>>10551175

Forgot a period after pseudo-science.

I stopped watching a couple minutes in. He didn't say anything that bothered me, but it seemed like all he had to say were vague platitudes. Is that all peterson's work consists of? Does he have any genuinely interesting things to say?

the lobster argument made me cringe

...

>Is that all peterson's work consists of? Does he have any genuinely interesting things to say?
This is probably bait but if you want an idea of Peterson that video isn't a great place to start. The exchange is severely limited by the host. You're observing an IQ gap in the double digits and that in itself is enough to shrink the possible scope of a discussion, to say nothing of the host's obvious ideological agenda.
In brief Peterson's "work" consists of depth psychology rooted in evolutionary biology used as a map to understanding political and social landscapes.

wolves have hierarchies too. that doesn't contradict what he is saying at all

Do you think Peterson has an ideological agenda?

If you mean in the Zizek sense, then it's impossible not to.
If you mean in the political sense, then no.

>One could just as easily argue that it's human nature to organize themselves a la wolf packs which defy a hierarchical, despotic structure
Yeah... you could

>If you mean in the political sense, then no.
Isn't he a pretty outspoken defender of liberalism (classic)? Individual rights, freedom of expression, democracy etc. That's a pretty overt ideological agenda.

If you think democracy in the west is an "agenda" then you're a few centuries late to the party.

Preserving/supporting the current political order is a political agenda.

What is a political ideological agenda though? A set of political beliefs you wish to promote because they seem correct to you? Then of course he has an agenda.

I don't know much about Peterson but it seems inarguable his beliefs have a political dimension. Not only in the sense of the allegiances and hostilities he has with various real or caricatured political factions (neo-reactionaries vs campus sjws, rational liberalism vs authoritarian collectivism, sane individuality vs oppressed grievance-baiters), but also because you barely have to dig down at all to find the political function of ideas like 'a return to individual responsibility' in the context of, for example, ideological struggles over the power of markets in public life vs collective labour-organised power.

Plus, how do you account for the way that Petersen articulates together a whole lot of beliefs that are so commonly articulated together. E.g. evolutionary psychology, anti-communism, individualist ethics, respect for order, valorisation of strength as opposed to decadent celebration of weakness. Isn't the fact that all these ideas are so commonly articulated as one coherent message or worldview in contemporary conservative circles evidence that their organising principle is a discourse outside the objects he seems to talk about, a discourse that's actually organised around the political struggles he's intervening in?

I suppose so, I think this line of thought isn't relevant though because I don't think Peterson is a political agent.

You can't say something isn't relevant because you disagree with it.

There exist instances of social dominance but they're highly situational and defy the static, top-down hierarchies Peterson would claim that humans unwaveringly follow.

meant to respond to

You're presupposing a conclusion with which I wasn't engaging and then making that the basis of your reply.
As far as I can tell what you are implying is that everyone has an underlying political agenda that they always wish to covertly propagate and that this is what always guides their actions.

My point when I said that the host had an ideological agenda was that her beliefs clearly interfered with her ability to honestly engage with Peterson's message, whatever it may be. If you're looking for a clear exposition of Peterson's ideas, like that poster was suggesting he was, then this kind of dialogue is not desirable for that purpose. The almost constant strawmen ("you said this, so that means you actually think this..") and attempted gotcha journalism are clear signs that there's not going to be what I call "enlightened debate" in which the purpose is the mutual exchange and consideration of ideas.

Rooting out Peterson as a crypto-post-modern power game master manipulator or whatever isn't even the discussion I was having.

Wow. This Petersen is on some high-IQ-level shit.

Cool, I get your point. My point was that it's kind of inane to say that Peterson isn't political, or didn't have a political agenda in that interview. I'm not approaching things from a psychological perspective, about what he's secretly thinking, but from the discursive perspective that I guess is antithetical to Peterson but seems to be way more theoretically self-critical and useful than whatever he thinks his methodology is.

I don't know what Peterson secretly thinks either, but from what I know of him, I think he would say that political systems are too complex for him to put forth and follow an express political agenda. If you then say THAT is his political agenda, because he MUST have one, then in my turn that's what I'd call inane.

same old bullshit about "meaning". it's a disease. coping mechanism to keep thoughts about the futility and meaninglessness of life at bay. "get your life in order", "responsibility", "sort yourself out". anything for 65k in patreonbux to play Internet daddy for the day to day young swine

his political agenda is classical liberalism for the most part

You sound like an extremely bitter and frankly unsorted person. Drop the edgy nihilism and clean your room sometime bucko

Political agenda for me doesn't necessarily mean coherent manifesto for a political system, it means that what they're saying is kind of overdetermined in the ways we can understand it's organising principle. You could say that in this interview Peterson views are informed by his individual more or less reasonable approach to the discussion topic. You could equally say that the discursive system that his words are formulated in and become meaningful in are formed by and function in social struggles.

