Is the hysteria on Veeky Forums about Peterson simply due to the fact that he threatens leftist ideology?

2, 3 and 4 all correct
the Godel one in particular is embarrassing for an academic

Yeah, I mean its not the rampant, lazy anti-intellectual pro-shitposting alt-righters who've turned a forum for discussion into a fucking joke.

Yes, they're called Liberals and intersectionalists don't like them either.

warosu.org/lit/thread/S3101313#p3102242

First Peterson post, 2012

>It's embarrassing for an academic to go to far outside of his expertise

While he should've just shut up, and not have an opinion about it, there are mountains of academics that are guilty of the same thing. I mean, Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and yet he made his fortune whining about religion in the mainstream.

The same thing can be said about people like Noam Chomsky.

So he's the bastard that started it all, we were supposed to have a revolution and he ruined it

the only people who like JP anymore are normies

the left have never liked him
the right think he doesn't go far enough and never talks about jews

hysteria is a strong word. The only people i've seen launch into hysterics over Peterson is the people who are upset that someone spoke ill about their internet dad.

I'll be honest that I'm concerned about the children who like him, but I know they'll grow out of it the same way people from my generation grew out of Dawkins. In the meantime, Peterson is an easy writer to make fun of and occasional earnest objections to the ideology he professes and the ideology he may not entirely be sure he is professing can at least give an out to the people who can see the boat sinking but are still afraid of the ocean.

>Yes, they're called Liberals and intersectionalists don't like them either.

So liberals act like intersectionalists and then intersectionalists don't like them?

That doesn't make any kind of sense, fagtron.

>no one replied
Yeah, cool

>So liberals act like intersectionalists and then intersectionalists don't like them?

What so because Liberals also support free healthcare that means socialists are exactly the same as Liberals?

What alt-righters? The ones who barely post and gets mocked to death whenever they do?

>1. Because lobsters have hierarchies, that means humans should.
Learn the difference between is and ought dumbass. he said lobesters do, lobesters are our evolutionary ancesters therefore we DO have hierarchies. Stupid point
>2. Having absolutely no idea what post-modernism is.
He uses it interchangeably with cultural reletavism which is indeed wrong Ill give you that. That being said it does have relativism as one of its tenants.
>3. Thinking Godel's incompleteness theorem proves you need to believe in God to say anything when there's actually two models of it and what they actually say is that some things are true even though you can't prove them to be.
Fair, I dont know about Goedel enough. He did have a proof of god too tho.
>4. Gender is binary. This is not what medical science says.
According to whom? Pozzed out jews telling us that you can be whatever you want goy? No, SOCIAL sciences tells us this is wrong. Medical science asserts two sexes. Gender is performative sex(even by the most judith butler of standards.) Ergo, if Gender is superimposed on sex how can there be more categories than what you start with?
>5. Making incorrect assumptions about what women want and providing no evidence of why he's saying that.
Psychologist who has studied behavior of women doesnt understand what women want? Be more wrong dumbass

Well it depends on how you define liberal and socialist.

The word liberal in America is already a completely annihilated word compared to the rest of the world. In the US it practically means social-democrat.

>>no one replied

It triggered an entire chain of conversation. Why are you lying

He never claimed the first point, he says that hierarchies and thinking in hierarchies is biologically ingrained in us, and that it's a thing we need to wrestle with, not a thing we should aspire to. I'll grant the 2nd and 3rd points, but the 4th and 5th ones are wrong. There are a lot of studies on the 4th point showing that gender, sex, and sexual behavior do not vary independently from each other and that there are specific male and female differences in brain structure, among other things, which leads to point 5. There are studies showing that girls prefer people, and boys prefer things, before environmental differences can even come into play. This was replicated with different primates as well. There's a consistent body of literature pointing out to their different preferences, and Peterson has cited it, notably the one I just mentioned, but also the cross-cultural study among 51 cultures.

>Having absolutely no idea what post-modernism is.
>Authorial intent doesn't matter except when it comes to Derrida. If you don't read him the way it's deemed correct then you don't understand him.

No, you're right. I just misread the thread. Was skimming too quick.

yea he's pretty problematic because of all the misogyny and racism he's promoting. just part of capitalism. don't mean we don't kneed to fight

He doesn't use it interchangeably. Cultural relativism is an endemic tactic of post-modernists as part of reconstructive critical theory.

