Forum menu
It's well worth a listen if you can spare the time; there's a lot to admire and learn from here. I particularly liked his concept of high and low resolution thinking and how most people don't like to be forced to think in high resolution. This gives rise to the natural tendency for most people confronted with something that contrtadicts their belief system is to reduce it to a facile level that can be dismissed as irrelevant or ideologically wrong.
Anyway, his insight, articulation and views on the world are to be admired if not always agreed with.
1hr 15mins? I’ll wait for the highlights thanks
I’ll wait for the highlights thanks
You are expecting highlights?
1hr 15mins? I’ll wait for the highlights thanks
LOL you want the low resolution version! Sorry it doesn't exist, but he lays out some really compelling perspectives on how societies are structurted within the first 15 minutes so if you just listened to that, you'd likely still learn a lot.
I predict a flounce....
I’ll wait for the highlights thanks
A good summary here:
Dammit, my mum* always said I was a high-resolution thinker as well 😢
*women, wtf do they know anyway
so if you just listened to that, you’d likely still learn a lot.
Or you'll just realise he's a mysogynistic fruit loop just trying to sell books by posturing right wing ideology dressed up as science....
Or you’ll just realise he’s a mysogynistic fruit loop just trying to sell books by posturing right wing ideology dressed up as science….
Wow, didn't take you long to resort to 'he's an XYZ therefore I don't have to listen to him' did it? Move on then buddy. Nothing for you here; I'm sorry you feel that way.
Wow, didn’t take you long to resort to ‘he’s an XYZ therefore I don’t have to listen to him’ did it? Move on then buddy. Nothing for you here; I’m sorry you feel that way.
Whereas I'm sorry that you're so easily duped.
Has he changed is views then geetee?
Happy not to give him the publicity or attention myself.
Whereas I’m sorry that you’re so easily duped.
Well I appreciate your sense of concern and compassion, misplaced though I think it is I am sure you mean well.
Has he changed is views then geetee?
About what?
How's the beef-only diet going?
Nothing for you here; I’m sorry you feel that way.
Why dont you explain some of the highlights and why he is worth spending that time on?
I am biased since the first time I heard him was on the train wreck interview with Sam Harris. The bits I have read since havent been overly impressive.
About what?
About being a bit Rapey? You know, women asking to be assaulted by wearing clothes in the work place? The whole Incel thing? The list of very unpleasant views is pretty long where JP is concerned.
Well I appreciate your sense of concern and compassion, misplaced though I think it is I am sure you mean well.
I'm not concerned about you, just a little saddened.
I’m not concerned about you, just a little saddened.
I think Incel is like a cult, once they suck you in it's very hard to escape without someone outside kidnapping you.
About being a bit Rapey? You know, women asking to be assaulted by wearing clothes in the work place? The whole Incel thing? The list of very unpleasant views is pretty long where JP is concerned.
This mostly and the little excuse that people ignored his first step before following his advice. He knows exactly what he is doing and how to promote himself.
I’m no huge fan of him really but if you think he is s misogynist you clearly haven’t read or listened to much of his stuff at all
but then you wouldn’t because you’ve let someone else tell you who he is
I do wish he’d be clear on his take on god though
does he rant on about Lobsters in this one as well? That's always worth a laugh.
I’m no huge fan of him really but if you think he is s misogynist you clearly haven’t read or listened to much of his stuff at all
Ive listened to his stuff. He's a misogynist.
but then you wouldn’t because you’ve let someone else tell you who he is
Unthinking acceptance is a hallmark of his followers. That's what happens when you pander to prejudice.
I ain’t no follower I think he’s full of shit on lots of stuff but I don’t see the misogyny
I have however seen loads of stuff he’s said taken in isolation to prove he’s mental and misogynistic. I actually listened to some of his podcasts and lectures out of some strange need to be irritated but once I’d heard it it’s all fairly interesting and inoffensive stuff to be fair
This gives rise to the natural tendency for most people confronted with something that contrtadicts their belief system is to reduce it to a facile level that can be dismissed as irrelevant or ideologically wrong.