Also I don't think it's at all inane or a stretch to say that it's possible (or even common) for people to present things that have political or social content as apolitical or natural. And I don't see the problem with what that other poster said about how preserving the status-quo is in itself political. To say that the kind of psychological individual things he thinks we should be talking about are somehow more accessible to us than social or political struggles seems to be self-evidently a very political thing to say, and is the viewpoint that's been most widely criticised by people trying to theorise how neoliberalism functions ideologically.

does peterson actually say "bucko" a lot, or was it a one time thing that people will now perpetually make fun of him for?

he's a meme with apodictically positive advice. He's a breath of fresh air in a time where ppl have forgotten how to build character.

The later, its more of a meme, same with "and that's THAT" and "roughly speaking"

gr8 b8 m8, would r8 8/8.

That woman is so fucking stupid it's incredible

Damn. Why is the interviewer being so adversarial? It’s not being hard-hitting because you’re not even letting the subject’s ideas develop and digging into them meaningfully. Just cheap, trite, surface level little indignations. Trying to humiliate and shame rather than understand and truly criticise. How disgusting.

>instances of social dominance
wtf do you mean? what qualifies as social dominance? I think human social life is rife with it, but it would be dramatic to compare it to a wolf pack in most cases

So what you're saying is that Peterson shouldn't be criticized?

kek

Jordan is the dumb person's go to smart man, he's a good guy tho.

She's taking everything personally. This is typical with many women. Every time I talk with them about politics they start crying, even though I make sure not to talk about them. Then they are like
>Men have no feelings
Even though I'm feels.jpg inside.

This is true. Doesn't matter if I talk to my mom or to the girlfriend of one of my mates. Always taking everything personally.

This woman is awful in any interview she does

He conducted the interview in a cool way.

Idk about his opening remarks tho, the interviewer was aware she was being unreasonable. You could tell when she would hold back smiling.

Yes I was at my friends house once and his mum was drinking and interrogated me about a rather benign joke I made over dinner and ended up crying and running off to her room.

Watched interview
Lady isn't really humiliated, just interested and sometimes offended (often can't engage in conversation with JP because he's using psychology terminology to make his points)
Much of the time JP is defending his views or showing how interviewer's accusations about him are technically incorrect
Some good discussion about ideology of the Left, but ultimately not worth watching

please stop shilling on this board, we have trouble with porn, crossposting and /pol/ as is. thank you

>DUDE CONSIDER THE LOBSTER

>it's another Marxists bash Peterson thread

WHAT A SURPRISE

Do we think he fucked his research assistant for joint credit on his work on political correctness?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson#Critiques_of_political_correctness

youtube.com/watch?v=3a_zHkctg5E

I wonder if it's something they learn in journalist schools. To act hysterical, confrontational and assume the worst? Pretty annoying to watch imo.

twitter.com/Some_BlackGuy/status/953523706373931009

Btfo

JBP looked good here, but his liberal philosemitic trash ideology is not going to cut it in real world politics.

I don't like Peterson much but watching this gives me so much more sympathy for him because of how dumb and hardheaded this interviewer his. in fact, I used to agree that Peterson isn't that deep, but this video gives me more respect for his willingness to be incredibly patient and dumb himself down for hardheaded, self-absorbed, oblivious liberals.

Is it customary on this board to accept the retarded American usage of the word "liberal"?

Being patient was pretty necessary for his former day job.

Sorry, i have to post again, but this bitch is just so fucking dumb.

>Peterson talks calmly and rationally about how the pay gap is partially due to women's more agreeable personalities and lower assertiveness, to their choosing to have children and choosing lower-paying careers
>"BUT SHOULDN'T WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN AND TO CHOOSE HIGHER-PAYING CAREERS???"
>
>makes a "this dumb fucking bitch" face
>says "...they do have the right. they can. that's fine."
>"YES BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT MAKES THEM UNHAPPY TO CHOOSE HIGHER-PAYING JOBS AND CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN??"
>literally didn't even say or imply that once in the talk
>"...no, I'm not saying that and I haven't said that."
>"YOU'RE SAYING IT'S MAKING THEM MISERABLE?"
>"no, I didn't say that..."
>woman makes a superior and bitchy passive-aggressive smile as if he's some inferior life-form

I wonder if women have a permanent (albeit easily swayed) Stockholm syndrome towards power and especially the ideologies in power.

Don't be a pleb. She's just getting involved in the debate. Woman have to screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech to get their points across sometimes too.

The lobster bit was pretty retarded

Please stop making these FUCKING threads you ass

We have
So
Fucking
MANY
and they're all the fucking same

she looks jewish

Everyone here dismissing the lobster argument needs to go back to school.

i'm not being a pleb. Watch the debate. The entire thing is strawmanning on her part left and right. It's the fucking definition of strawmanning. She doesn't listen to him or think about what he's saying, she's literally like an automaton. There's a fucking door in her brain locked shut from ever exiting her ideology, she doesn't respond to his arguments, she responds to other men in her life who have offended her with misogynistic views, it seems like. I bet you're a woman or a dumb feminist or haven't watched the debate if you think I'm being a pleb for pointing this out.

