Jordan Peterson Post-Recovery Interview

[Terma]

I agree with some his ideas but only watched 1/3rd his material. Akathisia I experienced as RLS from tianeptine already banned and by far the worst symptoms of drug withdrawal I experienced. Watched Wolf's Rain during one wd (~4 extremely bad days) and thought I was going to die from exhaustion/mental break. Ironically it's an extremely useful drug nonetheless just like benzos misused to hell no exemption so he makes fair conclusion though underestimates the problem.

 

[opson123]

I'm surprised by how aggressive and negative all the are comments about JP. It strikes me that most people have not watched the entirety of the interview, he is quite contrite in it and openly states that he should have known better when it comes to the medication he was on.

He is clearly wrong when it comes to Serotonin and his all meat diet is not good but it was the result of him trying to find a solution to his crushing autoimmune issues. Anyone here who claims that they have always got everything with diet right the whole way is full of ***t. I know for myself before I discovered Ray Peat I made some horrible diet choices I believed to be healthy because I felt like it was doing me good and recommend others to do the same.

The attacks on him by some in this thread are really quite abhorrent;



This is really twisted in my opinion, the guy is not evil, he has helped thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of people turn their lives around, to get out of that learnt helpless state, that endless cycle of misery. He has probably saved thousands from suicide and misery. Is he perfect? No. Does he get some things wrong? Yes. But he doesn't claim to be the final authority on the topics he discusses and in my opinion he has done a lot more good then harm.

Watch the video below and then tell me you experience a little "schadenfreude" from seeing this man suffer.



By the way the audience member who asked him that question came up to him after the show when he was getting photos and told him he was the one who asked the question. He tells the story in another interview.

Saved the man's life and God knows how many people just from those who listened to this video and his other lectures. But yea go ahead and take pleasure in his suffering I would submit to you that anyone who does is the one who is in poor health.

Alongside with reddit, this forum is also one of the most negative forums I frequent. I guess it's because most here aren't in good health so it shows. At least I'm not in good health and I'm a negative and miserable person. I forget what's it called, but miserable people tend to enjoy seeing others miserable.

This is just an observation of mine that came to mind after reading your post.

 

[MatheusPN]

To people critiquing him: in the area of psychology he has good insights and is a very reasonable person in conversations
People can strive to be helpful and cause the opposite
People can appear as good and be the terrible guy.

In conclusion,
Typically is better to critique the ideas not the person and criticize the person through primarily their fundamentals

 

[TreasureVibe]

@TreasureVibe some of the content in this interview might be useful to you.

Thanks!

 

[johnsmith]

I'm surprised by how aggressive and negative all the are comments about JP. It strikes me that most people have not watched the entirety of the interview, he is quite contrite in it and openly states that he should have known better when it comes to the medication he was on.

He is clearly wrong when it comes to Serotonin and his all meat diet is not good but it was the result of him trying to find a solution to his crushing autoimmune issues. Anyone here who claims that they have always got everything with diet right the whole way is full of ***t. I know for myself before I discovered Ray Peat I made some horrible diet choices I believed to be healthy because I felt like it was doing me good and recommend others to do the same.

The attacks on him by some in this thread are really quite abhorrent;



This is really twisted in my opinion, the guy is not evil, he has helped thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of people turn their lives around, to get out of that learnt helpless state, that endless cycle of misery. He has probably saved thousands from suicide and misery. Is he perfect? No. Does he get some things wrong? Yes. But he doesn't claim to be the final authority on the topics he discusses and in my opinion he has done a lot more good then harm.

Watch the video below and then tell me you experience a little "schadenfreude" from seeing this man suffer.



By the way the audience member who asked him that question came up to him after the show when he was getting photos and told him he was the one who asked the question. He tells the story in another interview.

Saved the man's life and God knows how many people just from those who listened to this video and his other lectures. But yea go ahead and take pleasure in his suffering I would submit to you that anyone who does is the one who is in poor health.

