Jump to content

jordan peterson


dingformung
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lol can someone explain to me pls where all this hate is coming from? I don’t give a fak about the peterson person but im genuinely interested in this phenomenon! Ok, he’s not interesting to you or you don’t agree with some of his views or all of them but the level of this hate puzzles me! What am i missing?

thanx watmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zephyr_Nova said:

I'm worried that because I clicked on this thread I'm going to get an endless sea of JP vid recommendations from the ether.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, xox said:

Ok, he’s not interesting to you or you don’t agree with some of his views or all of them but the level of this hate puzzles me! What am i missing?

36 minutes ago, perunamuusi said:

He's a fucking gimp.

:cisfor:

 

I've made like 20 posts in the Jordan Peterson thread over the course of the day. What am I doing with my life? Maybe I should clean my room

  • Haha 2
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sometimes i'm anxious for technology to obliterate society/governments/culture thoroughly so i won't ever have to hear about any of this shit anymore.

 

once everything is 1s and 0s moving at the speed of light and is impossible to track or predict as it forever evolves and morphs then emo intellectual evolutionary psychologist types like peterson won't have a soap box to stand on while having a hissy fit about post modernism and enforced monogamy... which somehow dovetails w/his idea that the individual is the way forward which makes me think he should debate adam curtis next but i doubt adam curtis would care.. he'd just cue up some selected ambient works and start riffing about something. 

Edited by ignatius
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

same!

aZ3az5q.png

sometimes i find peterson annoying.. irritating. boiling down things to simplistic structures so he can make his point about the present doesn't add up for me. something is missing in his reductions and the way whatever he's talking about relates to the present is lost on me or not relevant. he's either really smart or not making any sense. which is probably my problem really and how i find listening to many intellectuals makes me want to cross my eyes and go in to a fishing out on the floor spasm caused by doing whippets. 

i'm probably too nihilistic to care about what he says or too stupid. but i don't find any of it particularly inspiring. sometimes interesting but even then i disagree w/half of it or something. 

Edited by ignatius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched 30 min of one of his videos to see what the fuss is about.

I now have a massive headache. lol

He has a chilling, articulate, self-controlled, reasonable facade that could come off as wisdom if you don't know better.

Like a cold lawyer.He can talk.

But this man likes power.He likes to dominate with his words.

Seductive Nietzschean persona.Though love dad.

And i personally can't trust such guys.

 

 

 

Edited by fxbip
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main issue with him is that he never fucking shuts up.  I watched a video with him and Jonathan Pageau (who is several levels above Jordan) and he wouldn't let Jonathan finish any of his points without interrupting to go on a completely uninformed tangent to show how much he was missing the substance of what Jonathan was saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first thing i noticed is how joyless he seems...

Needs more human warmth in his life and philosophy.Good old, basic human warmth, Jordan.

It's like he doesn't even let himself feel joy because that would be out of character.It's chilling.

Edited by fxbip
  • Burger 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xox said:

Reading books doesn’t always lead to good! I’m sure Lenin and Hitler read tons of books... Original books! :cisfor:

One of those people was much more intelligent and learned than the other (it's the Russian one)

  • Like 1
  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, fxbip said:

The first thing i noticed is how joyless he seems...

Needs more human warmth in his life and philosophy.Good old, basic human warmth, Jordan.

It's like he doesn't even let himself feel joy because that would be out of character.It's chilling.

this is an interesting aspect of his persona. when you look at people he associates with like dave rubin or ben shapiro or whatever, these guys just come off like assholes, grifters, but basically normies ya know? 

but peterson often projects depression. in many interviews and talks i've seen (i've looked somewhat thoroughly into him bc i find him weirdly fascinating as a public persona for precisely reasons like this) he slouches deeply into his chair, he often covers his face with his hand in a kind of tortured gesture when certain topics arise (specifically anything having to do with "the left" agitates him quite often), in general he kind of retreats into himself and often has an "inner shadow" cast across his face. in fact, having read about this facial symptom in novels and stuff i still never knew what it looked like until seeing videos of peterson. 

