Jordan B Peterson; Anyone Else Following This?

theLaw

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,403
If Dr. Peat and associated proponents of generative energy are so confident in the claim that serotonin enstills helplessness, pain, negative emotion, then the question is clear: Why has clinical psychology, such as that Dr. Peterson is involved with, gotten the role of serotonin so wrong? How is it these psychologists can view serotonin in such a composite, positive light, when Peat views it as just the opposite?

Peterson uses authoritarian structures to make his arguments, so questioning the validity of most of those studies instantly makes his situation more complex and nuanced.

This is precisely what Penn and Teller tried to do with B*llshit; crowd-source the experts. Ironically, Jillette has now found himself on the opposite side of said experts in regards to diet/nutrition.

All of this can also be done with the best of intentions. Keep in mind that Peterson and members of his immediate family have a history of severe depression, so he does have skin in the game.

I often wonder how Peterson would respond to Peat's ideas.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
In saying, in my prior reply, "Hence hierarchical structure is necessary, thus inevitable," does not mean one cannot critique and improve the form a hierarchic structure takes, which should be done. But I question your jettisoning hierarchic structures entirely. For good or ill, they are here to stay.

I am not going to spend another hour explaining why serotonin (chronically elevated) is bad. Its main effects are to lower metabolism and remove all higher cognitive functions so that the organism can dedicate all energetic resources towards handling stress. If you believe being homicidal, violent, psychopathic, cruel, unloving, dumb, etc are good things then so be it. To me the evidence is clear.
SSRI Drugs Impair Judgment, Wisdom, Understanding, Love And Empathy
SSRI Make Organisms Demented, Violent & Homicidal, Even At Low Doses

Btw, his very statement gives it away - i.e. serotonin is crucial for establishing and maintaining "hierarchical structure". Those structure are the very bedrock of authoritarianism. Free human beings, with access to sufficient resources, do not form such structures. They only form under stress.
 
Last edited:

Tenacity

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
844
I often wonder how Peterson would respond to Peat's ideas.

As a low-carb antidepressant user, not well, I imagine. As far as I'm concerned, if he claims that those things helped his own issues, he's found his 'truth'.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Thanks for bringing in a little bit of a sense of nuance and complexity on Peterson that glib phrases such as "he's controlled opposition" cannot convey, to put it mildly. Person is a complex character who deserves significant study. I agree with much - but not all of - of what he says. But one should find good or bad in his work for well-argued reasons, not for stupid, ignorant reasons.

Peterson uses authoritarian structures to make his arguments, so questioning the validity of most of those studies instantly makes his situation more complex and nuanced.

This is precisely what Penn and Teller tried to do with B*llshit; crowd-source the experts. Ironically, Jillette has now found himself on the opposite side of said experts in regards to diet/nutrition.

All of this can also be done with the best of intentions. Keep in mind that Peterson and members of his immediate family have a history of severe depression, so he does have skin in the game.

I often wonder how Peterson would respond to Peat's ideas.
 

sladerunner69

Member
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
3,307
Age
31
Location
Los Angeles
I am not going to spend another hour explaining why serotonin (chronically elevated) is bad. Its main effects are to lower metabolism and remove all higher cognitive functions so that the organism can dedicate all energetic resources towards handling stress. If you believe being homicidal, violent, psychopathic, cruel, unloving, dumb, etc are good things then so be it. To me the evidence is clear.
SSRI Drugs Impair Judgment, Wisdom, Understanding, Love And Empathy
SSRI Make Organisms Demented, Violent & Homicidal, Even At Low Doses

Btw, his very statement gives it away - i.e. serotonin is crucial for establishing and maintaining "hierarchical structure". Those structure are the very bedrock of authoritarianism. Free human beings, with access to sufficient resources, do not form such structures. They only form under stress.

To be certain, I do believe what you are saying about serotonin is correct. I have experienced the benefits of lowering my serotonin first hand.

My question is more related to how and why the established authorities, Jordan Peterson included, have formed a consensus that serotonin is good. Maybe he didn't explicitly describe serotonin as good, but he did mention it in a favorable light. How could someone who has performed extensive research on serotonin believe it to be a feel good hormone? It has clearly and acutely been the opposite for me.

