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

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
Also, let's just state for the record that Peterson has, in fact, answered the question.
This is not true. He has only clarified why he doesn't answer the question, not given an answer.

If he was muddying the waters with semantics he would say "I can't answer the question because we have different definitions and can't talk about it."
That would only be the case if you assume him to be as forthright and truthful as he presents himself.

If you think him to be intentionally deceptive about his point his answer makes a lot of sense. Because it evades having to give an answer. Your answer wouldn't work in that case, because it wouldn't cause people to come to his defense, because it would leave no room for interpretation. They could only repeat the weak "he doesn't want to talk about".

Like his refusal to talk about 200 years together, Solzenitshyen's other book, despite having been prompted at least twice (recorded) and receiving a free translated copy.

It's a much weaker position than allowing people discuss the epistomology and semantics if what words mean. In that sense I admire Peterson for managing to hoodwink people.

And to hear a defense of the podcast with Harris about truth being some high brained thing; Peterson himself has admitted on Rogan that it was a shit podcast and came up with not having slept for 30 days as a reason for it being shit.

Pretty amazing that people would still defend that podcast. I suppose that ends now that they know daddy admitted it was a bad podcast?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steamboat_Bill

Going to beat the record of the Robert E. Lee
kiwifarms.net
That would only be the case if you assume him to be as forthright and truthful as he presents himself.

If you think him to be intentionally deceptive about his point his answer makes a lot of sense. Because it evades having to give an answer. Your answer wouldn't work in that case, because it wouldn't cause people to come to his defense, because it would leave no room for interpretation. They could only repeat the weak "he doesn't want to talk about".

Like his refusal to talk about 200 years together, Solzenitshyen's other book, despite having been prompted at least twice (recorded) and receiving a free translated copy.

It's a much weaker position than allowing people discuss the epistomology and semantics if what words mean. In that sense I admire Peterson for managing to hoodwink people.

And to hear a defense of the podcast with Harris about truth being some high brained thing; Peterson himself has admitted on Rogan that it was a shit podcast and came up with not having slept for 30 days as a reason for it being shit.

Pretty amazing that people would still defend that podcast. I suppose that ends now that they know daddy admitted it was a bad podcast?
Has he read anything else on the USSR other than Solzhenitsyn?
 

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
Has he read anything else on the USSR other than Solzhenitsyn?
That depends on what you mean by 'USSR' and would probably require upward of 40 hours of lectures to answer.

Lol, I haven't heard him mention any other, though of course he mentions the pre-USSR russian writers. I always assumed he had, but that may be giving him too much credit.

Which books should he have read?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GranDuke

Steamboat_Bill

Going to beat the record of the Robert E. Lee
kiwifarms.net
That depends on what you mean by 'USSR' and would probably require upward of 40 hours of lectures to answer.

Lol, I haven't heard him mention any other, though of course he mentions the pre-USSR russian writers. I always assumed he had, but that may be giving him too much credit.

Which books should he have read?
I'm no student of Soviet Russia, so I can't tell you, but it just seems strange that he never seems to talk about any other writers who've written on the subject.

(Maybe he's never read anything on the USSR other than Solzhenitsyn?)
 

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
Asking for clarification and working towards a common definition isn't obscurantism. What would that goal be of someone trying to obscure the issue, but at the same time delving deeper into it and chasing after it?
Peterson generally doesn't work towards a common definition though, he mostly just deconstructs the definitions other people are using without offering a better alternative. This could be forgivable if his purpose was to highlight the error in another person's thinking, but the sad reality is that his ruminations usually obfuscate far more often than they elucidate. When it comes to the subjects of epistemology and theology in particular, he is incredibly vague about what his position is.

In light of this, I think my charge of obscurantism is fair.

He's up there articulating the complexities of the issue and explaining why he is doing it, which you say great thinkers do, but when he does that... apparently he's dodging?
Articulating the complexities of something and overwhelming the listener with semantics as a substitute for genuine insights are not mutually exclusive. Language is a complex thing; so complex that if you had to define every word before uttering it, you would never be able to finish your sentence. Still, would this really be a worthwhile use of language?
 

