Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?

Who said that?

 

You stated that there are two camps: those that mostly agree with Peterson and lunatics. Would you like to revise that statement?

 

Do you want to go back to school, in order to learn how to properly read a full sentence, instead of only reading half of the sentence? What, PRECISELY, did I write?

 

Even in your egalitarian countries, gender expectations are still pushed out on children which later leads them to take different paths in life, depending on the comfort zone resulting from gender roles in your society.

The problematic you are speaking about requires an in-depth analysis taking into consideration every significant variable in this equation. So the problem cannot be answered in the same simplistic manner that man does.

Not only he expressed his opinion on that woman, but he also tried to justify it's 'universal' legitimacy by using a study about 'babies being attracted to symmetrical faces' to support it.

So it's less of just a matter of stating his personal preference and more of an attempt to establish it as standard.

What fascinates me is that you are aware of this tendency of his as you said earlier on 'that we have an innate sense of aesthetics and we tend to find overweight people to be unattractive' .

It means that the same message I underlined definitely reached you, and that you approve of it despite using the 'personal preference' defense to sanitize his views.

My reading is first, why he brings up that observation when the main topic is sexual harassment at the workplace ?

What is the purpose behind putting this remark on the table ?

He clearly mentions that the reason women use rouge is to emulate sexual arousal, and he implied the same for high heel usage, so he surely doesn't consider those signals to be all that 'unintentional', as he takes the time to highlight the motive of feining sexual availability as the core drive behind both actions.

The way he speaks about those actions concretely demonstrates he sees those choices as being made at a conscious level, to fulfill a particular purpose.

And all of those statements are made when the discussed problem is sexual harassment at the workplace.

So now that you have all the hints, you can do the math yourself.

This is the exact narrative that makes it easier to blame women for failing at protecting themselves because the signals they send will expose them to hazardous situations, even if their original intention wasn't for this to happen.

I have heard enough from Muslim clerics to know where this is going.

 

I read your full statement. If you would like to clarify what you mean then you are free to do so.

 

Sorry not convincing, and no amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that.

 

How is that any different from saying women 'should protect themselves better if they don't want to seem like they are asking for it '?

Because this is the inevitable effect this mentality results in.

You realise this also happens in places where women are covered head to toe ? I can't count the times I witnessed my hijabi friends getting harassed despite being dressed like potato sacs.

Limiting women's makeup use will increase the rate of sexual harassment as the perpetrators will feel even more justified and emboldened. Recognizing the victim's appearance as a co-instigator, will inevitably lead to decreasing responsibility for the perpetrators.

This is why the instigator we should focus on when analysing this problem is the entitlement of those committing sexual harassment. As any mention of the victims appearance gives opportunity for apologism to flourish.

But it is ironic that you wrote an answer with the aim of discrediting my 'accusations' and still ended up providing enough components to support them.

 

his 2017 "personality" psychology and "maps of meanings" lectures on YouTube are much valuable... it's a couple hours but it's +infinity% better to waste on these and take notes than porn...

for having tested the ideas in these classes for one year since last summer i can say it has really changed my way of thinking about people in general... there seems to be quality stuff in the 2015 version as well...

my only issue with him is with the conversation about dealing with climate change's consequences in the next 50 years... i get what he means about the incertitudes and the multidimensional nature of the problem... and to some degree i agree with him but the way he articulates the problem seems to miss the physics aspect of it.
however i can agree that leaders shouldn't play dictators and empower the people, not scold the already uneducated masses and force contradictory laws upon us.

 

Look, you appear to be honest with this, which is not what I expected initially, so let me state this briefly:
Dr. Jordan Peterson, a former College Professor from University of Toronto, and one of the most cited authors of psychological publications, can be right or wrong on certain subjects. His academic work adheres to scientific standards and has been widely recognized as brilliant among his peers and authorities within the field. In science, in general, there is always debate about certain topics, findings and conclusions, which is very healthy and important in order to advance in a specific field. It was only recently, that Dr. Peterson was met with an outright smear campaign, which basically straw-manned him and his thoughts, claimed he said this or that, even if this was not true, and simply tried to portray him as either evil, dangerous or stupid.

Even when he debated Slavoj Zizek, a Professor of Philosophy and Psychoanalysis and self proclaimed COMMUNIST, they AGREED on a LOT of things. This is, because Dr. Peterson and most other Professors in the field put a lot of effort into thinking about things and coming up with good conclusions. So in any debate at this level, with people with such a track record like Dr. Peterson, Zizek or others, there will be lots of agreement, and some disagreement.

Ad hominem attacks, as we see even in this forum, that claim Dr. Peterson is evil, or dumb or whatever, are not arguments, but a worthless effort to smear the person and create a public sense of illegality of his very person, in order to shield people from actually listening to him and making up their own minds in the face of his arguments.

Now, let's go back to what I said:

Show me people who disagree with him, and I will show you, why it's politically motivated, rather than based on criticism of his ideas.

 

you're a young man and all women are rejecting you
who's got the problem? it's not "all the women" [...] big grin on the face IT'S YOU

one is so funny and hard to hear at the same time haha

 

It is a standard dear, obese people are unattractive and very unaesthetic.
Being unpleasant to the eye doesn't decrease their value as people, thankfully we people are multidimensional beings and the value of a person doesn't boil down to his aesthetic value, but in terms of aesthetics, they are not highly aesthetic people.