Attacking the cultural relativism is simply the easiest way to get normies into the fight over something that's been intentionally obfusicated for decades.

>never talks about jews
He wrote a blog post about the crackpot "jews control the world" conspiracy theories and he hilariously veered off into some crypto-meritocracy argument that Jews are overrepresented in positions of power because of IQ scores

Lobsters aren't our evolutionary ancestors, we split from crustaceans before even fucking fish were around and even if they were what kind of fucking argument is that? That because they're our ancestors that means we do the same shit? I don't remember ever laying a fucking egg.

>That being said it does have relativism as one of its tenants.

It doesn't have relativism as one of its tenants, it has uncertainty and therefore subjectivity as one of its tenants.

>According to whom?

The fucking psychologists and medical community that Jordan Peterson is supposedly a part of.

>Psychologist who has studied behavior of women doesnt understand what women want?

Oh, so now they're not "pozzed out jews" because one agrees with you. Yes, its possible to have a doctorate and be wrong, that's why people with doctorates usually use scientific literature and sources when they debate.

I'm just saying, just because you share beliefs with someone doesn't mean you're the same. Vegetarians aren't all fucking fascists just because Hitler was as well.

I should clarify that he thought the conspiracy theories were silly.

He's an authoritarian masquerading as the Coming, or Rebirth, of Social Individualism. Despite all of his proposed ideals on the condition of the human psyche-- and the subsequent conditions one must achieve to reach enlightenment-- those crumble under the weight of his own unsated ego; the endless positing of himself as the leader of a movement that inherently rejects leaders. He's a hack and a fraud capitalizing on the destitute and directionless.

>he hilariously veered off into some crypto-meritocracy argument that Jews are overrepresented in positions of power because of IQ scores

Which is objectively true you moron. Besides, Jews aren't "overrepresented in positions of power" unless you think Hollywood has more power than the President of the United States which to date not a single Jew has been.

It's literally true, and it's anti-conspiracy. Jewish culture has rewarded intelligence in a way most cultures have not, and have been very insular. As a result, their average IQ is significantly higher, but they also have higher rates of certain congenital disorders. Well documented, and no moral implication. It demonstrates how IQ is a great general predictor for success, along with industriousness (which is valued highly in Jewish culture), but how despite it's fixed nature, cultural values can shift these traits over time.

>telling people to grow up and boldly find their place in the world
>fraud capitalizing on the destitute and directionless

This is some seriously shit critique.

He looks old as ffuck in that picture

He literally didn't do shit and he blew up because of happenstance at the right time. His popularity is just the zeitgeist coming to feed off him.

>3. Thinking Godel's incompleteness theorem proves you need to believe in God to say anything when there's actually two models of it and what they actually say is that some things are true even though you can't prove them to be.
Fake news
perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

Attached: back_to_reddit.jpg (187x269, 18K)

Claiming that no jew was ever a Potus is a nice way to turn a blind eye on the composition of US goverment and White House staff since XX century.

Yeah and noam should shut up. So should sam harris. Is it so outlandish to want people to go to specialists for specialist information and thought rather than have it dumbed down for easy gratifying consumption by pop 'thinkers'?
Also the real problem with peterson is not that he totally misunderstands what he talks about; it's that he uses his misperception of humanities to advocate the shutting down of humanities dptmts. Which is a little bit concerning.

Yeah, lets read a blog by a fucking christian as evidence. Here's one by a mathmatician:

science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5600/1899.full

Absolutely nothing about God or culture in there. And this isn't the only time he tried to use mathmatics that has nothing to do with his politics or ideology to support it, he also used Euclid and fucking Reimann in his book.

twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/899501066986938368

reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/

Attached: midwit.jpg (1396x1768, 308K)

>I don’t know, Dad, but I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about, and I’m not sure I can do it justice. Its scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensibly in writing…. Anyways, I’m glad you and Mom are doing well. Thank you for doing my income tax returns.