"Free human beings, with access to sufficient resources, do not form such structures. They only form under stress." It's far more complicated and ambiguous. Life is stressful, whether or not "sufficient resources" are available. Maslow's "hierarchy" of values (irony alert) has it's own set of stresses at each level. Hence hierarchical structure is necessary, thus inevitable. Even something as small as a family of husband, wife and one or more children is a hierarchical structure. (Though someone who is a child raising expert - who was recently on the news - is trying to change that by saying we should ask a baby permission for changing its diaper.)

Nearly everything can be deconstructed as a matter of degree and relativity. Dichotomies (such as social hierarchy vs no authoritarianism) represent general patterns, and make discussions more practical and easier to follow.

A free, prosperous society with minimal authoritarianism would certainly rely much less on a central social hierarchy, even if there is still authority at some level. I think a decentralized hierarchy which bases itself either on the family unit or the individual is probably best, which relies least on centralized government.
 

theLaw

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,403
@sladerunner69

Sorry to interject; just a thought:

It might be based on the "stress as therapy" solution where they see the stress of serotonin as less harmful than the particular health-issue, much like their view of nitric-oxide, without considering the long-term implications.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Thanks for bringing in a little bit of a sense of nuance and complexity on Peterson that glib phrases such as "he's controlled opposition" cannot convey, to put it mildly. Person is a complex character who deserves significant study. I agree with much - but not all of - of what he says. But one should find good or bad in his work for well-argued reasons, not for stupid, ignorant reasons.
To someone that seems to take everything he reads on the Internet at face value, I’m not surprised you found @Atman and my comments “stupid and ignorant.” Most others are capable of far deeper thinking on what “heroes” are given to us by the main stream media and why. I bet you still have nightmares of Muslims with box cutters.

Alternatively you may wish to finally wake-up and stop listening so intently to the CIA’s Wurlitzer. Generative Energy #32: The CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer With Ray Peat If you don’t understand how the elite rule by the dialectics of controlled oppositions you will never be able to see past the gladiatorial battle of a divided populace.

Ironically I suppose you think your little strawmaning of @haidut's post is a counter example of brilliance and insight. He was obviously speaking about the source of authoritarian hierarchies and other maladaptions due to excessive serotonin and not the more healthy hierarchies such as that of the family.
 
Last edited:

sladerunner69

Member
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
3,307
Age
31
Location
Los Angeles
@sladerunner69

Sorry to interject; just a thought:

It might be based on the "stress as therapy" solution where they see the stress of serotonin as less harmful than the particular health-issue, much like their view of nitric-oxide, without considering the long-term implications.

Yeah I suppose that is a reasonable explanation. Stress hormones do fill important roles when needed in the short term.

Thinking about this now it actually is becoming quite clear. There really would be no reasonably healthy control group to compare their sample population to. All experiment carried out in universities and research settings are analyzing stress hormones within the context of a highly stressed individual. Serotonin vs no serotonin within someone being fed a high pufa, low protein, low nutrient, slow metabolic diet is going to make serotonin appear beneficial. The average person cannot produce enough generative energy to fulfill basic functions and dynamics...
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Hah, you again put out a post that makes me LOL, due to how kooky it is, which is consistent with the spirit of your conspiracy ideas! I have spent years studying religious and literary texts in the past especially, and business information in my work, that all involves strong efforts of going beyond the face value of what I'm seeing all day long. If one does enough of this, one sees, eventually, that sometimes, as Freud said, "a cigar is just a cigar." I once saw a character in "The Sopranos" utter something that paraphrased this. Good thinking knows there are limits to decoding the face value of whatever seems to be hiding the truth. This, however, you know nothing about. The problem with your analytical compulsions - which your are deeply attached to - is that they never let you see that sometimes the truth is right in front of your face, in the light of day, requiring no decoding procedure. Knowing this difference when undertaking analysis separates the men from the boys.

Your constant repetition of saying what my intentions are ("I suppose you think your little strawmanning of @haiduts post is a counter example of brilliance and insight) are, or what I'm really thinking ("I’m not surprised you found @Atman and my comments “stupid and ignorant”), or what I'm doing ("I bet you still have nightmares of Muslims with box cutters"), not only shows how little you know, since you cannot get into my mind or heart to determine the validity of your off-the-wall speculations, but it shows your entrenched habit of excessive conspiracy theorizing has infected your ability to analyze anything else. Persist in this habit and you'll become a clinical paranoid, or maybe you already are one. (I have personally known people who are diagnosed paranoids who could write multiple volumes on all the "connections" they see between unrelated phenomena that's turns out to be totally bogus.) I made the comment to haidut not thinking about you are atman at all, I was thinking solely about principles of analysis. (Believe me, if I was thinking about you or him while writing that, I would have made reference to you/him.)

