Thoughts?

Sage

why?

Uh, you don't get to bring friends.

Rule 1

good thread haha, well memed

>I just realised Peterson is hardly posted here compared to a few months back
Hm, hm, hm, I wonder why you think that, hm, hm, hm.

Attached: rly mks me thnk jbp.png (1473x4887, 2.68M)

I read it. It's essentially a self help book from the perspective of a clinical psychologist. Check out some of his YouTube vids if you see him there you have a general idea of what the book is like.

Even if you have seen every vid including the maps of meaning class stuff and the bible stuff the book is a different perspective and could be helpful if you are trying to straighten your life out.

Thought that was asoiaf you not supposed to talk about.

Don't talk about popular current events. Even corner of the internet small scale popular.

Turns into shit inside of 30 posts. Too easy for trolls to use.

Is it so bad if young men want to improve themselves? God I hate the Left.

I've read it. Already knew most of this stuff from his lectures. Didn't like the religious parts, some of his metaphorical interpretations seem too far fetched. It's an easy read and it's good.

Nor have 90% of the people who call it a masterpiece.

I don't think anyone would unironically call it a masterpiece.

It's an empirical approach to self-help informed by his decades of experience.

It's not really anything more than that.

There's very little of his politics in the book, except if you go in there trying to drag politics out of it with a fishhook.

self help books are not inherently bad
self help that you package with a bunch of stupid ideas that push your political beliefs is literally just cravenly exploiting a vulnerable class for personal gain and if you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.

honestly his consistently gendered framing of the fundamental aspects of human nature present in us all is fucking weird, and I struggle to think of it as apolitical by any stretch.

I don't think so.

Women are empirically, as a population, more agreeable than men.

Men are empirically, as a population, more conscientious than women.

What explains this if not biology? How are the vague and unproven assertions that "it's cultural" somehow more convincing than the thin, but extant empirical evidence that it really is biological? Sure, the science is not ironclad, but at least it fucking exists on the "biological" side.

Philosophy and "social science" will become increasingly irrelevant as we further unlock the emergent ethic and emergent society that our biology necessitates through the methods of psychology and biology.

Why are you even bringing up your politics here? I've seen a lot of backlash from all sort of positions

currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

>Here is where Jordan Peterson’s self-help routine connects with his politics. Peterson seemingly discourages all serious political involvement. He says cultivating the self and reading great books is “more important than any possible political action.” Don’t focus on changing the world, focus on tidying up your life. After all, “the meaning of life is to be found in the adoption of individual responsibility” and “when you win everything, everyone around you wins too” because “it means you shine a light on the whole world…” 12 Rules For Life makes it explicit: stop questioning the social order, stop assigning blame for problems to political actors, stop trying to reorganize things.

>Have you taken full advantage of the opportunities offered to you? Are you working hard on your career, or even your job, or are you letting bitterness and resentment hold you back and drag you down? Have you made peace with your brother? … Are there things that you could do, that you know you could do, that would make things around you better? Have you cleaned up your life? If the answer is no, here’s something to try: start to stop doing what you know to be wrong. Start stopping today… Don’t blame capitalism, the radical left, or the iniquity of your enemies. Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city? … Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world.

>Note: perfect. And since one’s house can never be in perfect order, one can never criticize the world. This is, most obviously, an invitation to total depoliticization and solipsism. But it’s also a recipe for making miserable people even more miserable. Blame yourself. Why haven’t I fixed this? I suck. Well, it’s certainly possible that you suck. (Most of us do!*) But the world also does have injustices in it. A lot, in fact. Peterson speaks to disaffected millennial men, validating their prejudices about feminists and serving as a surrogate father figure. Yet he’s offering them terrible advice, because the “individual responsibility” ethic makes one feel like a failure for failing. Oh, sure, his rules about “standing up straight” and “petting a cat when you see one” are innocuous enough. But you shouldn’t tell people that their problems are their fault if you don’t actually know whether their problems are their fault. Millennials struggle in part because of a viciously competitive economy that is crushing them with debt and a lack of opportunity. Sure, Peterson might train guys to be more brutal and tough-minded, and a few of them will do better at the competition. But if you can’t pay your student loans, or your rent, and you can’t get a better job, what use is it to tell you that you should adopt a confident lobster-posture?