Well said, I thought so too.

It's very uncommon for people to see through the facade of the pharmaceutical industry. I hope what happened to Jordan will help other's wake up. It's good how he's being open, honest, and he's talking about it.

 

[Andman]

I'm surprised by how aggressive and negative all the are comments about JP. It strikes me that most people have not watched the entirety of the interview, he is quite contrite in it and openly states that he should have known better when it comes to the medication he was on.

He is clearly wrong when it comes to Serotonin and his all meat diet is not good but it was the result of him trying to find a solution to his crushing autoimmune issues. Anyone here who claims that they have always got everything with diet right the whole way is full of ***t. I know for myself before I discovered Ray Peat I made some horrible diet choices I believed to be healthy because I felt like it was doing me good and recommend others to do the same.

The attacks on him by some in this thread are really quite abhorrent;



This is really twisted in my opinion, the guy is not evil, he has helped thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of people turn their lives around, to get out of that learnt helpless state, that endless cycle of misery. He has probably saved thousands from suicide and misery. Is he perfect? No. Does he get some things wrong? Yes. But he doesn't claim to be the final authority on the topics he discusses and in my opinion he has done a lot more good then harm.

Watch the video below and then tell me you experience a little "schadenfreude" from seeing this man suffer.



By the way the audience member who asked him that question came up to him after the show when he was getting photos and told him he was the one who asked the question. He tells the story in another interview.

Saved the man's life and God knows how many people just from those who listened to this video and his other lectures. But yea go ahead and take pleasure in his suffering I would submit to you that anyone who does is the one who is in poor health.

yea im pretty shocked too, no wonder all the really smart guys are leaving lately

 

[Soren]

To people critiquing him: in the area of psychology he has good insights and is a very reasonable person in conversations
People can strive to be helpful and cause the opposite
People can appear as good and be the terrible guy.

In conclusion,
Typically is better to critique the ideas not the person and criticize the person through primarily their fundamentals

Very well said.

 

[Energizer]

I'm surprised by how aggressive and negative all the are comments about JP. It strikes me that most people have not watched the entirety of the interview, he is quite contrite in it and openly states that he should have known better when it comes to the medication he was on.

He is clearly wrong when it comes to Serotonin and his all meat diet is not good but it was the result of him trying to find a solution to his crushing autoimmune issues. Anyone here who claims that they have always got everything with diet right the whole way is full of ***t. I know for myself before I discovered Ray Peat I made some horrible diet choices I believed to be healthy because I felt like it was doing me good and recommend others to do the same.

The attacks on him by some in this thread are really quite abhorrent;



This is really twisted in my opinion, the guy is not evil, he has helped thousands maybe hundreds of thousands of people turn their lives around, to get out of that learnt helpless state, that endless cycle of misery. He has probably saved thousands from suicide and misery. Is he perfect? No. Does he get some things wrong? Yes. But he doesn't claim to be the final authority on the topics he discusses and in my opinion he has done a lot more good then harm.

Watch the video below and then tell me you experience a little "schadenfreude" from seeing this man suffer.



By the way the audience member who asked him that question came up to him after the show when he was getting photos and told him he was the one who asked the question. He tells the story in another interview.

Saved the man's life and God knows how many people just from those who listened to this video and his other lectures. But yea go ahead and take pleasure in his suffering I would submit to you that anyone who does is the one who is in poor health.

He has built a platform preaching ignorance and wrong-headed ideas. He can eat some humble pie for once and maybe reflect and eat some of his own bitter medicine. I don't really see him as seeing himself belonging to the same class as most of the people on this forum (see the picture in the last post I made in this thread).

