Manosphere Jordan Peterson - Internet Daddy Simulator, Post-modern Anti-postmodernist, Canadian Psychology Professor, Depressed, Got Hooked on Benzos

I've got a question regarding Peterson's fascination with Jung for those who are more familiar with that particular subject, but why is it that people like Peterson are drawn to Jungian thinking, and why was it discarded in modern Psychology? I know it's been relegated more towards being useful in terms of literary tools and what not, but what exactly about it isn't applicable in the field itself? Is it because it's hard to prove?

I've had something akin to more than a passing interest in Psychology itself, and Jungian thinking was one of those things that really puzzled me and I've always wanted to know more about it.

A lot of that was due to trends in the English speaking world that impacted the structure of higher education. Like every other discipline, Psychology isn't monolithic and is fragmented into various branches and sub-fields that are often independent of each other and geographic considerations are also important: the study of psychology in central Europe can look very different from the study of Psychology in China.

In the context of the United States/Canada/Britain/Australia, in the mid-20th century there was a shift towards a kind of "positivism" in the soft/social sciences that placed a heavy emphasis on research being easily quantifiable through some kind of metric that can be tracked. Grand theories of human behavior that are more akin to a literary theory or philosophical hermeneutic don't lend themselves to that kind of research and because one's ability to obtain grant money was and is still critical for funding one's research, pitching your ideas framed in a way that appears "data driven" becomes of paramount importance. Other fields like Political Science, Economics, and Sociology were similarly affected.

To make matters worse, for those who got into psychology for clinical work soon found themselves contending with insurance companies and government agencies who were very picky about how and when they are going to reimburse practitioners for their services. So therapies that can be superficially quantified for a billing statement become preferred. Case in point, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy becomes the go to therapeutic strategy because you can structure a 10 session block around patients/clients completing worksheets and journal entries that can easily be translated into a chart to measure "progress" that can then be billed discretely.

In the end you discover that a lot of psychologists end up having a strong affinity towards a particular thinker like Freud, Jung, Adler, or God help us Jacques Lacan which then informs projects that are geared towards metrics. Peterson had a thing for Jung that greatly informed him on a meta-level, but he earned his tenure through his work on assessing personality.
 
To add to what others said, I think that Jung ideas got discarded because of what is now more popular in social studies in academia. The point of positivist trend is true, as well as suitability of CBT for short-term psychotherapy. However, this would not necessarily prevent studies of Jung that would be naturally outside the most positivist branch of psychology: cognitive psychology.

I think it has a lot to do with the unjustified triumph of Critical Theory in American academe. Jung is just way too religious for Marxists. Like in: "What the fuck, Carl? No need to babble about mystical meanings and stuff, when we gotta solve the big social problems and undermine oppressive structures of power, btw. I think all these myths you are talking about are just a way the elite class justify their power grab and keep the people in the dark."
 

Steamboat_Bill

Going to beat the record of the Robert E. Lee
I think it has a lot to do with the unjustified triumph of Critical Theory in American academe. Jung is just way too religious for Marxists. Like in: "What the fuck, Carl? No need to babble about mystical meanings and stuff, when we gotta solve the big social problems and undermine oppressive structures of power, btw. I think all these myths you are talking about are just a way the elite class justify their power grab and keep the people in the dark."

You don't need to be a Marxist to think Jung's full of shit.
 

Adolf Hitler

Er/ ihn.
View attachment 1419197














You can just see the light leave his eyes at the end there.

It's hilarious to me that he ended up in a Russian Hospital of all places. And lol at him saying he was inspired to write something shortly before leaving Russia. You can just tell he's going to be talking about how his experience there "invoked the spirits of the oppressive communist regime" to speak to him or some shit.

I've liked a decent amount of the stuff he has said in the past, and I'll at least credit him for inspiring me to delve into deeper literature in general, but i've always felt like he pretty much blew his load with Maps of Meaning and Personality and its Transformations and he's just been running on autopilot ever since.

Can't really say i'm too interested to read anything more from him now, especially considering he's neurologically damaged. If I did it would be out of morbid curiosity at best.
Christ, she really dresses like a harlot doesn't she? Guess she proved there is an occasion not suitable for a little black dress.
 
A lot of that was due to trends in the English speaking world that impacted the structure of higher education. Like every other discipline, Psychology isn't monolithic and is fragmented into various branches and sub-fields that are often independent of each other and geographic considerations are also important: the study of psychology in central Europe can look very different from the study of Psychology in China.

