Every single word that comes out of Jordan Peterson's mouth is so full of weight and meaning that by comparison...

Every single word that comes out of Jordan Peterson's mouth is so full of weight and meaning that by comparison, when I read other writers, (especially modern "intellectuals") or listen to someone else try to explain a complex idea I realize that most of what they are saying is just dross, or fluff. I realized that most people when they are talking, don't actually have a deep or profound understanding about whatever it is that they're getting at, so they dress up their ideas with fancy language that ultimately has no meaning.
Listening to Peterson and letting his message soak in is like a hearty dinner, almost every other philosopher feels like biting into a twinkie.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ItRHw57UAW0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

i always felt the same way about zizek except zizek isn't a retard

actually i don't, but i just wanted to point out peterson sucks

10/10

...

>except zizek isn't a retard
brainlet detected
>yesshhh eye no dat *leftist position*
>but yu know vut about *easy paradox*
>hehehe u know vut eye meen? *endorses bourgeois position*

Peterson has so much shit online I don't even where to start to apply his ideas appropriately. I don't want to just blindly use his ideas even though he's basically proven himself as smart and genuinely interested in peoples' well-being. I've been treating it like a Bible, where you have some principles, understand the basic reasoning behind them, and when you have the time to return to it you can continue to include and understand more ad infinitum.

That said, do you know his stance on free will? As a psychologist he clearly understands the idea of circumstance - that we are, for better or worse, limited in some fundamental capacities like general intelligence. However, I wouldn't want to be a slave to whatever some psychometric analysis would make of me. How does he reconcile the idea of agency and taking responsibility despite this? Unless he's mentioned this in his personality+transformation talks, which I haven't gotten to in full yet.

He's a pseud. I propose a modification of the Peter Principle aptly named the Peterson Principle:

Anybody in academia that can grind their way up to a tenure track in their respective field can then leverage their position to gain credibility among the masses to talk about topics outside of the wheelhouses, and the masses won't notice the individual's lack of credentials as long as what they say corresponds to their reactionary beliefs. Even if this individual was an expert in their respective field, the further they stray from it, the more their opinions will consist of utter bullshit, which their fans will eat right up.

lmao yeah i just shitpost zizek real fast without thinking, i just mean zizek is a peterson tier goomba with a following of ppl who just watch his youtubes

and i agree zizek is very calculating in that he spends ten minutes name dropping a bunch of radical edgy thinkers and then at the end comes out with a position bland enough to get published in the nytimes, we need better public intellectuals, all the ones out there right now suck, but maybe that's by design, nothing too radical

the Milo of philosophy

OP, this feels like genuine admiration, and I respect that.

that "better angels of our nature" canadian jew at yale was pulling the same stuff when he was peddling his last general audience non-academic book, he's like "i tried to read a recently published psychology paper and i couldn't understand it because it was a bunch of bad writing and not because i've grown soft as a rockstar professor doing enrollment bait 101 classes and writing pop books instead of real work" i was like kys my man

>8000+ citations on peer-reviewed research
>on clinical psychology to improve peoples' mental well-being
>provides lectures in said topics, addressing observations and common problems across patients
>"pseud"

This. He does not often speak outside his area of expertise. And when he does, he mentions that he is doing that.

and yet he still can't figure out that gender is a social construct

Cool. Does that mean he's an expert in philosophy, theology, mathematics, etc too?

I thought the more you learn, the more you're meant to realise how little you know. Isn't that how most professors think?

I'm banking on this actually. none of you faggots will notice when I use my atmos science PHD to become the next peterson. Qualia space theory will be the next postmodernism

dude, if you have a phd in anything and want to cash out just start a youtube channel on climate science denial and you'll get a million followers, shoutouts on foxnews, speaking engagement sponsored by exxon etc. doesnt matter if ur phd is in nietzsche studies or number theory or something, the plebs will eat that shit uuuuup

BAIT
A
I
T

>phd
>literally DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
>philosophy is the study of fundamental problems of values, knowledge, existence, mind, and reason
Fuck off you jealous Judas.