He is rich and lives a privileged life where he can broadcast all his pain, problems, and have an audience and afford things which the average person simply cannot. While he may have helped some men in some way, I do think he needs a reality check and he needs to get off the podium and take his own advice to "clean his room" before trying to be a self-help guru to a gullible audience, and have more compassion for the poor and working classes instead of just basically asserting that they can all just magically pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I also find it extremely grating to listen to him justify capitalism and with his silly idea of "competence" where everyone can just magically "succeed" in the capitalist system due to their own "inbuilt" competence (without ever questioning whether it's intelligent to even want to "succeed" in such a system in that way or expressing any criticism of capitalist ideology itself), which completely ignores factors such as social support and environmental nutrition. His relentless defense of in-built hierarchies, the status quo, and "inbuilt IQ" is the type of determinist thinking that puts him in a similar camp as the other so-called "intellectuals" like Sam Harris, who defended The Bell Curve book and HBD (essentially re-branded eugenics) ideology and got a lot of flak even from his own fans for it, rightfully so.

He also conflates socialism and Marxism with neoliberalism (he calls it "Neo-Marxism"), which is a critical error and beyond the scope of this post, but needless to say his thinking has gone down a very wrong path and he is sending other men that way as well and conflating debunked so-called "scientific" thinking (biological determinism) to mask his own reactionary politics. He has millions of young men hanging on to his every word so he has a responsibility when he says things that just aren't true and that means admitting his own errors, publicly, including his philosophical errors, and engaging with his own hubris, instead of embracing it. He claims to be so invested in the truth, but he seems to never admit he doesn't know what he's talking about much of the time when it comes to biology.

Do I wish he could change his mind? Sure, but he's middle-aged and seems pretty inflexible, so that probably will never happen. I saw him in an interview with a woman who was calling him out on his lobster BS and he just doubled down, re-asserting the dogma about serotonin making animals "less aggressive", which as we know on the forum, is completely backwards. Whether he claims to be a final authority or not, he acts like one and knows millions of men look up to him, and that's all that matters in so far as his own responsibility to integrity and responsibility to be more humble to his audience, to concede some self-doubt on everything he thinks he knows, and not to present topics in a way that reflects undue self-certainty, and to be more willing to change his own mind.

 

[Vinny]

#35: Esoteric Hollywood, Vegan Ethics, Anti-Conspiracy Culture & Theism vs. Atheism with Jay Dyer — Generative Energy Podcast

12:36 - Danny Roddy and Jay Dyer talking about Jordan Peterson at the trilateral commission

I can't deny I experience a little schadenfreude when I read about how Jordan Peterson is struggling with poor health. I see him as a charlatan who has propped himself up as an authority for young men but in my view he is nothing but an opportunistic schemer who promotes the idiotic and barbaric ideology of social darwinism (see his "Lobster" videos for example) and preys on people who don't understand the emptiness in the rhetoric he is peddling.

Peterson is the type who will deflect and say his opponents are just reading into his philosophy too much when they call him out for his weird fetish with lobster hierarchies, but when you scroll further down, it makes perfect sense why he's so interested in "dominance hierarchies" -- because he himself is a social climber and power-hungry type that wants to be "at the top" in this corporate / power hungry elite social club that he is trying to ingratiate himself into.

He is philosophically dishonest. See for example, how he promotes Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's early writing as a critique of Marxist philosophy. For those who researched Solzhenitsyn's background, they understand this is an intellectually bankrupt way to construct philosophical arguments against political theory, but his followers eat up this kind of empty rhetoric. Peterson's self-help pablum and ideas are largely regressive and set humanity backwards a hundred years. Note him hobnobbing with the globalist elites at the Trilateral Commission:

I'm not really sure why did I get into this thread, but I enjoyed this post very much.

 

[Energizer]

 

[ruprmurdoch]

He also conflates socialism and Marxism with neoliberalism (he calls it "Neo-Marxism"), which is a critical error and beyond the scope of this post.

Do you know system where some companies, big banks can't bakrupt ? Do you know that USA univerities produce people to manage biggest companies, and main thing which those people learn is H.Marcuse ,,repressive tolerance" - tolerate the left, do not tolerate the right.