In the context of the United States/Canada/Britain/Australia, in the mid-20th century there was a shift towards a kind of "positivism" in the soft/social sciences that placed a heavy emphasis on research being easily quantifiable through some kind of metric that can be tracked. Grand theories of human behavior that are more akin to a literary theory or philosophical hermeneutic don't lend themselves to that kind of research and because one's ability to obtain grant money was and is still critical for funding one's research, pitching your ideas framed in a way that appears "data driven" becomes of paramount importance. Other fields like Political Science, Economics, and Sociology were similarly affected.

To make matters worse, for those who got into psychology for clinical work soon found themselves contending with insurance companies and government agencies who were very picky about how and when they are going to reimburse practitioners for their services. So therapies that can be superficially quantified for a billing statement become preferred. Case in point, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy becomes the go to therapeutic strategy because you can structure a 10 session block around patients/clients completing worksheets and journal entries that can easily be translated into a chart to measure "progress" that can then be billed discretely.

In the end you discover that a lot of psychologists end up having a strong affinity towards a particular thinker like Freud, Jung, Adler, or God help us Jacques Lacan which then informs projects that are geared towards metrics. Peterson had a thing for Jung that greatly informed him on a meta-level, but he earned his tenure through his work on assessing personality.
I think you're being a bit too unfair to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It didn't become the go to therapy because you can reimburse easily (in some countries like Germany have fun getting reimbursed for therapy lmao) but because simply it works.
 

Harbinger of Kali Yuga

Because the world is SO BAD, like diet soda.
I think you're being a bit too unfair to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It didn't become the go to therapy because you can reimburse easily (in some countries like Germany have fun getting reimbursed for therapy lmao) but because simply it works.

Yeah, it's talk therapy where you get billed endlessly just to essentially have a shoulder to cry on and someone pretend to be your friend. CBT is a lot better than talk therapy.
 
I think you're being a bit too unfair to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It didn't become the go to therapy because you can reimburse easily (in some countries like Germany have fun getting reimbursed for therapy lmao) but because simply it works.

That is a topic of contention:

Objective: Three recent meta-analyses have made the claim, albeit with some caveats, that cognitive-behavioral treatments (CBT) are superior to other psychotherapies, in general or for specific disorders (e.g., social phobia). Method: The purpose of the present article was to examine four issues in meta-analysis that mitigate claims of CBT superiority: (a) effect size, power, and statistical significance, (b) focusing on disorder-specific symptom measures and ignoring other important indicators of psychological functioning, (c) problems inherent in classifying treatments provided in primary studies into classes of treatments, and (d) the inclusion of problematic trials, which biases the results, and the exclusion of trials that fail to find differences among treatments.

Results: When these issues are examined, the effects demonstrating the superiority of CBT are small, nonsignificant for the most part, limited to targeted symptoms, or are due to flawed primary studies.

Conclusion: Meta-analytic evidence for the superiority of CBT in the three meta-analysis are nonexistent or weak.

This isn't to say CBT doesn't have value or that it doesn't belong to the bevy of therapeutic strategies available to mental health professionals, but does it deserve preeminence?


Yeah, it's talk therapy where you get billed endlessly just to essentially have a shoulder to cry on and someone pretend to be your friend. CBT is a lot better than talk therapy.

In the taxonomy of contemporary therapies, CBT is considered a talk therapy.

Well, did you ever read any "luminaries" of the postmodern critical social theory? Derrida, Foucault are also full of shit and it's even more stinky, however it does not prevent them from being studied and even revered.

I'd be curious to know what the circumstances were that lead you to read those guys.
 
That is a topic of contention:



This isn't to say CBT doesn't have value or that it doesn't belong to the bevy of therapeutic strategies available to mental health professionals, but does it deserve preeminence?




In the taxonomy of contemporary therapies, CBT is considered a talk therapy.



I'd be curious to know what the circumstances were that lead you to read those guys.

Why, I read them in college of course, they were in part required texts for one of my courses, in part I wanted to read them just to know what they have to say. Spoiler alert: unlike
They aren't, the faggots who misapply their theory all the time are.
I don't think they deserve any attention at all, they are way overhyped for their value. But I agree that their derivatives are even worse.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Jung, but I don't think he is completely worthless. I think he had some interesting things to say, and by the sheer virtue of his erudition he should not be discarded.

I really think there is something to what I said before that his religious interests were the reason why is not really taught much anymore. It's just not a good fit for schools overcome with critical theorist and other "post-Marxists".

Generally, I agree with Camille Paglia that the religious studies should be part of humanities curriculum. For this topic I would recommend Mircea Eliade History of Religious Ideas instead of Jung for more organized approach. It's a shame that we have at least two-three generations that leave a college with a degree in some humanities and without a good grasp what religion and quest for transcendence are all about.

Instead, they are tortured in their formative years with reading and studying some insufferable drivel created by soulless morons.
 

Harbinger of Kali Yuga

Because the world is SO BAD, like diet soda.
Hah, you're right. To be honest therapy and the treatment aspects of psychology were literally the least interesting to me when I got my degree and it's been a super long time. One of the few that gave less a shit about abnormal psych than anything else. I'm really skeptical about most of it. Especially when I saw who went into therapy vs. research. The gulf between undergrads motivated in their research and undergrads was HUGE. Most psych majors could hardly write. Embarrassing mistakes.

It should be noted and underscored that the difference on what researchers do and know and how practitioners actually behave is a pretty big one. Still a fucking stupid mistake on my part. I guess I'm trying to defer to old, hazy memories of things I've been told and care about very little to not have even bothered refreshing my memory on.

Seriously, undergrads that wanted to go into therapy-- M O R O N S.

For example the only thing in abnormal psych I truly find fascinating is how bogus DID is (for the most part). Though, it's good to know stuff about anxiety and treatment as that's the biggest "real world" knowledge you can have in psych.
 
Why, I read them in college of course, they were in part required texts for one of my courses, in part I wanted to read them just to know what they have to say. Spoiler alert: unlike
I never experienced what you describe, but I absolutely detest contemporary higher education and every account I encounter about its shitty sub-cultures immediately seems plausible to me. I find the activity of working through Derrida and Foucault to be a rewarding experience even though I don’t find their positions to be all that appealing. In particular I derive a good deal of entertainment from contrasting what Foucault actually wrote vs how he is represented on social media.

In fact that experience is pretty close to how people have described Jordan Peterson to me. Progressive friends have described him as some kind of neo-reactionary bigot who wants to exterminate Trans people as a measure to protect patriarchal dominance and others have portrayed him as some kind brilliant thinker who achieved notoriety by pointing out absurdities of modern culture. Then when I finally start paying attention to this polarizing scholar I come to find out he is this tepid academic stumbling through life and struggling to make sense of it.

I really think there is something to what I said before that his religious interests were the reason why is not really taught much anymore. It's just not a good fit for schools overcome with critical theorist and other "post-Marxists".

I think it has to do with his involvement and participation with the Nazi party and government, the same kind of dark cloud that hangs over Heidegger. Jung was pretty much the de jure Psychoanalyst of the Third Reich and this role had him saying some absolutely crazy and hilarious shit. Getting a copy of ‘Jung Speaking’ makes for some great reading, it is a collection of his public addresses. There is an interview from 1939 in there that I just love:

Jung said:
There is no question but that Hitler belongs in the category of the truly mystic medicine man. As somebody commented about him at the last Nurnberg party congress, since the time of Mohammed [عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَام] nothing like has been seen in this world. This markedly mystic characteristic of Hitler’s is what makes him do things which seem to us illogical, inexplicable,...So you see, Hitler is a medicine man, a form of spiritual vessel, a demi-deity or, even better a myth.

Jung’s hostility to modernism and “Enlightenment era” thinking puts him in the company of Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan; they would be in total agreement with those criticisms. Calling Hitler a spiritual vessel on the other hand...

Hah, you're right. To be honest therapy and the treatment aspects of psychology were literally the least interesting to me when I got my degree and it's been a super long time. One of the few that gave less a shit about abnormal psych than anything else. I'm really skeptical about most of it. Especially when I saw who went into therapy vs. research. The gulf between undergrads motivated in their research and undergrads was HUGE. Most psych majors could hardly write. Embarrassing mistakes.

It should be noted and underscored that the difference on what researchers do and know and how practitioners actually behave is a pretty big one. Still a fucking stupid mistake on my part. I guess I'm trying to defer to old, hazy memories of things I've been told and care about very little to not have even bothered refreshing my memory on.

Seriously, undergrads that wanted to go into therapy-- M O R O N S.

For example the only thing in abnormal psych I truly find fascinating is how bogus DID is (for the most part). Though, it's good to know stuff about anxiety and treatment as that's the biggest "real world" knowledge you can have in psych.

I think Psychology (along with Political Science) has functionally become the modern “General Studies” degree that people take when they are unsure what to study. The sheer volume of students in the major pretty much guarantees that the average student is woefully under equipped to tackle the subject manner.

I found Social Work students to uniformly be the most illiterate students I’ve ever seen in my life. There is such a demand for Social Workers that the bar for entry has pretty much bottomed out and as long as you have a pulse and make a symbolic gesture of the tiniest effort, you are on your way to a LSW.

TBH I think skepticism towards every therapy offered by the mental health industry is healthy for a field where the “publish or perish” atmosphere persists.
 
Then when I finally start paying attention to this polarizing scholar I come to find out he is this tepid academic stumbling through life and struggling to make sense of it.

I think I totally agree with this description.

I think it has to do with his involvement and participation with the Nazi party and government, the same kind of dark cloud that hangs over Heidegger. Jung was pretty much the de jure Psychoanalyst of the Third Reich and this role had him saying some absolutely crazy and hilarious shit. Getting a copy of ‘Jung Speaking’ makes for some great reading, it is a collection of his public addresses. There is an interview from 1939 in there that I just love:

Jung’s hostility to modernism and “Enlightenment era” thinking puts him in the company of Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan; they would be in total agreement with those criticisms. Calling Hitler a spiritual vessel on the other hand...

Well, there were many critics of Enlightenment and modernism. I think that hostility to Enlightenment generates fewer similarities than you think. I can think of at least one thinker other than Jung that hated Enlightenment with passion and his thinking couldn't be further from Derrida and consorts. What really all these guys have in common is that they read Nietzsche for a long time, and each misunderstood him in his own way.

I don't think this quote about Hitler is that controversial. It can be easily explained by the l'esprit du temps. I don't think Heidegger is particularly suffering from being nice party member either. Side note: I find it detestable that saying positive things about Stalin is not treated the same way.

I think Psychology (along with Political Science) has functionally become the modern “General Studies” degree that people take when they are unsure what to study. The sheer volume of students in the major pretty much guarantees that the average student is woefully under equipped to tackle the subject manner.

I found Social Work students to uniformly be the most illiterate students I’ve ever seen in my life. There is such a demand for Social Workers that the bar for entry has pretty much bottomed out and as long as you have a pulse and make a symbolic gesture of the tiniest effort, you are on your way to a LSW.

TBH I think skepticism towards every therapy offered by the mental health industry is healthy for a field where the “publish or perish” atmosphere persists.

About psychotherapy: I don't think there is only one hammer for each nail. Different types of psychotherapy are effective for different types of problems. For example: CBT is particularly effective for panic disorders, while psychodynamic therapy deals well with social anxiety and depression.

Back to the topic of this thread: what was particularly interesting to me is that Jordan Peterson in his famous Insomnia Episode reported feeling "existential dread". I find it funny in a way, that this man spends his life drawing maps of meaning and finding simple rules for life, and once he faces existential dread he has to take pills, because it's just too much.

LOL

It just cracks me up. Think about it: all these books he read, all these philosophers before him. Many of them actually spoke about facing existential dread including Nietzsche and Jung. And this lousy fucker just refuses to face existential dread because it's just too... scary? WTF? Did he even read any book in his life or he just paged through and memorized few quotes to impress some pretentious girls? Did he really read any book? I mean really read, experienced through and through. Worked through?

It sounded to me when I saw him speaking about it, as if he led such a sheltered existence, existence of such massive repression and denial that he had to crumble at the mere inkling of what is hiding in the recess of his psyche. It's unbelievable really. I can't really work myself up to truly care about him, but how dare he speak about anything to anyone while he clearly understands nothing.

Or maybe now he somewhat understands, and maybe he is a bit ashamed that he spoke prematurely.
 
His daughter is pretty cute.

Neg-rate me, I give no fucks about your stickers.
Daughter analysis:
Her GoFundMe Peterson-Family Vacation was good to her.
Her coloring (tan) is excellent, hair highlights are lovely, and makeup was expertly done. Her 3/4 profile pose is good for her, and mic placement de-emphasized her flaws (nose). Her coloration tapers nicely.
But she is not an attractive woman. That nose. God. Weird body proportions, eyebrows and facial (cheek) width are clown-like. But her makeup and profile disguises that. 4/10. Would fuck if drunk and she was dressed up.

The podcast:
Starting benzos because of an allergic reaction? Idiocy. Just 'fess up and say "Look, it was a FUCKING TOUGH YEAR. My wife was diagnosed with cancer and given 10 months! I needed relief, so I looked for it in a pill bottle." Everyone would understand and empathize. Not this - "I'm not a junky, I had bad shellfish", bullshit.
The horror of the addiction and withdrawl was nightmarish. Jordan and his daughter's description of Russia was melodramatic. Their pill-blaming got tedious.
His humility was refreshing. He was humbled and his reflection seemed truthful. Even physicians have lessons to learn.
Also, he was damaged, and he is slowed. I believe he can recover from this. The brain is very plastic.

I'm not a fan of his, but I wouldn't wish this experience on my worst enemy. Additionally, going through this under public scrutiny (on the internet) is madness.
 

RX-78NT-1 Alex Gundam

The Autist who unironically studied Klingon
Mikhaela is hot imo. But if I actually met her I'd probably end up slapping her. Everything she does is so self centred. I don't think Mr Peterson is intentionally conning people as some people here think. But I do think he did the predictable academia thing of reading a bunch of books by far smarter people, squishing it all together into a ball and then pretending what he regurgitated was actually his intellectual OCs do not steal. I think he came into this mess wanting to actually help people and maybe let it get to his head. Thus pills happened. Mikhaela though... She just reminds me of a grifter. Gives me Lauren Southern vibes. The weird ways she talks about her family give me the willies. Something isn't right there.
 

CrippleThreat

At least my third leg is still working.
Mikhaela is hot imo. But if I actually met her I'd probably end up slapping her. Everything she does is so self centred. I don't think Mr Peterson is intentionally conning people as some people here think. But I do think he did the predictable academia thing of reading a bunch of books by far smarter people, squishing it all together into a ball and then pretending what he regurgitated was actually his intellectual OCs do not steal. I think he came into this mess wanting to actually help people and maybe let it get to his head. Thus pills happened. Mikhaela though... She just reminds me of a grifter. Gives me Lauren Southern vibes. The weird ways she talks about her family give me the willies. Something isn't right there.
Has anyone told him yet that his daughter left her husband and hung around another manosphere type called Andrew Tate for some time.

Doesn't help that one of her monikers is "Meat Queen."
 

Justtocheck

#MafiaLoreHYPE $ $ $
True & Honest Fan
I think you're being a bit too unfair to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. It didn't become the go to therapy because you can reimburse easily (in some countries like Germany have fun getting reimbursed for therapy lmao) but because simply it works.

The sad thing is that America is not really interested in psychotherapy for the individual. The focus of psychology in english speaking coutnries is not deep reflection or higher awareness of the self, but rather how to keep you working and productive. That's why Peterson is such a psychometric sperg too (Psychometrics main use is to filter people into job brackets. The best psychodiagnostic tool is Rorschach, and the fucking thing takes fucking ages to do, so is virtually unusable).

Most americans would rather be given a pill than do the personal intellectual work of self-relfection and learning. I'm not judging, but as they coined "time is money". And individual therapy takes a lot of time where you are not making money.

CBT is an ego based therapy and is quick. It boiles down to the phrase "If you think good, you'll act good and you'll feel good". It has lots of limitations like most ego-based therapies, since it doesn't even adress the unconscious elements. And besides having your therapist tell you how you should think to feel good is annoying as fuck. Depending on the person, it may work enough to change some thought patters that can have a good effect, but it doesn't go much further.

Oh and as a note, Freud wasn't the first one to "discover" the unconscious. It was Francis Galton. An English scientinst, of all people.

I quote from Galton;

"Perhaps the strongest of the impressions left by the experiment regards the multifariousness of the work done by the mind in a state of half-unconciousness, and the valid reason they afford for believing in the existence of still deeper strata of mental operations, sunk wholly bellow the level of consciousness, which may account for such mental as cannot otherwise be explained."

Galton referring to his experiments in word association. Published in 1883 when Freud was just starting his medical career. Freud was the popularizer tho.
 

Similar threads

The roller-coaster train-wreck embarrassing downfall of a Web 1.0 giant and its tick offspring like from Cloverfield
Replies
26K
Views
4M
Amberlynn's transman ex to tell all?? 3PM Pacific
Replies
198
Views
32K
ft. r/GenderCritical & related reddits, Mancheeze, Cathy Brennan, GCDad, RadFHarva, Jamie Shupe, etc; "Gender Critical Feminism is Homophobic" - Cathy Brennan, 2019.
Replies
3K
Views
504K
Top