Only effeminate people need self-help books

Just watch him explain why you should clean your room and you'll be good. Don't need to read this. Self help books are only acceptable when it's written by ancient philosophers. Yes, I'm a pseud.

I agree with this criticism of Peterson. He tells young adults to stop trying to run the world because how could they possibly succeed when their own life is such a mess, but what right does he have to say that when the old people who are currently in charge can hardly be considered to be running the world successfully either? His advice is practical, but it won't solve the big problems. BUT, on the other hand, people incapable of following his advice would never have been able to solve the big problems anyway.

can we not have a JBP every fucking day

the absolute state of lit

>I agree with this criticism of Peterson. He tells young adults to stop trying to run the world because how could they possibly succeed when their own life is such a mess

Harsh words from a clinically depressed man who failed to raise her daughter properly (look for Mikhaila Peterson, she's a nutritionist quack).

His*

>clinically depressed
I doubt this.

>his daughter
I know nothing about this.

He's a manipulative hack taking advantage of a vulnerable cross-section of the population to cultivate a cult of personality centered around him.

>inb4 the morality police says a portion of Veeky Forums users and their ilk can't be vulnerable because they're cis straight white MEN or whatever

A lot of dudes in late capitalist societies around the world are falling victim to a kind of pervasive depressive isolation brought on by their life circumstances, from the burgers to the nips and everything in-between. In western nations it's being brought on by society decrying masculinity as negative while simultaneously assuming men will continue to adhere to traditionally masculine values (i.e. being talked down to about existing while being male, and then immediately getting shat on for dropping out of life instead of getting a job and being the breadwinner). It's hardly surprising that guys commit suicide as much as they do.

So Peterson correctly identifies this problem, and then proceeds to (either consciously or subconsciously) turn these disaffected young men into his personal cult following, who he can then proselytize to about all sorts of shit that varies from common sense you could get anywhere to absolute batshit.

I just read chapter 1.
I'm usually a pretty big fan of Peterson, but from my brief time this book seems watered down.
Petersons lectures are usually fun to listen to, but the first chapter feels like what I've heard him say in lectures, but for a general audience.
I was able to call out a few lines of thought Peterson was having by the time he was one sentence into them, which is not fun if they last 20+ sentences.
Might put this down. Can anyone tell me how good the rest of it is?

Peterson fails to debate any serious academic of his caliber; I can only imagine this is because he is afraid of being torn down. When will he debate Zizek or Taleb? He's received challenges from both yet he wastes his time bickering with TV interviewers and the nobodies who author op-eds.

>I doubt this.
Look for this, he has talked about it multiple times.

>I know nothing about this.
Of course you don't, her existence disprove his own "theories"

His Stephen Hicks bullshit can't stand up in any debate.

that's because paid shills were raiding in anticipation of this book release

>Look for this, he has talked about it multiple times.
Nah, I'm tired. If you want to show it to me feel free. Otherwise I might stumble upon it at some point in the future. Anyway, I think that declaring someone too unhinged to be listened to just because they're depressed is a bit bigoted, don't you? Depression doesn't make you stupid.

>Of course you don't, her existence disprove his own "theories"
Not really. The empirical evidence remains.

Your points may well be valid, but they don't apply in the way that you want them to.

While taking the nutritionist shit as far as she is may be silly, or may at least seem silly, nutrition can play a very large part for people, especially if they suffer from some medical problem.
I have a pretty serious illness, and eating better (not even good all the time just better) has helped me a lot.
It's just fact too in some cases. For an example, a Keto diet help a lot of people with epilepsy.
He's basically said about the diet that people don't fully understand how these things work yet. Pretty sure he's on the diet too.
I would bet he's afraid endorsing it would reduce his credibility. It totally would.

The house in perfect order thing is a metaphor. How dense do you have to be take that literally? Petsoñaratason discourages the placard-waving, virtue-signaling brand of political activism. Young people don't know anything. Young people have never "solved big problems." You sound incredibly naive.

> Anyway, I think that declaring someone too unhinged to be listened to just because they're depressed is a bit bigoted, don't you?
He's the one making the rules.

>Not really. The empirical evidence remains.
She is the empirical evidence. She's what comes out of his theories on parenting. The result: a nutritionist quack with a blog and a 20$ patreon.

