hear in order to "milk them of their loose change" is inaccurate and deceiving.

He perceives major flaws in aspects the education system and feels a moral duty to call them out, what is negative about that? Are you suggesting that his primary motivation to do so is money?

Akrasia

RandomName2 wrote: »

How's not saying zim and zer undermining the academic prowess of the institution he was a part of?

He has called universities a 'scam' and 'indoctrination cults'. He's even in the process of setting up his own 'online university' where you can get online lectures from presumably other conservative types who he agrees with

https://www.ft.com/content/7d2e6802-6040-11e8-ad91-e01af256df68

He's shaping to turn himself into the Jerry Falwell of the 21st century.

Akrasia

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is pretty crazy alright. I mean, just look at what he says.



Peterson: ..the case that monogamous social norms, which are pretty much universal around the world, by the way, even though some people have some tendency towards multiple partners, the reason that monogamous social norms emerged was partially to keep male aggression under control. That's not controversial - anybody who knows the anthropological literature understands this.

Marian Finucane: That's the purpose of it?

Peterson: Well.. there's a variety of purposes but that's definitely one. Polygamous societies are way more violent. Not a little bit more violent - way more violent. Yeah, so that's part of the purpose - there's a variety of purposes: you want people to have long-term stable partners because that's probably for men and women in general -

Marian Finucane: Love?

Peterson: Well, yes, that would be good if it can be managed [...] The primary reason that monogamy is enforced socially is for children, as far as I can tell, because obviously children are dependent for very long periods of time

So Peterson takes time to talk about enforced monogamy because he's opposed to polygamy.... Yeah right. There are hardly any polygamous societies in the world and hardly anyone advocating law changes to allow polygamous marriages anywhere in the developed world. He was referring to enforcing monogamy in western society, not Sudan, all this talk about polygamy is back pedalling after he said something stupid, he's pulling a Trump

Akrasia

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

He is debating and discussing rather than preaching.

He wrote a book years ago before he was a celebrity, and published his lectures completely free of charge on youtube. I think it's fairly evident that's he's genuine in his beliefs, and that it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The idea that he is saying what people want to hear in order to "milk them of their loose change" is inaccurate and deceiving.

He perceives major flaws in aspects the education system and feels a moral duty to call them out, what is negative about that? Are you suggesting that his primary motivation to do so is money?

Preachers will often say they're debating and discussing too.
Most of his 'debates' are interviews, and that's not the same as a debate. In the few formal debates peterson has done, he has usually lost them. Even the one where he was on with Stephen Fry about political correctness, he was awful and ended up getting into a cat fight because an annoying SJW type called him a mean name.

The Bishop Basher

I just love the fact that he's ruffling so many feathers..

Especially the people whose feathers are most ruffled..

Anyone that forces us to stop and think about this illiberal nonsense being forced down our throats is a godsend in my book..

We need lots more JP's and lots more ruffled feathers..

RandomName2

Akrasia wrote: »

So Peterson takes time to talk about enforced monogamy because he's opposed to polygamy.... Yeah right. There are hardly any polygamous societies in the world and hardly anyone advocating law changes to allow polygamous marriages anywhere in the developed world. He was referring to enforcing monogamy in western society, not Sudan, all this talk about polygamy is back pedalling after he said something stupid, he's pulling a Trump

Why are you always pushing for polygamy Akrasia? Why do you hate marriage?

That's the equivalent of your argument.

Akrasia

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why are you always pushing for polygamy Akrasia? Why do you hate marriage?

That's the equivalent of your argument.

huh?

I have one wife, the thought of two or more would have me waking up at night in a cold sweat

Peterson's self help strategy, like every mass appeal guru type, relies on selling overly simplistic answers to complex problems

I am totally against divorce except where people need to get divorced

I am totally against marriage except where the two people involved want to get married.

I am totally against single parent families, except in the myriad of circumstances where single parent families are the best solution for that particular family. I know some single parents who have raised extremely happy, well adjusted and successful children.

RandomName2

Akrasia wrote: »

Even the one where he was on with Stephen Fry about political correctness, he was awful and ended up getting into a cat fight because an annoying SJW type called him a mean name.

Actually he did in fairness fall apart after being hit with the racist jibe. In fairness there's not much to debate in that context. I mean if someone points out the color of your skin, you can not really contradict that, can you? The leftists naturally say that white men shouldn't be allowed debate in the first place, because of privilege.

