Why is this fucker so popular

Easy to digest "philosophy" that's really just intellecualizing pre-held ideas. is probably right, but I think the rise in conservatism is really just a simple reaction to liberals not focusing on things that matter, and trying to change things that really don't matter, like PC stuff, which just discredits them in the popular eye.

Everyone wants recognition, men want a positive male identity and the effeminate (low openness high empathy) ones particularly are drawn to petersons moral guidance on terms of this male image

unsatirically this

/pol/ please leave, the bible is a children's book

His advice works and if applied will change your life for the better. You have nothing to lose by at least watching the dude's free lectures or pirating his book, other than your time but then you will learn how to use your time more wisely than you have ever before. All of this is assuming you understand his points and don't get strung up about some of his interpretations, unlike some people here do.

I unironically HATE the trannies, I tried listening to their 'marginalized voices', but that just made me HATE them even more. It's obvious they are just doing it to virtue signal. but no you are not allowed to point that out, it ain't PC, it goes against the mandates of managerial gynocracy and its blue hair victim priesthood

I'm pretty sure I fucked Jordan Peterson's wife last year.

Was in Toronto for a month and checked the Craigslist postings under W4M. The listing said, "bored housewife looking for BBC". When I got to the hotel room they were both there but he was wearing a mask so I couldn't be totally sure it was him, though, but the thing that makes me think it was that while in the middle giving it to the wife, the guy yelled out, "ride the dragon," and swear to God it sounded just like him.

But then I saw him in a grocery store yesterday.

I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.
He said, “Oh, like you’re doing now?”
I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face.

I walked away and continued with my shopping, and I heard him chuckle as I walked off. When I came to pay for my stuff up front I saw him trying to walk out the doors with like fifteen Milky Ways in his hands without paying.

The girl at the counter was very nice about it and professional, and was like “Sir, you need to pay for those first.” At first he kept pretending to be tired and not hear her, but eventually turned back around and brought them to the counter.

When she took one of the bars and started scanning it multiple times, he stopped her and told her to scan them each individually “to prevent any electrical infetterence,” and then turned around and winked at me.

I don’t even think that’s a word. After she scanned each bar and put them in a bag and started to say the price, he kept interrupting her by yawning really loudly.

When I step outside the store he confronts me and says, "You have made a massive mistake. Doing this for you would have made you a symbol in the world of intellect and literature. It is so typical for someone like you to forget this. It is so typical for someone like you to use postmodern literary forms.

"I was prepared to open your world to my knowledge and share my maps of meaning with you.

"You will forever regret the choice you just made, so I will offer to let you do this project again. If you do not, you will have to face the consequences."

And then the storm of shit begins.

What BASED irony, good sir! I do applaud your cheeky sense of humor!
T. Plebbit

you’re right. my country was in the commie block and now is a shithole of cults. you just don’t eradicate the irrational to plant a world of autism

Found you.

Attached: 84071861.png (481x271, 126K)

do you really think like this? seems like a meaningless thing to get stressed out about.

they are literally going to wreck civilization if white people don't wake up and do something to stop them

Yeah they are annoying and mentally ill, but why the fuck do you care so much?

Less than 1% of the American population is going to wipe out humanity? Do tell.

they are out there recruiting children, just a few years ago they were 0.1% of the population, now they are 1% of the population, if the growth continues at the current rate, soon they will be 10% and eventually 100% of the population.

Because they are bringing other people into their madness by normalising it.

Yes, I can see them now. Those filthy endocrinologists are hiding in the bushes with a syringe full of estrogen waiting to jump your sons.

Stop watching Alex Jones, bruh. Same thing happened with fags in the 90s. More visibility and acceptance means more people will come out of the closet. Trannies have always been around. Shit, /b/ was how Bailey Jay got popular. But now they're having their Will & Grace moment and no one will care in five years time.

this is not a good or bad thing

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.u2.jpg (800x522, 31K)

they are making policy codifying their mental illness up here in canada

if you don't play along with their delusions, off to jail you go

this. transgender=totalitarianism=NWO

Canada has always been an ugly dystopian Hellscape, they can become Mecca for trannies for all I care.