>While taking the nutritionist shit as far as she is may be silly, or may at least seem silly, nutrition can play a very large part for people, especially if they suffer from some medical problem

Nutrition is important. Thar's why being a quack in this field should be inexcusable.

>Pretty sure he's on the diet too.
Yeah, and he also had to drop it because it was killing him, lol.

holy shit man, do you understand the meaning of the word empiricism?

>He's the one making the rules.
I don't think that's one of his rules.

>She is the empirical evidence.
That's not how empirical evidence works. "His daughter" is not the empirical evidence he uses to back up his arguments. His daughter is completely irrelevant to his argument because his argument is compelling on its own merits and not merely because he's the one saying it.

However accurate your character assassination may prove to be, it's not a good rebuttal.

Yes. Empiricism is the acquisition of knowledge through observation and inference.

>Nutrition is important. Thar's why being a quack in this field should be inexcusable.
Fair enough.
>Yeah, and he also had to drop it because it was killing him, lol.
Kek, you got a source on that?

Can you say that your room is clean if you are a clinically depressed failed father who spends most of his time giving advices on parenting and self-management?

>"His daughter" is not the empirical evidence he uses to back up his arguments.
He should, since she is the only empirical evidence for his parenting advice (a big part of his 12 Rules). The fact that he never mentions her should tell you something about his integrity.

>His daughter is completely irrelevant to his argument because his argument is compelling on its own merits and not merely because he's the one saying it.
The merit of a psychological argument are empirical, you don't just call someone a psychologist because what he says is somewhat interesting. Not even Peterson would stand behind that. She is the only empirical evidence of his prescriptions.

Whether or not there are traits exhibited by different groups to varying extents has literally never been the question, the socioliogical issues being explored today are largely about
1) given that these identifiable, gendered traits (e.g. agreeableness) exist and are distributed among these populations along a spectrum—that is to say that although the distribution of agreeable people in each group is such that the average man is perhaps less agreeable than the average woman, that leaves ample room for any number of women to themselves be less agreeable than another given group of men—shouldn't we be looking to examine how those traits are imbued upon the members of our society and seek to be explicitly aware of what, how and why we do it, and
2) shouldn't we be concerned that a system that rewards gendered traits that exist outside the purview of the actual job at hand fundamentally fails at self-selecting towards a more capable society.

Peterson's answer to both questions, which he constantly sneaks into every other facet of his personal philosophy, appears to be "no" and "no," fighting vehemently for the established status quo as if it were the be-all end all final result of our millenia of purposeful societal exploration. And that I have to say "appears to be" really highlights his fucking dishonesty, because although invariably when he's left to his own devices this is exactly the thing that he'll romantically swing around but as soon as he's pressed on the points directly he is immediately reticent in admitting what it is exactly he believes what he's saying entails in a practical sense. He's all too quick to ensure that what he said doesn't actually mean what you're asking, and he's more than happy to point out that what he said is nebulous enough to not necessarily imply this or that, and then draws neat little lines around the borders of his musings, and then leaves it to his vulnerable audience to extrapolate the extremely obvious implications of his arguments but he will doggedly refuse to do so himself because when he lets others do it the ideas exist in a form that they cannot be directly addressed, and were he to do it himself he would eventually be forced to defend them explicitly which he cannot do because he is to his credit an honest intellectual thinking person and he wouldn't be able to contradict himself so plainly and live with it.

He lets his audience do that for him. And that's why he manages to maintain an air of academic prestige that doesn't even remotely rub off on the people who ascribe to his beliefs. He's just throwing thoughts out into the air and refusing to consider the answers, while his fans are doing the torrid work of actually processing his information and eating the associated shit that comes with it.

Attached: file.png (266x152, 35K)

>Can you say that your room is clean if you are a clinically depressed failed father who spends most of his time giving advices on parenting and self-management?
Considering that clinical depression is not something that you choose to have, but is something that he seems to be dealing with very well (if he indeed suffers from it to the extent you imply), and that his "failure" of a daughter seems to be well-adjusted and happy judging by her blog with a strong relationship with her family and apparently her family-soon-to-be, and whose "failure" seems to be limited to "believing things you don't," then yes, I would judge Dr Peterson as someone who has his life together. He's a lecturer and a clinical psychologist who presents as intelligent and articulate and deeply empathetic, with the quiet intensity of a professional who takes on the responsibility to do their job well in the service of others.