>implying many many many people have not tried what peterson is doing and not succeeded

there is a difference between sex and gender identity
peterson is obviously more informed on the subject than you are

>there is a difference between sex and gender identity

tell that to your hero peterson since he doesn't seem to get it

>phd
>literally DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
lmao

>confirmed never read or listened to his opinion
He does get it, user. He really does. All he's saying is that they are not completely distinct. They influence each other.

Make a channel then go on Joe Rogan. Say big words and he'll eat it up with, "Shiiiit" or "Damn, that's what I've thought when I've been using my monkey barbells [he hasn't]". You'll have a legion of fans, albeit retarded.

Not an argument.

You do know that many PhD programs do not provide students with a primer on philosophy. In many fields, such as STEM ones, the best you will get is possibly one Philosophy of Science course or a lecture include in your introduction to Graduate Studies course. There are many PhD holders that deride philosophy and say that it's a waste of time. PhD is a fairly antiquated term, and obfuscates the fact that many PhD holders don't know jack shit about Philosophy. This isn't to say that all PhD holders should know more about philosophy. There are a lot of fields where it isn't necessary.

Finally we get peterson who upholds the true purpose of a PhD.

U wot m8? He doesn't really do a good job talking about philosophy. His critique of postmodernism suggests that he doesn't fully grasp what it is, and apart from that, he talks about Jung. That isn't exactly somebody demonstrating a strong grasp of philosophy. Peterson rather belongs to a long line of pop-intellectuals who make names for themselves spouting reactionary opinions about topics well outside of their realm of expertise.

How does Peterson define "Postmodernism"?

The only reason Peterson exploded in popularity was because he was in the right place at the right time.
I'm not calling him a pseud, I like him, but he didn't become notorious because of his ideas. He became notorious because he made a few videos saying he didn't approve of a bill and some leftists started calling him a transphobe. Soon more leftists joined in and people started taking note. So people started checking out his videos and thought "Hey, look, this guy has some cool ideas".
He won't be remembered as one of the most important philosophers of this century, like I've seen some claiming. Far from it. He doesn't propose anything new. He's an educator (a pretty damn good one), not an innovative thinker.

He does a fantastic job of blending psychological theory, neuroscience, theology, and philosophy.

Perhaps you consider this approach haphazard, but I'll tell you there are MANY people within academia crying our for the kind of multidisciplinary integration that peterson is capable of, and seemingly off the top of his head.

You really do seem jealous, to be honest. Like, what's a specific thing he's said that you've disagreed with (i.e., not just something you want him to not talk about, because this is the difference all critics of him seem to confuse).

See all points made in

all those words to say what I already said in "lmao"

I meant see
Yeah read the fucking sticky. We want discussion here you lazy shit.

hmmmm

How has this image not been spammed

yeah man why don't you serve up a few paragraphs on how "bachelor" means unmarried male next

this is a classic viral marketing tactic, if you ever read "trust me i'm lying" you'll see getting sjw flustered is one of the best ways to market something

>Peterson rather belongs to a long line of pop-intellectuals who make names for themselves spouting reactionary opinions about topics well outside of their realm of expertise

You can't be serious. He's spent decades researching and has published 100+ scientific papers. Just because you oppose social justice doctrine doesn't make you a conservative.

You can just lurk lit, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

It's ridiculous that you think "PhD =/= doctorate in philosophy" needs a laborious explanation. Everyone who knows what a PhD is knows that. The post using the etymology of PhD to suggest that a PhD has fuckall to do with philosophy propery was obviously a joke, and now you're that guy who autistically picks apart the fallacies in a joke as if it were a serious argument and not a joke specifically using those fallacies for humorous effect.

>You can interpret the world in infinite number of ways and there's no right way to do it, so you can do it in anyway you want it.
He uses Jacques Derrida as the villain who corrupted this idea, by introducing Marxism in it.
>People then interpret the world in such way, that it's easier for them to acquire power.

you can tell by the amount of product he puts in his hair that he is a vainglorious fool selfconscious of the fact that he is aging

sorry JP death comes for us all

anybody in academia WHO

WHO, not THAT

you fucking pseud

The fact that PhD does NOT generally include a background in the philosophical underpinnings of that given area of research is a serious failing of the current age, and peterson is a refreshing antidote who represents someone actually living up to the title.

