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

  • Apologies for the site issues. The server's shipment was delayed. I'll ask again about it and if they can't provide it I'll source another.

Dafuqisdis?

kiwifarms.net
Jordan Peterson is a "thinker" that gets paid millions and barely reads his oponents or his allies. (He thinks derrida was the most evil man and didn't even read him). He suffers from the Sargon pest of believing he's smarter than he acutally is. For that alone he should be shot in the back of the head mocked senslesly.

He's a mystic (wtf is a precosmogonic egg ) that has the balls to use neurosciences as justification for his ideas and a Christian who doesn't have the balls to say if he actually believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He's also a conservative boomer that sees nothing wrong in today's cut-throat, race-to-the-bottom capitalism. VIVA LA REVOLUCION But he's so milktoast that Zizek made him say in the debate that yeah, perhaps capitalism should be better controlled. So much for having conviction, bucko. Sadly neither of the two minds in the "debate of the century" (bleh!) managed to come up with tangible "hows". Shameful.
I dunno, people are supposed to dismiss him because he supports capitalism, with caveats, and he's a christian who is has sincere doubts about the divinity of Christ? Again it just feels like weak tea and an ideological bone to pick. You might as well just say "kermit man bad".

He just seems to be your typical quirky academic with the usual basket of pet theories a number of which are undoubtedly bad. And that''s pretty much as far as it goes.
 

Lemmingwise

Eat your veg, or at least, don't become a veg
kiwifarms.net
These criticisms are just so off point and bizarre.

Some people seem hard pressed to disqualify this guy for reasons I can't figure out.

I don't know that much about him
but it's really hard to figure out what even makes him so controversial other than the fact that he is nominally a figure of the "right", which I guess is enough for some people.
I dunno, people are supposed to dismiss him because he supports capitalism, with caveats, and he's a christian who is has sincere doubts about the divinity of Christ? Again it just feels like weak tea and an ideological bone to pick. You might as well just say "kermit man bad".

He just seems to be your typical quirky academic with the usual basket of pet theories a number of which are undoubtedly bad.
This is the wave Peterson has been riding. At first glance it all looks like "kermit man bad", because all the initial criticism has been of that calibre.

You yourself admit to not really know much about him. Perhaps you should read some pages of this thread to get a better understanding or engage with more of the material that Peterson produces to develop a perception of the man that goes beyond "humble psychologist on the right that speaks his mind" image that he cultivates.

Because sometimes things aren't what they seem at first glance.
 

FaramirG

kiwifarms.net
He doesn't give a shit about the scholarship of folk tales, he just uses them as a relatable jumping off point to discuss psychology, because he's a psychologist. And plenty of people like to pimp their fad diets without being nutritionists.

These criticisms are just so off point and bizarre.

Some people seem hard pressed to disqualify this guy for reasons I can't figure out. I don't know that much about him but it's really hard to figure out what even makes him so controversial other than the fact that he is nominally a figure of the "right", which I guess is enough for some people.
"Pimping his fad diet" is underselling it, he claimed that he didn't sleep for 20 days and felt a sense of "impending doom" because he drank a glass of apple cider, and that going all-meat fixed his all his health problems. Plus he's letting his daughter piggyback off his success and charge people $100 an hour to talk about the carnivore diet (even though afaik she's got no background in nutrition). This is beyond some celeb suggesting a diet, it's full-blown scamming.
 

GenderCop

Friendly neighborhood gender cop
kiwifarms.net
They say only 5% of addicts ever get permanently better. Seems reasonable to me. I think with enough resources and help though, most people could get out of it. For example there are withdrawal treatments where they put you under anaesthesia and then induce withdrawal. You wake up 48hrs later and you have a clean head. Of course its expensive though. Then simply get these people out of their environments and put them in a job somewhere that is hard to get drugs. Stick em there for 2 years and by the end of it they will have enough time behind them that they will have a decent shot at it.

