Jordan Peterson

[DonjoVol]

Ah, "rent free" guy. Used to be "I know you are but what am I" guy and then "your Mom" guy and now has graduated to "rent free"..

Bro, it's pretty fkn funny. Have a laugh.

What exactly has he said that you don't like? I have 2 of his books here at my house. I haven't read the second one I bought. I found nothing controversial that he said from what I read. Can you point me to the exact page number in his books and the statements of his that you disagree with?

 

[n_huffhines]

What exactly has he said that you don't like? I have 2 of his books here at my house. I haven't read the second one I bought. I found nothing controversial that he said from what I read. Can you point me to the exact page number in his books and the statements of his that you disagree with?

.

IDK that I have any real issue with him. I kinda have a problem with his followers, tho.

He's fine. He's better than most intellectuals with his clout, but it's a bit cultish with him. I don't really find him problematic otherwise, and that's not even really a critique of him, it's moreso a critique of a portion of his audience.

He's just not for me because he focuses on **** I don't care about and I think he kinda treads carefully with the right to some degree with the application of his critiques.

If you really apply the principles that Peterson teaches, then (the rhetorical) you wouldn't be anti-woke, you'd be anti-tribalism and anti-victimhood, but many are just anti-woke white dudes who think they are victims of a reverse-racist, feminist society. They'll tell you they don't like identity politics and then you hang out with them long enough and you find out they are actually consumed by identity politics. I get why Peterson does it. He's getting paid. I don't get grown men fanboying over a guy telling them to stand with their shoulders straight and to pet a cat.

 

[NashVol11]

Guy that posters here said is "one of the great thinkers of our time" has absolutely no idea how to handle the most basic questions

 

[midnight orange]

Guy that posters here said is "one of the great thinkers of our time" has absolutely no idea how to handle the most basic questions

Very poor showing by Peterson. He had a poor showing with Dawkins as well.

 

[LouderVol]

Jordan Petersen is fine if you stay out of the deep end with him. the issue is knowing when the deep end starts. I appreciate that he thinks about things in a different way, but my God the results are terrible way too much of the time.

I will listen to some of his stuff, I typically like how he looks at an issue, and how he STARTS to lay out his response; but I have learned to just tune out the last half, because he goes off on some crazy stuff the longer he goes on.

he is kinda similar to Graham Hancock in a way. Good story teller/orator type that has an interesting question/way of looking at things; but passes themselves off as too much of an authority figure on whatever subject. I can see the comments about spending too much time in his own echo chambers.

 

[hndog609]

Jordan Petersen is fine if you stay out of the deep end with him. the issue is knowing when the deep end starts. I appreciate that he thinks about things in a different way, but my God the results are terrible way too much of the time.

I will listen to some of his stuff, I typically like how he looks at an issue, and how he STARTS to lay out his response; but I have learned to just tune out the last half, because he goes off on some crazy stuff the longer he goes on.

he is kinda similar to Graham Hancock in a way. Good story teller/orator type that has an interesting question/way of looking at things; but passes themselves off as too much of an authority figure on whatever subject. I can see the comments about spending too much time in his own echo chambers.

I'm rather in line with this but let's not forget a lot, and I mean a LOT, of what has made Peterson famous in the first place is putting himself in settings that were unambiguously hostile.

Mind you I don't really keep up so maybe now that he is so famous things have changed up some. (I'll watch the cited vid at some point later when I get the chance)

 

[LouderVol]

I'm rather in line with this but let's not forget a lot, and I mean a LOT, of what has made Peterson famous in the first place is putting himself in settings that were unambiguously hostile.

Mind you I don't really keep up so maybe now that he is so famous things have changed up some. (I'll watch the cited vid at some point later when I get the chance)

yeah he got known for being the "counter" voice, but that focus seems more outward facing, than inwards looking.

I agree, it is different going from the hunter to the hunted. even in ideological matters it easy to raise questions and establish a new view point, its entirely different to defend those view points from the next generation.