Akrasia

Rennaws wrote: »

I just love the fact that he's ruffling so many feathers..

Especially the people whose feathers are most ruffled..

People don't have feathers. That's birds you're thinking of.

Anyone that forces us to stop and think about this illiberal nonsense being forced down our throats is a godsend in my book..

We need lots more JP's and lots more ruffled feathers..

When was the last time you personally were forced to do something illiberal and nonsensical?

Akrasia

RandomName2 wrote: »

Actually he did in fairness fall apart after being hit with the racist jibe. In fairness there's not much to debate in that context. I mean if someone points out the color of your skin, you can not really contradict that, can you? The leftists naturally say that white men shouldn't be allowed debate in the first place, because of privilege.

I'm a 'leftist' and I have never ever, not once, even contemplated saying that white men shouldn't be allowed to debate because of privilege

Also, Peterson was debating on the side saying that we need to stop being politically incorrect, and then he had a melt down because someone called him a 'mean white man'. I mean, if anything it was an own goal for his own side of the argument.

Calling a white man white isn't racist, He also called Peterson a Man, should peterson have been offended at the 'genderist' slander by calling a man who identifies as a man, a man? and calling a man mean because he is on a crusade against equal rights for transgender people is fair enough

Given that he and his fans claim to hate the concept of identity politics, he could have easily ignored the mention of his race (or more accurately, the colour of his skin) instead of looking for the first opportunity to become offended that his race was mentioned.

kubjones

Akrasia wrote: »

Preachers will often say they're debating and discussing too.
Most of his 'debates' are interviews, and that's not the same as a debate. In the few formal debates peterson has done, he has usually lost them. Even the one where he was on with Stephen Fry about political correctness, he was awful and ended up getting into a cat fight because an annoying SJW type called him a mean name.

You're actually out of your mind. You're using such broad generalizations I can't tell whether you trolling or not.

He won that debate by a large margin, the only way you could possibly consider him losing it was because he didn't throw any insults back and rose above the attacks on character. The opposition was so childish and depended on actual logical fallacies, citing no historical data and using hearsay so often it was actually embarrassing to watch.

In relation to the education he's looking to set up online, he's dead right, the educational system we have right now is a joke. Its set at demanding children be good at information retention to be "smart", while in regards to spacial and creative learning it is far, far behind. In many cases it is up to the teachers to keep up with the current trends in regards to learning to keep their students interested, however for many, if not most teachers and lecturers today, teaching is just a job and they couldn't care about the progress of their students.

He's right to say online is the next domain of the intellectual, the people who actually want to learn don't have to depend on the adequacy of the institutions around them and can go about seeking a broader knowledge of whatever interest they have, sometimes FOR FREE, from the greatest minds that are doing it at the time.

And you're right to say that he and the evangelical preachers have something in common, in the ways that they both speak to people in a guiding manner, but Peterson never attempts to guide people to give him their money, he hardly ever brings up money, save for his Patreon at its inception just to make people aware of it. I have only ever paid for his book in the years of following his work. I have never felt obliged to.

And that's also about as far as your comparison ends because he never claims to know it all, he knows he doesn't have all the answers. All he has is what he has learned from the people before him, who have learned from the people before them, and tries to relay all the information which he has gathered and put it together in a way which is tangible and relatable to him, and the fact that so many people have connected with it doesn't mean that he's forcing opinions on anyone, but that what he says connects with many people.

If he's not for you, fine, we're all very different. But your attempts at explaining why everybody else shouldn't are so completely flawed that I would be hazardous to the intent at which you express it.

kubjones

Also what kind of "Right-Wing ideological doctrine" would speak so highly of the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Borges, Levi-Straus, etc?

Jimmies have been sufficiently rustled, you have no idea what you're talking about.

RandomName2

Akrasia wrote: »

Calling a white man white isn't racist

When asked how he could get rid of the burden of white privilege when attempting to enter any debate the response was

You're doing well [financially], but you're a mean, mad white guy.

The implication is clear. He also goes on to say that Peterson is getting too much publicity, and that he is blind to his own privilege.

It is the ultimate weapon. The fact that Michael Eric Dyson has a black parent means that he is the only person, by his own estimation, entitled to discuss the issues at hand. That's incredibly racist, but it is technically justifiable if you're looking for equality of outcome (which is inherently racist). It is no surprise that Michael Eric Dyson is an advocate of equality of outcome.

