Jordan Peterson - Get a damn hoover, ey.
 

This guy is the best guy. There are so many videos I could post, but that is just the one I am watching now.



Thoughts on the guy?

He's mesmerizing. On Sam Harris' podcast he was explaining why he doesn't necessarily believe that moral truth and provable truth are the same thing. To my mind, what he was arguing was on the surface indefensible and ridiculous but he frames up why he believes what he does so well you're pretty much forced to take it into consideration if you're intellectually honest.

In your clip, what he's saying is real basic common sense but it's not just the what it's the why.

Gotta love them self help seminars.

I'll watch a few more vids to get a feel about him but that's the vibe I get from the first view minutes of the video in the OP.

He deals with morality, theology, linguistics, and runs through ideas like a fractal unfolding.

basically this. really dug the stuff he did with Sam. even when it's just 2 hours of them arguing over something simple.

The gender-neutral pronoun business was a huge story in Canada. Sine then, I've followed Peterson closely. I'll be applying to U of T this year; might even take a course with him. :cool:

That's cool. I listened to him talk about gender neutral language.

I listened to a few minutes and felt like I was listening to Tony Robbins with a Canadian accent.

I had that impression initially, watched another video and still felt exactly the same way. I feel like he wastes a lot of time either saying absolutely nothing, devolving into anecdotal and distracting tangents, or putting very straightforward ideas across from what I've seen so far.

So what's his best one, gents?

Idk man, I feel like people wouldn't be as hot on this guy's genius if they read transcripts of what he says instead of listening to him. "I don't understand that" is not a convincing argument, even if you might sway some people by repeating it several hundred times, Donal--I mean Jordan. I could see debating him being interesting.

Minus the creepy smile and firewalking gimmick.

I think the problem you may be having is that you could be coming too late into his catalogue, and the videos you have seen are more on the metaphysical and abstract side of what he has put out there. I enjoy these personally because I think he's a great speaker and puts across his opinions well - but they are essentially opinions and go off on tangents, without a specific basis in science or empirical evidence. They are a lot more subjective and may not be to your taste.

But a lot of his University lectures are very much science based psychology, with his own spin. This series, for example, delves a lot more into legitimate psychological discussion based on facts and evidence that have been studied so far:

I'll definitely check that out. The biggest issue I have with him is the style you describe since he makes an assertion and spends no time validating it but instead uses it as a jumping off point for his opinions. It appears that people consider this to be a way of being extra convincing. He seems to get a lot of criticism for his (tame af) conservatism, but that's not really an issue for me tbh. Based on bit of the Joe Rogan interview I saw with him, he gets a lot of respect from people who think that being silenced means what was being said is really important too. I saw a lot of videos with titles like "Jordan Peterson explains why the left is an evil plague that will murder your babies" but I figure that those reflect the uploader more than him. If that does reflect him, it kind of affirms my opinion that he's a panderer of the highest order.

Will report back this evening after watching the philosophy video, that's a very interesting and expansive topic in the field

He's not right wing at all, but I too have seen the same "JP destroys the left" type videos, as if he's on the right. He's basically just anti-totalitarianism. One of his recent videos pointed out how bad the latest NRA video is, for example. I don't disagree with him (check it out, it's hilariously bad) and have found him to be completely unbiased when it comes to political ideologies. If anything he's probably the type of person who would reluctantly vote Democrat.

Either way, my like/love of his work comes more from his fact based psychological talks, even if I do enjoy his theories on metaphysical concepts etc.

There was some mention of Bill C-16 in the US Election Day thread, but it's probably easier to post this here:

https://soundcloud.com/tristin-john-...ity-professors



JP's response.

You know, I don’t share your conservative views but **** like that makes it easy to see why someone would want to distance themselves from the left.

Parts of the left make up things that are so ridiculous it’s sad to dignify them with a response. And then they persecute you for not playing along.

People who don’t understand how dangerous that behavior can be should read about China’s Cultural Revolution.

I'm not a conservative, I am just right-wing economically. Whilst I may think some things work better for people in general, I don't wanna tell people what to do with their lives.

The two sides (economics and social) are tied in together. For example, I would be an open borders advocate if the economy was completely run by individuals making decisions as opposed to the government.

That's the problem with party politics. You have to kowtow to the doctrine of the party platform even if you don't agree with parts of it. Jefferson was right when he was against the concept of political parties. You really can't vote your conscience and that's why we're in the mess we're in.

K

ftfy

I still rank this dude alongside Gladwell as far as pop pseudophilosophers go. Pretty amazing dude if you agree with his stances and are alright with flimsy premises and assumptions I guess. Since I feel like he really agrees with the outcomes he works backwards from, he has an edge over Gladwell as a non-con artist so he has honesty (or at last perceived honesty) on his side.

You gotta admit, he can make an incredible case for preposterous ideas. That discussion with Sam Harris where he was arguing the truth isn’t the truth was top shelf. He’s at worst a spectacular troll. Harris was dumbstruck.

He makes a quick succession of empty premises that he blows through without an opportunity to be challenged, then he asserts his position and treats those premises as truths. He's very convincing for talk radio but he makes my bull**** meter go off the charts when he makes his cases. I don't think that he's unintelligent, but I think he lets his stances drive his logic more than he'd like to believe. Then again, maybe I just spot that so easily because I see it in myself.

You gotta admit being in his class would rock.

Ja it'd be really fun if he promoted disourse (not that he doesn't). Though tbh if he proved himself to be likeable or if I already agreed with him, I would be less ready to challenge him as my professor and that might make it less fun.

Is there anything on earth that you appreciate that doesn’t align with your politics?

Fun fact: If you stand in front of a mirror at night and say Sam Harris five times you can summon elphenor, wherever you are.

:laughing:

my interest in him is strictly in regard to his expertise in theology and religion, I largely roll my eyes at his insertion into identity politics. I generally find him easy to listen to and imagine I would enjoy him as a lecturer but he's more joe rogan than sam harris imo

Oh he says a lot, it's just political rhetoric encoded as "logic" with vague enough premises that he can confidently make assertions that align with said political rhetoric. Cuz muh degrees.

Nah. Shapiro can be fun in segments but he’s too much of a government guy for me. Also a bit of of a puritan.

When hip hop first arrived the general consensus among white people was that it wasn’t music. In a classical music shop, where I bought my first records of artists like Schoenberg and Carter, the owner took that stance. I was around 16 and argued (indisputably I might add) that the music was the expression of art through sound. His retort was my definition was too broad. I often heard, to my amazement, comments like hip hop (or rap) wasn’t music it was “just sounds”. I’m just as dumbfounded by the stupid **** I hear people say today.

Actually, the position that astonishes me far, far more than that is that there may be an afterlife. Through neuroscience we understand that consciousness is completely chemical and we literally watch the brain die and it’s completely indisputable that it doesn’t go anywhere or do anything. Yet people believe you go somewhere. It’s like, “The ****ing corpse is right there!” Still they believe there’s some kind of ethereal self that sneaks off. It’s hard not to be condescending because the first thing that person must do is accept that he’s retarded.

It really does

I like Peterson, but I agree with Frownland in that he pontificates about simple things in a completely uselessly complex way. Plus he seems a bit greedy at times. I appreciate his foot in the ground stance on what he believes in, but for a total free speech advocate he pussies out way too much.

Peterson fills this weird mold of intellectual without being a thinker. Or maybe he's too much of a thinker and gets caught up in his own bull**** too much, it's hard to tell the difference between the two because neither are flattering.

Isn’t that a fairly unnatural gesture?

go clean your room bucko

Whoa

Is that real?