I'm so pissed off I came across peterson's videos last week organically and now they're the meme of the week.

>peterson lives up the title doctor of philosophy

he can't seem to understand continental philosophy so i don't see how u figure that

He's been a meme for nearly 6 months, dude.

t b h i haven't gone beyond a cursory introduction to his material (his lectures are so goddamn cringe that i click out of every one of his videos before the 5 minute point, and his self authoring or whatever is written for retards by design) but ya it seems like this is his silver bullet

of course he would claim that your thesis is evidence of your indoctrination but that is specious as fuck bc obviously gender =/= sex and he is being obstinate by not recognizing that fact

he found his niche, he found his way to make a million canadian dollars, i just hate him for his role in radicalizing lonely sad white NEETs

come the revolution he should be among the first against the wall ngl

They were the meme of many weeks ago, user. I am in the same boat. Actually studying in similar areas to him, and have been for years now. It's furstating to see it all dragged through the mud, and want to just get on with my learning, but being so easily baited because I love the field.

Again, his critics just bleat "shouldn't talk about this" or "doesn't understand that", so I'll ask:

Give. A. Specific. Example.

do you even watch the shitty videos you spam? where he was talking to joe rogan about derrida? lolll to fucking death

>herp derp I will retroactively ascribe jungian positions to the totality of historical theists who very explicitly have been making absolute ontic bc it gives me a rhetorical edge against the postmodernist^TM

But what does he not understand? What did he get wrong? Honestly, it seems like you just stick your head in the sand and go "DOES NOT UNDERSTAND" to avoid dealing with the underlying approach and endgame of postmodernists. My guess is that you have for a long time identified with the shitbags and you can't stand it.

what's the endgame of postmodernists again? i forgot

destroying western civilization and reconsolidating positions of power

Beckett's Fin de partie

Again, completely avoiding the charge, user. Sad! At least I can admit I am still learning in all of this.

I'll ask again: you said peterson got it wrong. What exactly did he get wrong?

Do people who worship him here care about his well received and peer-reviewed psychology work, or do they flock to his rant about free speech at UToronto and his complaints about postmodernism?

Gravity's Rainbow. Can't be topped desu

>adolescent-on-twitter writing style
>unironic use of "cringe" as adjective
>reddit spacing
>admits to not going beyond a cursory glance
>"refutes" stace via appeal to the "obvious" (i.e., dogma)
>unironic usage of terrorism rhetoric for online alt-right
>semi-ironic revolution joke
I don't like JP, but jesus fucking christ user you're a walking talking vapid young lefist stereotype.

What do you care about the fucking crowd and their reasons? This user is telling you he's qualified, because he is.

Just because most people who watch the Simpsons mainly enjoy the fart jokes doesn't mean it doesn't contain genius level social commentary.

what are some resources for dealing with internet addiction, this site has become too fucking stupid too continue on like this, i can't waste my days on an alt-right forum

Just literally find something better to do.

i have a lot of better shit to do, but i just come here because it's so easy to see a dumb alt-right kid posting dumb shit and blast off a shitpost reply, you get a hit of oxytocin so easily

maybe if i put on computer science lectures in the background at least it will slowly pull my attention away from this shitty place

This. I miss the days of feminister
Oh, wait, I'm just a partisan dummy who sanctions one sort of stupidity and hated another

And what's wrong with that?

Never whistle while you're pissing. (I'm a hypocrite.)

>computer science lectures
falling for the memes, left and right

fuck off nerd, i'm a programmer

congratulations! you're completely insufferable
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS BOARD

>computer science
yikes

if i hear people talking about my work it'll pull me away from arguing with alt-right farmboys

Would certainly save you a lot of humiliation

I know how you feel

Oh come on. There's nothing Peterson talks about you didn't figure out when you were 11. He's not wrong, he's just not very smart. Refreshing, but terribly narcissistic. That's it.

Just because certain things occurred to you at 11 doesn't mean they did for everyone. You post seems narcassistic desu
>well I already figured it out, he's not as smart as ME

Would you consider yourself narcassistic if you agreed to be paid to talk about things you're passionate about?

Jordan Peterson is great, and you're all fags.

youtube.com/watch?v=ItRHw57UAW0

ITT: salty leftists

I don't like this guy's overall view (even if he says specific things that are okay), but he really does come off as very kind in some of these images.

That is kind of insane though

>The sky's the limit. I am now starting to formalize my plans to bring accredited online humanities education to as many people as possible around the world. My colleagues and I (who include excellent engineers, programmers, financiers and educators) want to take the humanities back from the corrupt postmodernists, and offer education of the highest possible quality everywhere at 1/10 the price or less. >We'll solve the accreditation problem as well, offering degree-equivalents with real psychometric value: best student in 10000; best in 1000; best in 100; best in 10; best in 5 (and no certification granted below that). We want to automate and crowdsource the problem of teaching people to write. We want to set up the courses so that (1) the content itself is constantly graded and improved and (2) the same goes for the accreditation process. We'll start with the humanities, including history, generating something approximately a four year liberal arts college degree, teaching people how to be responsible, literate, effective, powerful, confident citizens. We want to conduct real research into how people learn (and how they learn fast) and use the results of that research to make education better. It's high time for the humanities of the new millenium.


hmm that's quite a goal

Fuck yeah!

Girls have vaginas.
Boys have penises.

Amen

It's literally communism

Wrong. Females have vaginas and males have penises. There's a difference between gender and sex.

Yes, and the brain is not solely male or female.

Refusing to use people's preferred pronouns on the grounds that it's some sort of breach of freedom of speech doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you consider it's also polite not to call black people niggers, or your mother a stupid bitch.

The difference is that the state isn't demanding that everyone must call a black man African-American, but the Canadian law that just passed can be construed as people being legally liable for refusing to use someone's preferred pronoun.

> the state isn't demanding that everyone must call a black man African-American
Arresting people for hate speech is a thing.

Have you actually read Bill C-16? No? Neither has Jordan Peterson.

There's a difference between the state punishing people for saying derogatory things about ethnic groups or races, and the state demanding that you use must use specific language.

Yes, I have. And he's not wrong.

Please.

>Vapid young leftist stereotype
I have two good friends who have now fallen for this irritating meme. Only one of them has actually read anything. A moment of silence.

>hurr durr look at me I'm high on chromosomes!
Peterson was/is worried about it being used as a slippery slope because of the utter subjective nonsense that is preventing """"""""""discrimination""""""""" against """"""transgendered individuals""""""""". Largely because it's completely meaningless and can be interpreted and enforced in any fucking way you choose, especially because of the Left's habit of redefining words on the fly to fit arbitrarily emotional swings.

For example, a spa in Toronto is getting shut down because of its """discriminatory""" policy. The spa is women only, meaning that it has to accept men who say they're women and is facing legal action for not allowing """"""""""""women"""""""""""" with penises to come in. Even if said women are forty year old bearded men. Under Canadian law it is acceptable to bar individuals with penises from entering an establishment if they're not mentally ill, but illegal if they are.

From a legal standpoint this law is completely fucking stupid for obvious reasons and if you'd ever actually listened to Peterson or any of his sperg fanboys instead of just being a mindless contrarian hating on him because people like him then you'd know it has always been about the slippery slope that is interpreting a completely subjective law like this.

And before you throw a hissy fit, no, the slippery slope is not a logical fallacy it is a rhetorical device.

It's not even that specific. It's about not discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression.

Which are retarded categories to have in a legal system, because gender identity is literally what subjective bullshit people have in their head, and gender expression is people's fashion choices.

I mean, the law basically says you can discriminate on a hippie with 500 piercings in her face interviewing for a job in a Fortune 500 company.

It's absolutely retarded.

the law basically says you can't*