Attached: nonsense.jpg (1374x1067, 158K)

In my opinion his position on IQ is the one that most strongly suggests that he quietly holds actually controversial right-wing views.
>Jews are overrepresented in high positions of society because they have a high average IQ
>Blacks are overrepresented in low positions of society (unemployment, welfare dependence) because they have a low average IQ

Attached: 113587249857645.png (600x600, 175K)

>there's a few token jews in positions of power
>It must be ethnic nepotism, it can't be because they are useful and intelligent
>meanwhile this supposed ethnic nepotism doesn't apply to white Europeans even though they are like 70-80% of the U.S population

The fascination with Peterson is odd. He merely repeats what many others have already articulated, only he says it crudely. I suppose that's why he's become so popular. Like everyone who's too preoccupied with ideology, he's deeply ideological himself. I'm unimpressed.

Imagine drawing that shit out and telling yourself you're a scientist, holyfuck the pure vanity

Guys, I've read all of JBP's works and sifted through his 4,643,278,592 hours of online lectures, and I can, fundamentally speaking, tell you this: His words are constantly held out of context and must be studied laboriously and consistently in order to fully actualize him. The problem with the Western World these days is that the men are becoming untruthful and irresponsible, thus playing into the Jungian Archetype of the "Man-Child" like Peter Pan, which will eventually lead into the disintegration of masculinity and even purpose. This of course, will coincide, again, fundamentally speaking, in the destruction of all human life. Woman do not want a little boy who can't clean his room, or sort himself out, or become a hero of his own destiny. They want a man who can pick them up off of their feet, save them from the dangers of Post Modernism and Neo-Marxism, and vanquish the dragon. I know this to be true because I saw him three times on Joe Rogan's podcast, and Joe Rogan is the man of all men. He bow hunts, eats his own elk with avocado and jalapeno's, conquers his 'inner bitch' with kettlebell workouts and commentates on the UFC. If that's not a man, then please, rip my balls off right now and hand them to my lost forgotten father, Todd, who never could amount to the supreme hierarchical status of Professor Peterson. Now, I've never really had sex (other than the sin of masturbatory acts towards Online Amputee Pornography once or twice, of which took (and could continue to take) me farther away from my self-authoring goal of becoming fully responsible in my actions, thus making me a full fledged MAN!), but I envision that it's probably a sacred and completely respectful enterprise of which is holding out for me in the horizon. I mean, I still have time to find the love I know Peterson's rules can bring me, as I'm only 32, but as my great Internet Paternal Master claims: "The world is dark and full of chaos", so I must strive with every ounce of my being to steadfastly reach my objective. But because of my precious moral standard in following the rules of truth and responsibility from Peterson, I must refrain from having sex with the woman I will find for at least "4 dates" because that is the set truth to stop my internal/dark and evil desires to rape and do icky things that are not of value to God's (or JBP's) standards. Evil is within all of us, and we will never know our full capacity as men until we confront that evil, so I must punish myself with Big Boy Ham Spankies everyday until that evil withdraws out of me into a celestial and material form that, fundamentally speaking, will symbolize my previous inabilities to act as the man I wish I was.

Quick run-down on Jacobitemag?
Looks pretty redpilled from just visiting. Are they Moldbugians?

Not only you ignored my link just because "hurr durr he's a Christian so it's all bullshit", you provided a link that is absolutely irrelevant because it doesn't try to apply Godel's theorem to metaphysics.

Yet, when I accomplish that remarkable feat, I know that I will find love (hopefully a love that is high in agreeableness, so that she can do whatever I want, and further make me appear as the Big Man Alpha of the relationship, so other Soy Boys will notice me when I walk with a 'straight, shoulders back' posture beside her through the Cheesecake Factory, and they will bow down to me in almighty fear as they should, for my teachings are superior and above all other Man-children!). And that love will be able to sustain my high intellect and masculine/responsible/truthful/non-corrupted/non-resentful self. It WILL happen if I just follow the teachings of "12 Rules for Life'", "Maps of Meaning", and the bounty of online wealth that has been presented here on the Internet to help strengthen my life. That is something that none of these bitter, resentful peasants on the YouTube comment section will ever understand because they are not equipped to be strong and defiant in the face of nihilistic self-doubt and personal turmoil. No. They will never understand. But I will! Ohhhhh, yes, I will! For my father claims so, and my father is my one true God. My... Sweet Daddy Peterson.

Oh, trust me, the book he spent 15 years writing has worse than that. This was the book's epigraph.

>“I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” — Matthew 13:35"

(imagine how deluded you have to be)

Attached: whoa.jpg (1367x1009, 143K)

>this is from the authors twitter

is he, dare I say it....