It is a factor at play, so the purpose, to my eyes, is no other than illustrate an understated factor at play.

To quote "I'm not saying you shouldn't wear makeup, I'm saying we don't know what the rules are"
"I'm not saying people shouldn't use sexual display in the workplace, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that, that is what they are doing"
That must have flight right over your head. And it's entirely accurate, then again, I think people are kind of oblivious, make up and certain things, do exist and were created to highten physical attractiveness.

I don't think people do it with the intention of being sexually provocative, as a conscious action, that would be silly to think that in most cases, but more out of a sense of wanting to feel attractive for themselves and their own self steem when presented to others, regardless of the reason why people do what they do, doesn't change the fact of what they do.

I still yet have to find a woman that wears make up and heels and a sunday morning when she is alone at her house without any intention of interacting with another person.

Those are things done entirely for the display towards other people, not necessarily with the intention of being sexually provocative, but for their own value to their self steem they bring by being perceived as attractive.

 

bro...
pls no debate like in previous thread plz, its place to relieave stress and get happier, also @she-dernatinus pls try not to construct your answers from where people could counter answer and the debate gets angry turn means don't directly oppose other's opinion, I remember previously a moderator had to manually lock the thread to stop you two. I am not going against any of u two but you both act like kids and always answers against each others

 

I will clarify myself a bit here. If a person were to say that Jungian theory was a poor theory that gave incorrect explanations about human thinking and behavior, then they would mostly disagree with Peterson, as Peterson has a worldview that rests largely on that theory. You would not need to know anything about his politics to find disagreement with him. Zizek and Peterson both employ psychoanalytic theories heavily in their work, so one would expect some amount of overlap between them. They also share an affinity for Christianity. They both also have followers that are quick to their defence, even when you have not said anything negative about them.

 

It's only a cultural standard that is not universal, in the southern region of my country women who will be seen as overweight in the west are seen as very attractive. You can do a quick research about the southern part of Morocco.

It is an extremely weak factor, one that's not even worth the time for development nor the detailed explanation this man has given.

If anything , it's entitlement that should be the heart of the discussion as it is by far the strongest factor in this equation. Sexual harassment will exist as long as sexual entitlement will, altering the targets appearance hardly has any significant effect in decreasing the phenomenon, as many muslim countries, where women cover their bodies entirely, have actively demonstrated.

It's entitlement, and nothing but entitlement, that should be dissected and addressed as the primary component in the proliferation of this behaviour.

Giving an equal amount of importance to any factor that is related to the victim's actions, or external display, only serves to lay the groundwork for devil's advocacy and senseless apologism.

That's the sole indisputable, immediate consequence and the main figment of this viewpoint.

 

I don't really see those as equivalent, but I'm not really interested in arguing about it.

 

so pls don't, you too is very ahead of arguing and disrespecting other's opinions where you're not supposed to. (peace)

 

I specifically said obese for a reason, there is a range in where someone slighly overweight can still be very aesthetic, but obese and morbidly obese people are not and will never be aesthetic.

 

You know what's kind of funny to me is that in another thread, She-D argued with me about how pointless it was to try to reason with/change misogynistic men, and how basically the only solution is to just cut them off and punish them by ostracizing them from society.

So out of these two options for fixing this problem, I can't see how she would choose option B. That sounds exactly like the kind of thing she thinks is a waste of time.

Idk, maybe her solution is just to fire all the men sexually harassing people. Which, to a degree, I think is reasonable for excessive cases. But the problem with that is that so many women, especially women who have adopted this kind of victim complex where they misread everything everyone does as being some kind of offense against them, see sexual harassment everywhere.

I actually know someone I'm very close to who was fired for something like sexual harassment, and it was complete and utter BS. He had some warnings, about things that were not even remotely close to harassment, and he basically became a hermit at work because he was afraid to accidentally offend anyone and get fired.

He finally got fired, and what was the last straw that did him in? A machine wasn't working and one of the employees was trying to fix it, so he -- a manager for many years at the company -- came over to see if she was doing it right or needed help. She complained that he was standing close to her, and he got fired.

So that's the issue with that kind of solution. "Sexual harrassment" is sometimes quite subjective. If a man is going around smacking women's butts or something, or making sexual comments to them, then yes, fire him. But sometimes people think someone is hitting on them or being creepy when they are literally just existing and trying to do their job.

 

What a ridiculous statement. It's not weak to protect yourself and your family from insane mobs of people who might literally try to kill you or harm you if you say the wrong thing.

I'd like to see you go up on stage, with the fame that Dr. Peterson has, and answer all of the questions he gets asked. Let's see how you fare, and how you handle the backlash if your words are misunderstood or misquoted and people label you a racist or something.

 

To be fair, I would also say there is a third group who is obsessed with Peterson, but misunderstands and misused his words to justify their insane beliefs. Which I am not saying as a criticism of Jordan, but I have certainly seen some people who are just nuts and decide to use JP as the figurehead of their crazy views.

But that happens with all kinds of things. I mean, as a Christian, I know better than most how people can have insane beliefs and decide to use a figurehead, like Jesus, to support their views and make them sound more valid. Instead of just making up crazy stuff in their mind, they claim that Jesus himself agrees with them, and it makes them think their points are more valid and should be taken more seriously. But I don't fault Jesus for people who use him to say that he said things or believes things that he never said and doesn't believe.