i think he's a troubled guy, honestly. he seems like he has some serious issues that he is playing out in this persona as a persecuted intellectual who is heroically standing up to evil. i think he's allowed himself to adopt the alluring heroism he's read about in jung but is not self-aware enough to fully realize how much he's projecting. his case is interesting bc it is quite jungian - in the way that people in different types of analysis will exhibit symptoms specific to that style of analysis, e.g., having "jungian" dreams in jungian analysis - but it really does seem to me he should be dealing with a lot of this stuff in therapy and not grandstanding about world affairs when it's abundantly obvious he often really has no idea what he's talking about. i mean, take the example i mentioned before about his lecture on foucault. peterson claims to be something of an expert on the horrors of communism. in an nyt profile he's seen standing (miserably) before his collection of vintage russian propaganda posters. while his understanding of humanity is cribbed from jung, his politics is just a lite version solzhenitsyn who obviously formed his politics within the context of communist russia. so with this in mind, how could it be possible he thinks foucualt was a marxist? this guy's supposed to know all about communism, part of his original rise to fame was his diagnosis that the west was being undermined by "cultural marxism" and "postmodernism." but it's obvious he doesn't really have a working definition of these terms at all. it encompasses just as much as what is signified when donald trump refers to the "radical left" which includes completely conservative, centrist liberals. now, when trump or ben shaprio says shit like this i feel completely confident it's because they're full of shit and and actively interested in manipulating people to sell their brand. but i think peterson is a bit different. he is absolutely a grifter but i think he's actually unaware of how much what he's doing is psychodrama. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

this is an interesting aspect of his persona. when you look at people he associates with like dave rubin or ben shapiro or whatever, these guys just come off like assholes, grifters, but basically normies ya know? 

but peterson often projects depression. in many interviews and talks i've seen (i've looked somewhat thoroughly into him bc i find him weirdly fascinating as a public persona for precisely reasons like this) he slouches deeply into his chair, he often covers his face with his hand in a kind of tortured gesture when certain topics arise (specifically anything having to do with "the left" agitates him quite often), in general he kind of retreats into himself and often has an "inner shadow" cast across his face. in fact, having read about this facial symptom in novels and stuff i still never knew what it looked like until seeing videos of peterson. 

i think he's a troubled guy, honestly. he seems like he has some serious issues that he is playing out in this persona as a persecuted intellectual who is heroically standing up to evil. i think he's allowed himself to adopt the alluring heroism he's read about in jung but is not self-aware enough to fully realize how much he's projecting. his case is interesting bc it is quite jungian - in the way that people in different types of analysis will exhibit symptoms specific to that style of analysis, e.g., having "jungian" dreams in jungian analysis - but it really does seem to me he should be dealing with a lot of this stuff in therapy and not grandstanding about world affairs when it's abundantly obvious he often really has no idea what he's talking about. i mean, take the example i mentioned before about his lecture on foucault. peterson claims to be something of an expert on the horrors of communism. in an nyt profile he's seen standing (miserably) before his collection of vintage russian propaganda posters. while his understanding of humanity is cribbed from jung, his politics is just a lite version solzhenitsyn who obviously formed his politics within the context of communist russia. so with this in mind, how could it be possible he thinks foucualt was a marxist? this guy's supposed to know all about communism, part of his original rise to fame was his diagnosis that the west was being undermined by "cultural marxism" and "postmodernism." but it's obvious he doesn't really have a working definition of these terms at all. it encompasses just as much as what is signified when donald trump refers to the "radical left" which includes completely conservative, centrist liberals. now, when trump or ben shaprio says shit like this i feel completely confident it's because they're full of shit and and actively interested in manipulating people to sell their brand. but i think peterson is a bit different. he is absolutely a grifter but i think he's actually unaware of how much what he's doing is psychodrama. 

What i see in him is a constant battle to repress whatever sensitivity he may have to be able to keep his cold rational ideal going.

I think he built himself a picture of what it is to be a man or intelligent or successful or what you need to survive in this world and he tries extremely hard to keep that ideal alive not even realizing it might be what makes him so unhappy.

The thing is, that it really seems to be difficult at a deep level.Something in him revolts against it.But he can't let go of this ideal.And it burns all of his energy.

He does have some sort of sensitivity and intelligence but he denies some part of it by imposing himself these very detached, emotionally repressed views.

For that i agree he is different than some other more alt-right people.

There is a very real conflict in this man.He seems really unhappy.

On top of all of that he is himself a psychologist hahahaha

Anyway that is what i see.I might be completely wrong.