I think generally he believes what he is saying, which is both admirable, and problematic. because he is operating out of his own mindset there isn't really anyone for him to do much "developing" of, and I think a lot of his points need to get reality checked. there is a difference in something working for HIM, vs that same thing working for someone else, or even more so society at large.

 

[Sea Ray]

Guy that posters here said is "one of the great thinkers of our time" has absolutely no idea how to handle the most basic questions

I don't see any issue with how Peterson handled that kid. He was proper to not deal in hypotheticals. I steer clear of them myself. Hypotheticals assume that you accept the premise and that's not often the case

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Jordan Petersen is fine if you stay out of the deep end with him. the issue is knowing when the deep end starts. I appreciate that he thinks about things in a different way, but my God the results are terrible way too much of the time.

I will listen to some of his stuff, I typically like how he looks at an issue, and how he STARTS to lay out his response; but I have learned to just tune out the last half, because he goes off on some crazy stuff the longer he goes on.

he is kinda similar to Graham Hancock in a way. Good story teller/orator type that has an interesting question/way of looking at things; but passes themselves off as too much of an authority figure on whatever subject. I can see the comments about spending too much time in his own echo chambers.

JP is great paired with the mute button.

 

[n_huffhines]

Guy that posters here said is "one of the great thinkers of our time" has absolutely no idea how to handle the most basic questions

I saw what I thought was even a worse exchange where he called the kid a smartass and tapped out. The kid was being a smartass, but it was because JP wasn't engaging in good faith. He refused to call himself a Christian when asked about his interest in Catholicism. He said he didn't have to tell anyone if he was a Christian or not in an event titled, "One Christian Debates 20 Atheists." It was just weird.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't see any issue with how Peterson handled that kid. He was proper to not deal in hypotheticals. I steer clear of them myself. Hypotheticals assume that you accept the premise and that's not often the case

It's not a surprise at all that you think this is an acceptable way to debate. The only reason they got into a hypothetical is because he can't agree to the normal definition of "believe." Just absurd behavior.

 

[NashVol11]

I saw what I thought was even a worse exchange where he called the kid a smartass and tapped out. The kid was being a smartass, but it was because JP wasn't engaging in good faith. He refused to call himself a Christian when asked about his interest in Catholicism. He said he didn't have to tell anyone if he was a Christian or not in an event titled, "One Christian Debates 20 Atheists." It was just weird.

Yeah, this has been making the rounds too

 

[Wireless1]

I saw what I thought was even a worse exchange where he called the kid a smartass and tapped out. The kid was being a smartass, but it was because JP wasn't engaging in good faith. He refused to call himself a Christian when asked about his interest in Catholicism. He said he didn't have to tell anyone if he was a Christian or not in an event titled, "One Christian Debates 20 Atheists." It was just weird.

In all honesty, this appears to now be an acceptable debating (by conservatives and liberals alike) tactic..... it's called "Moving the Goal Post"

 

[Sea Ray]

Yeah, this has been making the rounds too

That kid was being a smart ass. Peterson was right to cut him off

 

[ButchPlz]

Peterson's stuff was at its peak in 12 Rules and its follow-up, but he's most definitely not someone to follow and try a build a lifestyle after, which a lot of people do. I've never been impressed with his "debating" except for maybe one or two instances, and perhaps he was a needed voice at one time, but since his drug issues and selling out he's gone way off the deep end.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Peterson's stuff was at its peak in 12 Rules and its follow-up, but he's most definitely not someone to follow and try a build a lifestyle after, which a lot of people do. I've never been impressed with his "debating" except for maybe one or two instances, and perhaps he was a needed voice at one time, but since his drug issues and selling out he's gone way off the deep end.

What type of drug issues?

 

[ButchPlz]

What type of drug issues?

He got hooked on benzodiazepine, and there's been a lot of spin from his camp about it. Whether you want to believe the way they've put it ("dependence", not "addiction") or not, it caused him issues and he's not been remotely as sharp or level since.

 

[Sea Ray]

Peterson's stuff was at its peak in 12 Rules and its follow-up, but he's most definitely not someone to follow and try a build a lifestyle after, which a lot of people do. I've never been impressed with his "debating" except for maybe one or two instances, and perhaps he was a needed voice at one time, but since his drug issues and selling out he's gone way off the deep end.

