You know his advice on how to get women is legit, right?

Do you actually think it's possible Beterson will have a lasting effect on north american thought? I'm genuinely asking

People like Peterson tarnish the image of other interdisciplinary academics. Being interdisciplinary isn't just being an expert in one field and talking out your ass about other subjects that are tangentially related. You need to be well-versed in the relevant parts of whatever fields you're bringing together. And Peterson clearly is not.

By North American thought do you mean intellectuals or the general public? He's not even being taken seriously by intellectuals now, he's only popular with the general public. Honestly, I think he's a passing fad. I'm not just saying that because I dislike him. Nothing he's saying is new, he's only popular because he's articulating "common sense" opinions and validating young guys who felt embarrassed for disagreeing with left-wingers but didn't know how to respond to them.

>he's only popular because he's articulating "common sense" opinions and validating young guys who felt embarrassed for disagreeing with left-wingers but didn't know how to respond to them.

This and he in more ways than one tells them that things are okay, and you can do this. You just have to work for it

That message can resonate, especially if he just repacking common sense advice

I would think everyone knows that cleaning your room is not magic, but to someone who's skill in creating habits is broken and is causing their life to become more and more pathetic one day at a time, it might as well be magic

We like him.

He's a meme.

>be honest
You are a child

I meant marx dummy

can you get into specifics as to what he's wrong about instead of just asserting that he's some kind of embarrassing idiot? that's all i've seen anyone on Veeky Forums do and I'd like to actually hear the other side bring substantive arguments to the table. it better serves everyone.

First give me a run down about what you think he believes so I don't unintentionally strawman you.

>learn to say no

fuck I don't know how to do this help

>be honest
unless you're looking for your 'soul mate' this is retarded

Ah, a nice dose of emotionally broken men to spice the thread up a bit
I am never dishonest with women and still get sought after

Most people want relationships to have some form of emotional intimacy which is impossible without self-disclosure.

You have to realize that nearly all of the time, you are experiencing the decision to say no as something much more serious than it really is. It used to be really tricky to me but you have to learn to not care to an extent, and you have to be willing to dig your feet into the ground sometimes and be strong. It may upset people in the short term but if you only do it when you really should, it will gain you a lot of respect

You know antinatalism makes getting women a nonissue right?

Honestly, he's the only "motivational speaker" you can take seriously. He'll probably be remembered more for his stance against the SJWs/regressive left and his advices for young people in search of guidance than for his Architecture of Belief.

>emotionally broken men
A term exclusively used by manchildren, ironically.

I just don't know what the fuck he's talking about and I'm Canadian as well. Like
>gotta straighten your shoulders, there's evil to confront
...what? lmao Like, sure, but what?

No?

Yeah, it turns out sexual impulse is little more than an inherent addiction. Who would have thought.

Stop projecting user. It's okay to admit things, we're all anonymous here.

This post would have been a bit better if you included a smug picture with it. As it is, it simply falls flat I'm afraid.

worst thing to happen to this board

what was his advice to get women? i skimmed the audiobook it was p gud but i dont remember that part other than that his virtue signally beta friend who killed himself went about everything the wrong way

>Most of what he says is legit. He is an actual professor.
>The split on Veeky Forums about is is due to a few subjects he has had a lot of issue with, as pointed out.

>He's an actual professor
>*tenured professor.

Peterson is a dipshit who is likely a decent academic in the professional sense, in that he probably has conducted great research and is good at teaching basic curriculum material, otherwise he never would have been given tenure.

But since he has achieved all this fame from Youtubers and dumb teenagers, he just speaks about a lot of pseudo-religious nonsense which tickles his fancy, philosophy he barely has read or understands compared to actual philosophy professors (and even many of the people on lit), and gives intellectually dishonest diatribes about morality and ethics using very manipulative rhetorical devices, misrepresenting a lot of his knowledge of psychology by cherry picking psychological research, stating things as if they are undeniable facts, and using a helluvalot of anecdotal evidence.

He's like Chomsky but far far worse.

A decent self-help guru in some respects, but an abysmal professor.

He doesn't even give citations for most of the claims he makes in many of his lectures.

You need to actually dismantle his arguments if you want to make people realize something about him

Also, his new book contains nearly all of his regular lecture talking points and has hundreds of citations. He doesn’t cite in lectures because they’re improvised