Attached: jacobite shitposting.png (397x135, 16K)

The people he rants about aren't even left-wing.

This. honnestly what's the fuck is up with this board and chirstians? this si a board for literatur, ie intelectuals, not white incels who take opium of the peole

Some fag actually typed this up because he hates Peterson. You had me thinking maybe someone made an actual real reading of a meme.

I did read it, how do you think I knew he was a Christian? And not only that, again, Godel's Incompleteness theorem has bugger all to do with religion. Its a framework for proving the limits of axioms. You'd think if it had anything to do with God then the mathematicians who fucking use this shit everyday would all be religious, they're not.

this. jacobe mag are liberals and they get the bullet too

twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/950736306694336512

Attached: whoa3.jpg (1339x1115, 166K)

What an embarrassing wretch of a human

This shit is sensible if you actually read the work.

>Its a framework for proving the limits of axioms
Whoah, it's almost like all mathematics, science and every single silogism ever used in anything in the history of everything ultimately depends on axioms. Godel Incompleteness theorem has all to do with religion/philosophy the same moment it buries and destroys all aspirations to explain the world through a materialistic point of view.
>You'd think if it had anything to do with God then the mathematicians who fucking use this shit everyday would all be religious, they're not.
Most mathematicians and physicians are, in fact, theists.

probabl incel to never got pussy

Is that his idea of a joke or is he really that clueless? The differences between the results are negligible.

Its "sensible" in the same way you can topographically display literally any argument. Its still a proposterous act to actually do it as if you're actually engaging in science

Peterson makes sure he doesn't shun lying in order to make a point!

>kff.org/other/state-indicator/physicians-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

>cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/policy-research/physician-historical-data/2015-06-spec-sex.pdf

>images.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-21-at-4.58.43-PM.png

Attached: lying.png (533x107, 6K)

There's something amusing about how fast Derridafags complain about Peterson missing the authorial intent anytime he mentions Derrida. By being a brainlet he unwillingly proved how self-defeating postmodernism is.

Does it strike you as being a joke? Not to me!

I don't think he was lying there, I think he's just an actively ignorant person

No the hysteria is that he is making millions of dollars talking out of his ass by quoting some handful of philosophers he's barely familiarized himself with and meanwhile we're all doing it 4free.

Attached: 1502891505439.jpg (500x630, 43K)

Actively, willingly and does not think making up things is that big of a deal. Doing this is also called lying.

They're therapeutic diagrams for psychological convenience, not scientific theorems.

Do you seriously see anything convenient in that ludicrous alchemy?
>not scientific theorems.
Clearly

Thinking a Jew would want the spotlight and not rule in the back pulling strings.

Peterson is against the revolution and therefor he's against us. Those who remain neutral and tell us everything is ok are even worse than those in power. I wouldn't be surprised if Peterson were the first casualty when the revolution start. He's scum.

Yeah, they do depend on axioms, a belief in God isn't one of them, so no, it doesn't have anything to do with religion. Look, I don't mind if you're a theist. No problem with it. I'm not a fedora wearing atheist. I think its bollocks, but I'm not going to chastise you for believing in God. But don't try to abuse science and mathematics in order to lie about how God exists.

I hope this is bait.

The left should celebrate Peterson. He's saying 'don't collaborate to defend your group's interests in the face of other groups, just work hard and find a job and don't complain' and the only people listening are young white guys.

Well yeah, it's convenient to someone whose read/listened to the fucking work. The only critique you've seemed to make here is that Peterson has jargon.

This desu

Jews don’t occupy most of the behind the scenes positions

I don't know why I'm doing this, but here we go:
Peterson have explicitly said that he don't regard Psychology as a science.

That's right, it isn't and you're pathetic if you think it is.

There's misinterpreting the author and there's there's blatantly misreading texts. If so-called post-modernism was as you described, then nobody would practice theory. I almost resent that Barthes (NOT DERRIDA) made up such a catchy phrase, but then, who could have foreseen people would be so willfully stupid about it. Death of the Author doesn't also mean the death of certain paragraphs within the text. Further than that, based on the reply chain: Death of the Author doesn't also mean Death of the Text Itself or even its literary context.

it is evident that no matter what he will spout, what lies he will put forward, what nonsense, you will believe him
you will try your best to find something in the nonsensical half-truth he spouts

Its not jargon its gibberish, the man does despite your suggestion claim to be a scientist and his terminology should be objectively reducible
[citation needed]

I think that's overall his MO.

>Most mathematicians and physicians are, in fact, theists.
Not the heavyweights
nature.com/articles/28478

Why is Jordan Peterson so cringe?

twitter.com/curaffairs/status/971859512742342656

“a wondrous maze, fascinating precisely because of its often splendid lack of intelligibility.”

“so rigidly confined to such high levels of abstraction that the ‘typologies’ they make up—and the work they do to make them up—seem more often an arid game of Concepts than an effort to define systematically—which is to say, in a clear and orderly way, the problems at hand, and to guide our efforts to solve them.”

(amazon.com/Sociological-Imagination-C-Wright-Mills/dp/0195133730)

I never said I believed him even. You're just being a fucking idiot who plainly has not read or understood the work. Same with >objectively reducible
You may as well just exclusively post on Veeky Forums.

>being this dense
I'm going to go through with it slowly (it's explained in the link but since it was written by a spooky Christian you didn't bother to read it):
>Godel's Theorem proves that any logical system ultimately relies on that which requires an explanation from outside the system (thus, making it INCOMPLETE)
>our world is a logical/arithmetic system (its behaviour is perfectly modeled with the laws of logic and arithmetic)
>therefore, our world ultimately relies on rules that are unprovable with the laws of the universe itself (sillogism of the two statements above)
>those same axioms require an explanation from beyond the universe
>hence, metaphysics

Unless you can point to the point in the link where some step is incorrect, literally all you've said is "Godel's Theorem doesn't apply to this because Godel didn't do it".

Nah man, it's due to the fact that there are some 50-100 Peterson threads a week, all devoid of substantial content.

youtube.com/watch?v=wxvljjNxI-E

>Grew out of Dawkins
Hardly. Even though they don't actively listen to him as much, his thoughts still have a dominating hold on all of their core beliefs. You don't grow out of your first internet dad as much as you move out from his house bringing with you everything he taught you.
I've seen huge hysterics from followers of peterson as well as his detractors. It's not hard to find because they either profess him as a savior or the devil incarnate.
I think he has interesting thoughts that are worth looking at every so often but to dismiss him without a thought isn't the right way to go about things. There have been think pieces that have tried to discredit him but only lend to his mythos by misrepresenting some of his key arguments or making easily dismissable fallological claims that anyone with any passing knowledge of peterson can prove false. Whenever he shows up for live interviews he usually comes out as a rational guy with a calm demeanor and never the kooky professor that smear pieces try to identify him as.
There are people like who seem to think that he promotes misogynistic ideals because they interpret statements of his where he claims men are more likely to be CEOs because they are more conscientious than women (an oversimplification of his argument) as him saying that's how things should be rather than just him stating that is just how they are. But, people like the above poster would claim that peterson doesn't think that we should try to change things because he believes "that's just the way things are" even though when he's been asked in interviews he's retold stories of how he's helped women become more conscientious and assertive in order for them to get higher positions in the workplace.
also throws in racism as a charge against peterson even though I'm not entirely sure what drives this accusation other than just adding it to the list because "Well he's a misogynist so I might as well claim that he's racist too." Maybe I missed something.
Overall I think that if the left wants to beat peterson, they should actually debate him. He had a debate with that anti-natalist iirc and he didn't do all that great. Unfortunately, there are a lack of professors willing to confront him in a public manner in order to discredit him, even though he's made the invitation numerous times. Dismissing him as a crackpot is fine if you don't particularly care about his effect on people. But, if you think that he's dangerous for the ideas he preaches but prefer not to engage with him directly, he will only gain more influence.
This is Veeky Forums so I'm sure there are great writers who would like to challenge him and I'm sure that if you put together a decent essay you can get it published in some smaller website. Go ahead and give it a try boys.

>Is the hysteria on Veeky Forums about Peterson simply due to the fact that he threatens leftist ideology?
Yes

>complains about lack of content
>says nothing with his post

Sorry where in the video did he say he wasn't a scientist? I'm just hearing him babble about Marxism for no reason

>I'm just hearing him babble about Marxism for no reason

get used to it if you ever intend on listening to the man talk about literally anything