I can see why he'd want to try to pre-empt criticism with that sort of sophistry. As long as the book sales are going well he'll keep recycling the same trite nonsense to keep that happening.
How’s the beef-only diet going?
He's got scurvy.
His daughter is now charging for diet advice !
That can’t be a long consultation can it
I do wish he’d be clear on his take on god though
Just on god? As above having listened to his trainwreck and occasionally looking to see if he has improved overall he is about as clear as mud.
but then you wouldn’t because you’ve let someone else tell you who he is
Sadly I came to the conclusion that he's an Incel apologist after wasting 15 mins of my life watching an interview with him on Youtube, a very unpleasant and dangerous individual. I'd never heard of him till geetee starting pronouncing him as the new messiah on STW.
I can see why he is so successfully though, you take a disaffected subset of society (men who can't relate to women) and instead of saying 'grow up, stop sending dick pix and groping / assaulting women in bars', you say 'it's not your fault, society and women have set you up with their complex rules, it's all their fault'. Great at selling books, but also great at perpetuating 15th century views toward women.
That’s is the thing he rambles on all over the place to the point you always end up wondering what he himself actually thinks on a subject,
Part of me thinks hes just hilarious
there are some ridiculous videos of his lectures on youtube, its just gibberish, there was areally good one that Adam Rutherford (an actual geneticist) tweeted, sadly the video has been deleted now,
even his interviews can be
heres his word salad generator
http://www.wisdomofpeterson.com/
"Your consciousness is nested
immovably in positive metaphorical
substrate"
The incel movement that worship him, not so amusing.</div>
Hes managed to monetise the inadequacies of men looking to understand why their relationships have failed, its quite cunning really, but its a cynical way to exploit the vulnerable. Hes another L Ron Hubbard.
He does a whole shpeel on blokes that can’t relate to women only having themselves to blame and that they need to take more responsibility for themselves and all that jazz but he does contradict himself all the time so I can see how people take offence. I just don’t think he’s dangerous or misogynistic or all that right wing really he just spouts a lot of stuff that puts him in lots of different camps and it’s all a bit messy
Not really a fan but can’t see the reason for the frothing he seems to create everywhere he goes
Anyway, his insight, articulation and views on the world are to be admired if not always agreed with.
WTAF?
Not really a fan but can’t see the reason for the frothing he seems to create everywhere he goes
To flip it round I can't see the reason for the complete adoration. I am not sure whether he tries not to be pinned down but I find him similar to those po-mo theorists he, seems, to claim he abhors. He does seem to hint towards supporting some rather extreme causes.
Those hints could be incorrect since generally beyond ranting about cultural marxism and lobsters he is as clear as mud. Overall though some groups seem to look up to him as a leader eg those incel weirdos and other groups with interesting outlooks on modern life and so those who think those groups are a tad odd may blame him for the adoration from those groups.
A dangerous misogynistic man. Unutterably foul attitudes towards women.
You thinking he has something to say says one heck of a lot about you.
He’s nothing more than another mouthy gobshite selling his particular brand of self help/diagnosis disguised as a salve for the modern male condition.......whatever the **** that actually encompasses.
I’d listen to Sam Harris (and often do with his podcasts) but Peterson’s whiny/pleading voice just gets on my tits
Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.
Just to pick one aspect of his vile philosophy. He believes women should be forced into sexual relationships with men to stop men becoming violent
He is a vile far right womenhater. No doubt at all
He believes women should be forced into sexual relationships with men to stop men becoming violent
He doesn't believe that at all. Going back to a previous point you are forming opinion based on what other sources portray him as by quoting sentences he has said out of context.