12 Rules for Life is a pretty decent book. No masterpiece. But it would be silly to dismiss it because Peterson is popular.

I think he's popular because of the ridiculous state of Canadian government and the growing radial leftist movements that have overrun our campuses. I think the cult around this guy is a bit out of proportion with his talents as a writer, but he's definitely channeling something that a lot of people are feeling right now.

You have to parse out the two different appeals he has. First is a political one. We live in a time of progressive cultural hegemony, and he's one of the people in the mainstream speaking eloquently against it. The second appeal is one of a self-help guru. He's a clinical psychologist so a lot of his self-help advice comes from a place of empiricism. It's also really specific. Some people who don't care about his political opinions still greatly value his life advice.

Checking those triple dubs.

Jordan Peterson himself is fine. His ideas are common sense. What's annoying are the countless videos entitled "JORDAN PETERSON BTFO's FEMINISTS" or "JORDAN PETERSON REDPILLS NORMIES ON IQ."

The people sharing and titling these videos are pseudo-intellectual manchildren, but the ideas within are actually sound.

Illiteracy confirmed.

You don't know how Bill C-16 works.

All it does is add protections from discrimination within the sphere of federal jurisdiction. So unless your employer is Canada Post, Service Canada, or CBC, I don't really see how that extends to the private sector. Besides, a lot of corporations already have guidelines in play that prohibit discrimination against transgender people. So you could've lost your job before this bill, because HR departments largely exist to maintain a controversy free workplace, and if you're being an edgelord at work, then you're a problem for your employers.

Anywho, It's pretty much par for the course to have a "diversity" and "anti-harassment" policy nowadays, and this had nothing to do with transgender people. Besides, if you're a civil servant, then you're not really encouraged to have free thought.

So from how the bill is actually implemented, within federal jurisdiction you can't deny employment or services to trans people. I'm aware monetary reimbursement could be a punishment, but it doesn't say anything about being fired, and usually it's up to the institutions to pay the fine, not the individual, because it's their duty to provide a workplace free of discrimination. A more simple resolution might be reinstatement of a tranny if their employment was wrongfully terminated.

There hasn't even been a single transgender case in front of a tribunal since the bill passed, and similar legislation existed at the Provincial level for years without incident.

As for the criminal code, it's illegal to incite genocide against trans people. Being anti-trans can also be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing if you assault or murder one, but that's also par for the course with any protected classes.

I reported your post it was so stupid

When was the last time you left the house?

Agree with this. It doesn't seem he ever said anything really interesting or innovative, he really is just the most famous contrarian.

I suspect transgender people are evil, there's a certain evil aura to the whole business. I have reasons to believe they are engaging in transgender behaviour out of sinister ulterior reasons.

You need mental help.

Okay, so you have nothing then. Your "suspicions" make you sound as mentally ill as some non-binary what-have-you. I'd recommend seeing a counselor or someone about paranoid delusions.

Lol if you think Russia is actually 90%+ orthodox

The lefty equivocation for Bill C-16 was debunked when Lindsay Shepherd was threatened by her university's HR department just for showing a Peterson clip in her class. They invoked the bill and basically told he that she could've been charged with a hate crime. So fuck off. Vice.com literally wrote an article titled "for trans folk free speech can be silencing" We know what's happening here.

>It doesn't seem he ever said anything really interesting or innovative, he really is just the most famous contrarian.
He has a somewhat unique blend of mysticism and naturalism to support his ideology and assertions. But yeah it's devoid of real content.
If he was just a reaction putting uppity "liberals" back in their place I'd be ok with him, but he's blatantly dishonest or uninformed when he talks about actual philosophy.