You may be right that Haidut was referring to serotonin regarding origin of hierarchies, but unlike you, it was not clear nor "obvious" to me. Hence my response had two intentions: trying to move the discussion or ideas further along while implicitly seeking clarification from him. As is almost always your speculative habit when addressing my posts here and elsewhere, you express the worst possible motive of what you think I'm doing, it's never a good or neutral motive. By your actions, it is evident that it never occurs to you I don't have a bad motive. And you like to appear in the pose of someone who is good at going beyond face value? It's a belly full of LOL laughs! Especially when one adds to this your penchant for cheery-picking what you think are weak parts of my ideas, quoting things I say out of context, and ignoring things I say that don't fit your speculative agenda. Your condescending citing to me of the Hegelian dialectics thing is an idea I knew about 20 years ago. It has some merit, but it's limited. Because it does not - can't - take into much account the near-infinite complexity of people, history and whatever else comprises this world. It makes assumptions about the "actors" in the drama - especially as regards their power and reach - that don't hold up. Despite appearances, ironically, that dialectic is really static, not dynamic. Hence your obsession with the Jesuits. For you, their power never wanes or waxes, it is, rather very unnaturally, always the same, always omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, sort of like a classical definition of God. Nothing else (or nothing in reality) is like that in nature or history, all waxes and wanes, or all that comes into being eventually goes out of being. Power is distributed diversely - powers of all kinds check and limit each other always, in one degree or another - that's invariable and immutable. Jesuits no exception.

And talking about obsessions and LOL moments, you must be extremely fascinated with me and/or my ideas, even though you are always negative about them. Because you take every opportunity to attack me, though, as briefly alluded to above, you do a poor job of it and automatically zeroing in on the worst possible motive, so I don't know whether to be flattered or not. But I don't do the same to you, as I have much more interesting things to do, plus it's a waste of time arguing with someone who makes the assumption everything I say and will ever say is wrong. 2+2 = 4. I just said it, now is that wrong because I said it? Or what evil do you perceive is really going on in my saying this? Oh master of what's behind the appearances, tell us. You must call yourself "x-ray" because you think you see through and penetrate things to the truth. (Ah, there I go - speculating just like you. But normally when I do it, which is occasionally and not routinely, like you, I take it lightly, it's a form of playfulness for me. In marked contrast, your baseless, no-evidence speculations are grim-faced rock solid - but only for you or anybody who is as lacking in analytical skills as you.) In other words, I can't return the favor. I don't find your ideas to be worthwhile or interesting enough to be worth initiating an attack or even responding to one. (I did at first until I realized what I was dealing with.) So don't interpret my not mounting a criticism of your ideas out of the blue or not responding to an attack is due to any inability on my part to answer your ideas. When and if your say something interesting or creative or original, I might be motivated to respond, whether negatively or egad - positively!


To someone that seems to take everything he reads on the Internet at face value, I’m not surprised you found @Atman and my comments “stupid and ignorant.” Most others are capable of far deeper thinking on what “heroes” are given to us by the main stream media and why. I bet you still have nightmares of Muslims with box cutters.

Alternatively you may wish to finally wake-up and stop listening so intently to the CIA’s Wurlitzer. Generative Energy #32: The CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer With Ray Peat If you don’t understand how the elite rule by the dialectics of controlled oppositions you will never be able to see past the gladiatorial battle of a divided populace.

Ironically I suppose you think your little strawmaning of @haidut's post is a counter example of brilliance and insight. He was obviously speaking about the source of authoritarian hierarchies and other maladaptions due to excessive serotonin and not the more healthy hierarchies such as that of the family.
 

Herbie

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
2,192
Depression and paleo connection? I do agree he is substantially more intellectual than most academics and intellectuals of our era, though he seems to have an attitude problem. He appears to smile harshly and tends to have a somber, deadpan, demeanor. He sometimes borders on anger, and I think it would benefit the potential of his influence on younger minds if he learned to utilize a lighter, warmer, friendlier tone. Most of these Marxists and sturggling college students buy into the status quo because they are attracted to the "fun" and "love" which is promoted.