Akrasia wrote: »

he is on a crusade against equal rights for transgender people

So you think he should be jailed for not saying zim? Sorry, I keep thinking of Invader Zim when I say that.

seannash

Akrasia wrote: »

he is on a crusade against equal rights for transgender people is fair enough

Its disappointing that you cant see how wrong you are with this.
What right does he want to deny them?

Lux23

Rennaws wrote: »

I just love the fact that he's ruffling so many feathers..

Especially the people whose feathers are most ruffled..

Anyone that forces us to stop and think about this illiberal nonsense being forced down our throats is a godsend in my book..

We need lots more JP's and lots more ruffled feathers..

I think that's the only reason people admire him; if they engaged their brain for a second they would see how much of what he says is claptrap designed to excite angry people on both sides of the debate.

CerebralCortex

Rennaws wrote: »

I just love the fact that he's ruffling so many feathers..

Especially the people whose feathers are most ruffled..

Anyone that forces us to stop and think about this illiberal nonsense being forced down our throats is a godsend in my book..

We need lots more JP's and lots more ruffled feathers..

So you like trolls?

kunst nugget

seannash wrote: »

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.

I've never seen any campaigns to have people in developing countries paid the same as their European counterparts but I have seen stuff like the Fairtrade movement where they try to give their producers a living wage. But sticking them into a factory and giving them two bucks a day is probably a much better life lesson for them than a living wage.

xckjoo

kubjones wrote: »

You're actually out of your mind. You're using such broad generalizations I can't tell whether you trolling or not.

He won that debate by a large margin, the only way you could possibly consider him losing it was because he didn't throw any insults back and rose above the attacks on character. The opposition was so childish and depended on actual logical fallacies, citing no historical data and using hearsay so often it was actually embarrassing to watch.

In relation to the education he's looking to set up online, he's dead right, the educational system we have right now is a joke. Its set at demanding children be good at information retention to be "smart", while in regards to spacial and creative learning it is far, far behind. In many cases it is up to the teachers to keep up with the current trends in regards to learning to keep their students interested, however for many, if not most teachers and lecturers today, teaching is just a job and they couldn't care about the progress of their students.

He's right to say online is the next domain of the intellectual, the people who actually want to learn don't have to depend on the adequacy of the institutions around them and can go about seeking a broader knowledge of whatever interest they have, sometimes FOR FREE, from the greatest minds that are doing it at the time.

And you're right to say that he and the evangelical preachers have something in common, in the ways that they both speak to people in a guiding manner, but Peterson never attempts to guide people to give him their money, he hardly ever brings up money, save for his Patreon at its inception just to make people aware of it. I have only ever paid for his book in the years of following his work. I have never felt obliged to.

And that's also about as far as your comparison ends because he never claims to know it all, he knows he doesn't have all the answers. All he has is what he has learned from the people before him, who have learned from the people before them, and tries to relay all the information which he has gathered and put it together in a way which is tangible and relatable to him, and the fact that so many people have connected with it doesn't mean that he's forcing opinions on anyone, but that what he says connects with many people.

If he's not for you, fine, we're all very different. But your attempts at explaining why everybody else shouldn't are so completely flawed that I would be hazardous to the intent at which you express it.

Nah. He's clearly been planning this power move to funnel all the money away from universities into his pockets for the last few decades. Probably manipulated the Canadian Government into passing that law so he could burst into the public eye.

He's obviously an evil genius but simultaneously not smart enough to have done the work he pretends to have done. Chess Grand Masters have nothing on this guy.



/s

Outlaw Pete

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So you like trolls?

blue note

Akrasia wrote: »

And what about his opinions on Divorce? He is opposed to divorce in most circumstances and thinks people should be pressured to remain in their marriages even when they are unhappy, unfulfilling or they are not being treated well by their spouse.

Never get divorced because you committed to the marriage so tough sh1t if he happens to be a drunken layabout or she happens to be a cold hearted bitter jealous woman or whatever the problems in the marriage might be, you should stay in the marriage and fix the problems or else you're just running away

Can you point to where you read that he is opposed to divorce? I've heard quite a few things from him and it would surprise me greatly if he was opposed to divorce as a concept. For sure people tend to fare better in two parent families, but saying this doesn't mean you oppose divorce in most circumstances.