That's my estimation of him.

It seems to me that your criticisms of him as a person are shallow and hysterical.

>since she is the only empirical evidence for his parenting advice (a big part of his 12 Rules). The fact that he never mentions her should tell you something about his integrity.
It tells me that he doesn't want to drag his daughter into the mess that exists around the things that he does because of their controversial nature, which seems completely reasonable to me.

I don't think his daughter is a failure and I don't understand why you do, other than that you need to believe that she is to justify your preconceived notions.

>She is the only empirical evidence of his prescriptions.
What about all of the people who say that he has saved their lives? That his advice has helped them make positive changes in their life? Do you dismiss them as mere cultists?

JP is a leftist.

Nigger, I am not going to read all of that fucking shit. I am very tired and my brief skimming of your post reinforced my first impression that it could be far more concise and plainly written than it is.

I'll pick out the things that jump out to me
>we should be examining how gendered traits arise
Yes, and we do. The answer seems to be that their origins are biological.
>we should change our system because it rewards gendered traits unfairly
Rawls would argue (as Peterson does) that inequality is justified if it leaves everyone better off than equality would have. If you want to change the system to more "fairly" reward people without considering the biological constraints that humans operate inside I would argue, and I'm sure Peterson would agree, there's a high likelihood you're going to fuck EVERYTHING up.

social conditioning is not as important as biology and social epistasis, women are not gendered, they have different genetics and neurology, different souls (selves) and different interests they reinforce as a bio-cultural feedback loop. women flocking together to get cock and gossip is gendered and there’s nothing you can do about that

>and whose "failure" seems to be limited to "believing things you don't,"
Nice wording for "absolutely insane crackpot pseudo-science". Having a daughter who can't critically thinking not even to these extents IS a failure.

I'm also not saying that he is worse because he has depression, only that due to his own logic he can't give any advice, since he has not managed to deal with it himself. His room is not clear, nor as an individual, nor as a father.

>It tells me that he doesn't want to drag his daughter
Then he should not write how to raise kids. Should I trust him on his word? Remember that he has published nothing on the matter, nor he mentions any source.
This is basically Psych Methodological Mistakes 101

>What about all of the people who say that he has saved their lives?
He deals mostly with addicts and rage-related mental illnesses. He literally has no literature on this topic apart from the non-peer reviewed stuff he wrote and spouted (mainlt his public talks and his 12 rules), so I literally havw no proof of his expertise in these topics, and the only empirical evidence he's got is so bad that he had to hid it from the world.

Peterson says we should be happy our oppressors are a smart and kind minority. Should we?

s u b b t l e

>"absolutely insane crackpot pseudo-science"
This sounds like a fair and balanced representation of her views formulated after a long and healthy interview and deep, impartial reflection.

>I'm also not saying that he is worse because he has depression, only that due to his own logic he can't give any advice, since he has not managed to deal with it himself.
Maybe (just maybe) you misunderstand his logic.

>Then he should not write how to raise kids.
Why? Because people like you will immediately begin to insult his daughter in a frothing rage? The only blame here for that is you. If he doesn't want to drag his daughter into things then that's his decision to make. You are the one throwing reprehensible random insults in every direction hoping to see what sticks.

>He deals mostly with addicts and rage-related mental illnesses.
Ah, yes, and these don't count as people.

Your argument boils down to the fact that you don't like what his daughter believes and therefore he's a horrific parent who can't give any advice, even about things unrelated to parenting. I'd call it parody if you weren't so frighteningly sincere. His daughter seems to be me to be happy, healthy, and well-adjusted; starting a young family and comfortably well-off, she can't have "failed" too bad and he clearly hasn't "failed" her to the disastrous extent you suggest.

In short, your argument is a fucking disaster.

>oppressors
Who?

In the Western our oppressors are a small, international group that organizes in a way that they believe is kind. It simply is not to the native populations. They tell us we should be feel a certain bland, unspired way and write laws to enforce this. Peterson agrees we should feel this way and behave this way, he simply disagrees with the method of reaching this point.

