Jordan B Peterson; Anyone Else Following This?

[lollipop]

Anyone see this article written by his colleague? Worth a read.

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous | The Star

 

[theLaw]

Anyone see this article written by his colleague? Worth a read.

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous | The Star

I am writing this from a place of sadness and from a sense of responsibility to the public good to tell what I know about who Jordan is, having seen him up close, as a colleague and friend, and having examined up close his political actions at the University of Toronto, allegedly in defence of free speech.

He was threatened with force (jail) for not using specific language, I would call that a defense of free speech.

He requested a meeting with the committee. I was not present but was told that he had questioned the authority and expertise of the committee members, had insisted that he alone was in a position to judge whether his research was ethical and that, in any case, he was fully capable of making such decisions himself.

Wonder if there were any nuances in this "gossip" he heard?

Jordan was a captivating lecturer — electric and eclectic — cherry-picking from neuroscience, mythology, psychology, philosophy, the Bible and popular culture. The class loved him. But, as reported by that one astute student, Jordan presented conjecture as statement of fact.

So present your facts to counter.........I think that's called debate. Also, I missed the part where Peterson held the students at gunpoint, and forced them to "believe" him, or should all professors only say things that other faculty agree with?

He would refuse to refer to students using gender neutral pronouns.

Actually, he was refusing to let the government control his speech under threat of force.

I have a trans daughter, but that was hardly an issue compared to what I felt was a betrayal of my trust and confidence in him.

If it wasn't an issue, then why include it in the article?

In his defence, Jordan told me if he refused to pay the fine he could go to jail. That is not the same as being jailed for what you say, but it did ennoble him as a would-be martyr in the defence of free speech.

So not the same, but just the same results? He still ends up in jail right?


This is as far as I could get into this piece, as the author's misrepresentations were just too many to tolerate. Perhaps he reached a reasonable point at the end, but what starts with a lie, doesn't end with the truth.

I do appreciate you posting this Lisa, even if I disagree with it's content. Cheers!

 

[lollipop]

He was threatened with force (jail) for not using specific language, I would call that a defense of free speech.



Wonder if there were any nuances in this "gossip" he heard?



So present your facts to counter.........I think that's called debate. Also, I missed the part where Peterson held the students at gunpoint, and forced them to "believe" him, or should all professors only say things that other faculty agree with?



Actually, he was refusing to let the government control his speech under threat of force.



If it wasn't an issue, then why include it in the article?



So not the same, but just the same results? He still ends up in jail right?


This is as far as I could get into this piece, as the author's misrepresentations were just too many to tolerate. Perhaps he reached a reasonable point at the end, but what starts with a lie, doesn't end with the truth.

I do appreciate you posting this Lisa, even if I disagree with it's content. Cheers!

Thank you @theLaw I appreciate hearing all sides of issues. I become smarter.

 

[x-ray peat]

Thanks too Lisa for posting. I too don't necessarily agree with the article but I cant help but notice the similarities between Peterson and Bob Geldof's character in The Wall in both facial appearance and what was charged in the article.

Is this the rise of the Jordan Youth?

 

[mt_dreams]

Anyone see this article written by his colleague? Worth a read.

I was Jordan Peterson’s strongest supporter. Now I think he’s dangerous | The Star

outside of the obvious possibility that this is just a jealous tirade from a person who is watching someone who was below him in status, achieve guru like status world wide, this article is most likely propaganda. i'm not defending JP, this was just my first reaction reading the article a couple weeks ago, while also having 20+ years of experience reading articles from the toronto star.

toronto has 3 main newspapers, the sun which is a center-right, the star which is a center left, and globe which is left. this piece was mostly likely a last ditch effort to attempt to swing voters who for the first time were leaving the liberal party in favor of the conservatives, some of which is due to peterson's influence. the election that happened 3 days ago is proof of that. the liberals who have been in power for 15 years just got trounced. they got so few votes, they almost lost party status in the province. i guess parents had enough of the liberal curriculum initiated 4 years ago to teach 8 year olds about adult subjects like transgender ideology (among other things), backfired at the polling booths. note our right wing is not religious, and things like abortion, illegal immigration, race, sexual preference, etc, are not necessarily political platforms.

 

[Mauritio]

I recently bought his book 12 rules for life. He talks a lot about serotonin (in lobsters) . Does anyone care to explain the following study that he mentions on page 6 , for me ?
I dont get if serotonin makes a lobster more dominant or not. If so wouldnt that be contrarian to Peat ?
He also says high serotonin characterizes the victor and creates a good posture.

The effect of social experience on serotonergic modulation of the escape circuit of crayfish. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Dobbler]

I haven't read his book and don't really know what he thinks of serotonin, but we have discussed here many times that serotonin makes human aggressive, irritated and in general, very unpleasant to be around. So high serotonin person being dominant makes sense. Nobody wants to be around a typical high serotonin bossy person. They are very authoritarian. This is very very common personality type. Especially when going over 30s. Think your typical boss at any field. I think high serotonin person clashes with easy going low serotonin person alot, because low serotonin person has no interest following or taking orders from high serotonin person.

 

[Mauritio]

thanks!

 

[theLaw]

I recently bought his book 12 rules for life. He talks a lot about serotonin (in lobsters) . Does anyone care to explain the following study that he mentions on page 6 , for me ?
I dont get if serotonin makes a lobster more dominant or not. If so wouldnt that be contrarian to Peat ?
He also says high serotonin characterizes the victor and creates a good posture.