He kept going on about the gulag archipelago book so I read it, Theres no fun and love in the gulag archipelago. I think part of why he doesn't display lighter, warmer and friendlier tone is because he is mostly guarded these days because of the situation he is in.

(I'm not sure if the gulag archipelago was used as propaganda, it has some strange undertones in it which I cannot quite understand at this point and to what extent the book is true and accurate.)

If he believes that the western culture is in such a dangerous situation and leading to the kinds of things which occurred in the gulags 1918-1956 then I can understand why he appears depressed and gets angry. I imagine being rational and logical and having to debate people who are irrational and illogical and making ad hominem attacks would get old, fast. Perhaps its the SSRIs he takes which contributes to the character armour he displays.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Hah, you again put out a post that makes me LOL, due to how kooky it is, which is consistent with the spirit of your conspiracy ideas! I have spent years studying religious and literary texts in the past especially, and business information in my work, that all involves strong efforts of going beyond the face value of what I'm seeing all day long. If one does enough of this, one sees, eventually, that sometimes, as Freud said, "a cigar is just a cigar." I once saw a character in "The Sopranos" utter something that paraphrased this. Good thinking knows there are limits to decoding the face value of whatever seems to be hiding the truth. This, however, you know nothing about. The problem with your analytical compulsions - which your are deeply attached to - is that they never let you see that sometimes the truth is right in front of your face, in the light of day, requiring no decoding procedure. Knowing this difference when undertaking analysis separates the men from the boys.

Your constant repetition of saying what my intentions are ("I suppose you think your little strawmanning of @haiduts post is a counter example of brilliance and insight) are, or what I'm really thinking ("I’m not surprised you found @Atman and my comments “stupid and ignorant”), or what I'm doing ("I bet you still have nightmares of Muslims with box cutters"), not only shows how little you know, since you cannot get into my mind or heart to determine the validity of your off-the-wall speculations, but it shows your entrenched habit of excessive conspiracy theorizing has infected your ability to analyze anything else. Persist in this habit and you'll become a clinical paranoid, or maybe you already are one. (I have personally known people who are diagnosed paranoids who could write multiple volumes on all the "connections" they see between unrelated phenomena that's turns out to be totally bogus.) I made the comment to haidut not thinking about you are atman at all, I was thinking solely about principles of analysis. (Believe me, if I was thinking about you or him while writing that, I would have made reference to you/him.)

You may be right that Haidut was referring to serotonin regarding origin of hierarchies, but unlike you, it was not clear nor "obvious" to me. Hence my response had two intentions: trying to move the discussion or ideas further along while implicitly seeking clarification from him. As is almost always your speculative habit when addressing my posts here and elsewhere, you express the worst possible motive of what you think I'm doing, it's never a good or neutral motive. By your actions, it is evident that it never occurs to you I don't have a bad motive. And you like to appear in the pose of someone who is good at going beyond face value? It's a belly full of LOL laughs! Especially when one adds to this your penchant for cheery-picking what you think are weak parts of my ideas, quoting things I say out of context, and ignoring things I say that don't fit your speculative agenda. Your condescending citing to me of the Hegelian dialectics thing is an idea I knew about 20 years ago. It has some merit, but it's limited. Because it does not - can't - take into much account the near-infinite complexity of people, history and whatever else comprises this world. It makes assumptions about the "actors" in the drama - especially as regards their power and reach - that don't hold up. Despite appearances, ironically, that dialectic is really static, not dynamic. Hence your obsession with the Jesuits. For you, their power never wanes or waxes, it is, rather very unnaturally, always the same, always omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, sort of like a classical definition of God. Nothing else (or nothing in reality) is like that in nature or history, all waxes and wanes, or all that comes into being eventually goes out of being. Power is distributed diversely - powers of all kinds check and limit each other always, in one degree or another - that's invariable and immutable. Jesuits no exception.

