Jordan Peterson

I'm glad I found him, he gave me a new prespective on relationships, jungian archtypes and religion.

May not be the thinker of the century but he presents very well concepts hard to explain by words.

I might participate in religion now because of his talks on religion.

Its amazing how many liberal atheists are starting to consider the evolutionary importance of religion because of his words. I say that as an atheist btw

Yeah I'm also an atheist but I've been reading on religion and I'm starting to agree with Peterson's positions as well

"Anus is a delicate structure."

-Jordan Peterson

Is this the guy who talks like Kermit the Frog? He's funny.

as if that's not a quote to stand by for centuries
kek i can't unhear it now

youtube.com/watch?v=0A7UJDN_hcU

His videos are incoherent rants, I wonder whether he is on the schizo spectrum.

It's satisfying to hear him shit on SJWs and he can be eloquent in person, but his lectures are incredibly bad. Unstructured, incomprehensible nonsense that goes on and on for hours. He was recommended to me by one person, and that person regularly slips into psychosis and was unable to summarize any of his points for me, which sums it about up.

He says the most basic philosophical shit

And his life advice is shit you should already know

He's good if you never had a father I guess and are just starting to learn about philosophy

He could probably name them, doubt he's read any though

...

...

>He's good if you never had a father
Like 70% of men 18-25 nowadays?

no one will recognize the name jordan peterson in 2018

Fuck u, his teachings will resonate through the ages. The trans-battle rebuttals is nothing compared to his biblical lectures, legit as they already are

Nothing he has said is new, any triple digiter could tell you the far-left are extremists abusing causes like anti-racism and feminism, he is just good at presenting it in a way that appeals to you.

His words represent the enlightenment that moses found, the wisdom we already knew, but chose to ignore.

Sniggered

>Make sure to donate to my Patreon my based kekistani followers!
>You do want to btfo more SJW's don't you?

he's not 'extraordinary' per se, but he conveys helpful messages to that specific type of anxious, ennui-filled young person(especially male) that is so common nowadays.
obviously he isn't saying anything "new" but he fills a niche and does it well

>profound
Lol what? Please tell me this isn't real. And to think they were the ones calling peopl cucks

I believe this guy is a hack because his entire perspective is built on the understanding (rather than assumption) that free will does not exist.
As a Catholic this really shiggys my diggy.

I heard him talk on the Molymeme channel,he sounded pretty bluepilled on immigration.

he's the same sort of virtue signaling and shaming hack that the left has been churning out like hotcakes, only difference is that he virtue signals to middle class white kids with rich parents and shames the poor whereas the liberals shame the middle class white kids and virtue signal to the poor.

As a centrist I scoff and roll my eyes at both sides for being different flavors of the same collectivized conciousness that creates an "us vs them" mindset so that listeners can go out into the world and continue this virus of virtue signaling and shaming.

betootaadvocate.com/advocate-in-focus/upper-middle-class-coward/

2/10

>As a centrist

Stopped reading right there

>his entire perspective is built on the understanding (rather than assumption) that free will does not exist

No it doesn't.
He says there are things not under your control. Which is true.

at least try to bait mane

This has been my impression so far: Peterson works on people on Veeky Forums because he is edgy.
Sure, he never exagerates, but this is his shtick: believing in Christianity and trusting Jung seems something cool when he promotes it.

Here's my speculation: since his whole premise is built on his attitude, and since he is actually quite shallow in his understanding of most of the things he talk about, most of you guys will simply realize it all at once and drop him, just like you have already dropped 2 or 3 pseudo-intellectual gurus in the last 5-6 years. When you know absolutely nothing about philosophy, epistemology, theology and morality, people like Harris and Peterson just do the trick, but as soon as you actually start reading books on the topic, you will find their contents grossly insufficient and poor in their reasoning.

This is just a speculation, don't get triggered over it.

What you suggest then?

>4 people tell me Im baiting

Its the truth you fucking partisan hacks. He's just the conservative version of an SJW

You are just dumb

If his ideas interest you, just read the sources he is quoting: Nietzsche, Jung, Dostoevsky, Orwell, Browning and so on (I don't know about his psychology lectures, I've mainly watched lectures about philosophy and literature, fields in which JP should not be allowed to teach).
Also the problem of Peterson is that he talks to an uneducated audience, and as such he really has to polarize his judgements to mantain everything spicy. As a result you costantly see on Veeky Forums and /hi/ people reading Dostoevsky while thinking about responsability, or slaying the dragon. He basically puts you on a fixed path, and since his audience is uneducated, they cannot see it: you can always spot immediatly someone who reads books like Jordan Peterson.
As such, even if you love his ideas, it would be best for you to completely ignore and immediatly delve into his sources.

Apply what I've told you to 99% of the intellectuals that frolick on Youtube. If you agree with them, read their sources and learn the ideas they're proposing properly.

>been in academia his whole life
>taught at Harvard and currently teaching at top-tier school
>has literally written a book on his subject matter

>shallow understanding

Okay user

>appeal to authority fallacy

Its a good school so that means he's right

Guess noam chomsky is always right now because he teaches at harvard

>qualifications in psychology
>somehow this makes him qualified to talk about society and politics

fuck off.

I'm talking about his talks about philosophy, literature, psychoanalysis (he has formal education in these fields) and his general talks about morality.
We're on Veeky Forums (&Humanities), not on /psychology/. The fact that he might be a great psychologist is absolutely irrelevant, for those were not the contents I was commenting on.

If you think an appeal to authority fallacy is relevant here, then you don't actually know what an appeal to authority fallacy is. I'm not arguing that he probably has more than a "shallow understanding" of his subject matter given his career and the fact that he's reached a pretty high point in his field.

I don't think anyone can have a "qualification" to talk about society or politics in that manner, and if such a qualification did exist, being a psychologist is up there.

And what exactly makes anyone "qualified" to talk about society and politics? He's been researching totalitarian political systems for a few decades now, I think that's as good a qualification as any.

>He is centrist

He's the very embodiment of a pseudo-intellectual.

What do you find wrong with his views on morality?

its called political science and sociology you hack, but considering his ideology discredits those entire fields it makes sense that you wouldnt trust the actual experts.

your stupid meme picture definitely makes me want to develop a cult-like following for one party or the other despite neither of them having my personal interests in mind.

The overwhelming majority of politicians don't have political science or sociology degrees. Given that they're literally the people running society/politics, how does that square with the assertion?

why do you make the false assumption that you have to be a leader in order to study something? The basis of your "argument" is a logical fallacy. NASA scientists are the experts on space travel, you dont see actual scientists getting in those rockets.

Youre willing to dismiss the actual experts in favor of an expert in an entirely different field that has a vendetta against said experts.

Youre being brainwashed, turns out both sides attempt to brainwash, not just liberals.

Blimey, I've just realised trying to form my opinions on individual issues based on the best facts available is completely foolish and I should just consider myself part of some kind of political tribe and choose my opinions from a list! Thank you for your incredibly incisive and cutting meme!

He actually just speaks common sense. It's the insanity of the age that in comparison makes him look like a deep thinker.

Humans are born male and female is not a deep thought.

Whatever your opinion on the transgender stuff that is not a true statement. There's absolutely no doubt that some people are genuinely intersex.

Your post has nothing at all to do with anything I've argued. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with a strawman. Where did I state, or even imply, that you have to be a leader in order to study something? Where did I dismiss "actual experts"?

You said that because he has a psychology degree and not a pol sci or soc degree he's unqualified to speak about society or politics (unless you meant something else by "qualifications in psychology" vs qualifications in the others). I point out that very few politicians have qualifications in pol sci or sociology, so therefore, according to you, they don't have a leg to stand on when discussing society or politics, which is of course ridiculous, and I'm trying to point out that requiring someone to having qualifications in soc/pol sci as a prerequisite to discussing politics or society is silly. So what exactly are you on about?

This is the insanity I'm talking about. You're the insane background in front of which Peterson appears like a genius.

Not that guy, but 99.7% of people are born male or female; there are genuine intersex people (think hermaphrodites), but they're a tiny, tiny minority, far fewer than it seems given the ruckus they cause on the national scale.

what ruckus? I don't think intersex people are even a big part of the trans movement

I'm going to burn 99.7% of your body with acid.

Do you think the .3% that is not burned with acid will provide you with relief?

Or perhaps when I say "I'm going to burn your entire body with acid" 99.7% suffices?

It is this insanity that focuses on the .3% in your example that is driving people mad.

>Even if 99.7% of people are born with two eyes it is false to say humans have two eyes!

What are you talking about? The statement I made that there are genuine intersex people is true and I specifically isolated it from the transgender issue.

Pulling out bonkers, completely over the top rhetoric doesn't change facts.

seeing that anime grill being raped by the physical embodiment of post modernism makes me thirsty

It's EXACTLY what I'm talking about, and why your generation is INSANE.

You cannot take a bland true statement like "Human beings are born male and female" and just fucking accept it as true.

You have to find a freak, and then somehow, based on the freak, say human beings are NOT born male and female.

And in THAT insanity, Jordan Peterson appears as a sage.

Quench your thirst on this!

*unzips dick*

It's not true, the actual figure is between 1/50 and 1/100 that are born intersex, despite what the random user posted earlier.

politicians are fucking mouthpieces, they dont know shit about politics. Our fucking president couldnt point out half his own allies on a map, politicians are not fucking politicial/social experts
Your argument is a dogshit logical fallacy and you know it.

It makes an absolute statement of "humans are born with two eyes" false.

The point was that those people actually exist.

Okay gentle user, you keep thinking whatever you like.

source? I'm pretty sure I've seen it being lower than what either one of you said.

keep deflecting retard muh politicians are political experts, what a fucking joke.

>Implying proof by contradiction is an invalid form of argument
Get fucked, brainlet.

>It makes an absolute statement of "humans are born with two eyes" false.

Yes I know basic logic, that's not the point. Human communication, thinking, and language does not work in binary logic. So humans can use language, say formally logical flase statements and, in the human experience still be true.
Is like saying women are shorter than men, but stronger in "trueness".

aissg.org/PDFs/Blackless-How-Dimorphic-2000.pdf

Nah you're right. I concede user. Politicians know nothing about politics and have no authority to comment on politics or society. If only they had a pol sci/sociology degree, then finally they'd be able to.

So deep in your madness that no light will penetrate.

Humans are born with two eyes.
Humans are born male and female.

All humans have two eyes.
All humans are either male or female.

Can you even pretend to see the difference between those statements, or are you too far gone?

They're pointed to as example of ambiguity in terms of gender identity.

satan trips, full of shit. what a surprise

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births
Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births
Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

Jesus fucking christ I can see the difference between the two statements you faggot, my original comment was just to point out that a TINY, TINY MINORITY of people are genuinely not male or female.

>provides source
>waaahhh I don't like it!!!
>waaahhh
>waaaah
>waaaahhh

He's a pretty basic thinker, combining a basic reading of Dostoyevsky with some psychology. Honestly, his persona as someone who seems very sincere (and his adorable accent making him sound super vulnerable) probably make people listen to him a lot more than his actual ideas

My step dad is asian who didn't even had a son with my mom I am literraly "a wife son "
I wanted a hapa brother

His ideas are all derivative shallow crap. Petersonheads respond by saying that he has this and that degree and that he taught in this and that university. You tell them that he has no qualification in these fields. They respond by saying that formal education is not necessary to be a philosopher, an historian, a psychanalist and a literary critic.

Fucking pseuds.

This whole thread... image related
Veeky Forums because reasons. Link not related:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDmPZj6ym9U

As much as I like Peterson I disagree with his critique of people like Dawkins/Harris. Peterson claims that undermining the societal bedrock that is faith is reprehensible, when in fact morality is not something which should be taught from archaic books and does not have a place in progressive human development

they really dont, and anyone that looks to politicians as authority figures on political discourse is a fucking idiot. They do everything they can to shit all over real politics and simplify everything for a campaign platform they dont even fully support themselves but that was constructed by actual political scientists to appeal to the most people.

You do realize that a politician is a mouthpiece for an entire TEAM of actual experts, right? You understand that a politician is to his staff what a late night show host is to his writers, yes? The actual experts are involved in politics, theyre just not running themselves because politicians are basically models and the experts are their agents.

>morality is not something which should be taught from archaic books and does not have a place in progressive human development
Are you saying that morality does not have a place in progressive human development, or that archaic books don't have a place? If the former, what the fuck. If the latter, why not?

That is not what free will means you retard

lmao what a fag

Yeah, I don't think that's what he's saying, at all.

He's more-or-less arguing that society requires a base mythology, some kind of performative embodiment of the culture's collective consciousness, history, and values. By participating in the performative elements of a religion, you reinforce within yourself the underlying ideas that the practice embodies. It's worth noting that the communists, despite the rationalist basis for their ideology, inevitably created their own mythologies in the form of proletariat martyrdom, worker heroes, and leadership cults. Hell, many countries, although the American version is probably the most advanced, have their own secular cultural religion in the worship of their cultural and political icons.

Ultimately, what he's arguing is that a culture needs a unifying element, a common mythology with a common set of traditions and practices is necessary to hold the thing together. You seem to be implying that he argues the bible, or other religious texts, are the source of morality; given that his lectures include commentaries on emergent moralities in dogs and rats, I'd say that's clearly false. The religious texts, at least the old testament and other ancient stories, are instead describing the emergence of complex morality in a symbolic fashion; they're descriptive rather than prescriptive. Even the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments, he argues in his lectures, is probably the story of a man, or many men that have been reduced to a single individual for the sake of the narrative, creating the first example of common law. By examining all of the cases he had been judging, Moses, in his contemplation, was able to decipher a basic list of guiding principles that unified his people.

...

And your source was debunked as including far more things than hermaphrodites.....

and therefore INSANE IDIOTS LIKE YOU suddenly start saying that little babies need to grow up before they can tell you WHETHER THEY ARE MALE OR NOT

I like his motivational speaker stuff but it seems to me that he has just decided that "Religious substructures" are correct because they're old and so when he reads the bible he just has that presupposition, then starts interpreting the book in a way where it becomes perfect and he just keeps doing that and then proclaims that his interpretation is correct. So in the sodom story for isntance he underplays the on the face shunning of homosexuality and replaces it with something else because he needs to in order for it to fit his narrative.

His whole idea of "I avoid to fall into that trap by applying five levels of analysis" doesn't seem to apply anymore. And what bothers me with this is that he could pick up the quran tomorrow and do the same thing and he'd come up with a supermoral book of his own interpretation, meanwhile it says right there in the text some truly heinous immoral stuff that 99% of people reading it would understand it as, but he insists on that his own unique interpretation is the correct one as if that means anything.

That's my claim, retard. That that is not free will. Read a bit closer before posting a reply, retard.

>he could pick up the quran tomorrow and do the same thing
I think that's pretty clear from the things he says, he does not claim that the bible is superior to other religious books.

Peterson circa 2015 was pure kino. Insightful like now but far more humorous and focused. He didn't weigh in on every subject under the sun, he wasn't anyone's internet dad, he didn't really talk about contemporary issues, he just had interesting lectures on personality and and the nature of belief systems in context of psychology.

Once Peterson got internet famous in 2016 alot has changed in a very short time. He looks sickly(although he's mentioned in the past that he's changed diets), he goes off on tangents that are increasingly sounding bitter and pedantic, throwing his considerable weight into every subject you can think of.

*Dies of AIDS*