>life is suffering
>might as well inure yourself to it and make yourself a functional tool for others to use for their own enrichment
oh man dude thanks

Attached: 1520922288854.gif (500x210, 1022K)

I don't feel particularly oppressed. I feel that objecting to laws because they are insufficiently dramatic and theatrical is perhaps the most the retarded thing I've ever heard. Civil society is not a book. I'd prefer if it didn't have a climax, a denouement, and then an ending.

The only oppression I really feel is the slight, but increasing, curtailment of my rights at the hands of "progressives" (though they're not a monolithic group) and the moderate, and quickly increasing, encroachment of progressive ideology into my everyday life.

Thankfully I'm basically self-employed so I can still avoid it at work.

And don't forget
>inflict this suffering upon new life so they can suffer and die in a chance that they might be a useful tool too

>life is so bad that you shouldn't inflict it on others because literally nothing makes life worth its suffering
>i won't kill myself tho lol :)

>This sounds like a fair and balanced representation of her views formulated after a long and healthy interview and deep, impartial reflection.
Not my fault if you are that accepting of pseudoscience formulated by people absolutely devoid of any sort of medical education.

>Maybe (just maybe) you misunderstand his logic
Or maybe you don't.

> If he doesn't want to drag his daughter into things then that's his decision to make
Do you know how an empirical evidence work? Without his daughter, and without any sort of literature, you have literally no reason whatsoever to trust this man. This is why he should have mentioned her: becuase it would give a clue to his readers about what is the result of his prescriptions. I'll also let you know that there are already systems in check to protect the privacy of a given patient, it's one of the basis of psichology scholarship.
At this point you're just arguing against the necessity of evidences in sciences.

>Ah, yes, and these don't count as people.
It doesn't count as qualifications for giving parenting advices, genius.

>Your argument boils down to the fact that you don't like what his daughter believes and therefore he's a horrific parent who can't give any advice, even about things unrelated to parenting. I'd call it parody if you weren't so frighteningly sincere. His daughter seems to be me to be happy, healthy, and well-adjusted; starting a young family and comfortably well-off, she can't have "failed" too bad and he clearly hasn't "failed" her to the disastrous extent you suggest.
This is honestly just rambling, since it starts from completely made up premises, for example that I simply do not like his daughter. I guess you can't see what's the problem here, since apparently you don't have any simpathy for critical thought (which she lacks) and the concept of empirical evidence (which you lack, making any discussion related to science incomprehensible to you)

>Without his daughter, and without any sort of literature, you have literally no reason whatsoever to trust this man.
I trust him because he is credible. He is credible because of his background.

But don't think I trust him implicitly or completely. I trust that he is sincere in what he says and that he's thorough in his research, not that he's correct.

>parenting advices
You're attacking all of his advice, user.

Or are you suggesting that none of his other advice could possibly be used to inform parenting decisions? If I told you that Peterson's parenting advice is simply the logical extension of the rest of his (empirically supported) knowledge into the child-rearing domain, what would you say?

Because that's literally what it is.

>Or maybe you don't.
I clearly understand it better than you do, because I'm not the fucking retard taking "don't throw stones if you live in glass houses" to mean "don't criticise anyone if you're not literal perfection."

Jesus fucking Christ.

>I feel that objecting to laws because they are insufficiently dramatic and theatrical is perhaps the most the retarded thing I've ever heard.
I don't think you're capable of reading.

You complained that the "oppressors" (still not sure who exactly you're referring to, feel free to give me at least one name) write bland and uninspired laws that make us feel bland and uninspired.

I find that an esoteric critique.

i thought i was the only one who saw the hypocrisy.
i would rather suffer for eternity than die, at least pain is an experience.
i'll never understand athiests who hate life. if there's nothing after death,
doesn't that make living an amazing treasure?

>I trust him because he is credible. He is credible because of his background
His background is not in these fields. I'm not disparaging his works with alcoholics.

>But don't think I trust him implicitly or completely. I trust that he is sincere in what he says and that he's thorough in his research, not that he's correct.
Yeah, you're believing him on his word, even though there is from his side no evidence, literature or source for his parenting advices. What is it that makes you trust him, the tone of his voice? His posture?

>You're attacking all of his advice, user.
You've just made this point up.

>Or are you suggesting that none of his other advice could possibly be used to inform parenting decisions? If I told you that Peterson's parenting advice is simply the logical extension of the rest of his (empirically supported) knowledge into the child-rearing domain, what would you say?