Don't you respect his willingness to debate and be challenged by others? I think that's damn impressive and a rarity in today's world.

He was addicted to Valium at one point. He got treated and he's no longer addicted. What's wrong with how he handled that?

 

[n_huffhines]

In all honesty, this appears to now be an acceptable debating (by conservatives and liberals alike) tactic..... it's called "Moving the Goal Post"

It's sort of the same thing. Moving the goal posts is changing target of the conversation. What Peterson is doing is he's not even allowing a target to be set up. You can't get that far with him because you can't even establish the meaning of the word believe and then he calls it circular reasoning (which it wasn't) when the kid defined it. He's not even got on the field to play yet. The kid is trying to call heads or tails before kickoff and JP is saying, "Hang on. Heads nor tails can be defined."

 

[ButchPlz]

Don't you respect his willingness to debate and be challenged by others? I think that's damn impressive and a rarity in today's world.

He was addicted to Valium at one point. He got treated and he's no longer addicted. What's wrong with how he handled that?

Being willing to debate people isn't a rarity. I can turn on the TV at any time and see a bad debate- just doing it doesn't mean much. So no, I don't find it "damn impressive" that he goes into debates. My standards aren't in the toilet yet, and he's been sold as better or higher than other types of content and he's just...not.

He certainly has been much more hostile since the issues in 2019, and way less coherent and way more off on wild tangents, especially on his twitter/X account. The more I've paid attention, too, the more I don't like a lot of his older "debate" style either, like one from 2018 where he was literally sneering and jeering at the crowd. Like I said, I can turn on morons like Stephen A. Smith or any modern news personality if I want that kind of trash.

 

[Sea Ray]

Being willing to debate people isn't a rarity. I can turn on the TV at any time and see a bad debate- just doing it doesn't mean much. So no, I don't find it "damn impressive" that he goes into debates. My standards aren't in the toilet yet, and he's been sold as better or higher than other types of content and he's just...not.

He certainly has been much more hostile since the issues in 2019, and way less coherent and way more off on wild tangents, especially on his twitter/X account. The more I've paid attention, too, the more I don't like a lot of his older "debate" style either, like one from 2018 where he was literally sneering and jeering at the crowd. Like I said, I can turn on morons like Stephen A. Smith or any modern news personality if I want that kind of trash.

That's not how I see it. There are far fewer shows like Crossfire and McLaughlin Report today. Nowadays folks rarely go into non friendly environments. The only guy I can think of that's doing what JP is doing is Charlie Kirk

 

[Sea Ray]

It's sort of the same thing. Moving the goal posts is changing target of the conversation. What Peterson is doing is he's not even allowing a target to be set up. You can't get that far with him because you can't even establish the meaning of the word believe and then he calls it circular reasoning (which it wasn't) when the kid defined it. He's not even got on the field to play yet. The kid is trying to call heads or tails before kickoff and JP is saying, "Hang on. Heads nor tails can be defined."

Forget the minutia of arguing what the word "believe" means. Just make your point and have JP debate it. I don't care to see anyone argue over the definition of believe. That leads nowhere

 

[marcusluvsvols]

JP is an imperfect human just like all the rest of us. The difference between him and anyone I personally know is that he has helped thousands of people get their lives together. I have listened to a lot of his lectures on youtube while working etc, and without fail if I go to the comments there are dozens of people writing heartfelt messages to him thanking him for helping them get their lives on track. He helps people. All the time. Was an amazing professor as well adored by the vast majority of his students. I dont care about a 15 second soundbite, that when taken completely out of context (or not honestly) makes him look bad. The man gets up in front of crowds...all the time...and speaks for an hour, 90 minutes with NO notes. No phone, no tablet, no prompts. Just his brain. The vast majority of folks couldn't coherently speak in front of a crowd for 5 minutes...even once in their life. Much less get up in front of crowds and do it for hours day in and day out...THEN take questions from the audience including hostile folks that want to argue. He is extremely bright and well read. He is also imperfect and fallible just like every other human on Earth. When it comes to teaching and public speaking, he is very good at it. Thats why millions and millions of people listen to him.