Of course this will never happen haha.
the best tactic seems to be, to get them to 'switch'. its the most successful tactic i have seen. get them to switch from a dangerous, deadly addiction to a more benign one. weed is the best, most benign substance that delivers a "dampening" effect on mental-agitation, what JP sorely needs.
as (ironically) Peterson said, addicts have more dopamine responses to substances & the addiction is actually to the dopamine rush, as with gambling. no substance except mega-dopamine enters the brain with a gambling addiction but its just as persistent. this 'proves' its the dopamine.
its weird i heard all this in a video from JP but he seems to have forgotten his own advice.

edible THC would solve most addictions as in, trading one for another. THC should be 'subscribed' for addiction in place of the addictive substance.

but how would bigpharma make money off that?

For a 'public intellectual' the problem with THC is 1) makes you eat everything & JP wants to stay thin & cool like Gary Cooper. you will NOT keep your goofy all-whatever diet going with THC in your bloodstream, the pizzas usually win.

2) you won't make any sense & as that National Post article correctly pointed out, he has plenty of trouble staying on message as it is. he meanders all over the place. when stoned he would prob be plenty entertaining (those old 60s lsd gurus were damn entertaining, the lolcows of their era, never repeated themselves once) but a huge audience expects you to answer questions,make linear points, etc.
so he might have evaluated weed & decided he couldn't keep the whole dog-and-pony show going if he did that.

if so, it was a dumb decision. i think his audience would still love him no matter what he said or did, or if he makes sense or not.
 

Justtocheck

kiwifarms.net
the best tactic seems to be, to get them to 'switch'. its the most successful tactic i have seen. get them to switch from a dangerous, deadly addiction to a more benign one. weed is the best, most benign substance that delivers a "dampening" effect on mental-agitation, what JP sorely needs.
I do like your jazz, but I think we are bit past "how to get him to quit" and more in "how to make him walk normally, speak without drooling and eat his veggies" stage of the process.
 

heavycream

My latte tastes like general anaesthetic.
kiwifarms.net
Heavy bullshit there from the daughter. You know what we call a severe physical dependence on heroin? Addiction.
Correct. It is bullshit. There is no way to separate psychology from addiction. Studies have proven this both in animals and humans as far back as the 70's (as part of dealing with how many soldiers got addicted to smack following the Vietnam war). For example, this one study with rats found you could slowly increase the dose of morphine a rat was getting in environment (cage) A to almost 16x the original dose, but then transferring them to a new enclosure and giving them the same dose they'd shown tolerance to would kill them (Siegel, 1977). This is because the psychological and contextual associations made between the feeling of being on the drug and the environment are interwoven with the physiological epiphenomena of taking it.
Why do you think people can get off drugs when in rehab, but the moment they're back home they feel the urge to take it again?
 

asperchu

kiwifarms.net
Not that this is necessarily his failing totally however. He clearly was not capable of reasonable thinking and wanted very drastic and illogically dangerous options to no benefit of his own, Drug addicts don't tend to think rationally, especially when they are trying to quit cold turkey. This is why it should have been his family, wife, or probably daughter as she seems to be the most influential to Peterson outlook on healthcare who stepped in, said no, you aren't thinking straight, this is a very very bad idea, listen to the professionals or we might have you committed by force.

It's a bleak situation but this is how I see it as of now.
Isn't his wife terminally ill? The poor daughter might become an orphan soon...maybe no family member knew how to intervene considering the state of things; JayPee seems really stubborn too.
Correct. It is bullshit. There is no way to separate psychology from addiction. Studies have proven this both in animals and humans as far back as the 70's (as part of dealing with how many soldiers got addicted to smack following the Vietnam war). For example, this one study with rats found you could slowly increase the dose of morphine a rat was getting in environment (cage) A to almost 16x the original dose, but then transferring them to a new enclosure and giving them the same dose they'd shown tolerance to would kill them (Siegel, 1977). This is because the psychological and contextual associations made between the feeling of being on the drug and the environment are interwoven with the physiological epiphenomena of taking it.
Why do you think people can get off drugs when in rehab, but the moment they're back home they feel the urge to take it again?
Anyone who's tried to quit smoking using clinical programs or information knows that one of the tips you learn is to replace usual habits like routes taken to work, morning routines, time schedules, need to be rearranged as much as possible right when you stop smoking. To not remind yourself of the cigarette-associated environments. It certainly isn't just purely physical, molecular, it's a whole mind-body thing going on there.

But that's kind of JayPee's whole thing, right? Repress your emotions and deeper psyche because that's "demonic" and female, part of the archetypcal Great Evil Mother or whatever. So everything's physical, eat meat like a man, ignore realities and toughen up, clean your room etc. Kill the "feminine" responses, kill the pain. Doesn't work. But yeah I'm kind of shocked it's turning out this bad for him.
Is there even any hard proof that Momma benzos really has cancer? This whole family has a bunch of strange medical issues, and avoid traditional doctors. I wonder if this is all a crazy case of munchie or MBP.
Whooooa Just finished watching Sharp Objects the other day. You got my brain spinning now. Could be, could very well be.
Benzo withdrawal is no joke though, and it really can kill you.
Boyfriend used to have benzo addiction, suffered seizure after cold turkeying it out.
If you want to talk about folktales in a scholarly way, you should actually have studied them in depth and not just watched Disney movies. Or if you want to talk about, say, what an all-beef diet does to you, you should probably have studied nutrition science. Otherwise you're just speaking on things you know nothing about and thinking you're an authority.
This is who JayPee appeals to though, young uneducated men who don't know better and have never sadly, been exposed to the likes of Carl Jung or Nietzsche, let alone the criticisms of them. I had a lengthy education in social sciences and liberal arts and recognize most of the theme and idea references he's making, but he always either misinterprets them according to his own warped sexist and yes, racist ideology, and/or doesn't attribute them to (the correct) smarter people they originated with, to make himself look smarter than he is.
He doesn't give a shit about the scholarship of folk tales, he just uses them as a relatable jumping off point to discuss psychology awful sexist nihilist worldviews, because he's a psychologist awful sexist nihilist. And plenty of people like to pimp their fad diets without being nutritionists.
FTFY

If you're confused over and find 'bizarre' the criticisms that a public intellectual doesn't teach a well-rounded selection of data on the topics he's instructing on and instead opines on them with a warped and one-sided perspective, basically preaching his personal values from the pulpit of social science education, then I don't know what to say about the state of American liberal arts and social science education.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

L50LasPak

Life on the outside ain't what it used to be.
kiwifarms.net
Some people seem hard pressed to disqualify this guy for reasons I can't figure out. I don't know that much about him but it's really hard to figure out what even makes him so controversial other than the fact that he is nominally a figure of the "right", which I guess is enough for some people.
He's always come off to me as intensely confused. The stuff he says makes very little sense, except in mild bursts of rare coherency. Right-leaning? Perhaps, but only because of the way things work these days. Had the left taken him up, it'd be the same deal. Except he'd have TDS and be equally as nuts. Everything he's ever said has been stuttering nonsense, or common knowledge since the 1960s. People just liked him because he told some idiot with furry pronouns to fuck off. He used that to build a massive career as a scam artist.

Whooooa Just finished watching Sharp Objects the other day. You got my brain spinning now. Could be, could very well be.
Are you high dude? That show is basically Tumblr shit.
 

asperchu

kiwifarms.net
He's always come off to me as intensely confused. The stuff he says makes very little sense, except in mild bursts of rare coherency. Right-leaning? Perhaps, but only because of the way things work these days. Had the left taken him up, it'd be the same deal. Except he'd have TDS and be equally as nuts. Everything he's ever said has been stuttering nonsense, or common knowledge since the 1960s. People just liked him because he told some idiot with furry pronouns to fuck off. He used that to build a massive career as a scam artist.



Are you high dude? That show is basically Tumblr shit.
So is JayPee et al's medical history
 

Lemmingwise

Eat your veg, or at least, don't become a veg
kiwifarms.net
his own warped sexist and yes, racist ideology
This should be fun. In what way is Jordan Peterson's ideology racist and sexist?

Anyone who's tried to quit smoking using clinical programs or information knows that one of the tips you learn is to replace usual habits like routes taken to work, morning routines, time schedules, need to be rearranged as much as possible right when you stop smoking. To not remind yourself of the cigarette-associated environments. It certainly isn't just purely physical, molecular, it's a whole mind-body thing going on there.

But that's kind of JayPee's whole thing, right? Repress your emotions and deeper psyche because that's "demonic" and female, part of the archetypcal Great Evil Mother or whatever. So everything's physical, eat meat like a man, ignore realities and toughen up, clean your room etc. Kill the "feminine" responses, kill the pain. Doesn't work. But yeah I'm kind of shocked it's turning out this bad for him.
Oh! that jogged my memory!

He said in a debate with an atheist previously that "you can't quit smoking without christ", didn't he? So why did he try to quit benzo's without christ?
 

Smaug's Smokey Hole

kiwifarms.net
Correct. It is bullshit. There is no way to separate psychology from addiction. Studies have proven this both in animals and humans as far back as the 70's (as part of dealing with how many soldiers got addicted to smack following the Vietnam war). For example, this one study with rats found you could slowly increase the dose of morphine a rat was getting in environment (cage) A to almost 16x the original dose, but then transferring them to a new enclosure and giving them the same dose they'd shown tolerance to would kill them (Siegel, 1977). This is because the psychological and contextual associations made between the feeling of being on the drug and the environment are interwoven with the physiological epiphenomena of taking it.
Why do you think people can get off drugs when in rehab, but the moment they're back home they feel the urge to take it again?
That reminds me of a story Johnny Winter's manager told of what he did when taking over his methadone regimen and sneakily cutting it down, little by little:
“I knew he had to get off this stuff. But I had to be so quiet with [reducing] the medication. You’d worry, because you had all these pieces of pills all over the place. If he found out, he’d have went into withdrawals. And the thing was, he had no withdrawals. So he was getting clean, and it was funny, because I knew it was happening, but he didn’t. In the beginning, it was just seeing him get through another day. After a while, y’know, he really rebounded. It was something else. It was heartwarming to see him smile.”
After three years Winter's was opiate free for the first time in 40 years, but he didn't know it. A habit is powerful.

Anyone who's tried to quit smoking using clinical programs or information knows that one of the tips you learn is to replace usual habits like routes taken to work, morning routines, time schedules, need to be rearranged as much as possible right when you stop smoking. To not remind yourself of the cigarette-associated environments. It certainly isn't just purely physical, molecular, it's a whole mind-body thing going on there.
That reminds me of another thing I read, something that made doctors scratch their head. Not every GI that used heroin in Vietnam continued that habit when sent home to a stable life with family. It seemed to go away on the plane ride from the foreign jungle warfare to the familiar place with family, friends and no dope dealers. A change in the environment can do a lot.
So if russia doesn't work out, try putting him in Vietnam and have them take potshots at him.
 

asperchu

kiwifarms.net
I have, didn't seem racist or sexist. Provide some examples?
I would if I could rn, but I've been procrastinating too much today and got way lots of stuff adding up rn. Howeer I can tell you here's the thing about JayPee:

It's less about WHAT he says and more about the IMPLICATION of what he says; WHAT he associates with each gender. You can literally count the amount of times he talking about any archetypal feminine or females in association with objective NEGATIVITY; and the amount of times he talks about anything objectively POSITIVE associated with females/femininity.

Then do the same with masculinity.

Do this experiment with about a half hour of random clips of his lectures; then come to me with the numbers. I promise you, he NEVER has anything positive to say about feminity. EVER.