I’ve still yet to hear anyone object to anything he actually says besides saying things that are true…
I suspect it’s because they don’t actually listen to or read Peterson, they instead listen to or read those like Martin Weill, whose job is to try to corner Peterson into dozens of little murder holes where he can be “exposed” as merely a righty nut job.
He does have peer reviewed published works that are profound… He just doesn’t read them in the videos…because no one would watch it. If you like profound and complex, read his actual research.
Did you even bother watching his university lectures, scientific publications?
I’m amazed by your claim of how he’s vague and thats why you don’t respect him as a speaker and academic and yet you seem to have almost no knowledge of anything he actually said. Are you just parroting from people who have tried to put JP in some ridiculous category? Or can you actually back a bold claim about a person up with anything…and there’s literally thousands of hours of videos from lectures in his uni days, interviews, debates he’s on, podcasts, radio shows, books, published writings, personal writings. And like all those who say things negative things about him, they can;t seem to pull out anything from all of these resources. I’m calling you out on what I think is you just not knowing anything and parroting others.
The criticism of him not saying anything new is ridiculous as well. He has a lot of research and scientific research published. And hundreds of hours of university lectures on youtube…
I’m actually surprised no one has brought up issues with his views on Christianity.
I want guys like him, Sam Harris, other intellectuals who aren’t book nerd and can understand theory and real life to be rock stars and sell out arenas and speak on TV…not which NBA player the Kardashians are hooking up with now.
Maybe today…not true for many time periods. In theory from a evolutionary biologists standpoint we are not meant to be. Men who can spread their DNA the most do. But in practice and through some traditions we become more monogamous for many of the reasons he says.
I think you’ve got this the wrong way round, Andrew0409. It is logical from an evolutionary viewpoint for females to not be monogamous. One male spreading his DNA is going to lead to a lot of inbreeding genetic fails. A female who gets a male who provides food, warmth, and shelter while getting pregnant by a, perhaps genetically superior, male is what is more likely to happen. Genetic tests for kids support this. Even now the child is often not the father’s child.
I think we are saying the same thing, let me be clearer. Although most men in polygamous societies strive for polygamy, only a minority can achieve it. It would not be a bunch of men spreading as much DNA. It would be a few with women using men for resources.
I thought the leftist interviewer did a credible job here, making it interesting. Funnily I found today Rogan thought about the same, but Peterson while not disagreeing, had a rather strong opinion of her
I haven’t watched all of his Brit GQ interview yet, but based on her article I’m not surprised that he found her hostile.
I haven’t read his work at all, so maybe he comes off as intellectually superior and lacking humility and humor in his writing. Based on how he comes off on yt, though, I see no basis whatsoever for her conclusion that he’s chosen a hard road or that he isn’t humble or that he doesn’t show flashes of good humor.
I think her comments say more about her - her pov and how gender politics are played in Britain - than about Jordan Peterson.
I think Peterson has chosen a hard road – his whole appeal is based on intellectual superiority and confrontation, and it doesn’t leave much space for humility and humour.
She say that? Pretty rich.
Yeah I thought so, too.
It’s breathtaking. I had to check it because I couldn’t believe it.
I was surprised by what he said about her as well. As I thought she did a pretty good job even though she clearly disagreed in the interview. But I can see he was more agitated than normal as well. But i guess when you have to explain the same things and get accused of the same things over and over again to defend yourself, one can only have so much patience.
He’s been really hammering the interview circuit, it must be wearing.
Don’t blame him for ridding that hot hand, he is making a lot of money right now.
Far be it from me!
I’ve listened to the entirety of Peterson’s series of lectures on the psychology of the Old Testament stories. I found them absolutely fascinating. I’ve never heard someone seamlessly bounce around between the writings and thoughts of Jung, Freud, Nietzsche, etc. and the Old Testament writings while somehow weaving all of these ideas together.
As a religious person that has been listening to lectures and Sunday School lessons on the Bible my whole life, I was amazed at how many fresh ideas he was able to pinpoint with such clarity.
As far as his interviews go, why would he be digging into new and fresh ideas when the people interviewing him can’t even get passed the common sense stuff? People in this thread claiming that he is only speaking common sense and not bring anything new to the table are missing the point… Common sense isn’t common anymore. Did you guys miss the part where he was ostracized at his university and branded an alt-right racist/homophobe/transphobe/misogynist for speaking this “common sense?”
People HATE this man…
I’ve read a couple of his books and seen his videos. Nah. I think he’s hilarious at times, and a bit tongue in cheek.
Hrmm, I’d like to…well, maybe surreptitiously segue in this little quip by Karl Ove Knausgaard from his book Summer concerning intelligence:
“In egalitarian societies intelligence is one of the most ambivalent entities, since the difference which intelligence represents is insurmountable, and insurmountable differences are of course fundamentally non-egalitarian…Intelligence also breaches the doctrine of equality…perhaps because it is so ineluctable and in a certain sense so final, intelligence is threatening, for we all know how to think, we are all able to understand connections, and that some people think better, that some people understand more connections and with greater ease, can be hard to accept.”
Disclaimer, I had to read that twice before I got it.
I think I watched the first one. Interesting stuff, and a deeply impressive performance as a speaker and of memory, but too deep for me. I’m less impressed with the “story” than he is, but that’s me.
What do you mean? His story/narrative or the OT story story?
I always thought his recycling of the Western Canon into post modern thought was important because modern folk want to not dance with the one that brung them.