He may or may not be a genius salesman selling shite wrapped up in fancy words to anyone willing to buy it. If he is then there should be plenty of his ideas or viewpoints to criticise without making ones up.
He doesn’t believe that at all. Going back to a previous point you are forming opinion based on what other sources portray him as by quoting sentences he has said out of context.
Mmm kay, how about this then. He's a psychologist (apparently). And we all know psychology is not an actual science. Ergo whatever he says is bollocks. Ergo we don't actually have to read /listen to the shit he espouses we know he's a ****ing fraud. Now if he were a psychiatrist things would be different.
Can i create a false premise?
Now i have done so, i'd like to talk really really quickly in case you noticed.
Now i'll fashion all sorts of elaborate monsters from my premise, now that you've forgotten it's false.
And now you are living in fear.
Which is both useful and profitable to me.
See take Tjs point there he’s absolutely convinced that the guy is a lunatic! If you can show me the footage of him saying that stuff I would happily believe you but I just don’t think it exists all that is just people throwing crap at him by taking stuff he’s quoted in lectures and using it against him
I’ve not listen to all that much of his stuff but I’ve listened to a few full lectures had a listen to his joe rogan podcast, expected to be outraged and offended but wasn’t.
Elaborate monsters are definitely in there 😀
Too busy tidying my room to watch this, soz.
He keeps popping up on here and I can't see the video so I've had a read around his website and am now deciding on one of two conclusions:
1. He's clever but very bad at getting his ideas across.
2. He's almost comically full of s##t.
Direct quotes from the man himself not taken out of context.
That is exactly what he said.
I have never heard of this man so I watched (some of) the video - I have no idea if he is a misogynist or not but it struck me as complete boll**ks I’m afraid. Maybe I’m just not clever enough 😄
Just to pick one aspect of his vile philosophy. He believes women should be forced into sexual relationships with men to stop men becoming violent
Yeah as has been pointed out already TJ he really doeasn't say that and you making that argument says a lot about you my boy ;o)
There's a fundamental truth that at a basic level, most men have a built in urge to find a mate and then have children. It's evolutionary and kind of important to our continuation as a species. If it wasn't the case we wouldn't be here so the truth is, to coin a phrase, entirely self evident.
If for some reason that mechanism breaks down for some group of men, that's going to cause problems, just like how society broke down around the turn of 20th century when women (and almost all men) felt agrieved that society was failing them and campaigned to change to law.
I'm not for one moment suggesting we should be passing laws that force women into relationships with men and neither is Peterson; that would clearly be wrong and socially and morally repugnant. You're making that suggestion, not him. But you do need to engafge with the idea that if we end up marginalising a large group of men who then feel like they are failures in society, that is not going to turn out well for us. It's a simple reality that is being observed as unpalatable as that might be
And I agree it is unpalatable. I'm no fan of the knuckle dragging Neanderthal type of masculinity that is under attack either, that's not me but that's no reason to dismiss those people as irrelevant.
Anway, in this video he hardly touches on the subject of gender, he only mentions the subject briefly though TJ you will appreciate what he says as he talks about how men are more prone to aggression and women more prone to neuroticism. I know the idea that men and women, though overlapping far more than they differ, do have identifiable and measurable trait differences across large populations.
Most of what he says here is in the broad category of epistomology, ontology and logos.
Psychiology is not a science
How ignorant of you to think so. It's a higly robust social science. The only difference between the scientific approach of (robust) psychology (and I admit there is a lot of garbage out there), and other science subhects is the degree of variability and error the data it produces. But the methodology for determining the conclusions is just as robust as say high energy physics.
So, what he is saying is there is a danger to the human race if a certain group of men are not given access to reproduction. Am I understanding his point correctly?
He goes on to say that women are choosing not to reproduce with these men and that these choices should somehow be “adjusted”. He seems to say that is the responsibility of women to change; to ensure this group of men are given chance to reproduce. Am I still getting this right, @geetee1972?
rachel