I would tell you: nice, can you prove it? What he did? He hid every evidence he had. These kind of frauds are very common in this field, and even more so in self-help literature, since there is no reputable peer-reviewed journal for it.
That's how psichology, and virtually every other actual science, works, bucko.

>I clearly understand it better than you do, because I'm not the fucking retard taking "don't throw stones if you live in glass houses" to mean "don't criticise anyone if you're not literal perfection."
Keep telling yourself, at the end of the day you're the one equating empirical evidences in sciences to how much you like the guy. You're free to die on this worthless hill.

>You've just made this point up.
No, it's the fucking crux of the issue.

Peterson advances a unified theory which explains alcoholism and child-rearing. You can't defeat the one without defeating the other because it's a unified theory. That's the point. He argues that alcoholics and children function the same (not surprising considering they're both fucking humans) and that lessons drawn from the one are applicable to the other.

>"where's the empirical evidence"
It's actually all there, if you watch his lectures where he explains the socialisation process of children and how falling behind developmentally leads to antisocial pathology in men that lands them in jail. But you haven't done this, and won't do this, and will instead refer back to his fucking daughter.

>He hid every evidence he had.
His daughter is not evidence, and even if she were evidence I'd say he's done a pretty good job with her because she seems happy, has income, a family, and isn't fucking dead or in gaol.

>You're free to die on this worthless hill.
Not for much longer if you have your way, I'm sure. Sic semper tyrannis.

>Yes, and we do. The answer seems to be that their origins are biological.
this is exactly the opposite of what we have been finding
>we should change our system because it rewards gendered traits unfairly
this is what you and apparently peterson hear, but no
what's being said is we should change the system because rewarding gendered traits that are in actual practise not good at much else other than extracting compensation doesn't get us what we want. Take two nurses who exhibit the same level of competence, but one is better at negotiating a pay raise. If the system is about self selecting for people who are good at getting paid, fine. But we want a system that gets us good fucking nurses. If we have a shit nurse who's great at getting paid and a great nurse who's shit at getting paid there's something happening here where what we think we're selecting for isn't matching up with what we're actually selecting for, and it's a problem that manifests itself everywhere in society let alone in the market.

social conditioning is actually incredibly important. We're living in a time where we're directly experiencing the consequences of that discovery. The malleability of traditional roles is a function of that, what it's not is the consequence of some nefarious plot like peterson seems to imagine. People who want to exist outside those constraints are not the invention of some modern age, they've existed from the inception of those very constraints, and to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. Examining the manner by which they were developed—how they serve us, and how they don't—is not only natural but inevitable. There literally isn't a way for us to get all of humanity to stop and say "alright guys we did it this is it. There's nothing after it." It's straight up not possible. Frankly it should be way weirder to people that a guy who fetishizes the enlightenment to this extent is positioning himself to fight this process. Peterson has consistently described not an optimally designed self serving society, he's described a society optimally designed for him to understand and navigate. The attractiveness of that premise is of course going to be universal, but it's also fucking useless. All it does is what we see here: produce a school of thought that sacrifices discovery and self-knowledge for that feeling of just being right on the cusp of being able to meaningfully traverse the social landscape but being frustrated by the fact that it refuses to conform to a constructed fantasy.

guys, you fall for the Peterson bait every fucking time, it's embarrassing to read all your stuff

>this is exactly the opposite of what we have been finding
Nope.

Women are more agreeable than men no matter how you raise them. Even if you fuck up raising them to the point that they develop pathologies in your attempt to make them disagreeable, they even develop different pathologies to men.

In general, obviously.

>nurse who's good at getting paid versus nurse who's good at being a nurse
The market will select the company that pays the latter more than the former.

Now imagine this: your planned economy will reward the nurse who's good at getting paid even more than the "capitalist" economy, because the process of the market no longer applies. Instead bureaucrats like you (who are just as susceptible to being convinced by the nurse who's good at getting paid) who think they have the answer will impose diktats that make this inefficiency law. There will always be nurses who are better at getting paid than other nurses - the market provides companies incentive to ferret these nurses out and get rid of them for being inefficient. Your proposed "solution" destroys that self-check.