University staff misinterpreted a piece of legislation that only applies to federal jurisdiction, and she couldn't have been charged with a hate crime. C-16 changes the federal human rights code, but this doesn’t apply to university classrooms.

>nationalpost.com/news/politics/what-the-wilfried-laurier-professors-got-wrong-about-bill-c-16-and-gender-identity-discrimination

Brenda Crossman, a UofT professor of law is heavily quoted in this article, from a conservative paper, explaining the misconceptions surrounding the bill.

The university was absolutely in the wrong and I'm amazed by their stupidity.

Really, you're amazed by their stupidity? You're amazed that people blinded by contempt for whiteness and conservatism in any form can misrepresent laws in order to silence any perceived form of opposition?

>folk
I for one, am tired of these 'folks' and the ceaseless screeching of their 'marginalized voices'

The point is the chilling effect it has regarding the use of gender pronouns. Even if the bill can't be used as a legal justification for enforcing particular speech, it can be invoked by certain institutions in situations where people aren't necessarily fully aware of their rights. Shepherd was told what she was doing could've been considered illegal and she believed it, and she's a relatively smart teaching assistant. A low level bureaucrat being told the something similar is all but being compelled to use pronouns he might not otherwise

I'm amazed that this is a magical piece of legislation that - left or right - people cannot seem to fucking read or understand, and everyone seems to project their hopes and fears onto it. In reality it's rather mundane, and amounts to more virtue signalling on the part of Justin "Peoplekind" Trudeau. I'm still all around baffled, especially by Jordan Peterson's acclaim, because his opposition was not based in reality. But hey, "compelled speech" is a nice buzz word. That people are worried about hate crimes is laughable when the bar is set remarkably high for them (if you look through Canadian legal history), and again, there have been zero trans cases in front of a human rights tribunal since this passed. I think B.C. had one case or something like that with respects to their Provincial legislation that pre-dates C-16.

A purple haired fat positive goblin comes up to you flaying around wildly and menacingly wielding a huge black dildo. screeching, the goblin demands you refer to it by one out of seven sets of made up pronouns alternating according to their whims and the phases of the moon. You are supposed to yield to their inanity and prostrate yourself before the stunning bravery and righteous victimhood of their ZOG approved PC lifestyle

You can say the same thing about any piece of legislation, though, and any situation where people aren't aware of their rights. Why single out C-16? If anything, the Shepherd incident, however stupid, was a learning experience.

Furthermore, gender identity and expression simply join an ever expanding list of things like colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation and mental or physical disability that are already protected. Given that trans people make up such a small number of Canadians and there are way more members of other protected classes, and given that there haven't been more incidents involving these other protected classes, I'd say there's a lot of fuss over nothing. And I'm not about to bust out my tinfoil hat over this.

"ummmm that's ridiculous, stop acting like something like that would ever happen." - screeching goblin with only three sets of made up pronouns, not seven, because that would be ridiculous

In what reality does this happen? I've met maybe 5 trans people in my life, misgendered 2 by accident, and nothing happened. They didn't care, I didn't care, we moved on with our lives.

Jordan Peterson is a fool. His whole modus operandi is to oppose totalitarianism by getting people to accept "personal responsibility" and not rely on identity politics for meaning, but by refusing to address the many actual problems our society faces he's giving fuel to the fire of the corrupt ideologies that wish to either support or return to the status quo (i.e. neoliberal capitalism and the alt-right.)

He's become the conservative's new darling, which is horrible because it's conservative economics that have crushed any sense of soul or purpose in the wider western context.

For what its worth, I don't think he's a bad man. He seems to genuinely care about helping people as a psychologist. The problem is he's only a psychologist. His political ideas are deeply flawed.

The operative difference is that hate speech directed at particular protected classes is obvious in most cases, and involves a slur like "nigger" or "faggot." If pronouns are treated using similar criteria, then the government would be actively forcing its citizens to hold particular beliefs surrounding gender. If the bill has nothing to do with respecting a transperson's identity, then what function does it serve? Can I still refer to a transgendered woman as "he"?