There are some valid criticisms of him here that try to be objective. There are some who just subjectively dont like him. Thats perfectly OK too. Theres also a contingent of Liberals and atheists here that simply hate everything he believes, and theres nothing he could ever possibly say or do that they won't trash. I could not possibly give a damn less what they think. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and to be a Democrat in 2025 you have to be a complete moron. These are the same idiots that think women have penises and men give birth. That there are 34 genders. That boys should play girls sports. Taking shots at Jordan Peterson. Thats absolutely hilarious.

 

[midnight orange]

JP is an imperfect human just like all the rest of us. The difference between him and anyone I personally know is that he has helped thousands of people get their lives together. I have listened to a lot of his lectures on youtube while working etc, and without fail if I go to the comments there are dozens of people writing heartfelt messages to him thanking him for helping them get their lives on track. He helps people. All the time. Was an amazing professor as well adored by the vast majority of his students. I dont care about a 15 second soundbite, that when taken completely out of context (or not honestly) makes him look bad. The man gets up in front of crowds...all the time...and speaks for an hour, 90 minutes with NO notes. No phone, no tablet, no prompts. Just his brain. The vast majority of folks couldn't coherently speak in front of a crowd for 5 minutes...even once in their life. Much less get up in front of crowds and do it for hours day in and day out...THEN take questions from the audience including hostile folks that want to argue. He is extremely bright and well read. He is also imperfect and fallible just like every other human on Earth. When it comes to teaching and public speaking, he is very good at it. Thats why millions and millions of people listen to him.

There are some valid criticisms of him here that try to be objective. There are some who just subjectively dont like him. Thats perfectly OK too. Theres also a contingent of Liberals and atheists here that simply hate everything he believes, and theres nothing he could ever possibly say or do that they won't trash. I could not possibly give a damn less what they think. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and to be a Democrat in 2025 you have to be a complete moron. These are the same idiots that think women have penises and men give birth. That there are 34 genders. That boys should play girls sports. Taking shots at Jordan Peterson. Thats absolutely hilarious.

Peterson has no doubt been a positive influence for many. My criticism is that he’s larping as a Christian. In the Dawkins interview he hems and haws and tries to obfuscate before finally admitting that he’s unsure of the virgin birth or resurrection. That’s fine if that’s what you believe but he’s debating as an advocate for Christianity. I find that disingenuous. Dawkins can neither prove nor tell you that your beliefs are incorrect. He can correctly say that evidence is lacking or that the events are improbable but he has no special powers of proof. I think John Lennox is a far superior Christian advocate when it comes to debating.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Peterson has no doubt been a positive influence for many. My criticism is that he’s larping as a Christian. In the Dawkins interview he hems and haws and tries to obfuscate before finally admitting that he’s unsure of the virgin birth or resurrection. That’s fine if that’s what you believe but he’s debating as an advocate for Christianity. I find that disingenuous. Dawkins can neither prove nor tell you that your beliefs are incorrect. He can correctly say that evidence is lacking or that the events are improbable but he has no special powers of proof. I think John Lennox is far a superior Christian advocate when it comes to debating.

Not only do I think this is a valid criticism, I agree with you 100%. I have listened to JPs series on Exodus, and he has a substantial head knowledge of scripture. In the lectures and interviews etc I have listened to (lots of them, albeit not recently) he references the Bible and its parables etc sometimes, but has never claimed to be a devout Christian himself...nor given a testimony of how he came to a relationship with God/Christ. In my opinion, JP should stay in his lane and not be debating people as a representative of Christianity. Thats a chore that if anyone should undertake it publicly, they should be a Pastor and a religious scholar...not a gifted Psychology professor. JP is a clinical psychologist like my son. A leader in that field and well respected. He is not a man who has devoted his life to the Church that shepherds a congregation for a living. Nor is he a religious scholar that teaches at a Christian school or seminary. Sounds like, at least in some instances, he has gotten out of his area of expertise. I have not listened to him do that, and have no interest in it.