And talking about obsessions and LOL moments, you must be extremely fascinated with me and/or my ideas, even though you are always negative about them. Because you take every opportunity to attack me, though, as briefly alluded to above, you do a poor job of it and automatically zeroing in on the worst possible motive, so I don't know whether to be flattered or not. But I don't do the same to you, as I have much more interesting things to do, plus it's a waste of time arguing with someone who makes the assumption everything I say and will ever say is wrong. 2+2 = 4. I just said it, now is that wrong because I said it? Or what evil do you perceive is really going on in my saying this? Oh master of what's behind the appearances, tell us. You must call yourself "x-ray" because you think you see through and penetrate things to the truth. (Ah, there I go - speculating just like you. But normally when I do it, which is occasionally and not routinely, like you, I take it lightly, it's a form of playfulness for me. In marked contrast, your baseless, no-evidence speculations are grim-faced rock solid - but only for you or anybody who is as lacking in analytical skills as you.) In other words, I can't return the favor. I don't find your ideas to be worthwhile or interesting enough to be worth initiating an attack or even responding to one. (I did at first until I realized what I was dealing with.) So don't interpret my not mounting a criticism of your ideas out of the blue or not responding to an attack is due to any inability on my part to answer your ideas. When and if your say something interesting or creative or original, I might be motivated to respond, whether negatively or egad - positively!
I’m not going to waste much time with your rambling denials, projections, and ad hominem insults. Not much to gain given your fierce resistance to new information and continual attacks on people who share it. I suppose Ray is a clinical paranoid as well for speaking of a controlled media.

But just to help you unravel one of your many defensive projections, you are the one who keeps making the unprovoked attacks, twice in the last few days, here and on another thread, lol. I am not sure why you have such a hard-on for me, but being aware of the problem would be a good start.
 
Last edited:

sladerunner69

Member
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
3,307
Age
31
Location
Los Angeles
He kept going on about the gulag archipelago book so I read it, Theres no fun and love in the gulag archipelago. I think part of why he doesn't display lighter, warmer and friendlier tone is because he is mostly guarded these days because of the situation he is in.

(I'm not sure if the gulag archipelago was used as propaganda, it has some strange undertones in it which I cannot quite understand at this point and to what extent the book is true and accurate.)

If he believes that the western culture is in such a dangerous situation and leading to the kinds of things which occurred in the gulags 1918-1956 then I can understand why he appears depressed and gets angry. I imagine being rational and logical and having to debate people who are irrational and illogical and making ad hominem attacks would get old, fast. Perhaps its the SSRIs he takes which contributes to the character armour he displays.

Interesting, how do you know he is on ssri's?
 

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
To be certain, I do believe what you are saying about serotonin is correct. I have experienced the benefits of lowering my serotonin first hand.

My question is more related to how and why the established authorities, Jordan Peterson included, have formed a consensus that serotonin is good. Maybe he didn't explicitly describe serotonin as good, but he did mention it in a favorable light. How could someone who has performed extensive research on serotonin believe it to be a feel good hormone? It has clearly and acutely been the opposite for me.



Nearly everything can be deconstructed as a matter of degree and relativity. Dichotomies (such as social hierarchy vs no authoritarianism) represent general patterns, and make discussions more practical and easier to follow.

A free, prosperous society with minimal authoritarianism would certainly rely much less on a central social hierarchy, even if there is still authority at some level. I think a decentralized hierarchy which bases itself either on the family unit or the individual is probably best, which relies least on centralized government.

There could be many reasons why, but I guess one of them is cultural preferences and of course scientific fraud in the name of public health policy. Peat wrote about LSD in one of his articles and how he government noticed that people taking LSD were very "unruly" and fiercely independent-minded, opposed to boring occupations, uninterested in the good-old American dream of a house, kids and BBQ on Sundays. Such people do not make for very good consumers, on which this entire charade depends. So, as Peat's article says, tons of money was poured into portraying LSD as a dangerous drug that was making people crazy, so if serotonin was the opposite of LSD then the conclusion was it would make hem nice and docile. It does do the latter, not the former. But obedience is all that the government wants, as it does not really care if you shoot up your neighborhood or your family, or yourself. The government knows VERY well about effects of SSRI on violence, and if nothing is being done to curb their use then the only conclusion is that it wants it this way.
SSRI increase risk of violent crime
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
6,511
Location
Chicago
I am not going to spend another hour explaining why serotonin (chronically elevated) is bad. Its main effects are to lower metabolism and remove all higher cognitive functions so that the organism can dedicate all energetic resources towards handling stress. If you believe being homicidal, violent, psychopathic, cruel, unloving, dumb, etc are good things then so be it. To me the evidence is clear.
SSRI Drugs Impair Judgment, Wisdom, Understanding, Love And Empathy
SSRI Make Organisms Demented, Violent & Homicidal, Even At Low Doses