It's an interesting character i think, from a psychological point of view.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idk, to me JP seems like a guy who really believes the stuff he's selling, so maybe not a grifter but definitely a guy with a superority complex (i'm the guy who will save the modern man) which aligns well with his preaching (heavy individualusm and achieving). He is a clinical psychologist by profession so he probably had to seethe through much of troubled human psyche. That leaves a mark on a person who works in such environment despire how much one believes it cannot affect him. Inevitably he came to certain conclusions about how society should be structured and how people operate/ behave in it. He lacks wisdom and intellectual detachment (ironic as it is) or broadness or suppleness of mind that will allow him to stop looking at the world as a dog-eat-dog jungle.

I mean he is clearly a product of his mind and environment: his "solution" is as narrow-minded and neo-liberal as it can get. And it sprung out of his narrow focus on a prehistoric human psyche trying to get the grips on the world of predatory success.

However, articulators such as him (and that shapiro toddler) are very much needed in today's system (that's why they are given air time and platforms). They have to explain to the masses how the new feudalism works and how to function in it. They are the think tank for the layman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chapo trap house and behind the bastards have both done good episodes about Peterson in case anyone wants to hear a good run down on why he's so goddamn iffy

admittedly many just gravitate to his MOR academic lectures and self-help stuff and while those topics are fine but in the case of most people who deal in those niches as authors or lecturers they aren't backing it up with bizarre crypto-fascist and ultra-conservative ideology and rhetoric

6c2.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a sad undertone to all this in the fact that someone like JBP shot to fame in spite of how full of holes his philosophy is, which indicates that there is a real hunger out there for guidance and direction amongst young men which is not being met and is instead being filled with the misguided ranting of idiots.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, usagi said:

there is a sad undertone to all this in the fact that someone like JBP shot to fame in spite of how full of holes his philosophy is, which indicates that there is a real hunger out there for guidance and direction amongst young men which is not being met and is instead being filled with the misguided ranting of idiots.

Yes it’s because they’re fatherless because the west and feminism have devalued men. It’s a crafty, vicious cycle. 
 

Spoiler

For anyone not paying attention, the above is not a serious answer to usagi’s comment. 

 

  • Farnsworth 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, usagi said:

there is a sad undertone to all this in the fact that someone like JBP shot to fame in spite of how full of holes his philosophy is, which indicates that there is a real hunger out there for guidance and direction amongst young men which is not being met and is instead being filled with the misguided ranting of idiots.

it's true. probably half of american males of a certain age would respond to this thread like this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BobDobalina said:

Only way to combat the devaluation of men is to make it rain...

 

hmm.. devaluation.. i've read recently that devaluation leads to NFTs.. perhaps we can NFT the mens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting that he builds a philosophy where he often uses clients as his source of truth of how people inherently are, but he's only seeing the consequences of what people have been through. That isn't causality. There's a reaffirming loop here.

1 hour ago, fxbip said:

There is a very real conflict in this man.He seems really unhappy.

Odd for a guy that wrote two books on how to be happy.

27 minutes ago, usagi said:

there is a sad undertone to all this in the fact that someone like JBP shot to fame in spite of how full of holes his philosophy is, which indicates that there is a real hunger out there for guidance and direction amongst young men which is not being met and is instead being filled with the misguided ranting of idiots.

I think it's undoubtedly true that many boys and young men really suffer from shitty role models. Largely role models that are plain absent or because they had shitty role models themselves. I was thinking about the trope of The Confident Man the other day and how it never really died, just became more cynical and vicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Braintree said:

I think it's undoubtedly true that many boys and young men really suffer from shitty role models. Largely role models that are plain absent or because they had shitty role models themselves. I was thinking about the trope of The Confident Man the other day and how it never really died, just became more cynical and vicious.

but it's all a bluff right? i mean.. the confidence is a mask and i think these days it's equally incompetent as it is vicious/cynical. it's a fake dominance built on interrupting people and talking over them in meetings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ignatius said:

but it's all a bluff right? i mean.. the confidence is a mask and i think these days it's equally incompetent as it is vicious/cynical. it's a fake dominance built on interrupting people and talking over them in meetings.

I was speaking broadly about patriarchal norms in western civilization, not about him specifically. Peterson would be an example of a shitty role model that probably had shitty role models.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.