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
Peterson generally doesn't work towards a common definition though, he mostly just deconstructs the definitions other people are using without offering a better alternative.
What do you mean "alternative?" Alternative to what? Someone asks a question, you ask for clarification, you explain why you need it, and you explore the problem... Why would someone need to randomly swap in their own interpretation to further impede the exploration? "I want to know what you mean by X, so how about you explain what you mean by X and while you do I'm going to assume you mean Y." I really don't understand your issue here.
Your problem, as it stands right now, is that you think he doesn't answer the question on your terms. That seems to really bother you, and it seems to bother you that he tries to dive deeper into it.
I mean even right here, he goes into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0

So if you want, go and criticize his answer here, but he does provide one. And if you're opposed to his definition based on the setup, in my opinion you have a low-resolution concept of God and most likely everything else since your only interest appears to be playing conversation referee.

This could be forgivable if his purpose was to highlight the error in another person's thinking, but the sad reality is that his ruminations usually obfuscate far more often than they elucidate.
It's ironic you are using such pretentious language cause you're doing exactly what you accuse him of doing.

Articulating the complexities of something and overwhelming the listener with semantics as a substitute for genuine insights are not mutually exclusive. Language is a complex thing; so complex that if you had to define every word before uttering it, you would never be able to finish your sentence. Still, would this really be a worthwhile use of language?
I continue to be a loss at what you are actually trying to say here. "Exploring complexity and making something complex in the interest of avoiding it aren't the same thing." Thanks professor, now can you explain why he did the latter instead of the former? We all know what it's like when someone is pretentiously avoiding a thing with flowery language. Deepak Chopra comes to mind, you also come to mind right now, but just go ahead and say where he is fucking up in the problem.

See you started by saying he is avoiding the issue completely, then I argued that he is delving deeper into it, now you're saying yeah he does delve deeper but he is using words you don't like. Okay, so where is he going wrong? Cause by the way, it's not his language or terminology. Both are fine, it's pretty plain spoken, it's pretty straight forward.

Your problem seems to be he doesn't answer the question on your terms, but like I said earlier in this thread it would be like me asking you if you believe in "truth." You would be an absolute idiot if you just immediately treated it like a binary true or false question.

You say things like "he generally doesn't work towards a common definition." Generally how? Are you implying on the odd time he DOES answer the question and they find a common definition, but not most of the time? See words matter.
 

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
Okay, so where is he going wrong?
When he says "I act as if god exists" being a good enough answer to "do you believe in god?"

He has said in that atheist discussion that atheists aren't atheist and actually believe in something, because they act as if they believe in something.

So although he doesn't like to be boxed in, as he says in your link, he has no qualms about boxing others in.

But more importantly, he has no problem defining "what you act like" as belief. So his resistance to say whether he believes in god probably has a different reason, or he would have had similar protests in that atheist discussion case (I can look up the link if you need it).

And I think he answers it honestly in the first part: "I don't like that question." And "I don't like to be boxed in", I believe those both. But not the motive he describes after for the aforementioned reasons.

What else could explain the discreprancy between his self-description and his description of the atheists?
 

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
What do you mean "alternative?" Alternative to what? Someone asks a question, you ask for clarification, you explain why you need it, and you explore the problem... Why would someone need to randomly swap in their own interpretation to further impede the exploration? "I want to know what you mean by X, so how about you explain what you mean by X and while you do I'm going to assume you mean Y." I really don't understand your issue here.
Your problem, as it stands right now, is that you think he doesn't answer the question on your terms. That seems to really bother you, and it seems to bother you that he tries to dive deeper into it.
You are reading your own interpretation into what I wrote. I don't care if Peterson answers questions on my terms, or anyone else's terms for that matter, I simply expect that he answer them in clear terms.

My repeated criticism of Peterson is that he is often unclear about what his position is, and if he is going to state that other people are using imprecise or flawed definitions for the concepts they're discussing, then the least I expect of him is to elaborate upon what he thinks would be a more appropriate definition. The fact is, he never does.

I mean even right here, he goes into it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvVu7__vy0

So if you want, go and criticize his answer here, but he does provide one. And if you're opposed to his definition based on the setup, in my opinion you have a low-resolution concept of God and most likely everything else since your only interest appears to be playing conversation referee.
I have never mentioned God in this thread, nor have I revealed what my own personal beliefs are. Once again, you are reading your own interpretation into what I have wrote. I am glad you cited that video though, because I was about to cite it myself as an example of what I have been talking about.

Specifically, I would like to focus on what Peterson has to say about Hell:
"People who believe in Hell are terrified of Hell, about/for themselves, and in my estimation they should be, because I also believe in Hell, although what that means, again is, you know? subject to interpretation. Lots of people live in Hell, and lots of people create it."
For the sake of context, the above quote was made immediately after Peterson dismissed the position that Hell is merely "a convenient place to put your enemies" as an "absurdly cynical" position. Does he explain why such a position is absurdly cynical? Does he explain why said position is wrong? I'll let you come to your own conclusions, but for me it's a 'no' on both counts.

I also remain largely perplexed by what Peterson means when he speaks of Hell in his otherwise baffling non sequitur of a statement. Does he conceive of Hell as a metaphor for self-inflicted personal strife, or does he conceive of it in the traditional sense of the afterlife? I would argue that his position is unclear, and his statement that it is "subject to interpretation" can easily be read as an attempt to avoid having to pin oneself to a definite position.

It's ironic you are using such pretentious language cause you're doing exactly what you accuse him of doing.
What is ironic or pretentious about anything I have said? Where have I attacked Peterson specifically for the undoing of being pretentious?
 

Judge Dredd

Senior Layout Artist
kiwifarms.net
If this thread wasn't already tagged Manosphere it would be diseased/infected no doubt.

This is a thread?
So what, he's super tedious and wide-ranging in the points he makes?
It's all absolutely true, even the contentious stuff is true in his qualification of the accuracy of perceived research.
It's only true because he's so tedious and cautious.

The only dubious claim he's made is about the success of his purely carnivorous diet and I forgive him that because it's for his daughter.
Even then, he makes an interesting point about dietary science considering how much diet bullshit is out there and how much we fully understand about what food does to us.
I agree with what other kiwis said earlier on that the focus of the thread should be his detractors and fanboys. It's like Trump Derangement Syndrome but for a guy who's crime is that he talks about fairy tales and tells people to clean their room.

I liked listening to his stories he's a pretty good (if verbose) storyteller - like every pysch teacher is.

But then someone asked him if he believed in God and he - with a straight face completely devoid of irony - said something like "what do you mean by "believe", what do you mean by "God" blah blah blah don't assume my gender philosophy, also don't ask me to explain it."

Just say "yes", "no" or "not sure" you fraud.
He's answered that before, and this goes to various similar discussions in this thread.

People try to box him in and pin labels on him for ease of dismissal. He doesn't let them do that easily and it drives them crazy.

What they want is something like this. "Do you believe it god?" "Yes." "So you hate gay people and believe in an invisible sky man that heals the sick if you prey enough."
What they get is something like this. "Do you believe in god?" "That depends on what you mean by god, and what you mean by believe." "...Fuck you lobster nazi!" Then the clip appears in a dozen YouTube 'pwning the libs' compilations.
 

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
I agree with what other kiwis said earlier on that the focus of the thread should be his detractors and fanboys.
I've looked into it, but it simply isn't as funny or interesting.

father.PNG

thirsty.PNG

shower.PNG



I've always thought and intended the thread to go into "internet famous", to leave room for some disagreement as you might see in the ethan ralph or jim thread.

----
----
----


As to the idea that either poking fun or having serious discussion about him is comparable to Trump derangement syndrome is laughable. Everybody wants to claim that these days (didn't Sargon talk about Sargon derangement syndrome?). But there haven't been examples of that since the cathy newman interview, when people readjusted their view of him.

You seem to ignore the earlier point: Peterson had no problem calling atheists believers, but when it comes to himself, he refuses to word it like that. Why the discreprancy?

Edit: I'm curious about answers to the above question and would read them, but I've decided to go in exile in regards to this topic for a while, lest I become like Gorka and start to catalogue Jordan Peterson's feet and weight throughout the years.
 
Last edited:

lowkey

kiwifarms.net
People might find it interesting that Peterson shared this new documentary himself, despite it probably being a bad idea for him to do so:

1548659922071.jpg


 
  • Late
Reactions: 1 person