Btw, his very statement gives it away - i.e. serotonin is crucial for establishing and maintaining "hierarchical structure". Those structure are the very bedrock of authoritarianism. Free human beings, with access to sufficient resources, do not form such structures. They only form under stress.
Bingo!
Sadly, I can't even find an aikido dojo. All that exist are hierarchical psychopathic authoritarian constructs--whereas the dominant hierarchical "leaders" are necessarily psychopathic.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
"A free, prosperous society with minimal authoritarianism would certainly rely much less on a central social hierarchy, even if there is still authority at some level. I think a decentralized hierarchy which bases itself either on the family unit or the individual is probably best, which relies least on centralized government."

In principle, I think decentralized hierarchy for a society looks good, but I don't know about it in reality. If you look, for example, at rural India, where various horrific instances of rape have been reported recently, you see that the local entities - which are decentralized hierarchies, using tribal councils to make decisions - lets off the perpetrators scot-free (which, BTW, is ignored by Western radical feminists so long as it involves third-world men), and this is very wrong, cultural relativism be damned. It takes outside, top-down and conventional hierarchical government entities to insinuate itself into such communities to arrive at justice. Much closer to home, I grew up in a town whose government was so nepotistically corrupt, it attracted the attention of the TV show "60 Minutes", which did a show on it years ago. Another clear case of decentralized hierarchy failing miserably. And what about the Jim Crow south up to the 1960s, where local, decentralized government hierarchies oppressed blacks until an outside, big-government entity stepped in?

To be certain, I do believe what you are saying about serotonin is correct. I have experienced the benefits of lowering my serotonin first hand.

My question is more related to how and why the established authorities, Jordan Peterson included, have formed a consensus that serotonin is good. Maybe he didn't explicitly describe serotonin as good, but he did mention it in a favorable light. How could someone who has performed extensive research on serotonin believe it to be a feel good hormone? It has clearly and acutely been the opposite for me.



Nearly everything can be deconstructed as a matter of degree and relativity. Dichotomies (such as social hierarchy vs no authoritarianism) represent general patterns, and make discussions more practical and easier to follow.

"A free, prosperous society with minimal authoritarianism would certainly rely much less on a central social hierarchy, even if there is still authority at some level. I think a decentralized hierarchy which bases itself either on the family unit or the individual is probably best, which relies least on centralized government.
 

SOMO

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,094
Jordan Peterson really likes to hear himself talk.

If only what he was saying would be original or not trying to pander to libertarians, I may be more inclined to think he's some eccentric professor.

JP is to anti-SJWs as Linda Sarsour is to SJWs.

I'm not sure if he's consciously or unconsciously trying to parrot talking points of the "alt-right."
He's obviously an intelligent guy, but I'm not sure why he in particular is so popular. I think it's because his slightly alt-right views are just radical/anti-PC enough to be safely rebellious at a distance. He's slightly Red Pill, so what?

He's also extremely long-winded and verbose.
 
Last edited:

AJC

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
196
Scrolling through youtube and seeing the titles of compilation videos people are making of him (example: "Jordan Peterson DEMOLISHES smug feminist", "Jordan Peterson on the Jews", etc., etc.) and seeing that in those videos he's really saying no such thing, is making me start to think that the next wave in creating tense dichotomies by powers that may or may not be (note 1: in this case--'alt-right' vs left, hierarchy vs anarchy, liberalism vs socialism, patriarchy vs post modernism, etc) (and note 2: whether or not one side is more correct/useful than the other, as I believe belongs to JP's side in this one) doesn't even involve literally funding counter-culture groups (like the CIA did with Black Panthers, Leary/LSD intro in the 60's, etc.) but is as easy as having youtube accounts shape the narrative by the names they put on videos of the person in question. Reporters then simply respond to this strawman presentation and...well we're seeing what happens in this case as a perfect example.
 

AJC

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
196
Also, to be clear, he is a clinical psychologist not a psychiatrist. Psychologists are PhD', psychiatrists are M.D.'s. Psychologists cannot prescribe SSRI's, psychiatrists can. This is true at least in Canada where Peterson practices. Judging an academic/psychologist's views on human behavior/society/history/philosophy/politics based on their views of SSRI's (esp. when they've personally had positive experience with them) is like judging a mechanic's ability to fix your engine based on whether they can fix your plumbing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom