Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?

I am still waiting for plausible answers. Ones that actually make sense.

 

I am not deciding anything. It just makes no sense to make a comment about content I posted and then say the comment was directed at her when she has no idea what we are talking about. I understand what you mean to say, but that is not really how conversations work.

 

a comment directed at me ?

 

Lol. Having a PhD doesn't make you automatically cleverer and more prepared to give tips about how to live your life than a normal person. Anybody with enough money and time can have a PhD nowadays.

I don't know how someone (with a PhD ) who is a clinical psychologist and is always preaching "life is pain and you have to be prepared for it" can be later get hooked so unconsciously to painkillers when pain and anxiety comes into his life. He should have known better and the fact he didn't makes me wonder ... how valuable are his teachings? "Walk the talk" say you in English, don't you?

On the other hand, I quite like some things he says and sometimes I like listening to him while walking the dog.

 

As sergei lavrov said : He says many things, depending on what he drinks or what he smokes, he says many things.

Aside from this, he talks about topics he is by no means qualified to talk about, for example climate change.

 

@she-dernatinus If you want to know what we are talking about then you will need to read the posts between @TakingTheSteps and me. He had thoughts about a video I posted.

 

I didn't say that. I said I think it's silly to put him in the same tier as internet trolls or something. Or to just call him some "random" on YouTube.

I don't understand how someone on an addiction forum can be so ignorant about how addictions happen...

 

We aren't having a private conversation...

And I don't know why you don't understand what I just said. My post was partially directed at you, because I assumed you posted that video because you were making a certain point. But then you said you weren't making that point, so I said my bad, and then I said my comment could also be directed at She-D...

I really don't understand why that is so confusing. Your video contributed to a conversation, and I responded based on the whole conversation. It's a public forum... that's how this works.

I'm not a he.

 

I agree on that.

Getting hooked to M (and much much later to P) when you're a kid, you feel lost and dirty because you have weird fetishes (not P-induced), you feel so embarrassed to talk about the topic with someone, you fall in love many times but no girl feels the same attraction to you ... has nothing to do with the case of a seniored clinicial psychologist that gives speaches, write books about life like he knew better and gets hooked in his fifties or sexties on a legal drug whose adverse effects are well-known and perfectly documented. I'm not saying he cannot get hooked, he's after all a human being, but his addiction made his teachings and everything what he says less valuable to me.

 

We do not know if she would consider the response in the video an evasion or not, so we do not know if the comment can be rightfully directed at her or not anymore then when it was directed at me. That misunderstanding involving me was understandable and I am going to move on from it. It is irrelevant anyway. I know what you mean. You are talking in general terms and I am talking in particulars.

Also, I assumed that you were a man do to a man being in your profile picture. If I got that wrong then I stand corrected.

 

I guess I just find that silly, but I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Well, imagine you visit an expert on nutrition and has high cholesterol, he/she is fat or has some eating disorder, how much attention would you pay to his/her tips? To me it's silly not to take his addiction into account: something's wrong with him and there's a huge difference between how he lives his own life and what he teaches.

 

So, my problem with what Peterson did there isn't that he said that he doesn't find certain types of people attractive, it's that he was specifically calling her unattractive. (And also stating that as if it wasn't just his opinion, but some deeper fact of the matter when it comes to aesthetics.)

Like idk, if someone impromptu posted my picture on twitter and said I'm not attractive and will never be, I'd classify that more as shittalking than as that someone respectfully bringing up their preferences. There's nothing respectful about dragging a specific person through the mud for the purposes of some asinine culture war commentary.

 

I mean, considering the pressure he has been under and the pressure itself of being a bearer of knowledge, I think he was doing quite well...

Like, you come across to me as a unstable person too, that only does superficial observations and then try to sell her worldview, but hey

I mean, he is no idiot.....there is this very specific ethnicity that you have to be very careful when you speak about them, and the guy making the question, is trying to get a very specific answer, almost like he just wants a confirmation to his bias.

I think it was wise of not giving an answer to such a question, if you are not sure you can formulate the answer in a complete accurate way, not open to misreadings.

To do the opposite require an attention span of more than 2 seconds, something rare nowadays.

I have to love his inquisitive "why?" and the other guy, to be fair, at least have the decency of saying, I don't know.
What is your reading of this video my dear? because is just an observation, and quite an accurate one.
Even when, regardless of the purpose of make up itself, and why it was created, I will give that most women, wear it, out of a sense of self steem, like, we all want to look good all the time, we like to feel attractive etc, that doesn't mean we want to be necessarily provocative though, but I think that regardless of the actual purpose of it, people use it to feel good with themselves.

They did what? sorry ladies but that is hilarious, wrong, but hilarious.

I have one, I have one, You are wrong.

 

A summary of his main points that I recall strongly agreeing with:
- Scandinavian countries, which I myself live in, are the most egalitarian societies and they empirically prove that men and women freely and maximally choose different professions according to their natural biological differences
- He refused to be dictated by law to address someone's preferred false state of reality
- The gender pay gap is multivaried and majorly based on choice rather than oppression and not based on a disproven secret conspiracy to pay humans with female genitalia less money for the same work
- The whole GQ interview

 

Yes, I agree context matters. I am not going to just stop someone on the street and tell them they look ugly as that would be irrational. But it is still my right to express my opinion and not be labeled as being disrespectful or hateful or as denying a person their right to be respected and treated like a human being just because I say they don't look attractive to me. But as said already, he was using her looks as an example to criticize wokeness and their agenda. He did not insult or attack her personally. And yes, as I expressed in my post, we do have objective, innate criteria as human beings for what is considered objectively attractive and what isn't. Obesity is objectively not attractive. Exceptions to those aesthetic preferences do exist, yes.

 

His point is that the basis of sexual harassment is that people want to make (unwanted) sexual advances towards someone. If someone sends, intentionally or not, sexual signals, it will increase sexual harassment. And it will decrease the other way around. It is a simple mathematical A leads to B conclusion. It doesn't justify or judge or blame. Ted Bundy was a serial killer who murdered only women. If he had been around less women, less women would have been killed. Same logic. That doesn't imply anywhere that it's women's fault because they exist and that they made someone murder them for existing. Of course it cannot be reasonable that women have to stop existing so that people like Ted Bundy will stop being Ted Bundy. But in the context of work sexual harassment as Peterson proposed, it can be one possible solution to decrease harassment by limiting women in their freedom to look sexually provocative. Is it fair and right to limit an individual's freedom of clothing and appearance to make another person behave in a certain way? No. But these people don't choose to behave wrong over behaving right. They literally don't know any better. Their internal concept of morality and empathy is damaged. So the solution to that objective fact is either a) changing the external triggers for those people if they are to some extent reasonable or b) providing in depth psychological help and teaching for those people why it is wrong to act a certain way, and that may never even be a guarantee for them to stop their unhealthy way of thinking which is rooted in their genetics. So in the end there is no good or fair solution. Bad people will always exist because of randomized faults in our biology and continue to be bad people and innocent people will be their collateral damage.

What would you propose to deal with those types of people?

 

@MrPriest, he can answer or not answer whatever questions he wants, but if the reason for not answering is because one needs to be "very careful" when talking about Jews then it is a sign of weakness of character.

 

At this point, there are two parties with regards to Dr. Peterson. One of which is people who mostly agree with what he says, although not always, and the other is a bunch of imbecile, crazy lunatics, who run a despicable smear campaign against him for political reasons.

 

So, no one has legitimate criticism of his psychoanalytic theories, his hermeneutics, or any other subject he talks about regularly?