The question is whether or not it's considered "hate" to refer to people who've changed their gender as their birth gender. If so, then the government is compelling speech.

Michael B. Jordan B. Peterson

Attached: Michael B Jordan B Peterson.jpg (300x400, 14K)

He thinks that his self-help philosophy of personal responsibility inoculates against both left and right wing ideological movements, and I've read enough comments by former alt-righters who've turned more inward in their focus after reading Peterson to think that he might be on to something. It's no secret that the alt-right (like antifa) appeals to deeply broken people, and if you can make them slightly less broken they might care more about reading Solzhenitsyn and cleaning their rooms than hating black people. I don't know.

>which is horrible because it's conservative economics that have crushed any sense of soul or purpose in the wider western context.
Worth noting that Peterson is much more concerned with the problem of economic inequality than almost every other mainstream conservative. He understand how alienating inequality is on a psychological basis.

"Clean your continent, bucko."

*tips*

Attached: 1459393475250.png (541x480, 272K)

religiosity is directly linked to lower IQ and lower educational levels. the more the world progresses the less religious people we will see. it has only a small relation to leftist movements and ideas, and even if they are, the very emergence of anti-religious ideas in the left could simply be bogged down to the higher IQ levels of the population.

Intellectual trends tend to be more popular among the cognitive elite because they're more likely to expose themselves to those intellectual conversations. I bet s belief in phrenology was more common among the elites in the 19th century too.

I'm most interested in his talk about archetypes and the analysis of mythologies and narratives in general.
What are good books to start on this?

>The left
>"They."

What the fuck is this? Actual logic?

In a way you are correct, but wrong in another. The beliefs held by intellectuals at any given time don't just spawn from a vacuum, they're the result of long social processes of transformation. In this sense, irreligiosity is linked to the illustration, were common held beliefs, most notably arguments from authority were dispelled by print and the practice of tackling primary sources of information. In this manner the masses increased their intelligence and their confidence in processing raw data, which led to the situation we're in now. Through education people's intelligence increases, and in the process of understanding the world from multiple sources (sciences, diverse philosophies, different religions and ideologies) it's only a matter of time before doubt surges and they are made agnostics. From here also prominent intellectuals that are anti-religion come, which retroactively influence the masses.

Jordan Peterson is like a poor man's mixture of Nietzsche and Confucius.

Man and his Symbols by Carl Jung

He's a psychologist who made a pretty fucking detailed book on human psychology and what they shou of do to be happy. That's a fucking textbook and only read it if you read for it. You can watch him maps of meaning courses on YouTube for a taste. The book is fucking detailed I mean textbook levels if you want to read it.

Since then he told his Canadian government to shove it in their policing of pronouns and made a short hand version of his book much better if you just like reading. Sort of a self help book in the perspective of someone who actually professioonaly tries to help people straighten out their heads.

He sort of popular in recent past his books are good but the left political wing going full regard is really boosting him baying pretty good.

Also does a secular interpretation of the old testament on YouTube from the perspective of a shrink. I do like that more then anything else.

He's a shitty self-help author who passes off his delusions of 'eternal conflict between the masculine order and the feminine chaos' as some revolutionary philosophy.

He also doesn't like marxism, critical theory, or postmodernity so that makes him pretty popular with the /pol/ack faggots. While he doesn't actually understand what any of those previously mentioned things are, he sure does like ranting about them to his tendie munching audience who will uncritically eat up all shit he spews as some new gospel

All in all, he's a hack fraud whose rules for life are nothing special or groundbreaking who only found success in pissing off transgendered kids. His fifteen minutes of fame are drawing to a close and he will only be remembered by the effeminate basement dwellers that make up his fanbase.

Attached: 1430048775803.jpg (512x512, 35K)

oh she mad
sorry you wasted your life reading Foucault

> you need to understand the left to criticize it
I'd be wary of this assertion. Not everyone wants to sort through decades of bullshit they don't agree with. But yes, he's not well versed in philosophy in general and oftentimes this is obvious.

>eternal conflict between the masculine order and the feminine chaos
Yeah this is the biggest issue with him, or rather, his justification of his mystical bullshit with pseudoscience and cultural tropes.

spot on

weeklystandard.com/jordan-peterson-saves-the-world/article/2012010

Good, balanced article on Peterson

>While he doesn't actually understand what any of those previously mentioned things are

based

It's a self help book that doubles up as baby's first introduction to cultural theory (not that peterson is in anyway a competent theorist)

The book's popularity is largely because it acknowledges the underlying discontent of modern life, even if it's analysis and diagnosis is garbled reactionary nonsense.

>you have to wade through decades of arcane philosophy in order to notice how the values its adherers promote have a clear negative effect on society
talk about deflection

>Intellectual trends tend to be more popular among the cognitive elite

This is a seemingly-mundane point that actually explains a lot. Weird conservative ideas are going to be more common amongst the elite, since weird ideas in general are going to more common.

Eg, there's a lot of explanations you can give for why successful Silicon Valley natives tend to be libertarians; but one obvious one is that "Libertarianism" is sort of a weird, abstract concept that only a person who's good at grasping with weird, abstract concepts will find appealing. And being a good programmer means you're good at working with abstraction.

fuck off you fucking self-fellating faggot most programmers who are "good' are fucking ants

Programmers are fucking brainlets with a few very intelligent ones.
t. STEMfag

> most programmers who are "good' are fucking ants
Pardon my tism but care to explain what you mean by that?
Are they ants as in they are ugly? Or they are collectivist? Or do you mean to say they are having intercourse with ants?

Just about everything that can be said about Peterson has been said, but this sums up how I feel about him pretty nicely.

Anybody can do what Peterson does by stating old truisms as if they're profound and forgotten truths and extrapolating life messages from old myths using archetypes and make it seem really deep. I could sit down for an hour and watch The Brave Little Toaster and prepare a lecture about how it speaks to responsibility and the relevance of the hero's journey and the eternal struggle of good vs. evil and going from innocence to understanding etc. etc. etc.

Also, he's popular precisely because these tendie munching chuds' dads are just some guy who fucked their mom in the back of a Honda and bounced, so they don't have anyone around to tell them the most basic shit about life. They have mega daddy issues.

Attached: 1518041172582.jpg (576x586, 78K)

I don't even like critical theory/marxism but this post is truth.

Reading Dawkins' book from cover to cover is signifianctly easier than reading the Bible from cover to cover. It's not so much that more people today are better at discerning which arguments come from a place of unchecked authority and which are arrived at empirically, it's that if you're a Christian chances are you were raised one and never thought about it, while if you're an atheist chances are you weren't raised one but cared enough about the origins of your belief structure to pay attention to people like Dawkins. But an arrival at Christianity as an adult often requires a level of intellectual ability that's much rarer than what's required to watch a couple of debates by Christopher Hitchens. I think that 21st century Christians are overrepresented among both the stupid and the gifted, while atheism is more popular among the moderately intelligent.

I learned from his lectures that I can spend my time better than I did before.

>Also, he's popular precisely because these tendie munching chuds' dads are just some guy who fucked their mom in the back of a Honda and bounced, so they don't have anyone around to tell them the most basic shit about life. They have mega daddy issues.
I'm lucky enough to have dad who was there for me everyday growing up, but I feel like there's a real lack of empathy for kids who grew up in fatherless homes by Peterson deriders. If there's a signifianctly higher percentage of fatherless white kids now because of whatever sociological condition, and some guy gives these alienated kids basic life advice that they never got growing up, and in return they buy that guy's book, who the fuck is being hurt?