It's almost exactly the definition of "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." It's the perfect smug face and demeanor of a person completely narcissistic, oblivious, mechanistic and wrapped up firmly and self-satisfiedly in their own automatism.

>we wuz lobstars
- Jordon Patarson

what does Veeky Forums have to do with king of the pseuds jorman pooterson and his self-help book

does this help me understand joyce?

no

fuck off

Yes, they're strawman comments, but that's typical of this kind of interview. She's trying to provoke a reaction and liven the show up for the viewers. Normie viewers don't care about Peterson's philosophy. It would be a boring show if she simply discussed his outlook the entire time. Viewers want drama.

or maybe....... theyre questions meant to make the guest more animated and engaged in a lively question

they do this on all of the english political chat shows

theyre not like american shows where she has to suck off the author or else they wont come back on

theyre not meant to personally offend you

you getting so excited is really embarrassing and you should think about why you get so worked up over someone doing their job

And those brits really expect us to believe they are in any way smarter than Americans.

Channel 4 news is pointlessly abrasive and completely up its own arse most of the time, but it is more intelligent than their American counterparts.
This interviewer gets a lot of flak because no one seems willing to concede that any of her replies are merely playing devil's advocate and not actually her own personal attacks on Peterson's position.

>reads D&G once

Even the most "distinguished" news outlet the UK has to offer is tabloid trash.

BBC, which is a corporation, is the best news website I've ever used.

Playing devil's advocate involves taking a position you don't support, not misrepresenting what the other person is saying.

>2 cents have been deposited into your account

>taking a contrary position you don't necessarily support*
what I meant to say

The thing you faggot apologists don't understand is that she's entirely sincere, genuinely self-satisfied and righteous and upset at him. Goddamnit, if you can't read basic body language and facial expressions, you can just get the fuck off this board and go to Veeky Forums you autists.

Double's advocate doesn't mean that. It means that you are supposed to be misrepresenting the positions implied IF the double's are doing the same thing.

>devil's advocate
imagine being this delusional

how are you gonna call anyone else an autist when youre going mad on a literature board just because you didnt know she always does this with 'controversial' figures

>you can just get the fuck off this board and go to Veeky Forums you autists

youre literally 'reee'-ing why dont you fuck off this board and go to reddit where you can have /r/JordanPeterson/ all to yourself and no evil roasties will interrupt your autistic screeching by daring to portray King Pseud in any light other than pure fucking sainthood.

>by daring to portray King Pseud in any light other than pure fucking sainthood.
fancy way of saying ''strawmanning and trying to paint him as hating women''

Yeah, this is Veeky Forums we don't have discussions here!

Holy fuck you fucking two-brain-cell autistic effeminate loser faggot. You should fucking castrate yourself and remove yourself from the gene pool, assuming you're not already a woman or a tranny who hasn't cut their dick off, you fucking failure of a human being. If you'd read my original post you'd see I don't like Jordan Peterson and don't think he's that deep of a thinker at all. I just said I gained a bit more sympathy for him seeing how patiently and calmly he puts up with smug douchebags like this woman who interpret him as some fascist.

Fuck you and your total failure of reading comprehension, smug bastard. If you can't read, that is indeed a good reason to get off this board.

>Are you concerned your audience is mostly male, isn't that a little divisive

What the fuck type of question is that, nobody would say that to Oprah for having a female audience

Not really though I love you. But still, you're being a fucking moron.

the lady doth protest too much, methinks

Peterson is absolute trash, just a random academic who realized he could double his salary if he became a right wing youtuber

thewalrus.ca/the-professor-of-piffle/

You know he's been uploading his lectures for years before he became big right?
his material also hasn't changed from that, other than expanding to the Bible
Not clicking that shit link either

>oooh, I'm wrong so i'm just gonna say you're too angry haha i didn't care about the debate anyway therefore i win in my own life because i'm not that angry and it's not even important anyway :^)

That's not how it fucking WORKS. I want you to admit you are wrong and were being a fucking idiot and preferably to suck my dick. Jesus Christ these fucking nu-male or female or tranny or whatever you are faggots on Veeky Forums fucking everything up with their limp-wristed passive-aggression. I want a fucking Vocaroo of you admitting your error and apologizing

>How dare a qualfied professor have opinions outside our mandated left wing right-think

I think Peterson is an idiot but people like you make me want to support his childrens crusade

Wow, you actually got me to read that article. I guess the joke's on me!

Yep, and then he realized there was a whole untapped audience of pseuds waiting to flock to him the moment he said something provocative.

He's a terrible lecturer too. I took one of his classes

idk keep going

What did he say that was provocative?