This is what I mean when I say trying to fix this problem while being totally ignorant of human constraints will just fuck everything up.

You need to think before posting.

>The market will select the company that pays the latter more than the former.
no, and now you're entering the territory of a completely differrent set of issues. In a market where every participant is a) fully and reliably informed and b) always acts rationally, what you describe could hypothetically be observed. That's nowhere near applicable to our existing market, and furthermore those criterion will literally never be met in any market that is not strictly regulated, because a) it becomes directly beneficial to obfuscate information and b) human beings are not designed to (or "have not evolved to," if that's more attractive to the peterson in you) behave as perfectly rational market actors. So the question becomes how do you compensate for those things? This is exactly what we're trying to find out.

> He reads self help books

Attached: 1372C3BB-5BC1-4CA8-9411-5847A5CA6738.gif (200x150, 2.76M)

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-03-24 at 22.04.44.png (600x636, 135K)

even I, a person who is on the other side of peterson in almost every way other than his historical analysis of classical religions, don't think there's an inherent shame in wanting to help yourself. Sure, this may not be the ideal path to personal development, but we've all got that desire.

>white male and straight
Ffs just say boomer and everyone will RT you

Yea but buying and reading self-help is fucking retarded and antithetical to actually improving yourself

not an argument

>peterson

Lefty /pol/ really out here in force today
Hope no one posts excerpts from the Gulag Archipelago

>tfw I'm like "Got em" and then I see that I'm agreeing with Laurie Penny

Attached: oh-gee.jpg (500x500, 158K)

They desire a bland and unspired population. They push this through media, laws, and changed social norms. The laws are not bland and unspired, the outcome from the laws is the continued and reinforced. That outcome being a more bland and unspired population.

Peterson supports this. For example, he doesn't seem to think trannies are mentally ill. Just that they should pick a gender and not be called xir.

if you get the opportunity, you should kill yourself

>Yea but buying and reading self-help is fucking retarded and antithetical to actually improving yourself
it takes a while to figure that shit out
it took me a while, anyways. It seems like a really appealing option at first: a succinct, neatly packaged philosophy of the self offered up for consumption that skips the work of having to research the ideas yourself. It's just one of the ways people start down that path. The encouraging bit is that if people are starting down that path it's pretty rare that that's where they stop

thank god, I cant stand Peterson posting

dat me

I think that Maps of Meaning would be JBP's gesamtkunstwerk

>he had to drop it
He just recently talked about doing keto, and said it was still working well for his auto-immune disorder. I also did keto for several months, but I had trouble gaining muscle like I did before so I had to quit. Shit's great for brain function. It's like fasting, but you're eating all three meals a day.

Daddy

>relentlessly mock people who grew up without a father figure due to the anti-family policies that you support while at the same time claiming that your politics are due to compassion and wanting to help the less fortunate in society

Attached: 1521745589838.jpg (453x483, 19K)

youtube.com/watch?v=OhxBHlH5R04

People who like him won't shut the fuck up about how great he is. People who dislike him won't shut the fuck up about how awful he is. Both sides continue until neither are actually talking about his presented material and everything devolves into a shit flinging contest.

It's the same for every recognizable figurehead on Veeky Forums.

Someone post the joke about being crabby.

The level of this criticism is LITERALLY at the level of
>perfect? well, um, EXCUSE ME, doctor peterson, but i'm afraid that a state of PERFECTION is unattainable
published criticism masquerading as intellectual thought
the absolute state of the world

this man has autism

>But if you can’t pay your student loans, or your rent, and you can’t get a better job, what use is it to tell you that you should adopt a confident lobster-posture?
actually i'm pretty sure that it could help a fair amount

i don't even "like" peterson, but christ, the state of his critics, my god, why are these people so dumb?

lena dunham is so gross but i also want to fuck the shit out of her its weird

>tl;dr
>Quit sulking and get your act together

I can understand JBP's sentiment but what bothers me is his presupposition.

If I get up and clean my act, I still die in the end.
I'm no different than the person who decided not to act on this 100 years down the road.

The wise man and the fool go to the same place in the end. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of things?

um, because maybe you'll be a bit happier along the way?

what does that matter 100 years from now?
who's to say the fool isn't happier in the end?

what difference does it make?
i find the overall argument extremely lacking in this sense