You don't get it dude, how are we supposed to score political points against them if we show some compassion instead?

They are being hurt, because his self-help comes along with a bunch of other shit they shouldn't be taking for granted or internalizing. And yeah, there is a lack of empathy, but it's hard to have empathy for people that are bitter and are lashing out at their perceived liberal boogeyman, instead of asking questions and learning to be better people without the hostility.

just deride people for a momentary feeling of satisfaction instead

>his self-help comes along with a bunch of other shit they shouldn't be taking for granted or internalizing
Name specific examples.

I read the book. I don't see how the internalization of elementary advice such as "stand up straight, clean your room, sleep the same time every day, understand that you're capable of harm but actively choose not to inflict it" lead to any sort of worsening of what made these people broken in the first place. His politics one could take or leave, and if one takes it they'll at worst end up becoming a boring conservative whose beliefs are significantly less radical than those of the current-day Republican party.

>instead of asking questions and learning to be better people without the hostility.
That's literally Peterson's advice. He gets shit for what people think of as a call for political disengagement, but a major focal point of his self-help philosophy is to not express your personal resentment through political activism.

Read the thread or any other. Nearly every critic of JP talks about his misuse of philosophy. I'd say internalization of his ridiculous essentialist and naturalistic arguments for the foundations of myths being universal, and them being some sort of universally valid, biologically-based way to "properly" define culture is toxic. He also labels his own ideas as "self-evident", while glossing over the subtleties involved. Yeah plenty of ideologies do this, but it doesn't excuse it - it's fine to be a traditionalist (I am myself), but at least understand the nuances of culture, socialization, etc. instead of thinking with such a pretentious, universalist perspective.
TLDR: self help is fine, but his philosophy is at best intellectualization of biases already held by his reactionary followers, but is somehow pushed as rigorous and honest.

Nothing wrong with that advice.

>His politics one could take or leave
I'd argue that he certainly pushes them, or at the least the philosophical views which imply his politics, in nearly everything I've seen of him. So yeah, if you only listen to the self-help, that's great, that's a good thing. But that doesn't discredit those criticizing his philosophy, or make it any less dangerous - people looking for help are prone to clinging to ideologies, especially pushed by those they are being helped by. He's doing said young men a disservice by providing help, but also pushing other shit along with it.

>and if one takes it they'll at worst end up becoming a boring conservative
I agree, maybe his supporters won't be that bad. Certainly better than some far-right people of course.

you are being offensive to adults who did not have fathers (AWDNHF)

Attached: 1507921897255.jpg (467x315, 13K)

I think that he makes a good argument in favor of the existence of an inherent psychology that exists independent of environment, but the particularities of the examples he uses to illustrate what he thinks are inherent features of human psychology veer into mysticism. But he doesn't veer into mysticism any more often than Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung did in their interpretations of myth. Like a lot of the early psychologists his work exists in this sort of weird space between literary interpretation and a scientific understanding of the human mind. We can't forget that he has a genuine doctorate in psychology, had published in scientific journals, and taught at Harvard. He isn't a madman who threw empiricism out the window.

>He isn't a madman who threw empiricism out the window.
Not implying that he is, but that doesn't mean people can't criticize him. While his psychology is good, his command of philosophy is extremely weak, and (as well as his politics) have been called out plenty of times. He's definitely a genuine psychologist, but in a more extreme example, would you trust a nobel-prize winning physicist about anything besides physics?

He probably is legitimately convinced of his views though, because as you mention, psychology does tread the mystic line often, at least historically, and he's just as vulnerable to thinking he's stumbled across some fundamental universal truth as anyone else - when it comes from his own discipline.

The danger is, just like with Jung, conflating myth, which is shaped by culture and history, with the nature of reality. Yes, there IS a universal truth in psychology. But I don't think JP has a good handle on what it is, and looking just at western myths, western culture (actually only very modern culture), and psychology, with the assumption you'll find some universals with that data, is not the right way to go about it (not even mentioning his misinterpretations of modern philosophies to the point of almost strawmanning). Granted if the goal is to find a coherent message to send young men, you don't need to be rigorous, but he's quite literally pushing his opinions about philosophy, politics and psychology as objective, clear, "obvious" universals, which is pretty dangerous.

I'm a little drunk so pardon the ramble.

He doesn't just look at Western myth and Western history, to his credit. Although his understanding of the Eastern tradition isn't as scholarly. Even his understanding the Western tradition isn't necessarily scholarly. I have heard him speak Latin, but I doubt he knows Greek or Hebrew, so he does base his interpretations of the Biblical texts on translations.

To me he's just our generation's Joseph Campbell. There are likely some interpretive ideas that he articulates that approximate a real understanding of our inherent psychology, while there are probably others that are off the mark. This is a problem of psychology itself, since even its empirical data can only tell us how the brain reacts in particular situations and to particular stimuli, not necessarily what the average brain wants and how those wants are shaped by one's culture. There has to be a storytelling element to psychology as a means of synthesizing all of that data into a coherent narrative of how the mind works. Also, so much of conservatism is based on the premise that there's a sort of wisdom to tradition, and that cultures, over time, tend to weed out elements aren't conducive to healthy cohabitation.

I don't really see the dangers of saying that something is inherent when it isn't. His theories don't go as far as to claim "literally every person thinks this way and if they don't they're mentally ill." They're more like "people TEND to think this way, and we might've evolved to do so."

>Although his understanding of the Eastern tradition isn't as scholarly.
It's downright amateur, there's people on this board and Veeky Forums who have more complete understandings. And it's not just myth and history, it's a general understanding of different cultures, world history, and western culture's place in it all. He's just a psychologist, and I think your analogy with Campbell isn't too bad. My main issue with JP though, is in the strength of his statements, and how he applies them to non-psychology.

> There has to be a storytelling element to psychology as a means of synthesizing all of that data into a coherent narrative of how the mind works.
No, there really doesn't. And if you're going to give one (which is fine), at least preface with your doubts to it's universality of legitimacy.

>This is a problem of psychology itself, since even its empirical data can only tell us how the brain reacts in particular situations and to particular stimuli, not necessarily what the average brain wants and how those wants are shaped by one's culture.
I agree, good point. But again, JP doesn't seem to acknowledge this weakness, ever. It's not an issue if you're an academic, but it's an issue if thousands of young men buy into your shit without knowing the issues.

> Also, so much of conservatism is based on the premise that there's a sort of wisdom to tradition, and that cultures, over time, tend to weed out elements aren't conducive to healthy cohabitation.
Of course. But a traditionalist can also acknowledge the existence of other traditions. Not doing so is an easy way to convince others (or yourself) that your ideas are universal, but it's bad practice. And I fail to see how doing what traditionalists tend to do, implies any more valid of a viewpoint.

> "people TEND to think this way, and we might've evolved to do so."
Are you saying that he's that gentle with his statements? He rather makes points like "people think like X, because they evolved in this environment, and DUH can't you see that this is natural?"

Then he'll not say anything concrete afterwards, but it's clear what he's implying : "people who go against it are going against biology, against myth, against culture!".

The mods are deleting all peterson threads. Stop posting them.

This argument hinges on how strongly you think Peterson pushes his theories, and how objective you think he thinks they are. And because he has so much output it's possible that we're both basing our understanding of his work on material that the other hasn't seen or read. I'm not someone who watches his videos and is capable of taking them apart in any sort of detailed way (I didn't even look at the citations in his book), but from my own subjective understanding of what he puts out there I never get the impression that his far-fetched, myth-based interpretations are presented as objective IF he doesn't also have an empirical study that he can cite. He cites studies in his talks all the time, albeit casually and without links to them in the videos.

>the jewish elite