The effect of social experience on serotonergic modulation of the escape circuit of crayfish. - PubMed - NCBI

I would highly recommend the live-stream that Danny did with Jahed Momand where they discussed the misguided research behind serotonin. Jahed has studied this for years, and has a very solid grasp of why the research seems to be faulty. This might be one of those "too big to fail" situations given serotonin's role in so many health problems ignored by mainstream medicine.

 

[TeaRex14]

Could someone briefly explain why Peterson has became so famous? I mean, we're talking about a normal college professor who spoke out about a piece of troubling legislation and now all the suddenly he's a rockstar. It just sort of amazes me that so many people follow this guy now simply because he spoke out against the obvious, something any rational person would've done. But now people all over the country are actually paying money to go see this guy...talk? Same deal with other "intellectuals" like Sam Harris.

 

[Queequeg]

Could someone briefly explain why Peterson has became so famous? I mean, we're talking about a normal college professor who spoke out about a piece of troubling legislation and now all the suddenly he's a rockstar. It just sort of amazes me that so many people follow this guy now simply because he spoke out against the obvious, something any rational person would've done. But now people all over the country are actually paying money to go see this guy...talk? Same deal with other "intellectuals" like Sam Harris.

I agree. Something very unnatural about his meteoric rise to fame.
But nothing new I'm afraid. We have always been told what "stars" to follow and which Pied Pipers to listen to. "Divide and Rule" only works when you control the divided. Alienated young white males needed a leader.

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” ― Lenin

 

[TeaRex14]

I agree. Something very unnatural about his meteoric rise to fame.
But nothing new I'm afraid. We have always been told what "stars" to follow and which Pied Pipers to listen to. "Divide and Rule" only works when you control the divided. Alienated young white males needed a leader.

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” ― Lenin

Exactly

 

[Mauritio]

I would highly recommend the live-stream that Danny did with Jahed Momand where they discussed the misguided research behind serotonin. Jahed has studied this for years, and has a very solid grasp of why the research seems to be faulty. This might be one of those "too big to fail" situations given serotonin's role in so many health problems ignored by mainstream medicine.

Did you see JPs GQ interview? I find it funny that at one point he says to the interviewer: "You really wanna challenge me on my neurochemicals ??" (regarding serotonin) ...LOL

 

[pisser]

the serotonin argument has little or nothing to do with his rise to fame. It's part of his argument defending the inevitible formation of hierarchies within species and that there's nothing we can do about it. He's not trying to compell others to go eat PUFAs or that if you have higher serotonin you're more dominant. His argument is that chemicals like dopamine, serotonin or oxytocin are regulators of hierarchical success and that they're traced back millions of years. Also, when you experience love, it's not just serotonin, it's dopamine and oxytocin.

if you look at the big picture, he's promoting dopamine, but the lobster meme is trash.

 

[Regina]

I haven't read his book and don't really know what he thinks of serotonin, but we have discussed here many times that serotonin makes human aggressive, irritated and in general, very unpleasant to be around. So high serotonin person being dominant makes sense. Nobody wants to be around a typical high serotonin bossy person. They are very authoritarian. This is very very common personality type. Especially when going over 30s. Think your typical boss at any field. I think high serotonin person clashes with easy going low serotonin person alot, because low serotonin person has no interest following or taking orders from high serotonin person.

It kindof reminds of training border collies. They wince and then ignore those types of people/owners. When you lose a border collie's respect, they will never look to you for guidance. It's actually pretty funny to observe.

 

[theLaw]

Did you see JPs GQ interview? I find it funny that at one point he says to the interviewer: "You really wanna challenge me on my neurochemicals ??" (regarding serotonin) ...LOL

I didn't see that, but I've heard him defend it many times.

Just imagine how quickly his confidence would fall if he were to realize that modern medical science has a fundamental misunderstanding of serotonin.

 

[Regina]

I didn't see that, but I've heard him defend it many times.

Just imagine how quickly his confidence would fall if he were to realize that modern medical science has a fundamental misunderstanding of serotonin.

"Don't you know that that's an impossibility? That that could never happen? That I'd use all my power to keep something like that from happening? Don't you know that?"
Michael Corleone

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Could someone briefly explain why Peterson has became so famous? I mean, we're talking about a normal college professor who spoke out about a piece of troubling legislation and now all the suddenly he's a rockstar. It just sort of amazes me that so many people follow this guy now simply because he spoke out against the obvious, something any rational person would've done. But now people all over the country are actually paying money to go see this guy...talk? Same deal with other "intellectuals" like Sam Harris.

Because he talks about things the consumerist culture has left behind. Values, meaning, responsibility. How to maintain society, build and maintain relationships. The soul. Politics is really a side issue.

 

[Mauritio]

I didn't see that, but I've heard him defend it many times.

Just imagine how quickly his confidence would fall if he were to realize that modern medical science has a fundamental misunderstanding of serotonin.

Dont think he would acknowledge that. At least not 100 percent. He would have to admit to millions of haters that he was critically wrong about something he claims to be an expert in . I dont know if a lot of people would admit in his situation. I could imagine though that he adjusts his opinion partly and says that serotonin sometimes has a slightly different role or something along those lines.

 

[Mauritio]

Because he talks about things the consumerist culture has left behind. Values, meaning, responsibility. How to maintain society, build and maintain relationships. The soul. Politics is really a side issue.

indeed!
Also it didnt really happen quickly. He posted his videos on youtube for years and they already had about 1 million views before the whole controversy. Also he had some of the most liked answers on quora.