 

[kyle]

@opson123
The Darwin and Nietzsche that lurks under the surface of what he says is negative. Nietzsche's philosophy boils down to the powerful should rule - in other words, maintain the status quo. The implications of that leads to a rather bleak worldview.

@Soren
Let's take his word on the matter of him helping so many people, on the other hand there are also a lot of testimonials of SSRIs and other drugs backfiring (including the data of SSRI increasing suicide), as it did for him.

If we accept that as evidence for his ideas as helpful, what exactly is so out of line by showing when it isn't?

@MatheusPN
He was following the same ideas he teaches though. It seems to be taken as merely disliking him when it actually pertains to his ideas.

 

[MatheusPN]

@opson123
The Darwin and Nietzsche that lurks under the surface of what he says is negative. Nietzsche's philosophy boils down to the powerful should rule - in other words, maintain the status quo. The implications of that leads to a rather bleak worldview.

Nietzsche's philosophy is much more about uber morality notions than politics, using his aphorisms we can go from totalitarianism to anarchy. He was against the status quo, religiously, governmentally, culturally etc. He was rebellious. Übermensch!
@Amazoniac probably read some of his work

 

[Soren]

@Soren
Let's take his word on the matter of him helping so many people, on the other hand there are also a lot of testimonials of SSRIs and other drugs backfiring (including the data of SSRI increasing suicide), as it did for him.

If we accept that as evidence for his ideas as helpful, what exactly is so out of line by showing when it isn't?

I never said it was out of line to show when he is wrong on a subject, quite the contrary I actively tell everyone I know who follows him and listens to him to ignore his advice on Serotonin and anti-depressants. What I was saying was out of line as you put it was the glee some people in the thread seemed to be taking from his suffering. I think that is very bitter and twisted.

 

[Energizer]

Do you know system where some companies, big banks can't bakrupt ? Do you know that USA univerities produce people to manage biggest companies, and main thing which those people learn is H.Marcuse ,,repressive tolerance" - tolerate the left, do not tolerate the right.

People do not need a central thing to store their currency of choice. Why should I care about big banks going bankrupt? They're corrupt and become insolvent by design. There are plenty of things that aren't sustainable in the capitalist paradigm, banks are just one example.

I'm aware of the climate of political correctness in academia, what it seems to be is an environment in which corporate people can virtue-signal how "progressive" they are when most of the time they end up supporting the status quo that keeps the ruling class in power. Leftism is more of an underground movement. It is a rebellion against the prevailing paradigms, the authoritarian structures which protect the minority ruling class versus the 99%+. When politicians talk about socioeconomic class, they are immediately purged out of the election.

There is not any significant Leftist movement within the United States. Significant as in, a united movement with more than a few thousand members. All of these types of groups are small. The Democratic and Republican parties are essentially the same party with slight differences in the fine details. The idea of "tolerance" sounds like just going along with the status quo, which isn't revolutionary in the least. When communism was on the rise in the 1920s-1950s, various presidents, (Woodrow Wilson, McCarthy) supported the detention and intimidation of political dissidents, intellectuals, etc -- otherwise known as the Red Scare. This completely decimated the population of radical thought and contributed to a decline in morale for those in the Leftist sphere. So I would argue the modern political climate is actually quite conservative compared to say, the 1960s counterculture.

 

[LUH 3417]

No, I don't see why anyone should care about creating a system to support banking, it's an artifact of the digitized world we live in but it isn't an essential thing. People do not need a central thing to store their currency of choice. Why should I care about big banks going bankrupt? They're corrupt and become insolvent by design. There are plenty of things that aren't sustainable in the capitalist paradigm, banks are just one example.

I'm aware of the climate of political correctness in academia, what it seems to be is an environment in which corporate people can virtue-signal how "progressive" they are when most of the time they end up supporting the status quo that keeps the ruling class in power. Leftism is more of an underground movement. It is a rebellion against the prevailing paradigms, the authoritarian structures which protect the minority ruling class versus the 99%+. When politicians talk about socioeconomic class, they are immediately purged out of the election.

There is not any significant Leftist movement within the United States. Significant as in, a united movement with more than a few thousand members. All of these types of groups are small. The Democratic and Republican parties are essentially the same party with slight differences in the fine details. The idea of "tolerance" sounds like just going along with the status quo, which isn't revolutionary in the least. When communism was on the rise in the 1920s-1950s, various presidents, (Woodrow Wilson, McCarthy) supported the detention and intimidation of political dissidents, intellectuals, etc -- otherwise known as the Red Scare. This completely decimated the population of radical thought and contributed to a decline in morale for those in the Leftist sphere.

Your posts are refreshing. This is an ongoing conversation on this forum - Leftists! Liberals! Snowflakes! Transgender rights communists!!! They’re all lumped into one.

 

[inurendotoxin]

Alongside with reddit, this forum is also one of the most negative forums I frequent. I guess it's because most here aren't in good health so it shows. At least I'm not in good health and I'm a negative and miserable person. I forget what's it called, but miserable people tend to enjoy seeing others miserable.

I'd like to +1 the above comment and draw attention to a couple of examples;

Peterson is the worst kind of hypocrite. He tells guys to be strong and complains about the Western world turning men into weaklings, but at the same time he is actually the little wuz that can't get his life back together without extensive therapy that would be unaffordable for normal people. He can't live according to his own standards, he knows absolutely nothing about the interactions between drugs, foods, and consciousness, and his advice as a psychiatrist is worthless kitchen sink psychology "Clean your room". I hope his suffering has taught him some humility, and he no longer feels the need to spam the internet with his useless lectures.

So, his content is spam and his lectures are useless? You would prefer he was de-platformed or otherwise censored? Isn't this exactly the authoritarian mindset?

He has built a platform preaching ignorance and wrong-headed ideas. He can eat some humble pie for once and maybe reflect and eat some of his own bitter medicine. I don't really see him as seeing himself belonging to the same class as most of the people on this forum (see the picture in the last post I made in this thread).

He is rich and lives a privileged life where he can broadcast all his pain, problems, and have an audience and afford things which the average person simply cannot. While he may have helped some men in some way, I do think he needs a reality check and he needs to get off the podium and take his own advice to "clean his room" before trying to be a self-help guru to a gullible audience, and have more compassion for the poor and working classes instead of just basically asserting that they can all just magically pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I also find it extremely grating to listen to him justify capitalism and with his silly idea of "competence" where everyone can just magically "succeed" in the capitalist system due to their own "inbuilt" competence (without ever questioning whether it's intelligent to even want to "succeed" in such a system in that way or expressing any criticism of capitalist ideology itself), which completely ignores factors such as social support and environmental nutrition. His relentless defense of in-built hierarchies, the status quo, and "inbuilt IQ" is the type of determinist thinking that puts him in a similar camp as the other so-called "intellectuals" like Sam Harris, who defended The Bell Curve book and HBD (essentially re-branded eugenics) ideology and got a lot of flak even from his own fans for it, rightfully so.

He also conflates socialism and Marxism with neoliberalism (he calls it "Neo-Marxism"), which is a critical error and beyond the scope of this post, but needless to say his thinking has gone down a very wrong path and he is sending other men that way as well and conflating debunked so-called "scientific" thinking (biological determinism) to mask his own reactionary politics. He has millions of young men hanging on to his every word so he has a responsibility when he says things that just aren't true and that means admitting his own errors, publicly, including his philosophical errors, and engaging with his own hubris, instead of embracing it. He claims to be so invested in the truth, but he seems to never admit he doesn't know what he's talking about much of the time when it comes to biology.

Do I wish he could change his mind? Sure, but he's middle-aged and seems pretty inflexible, so that probably will never happen. I saw him in an interview with a woman who was calling him out on his lobster BS and he just doubled down, re-asserting the dogma about serotonin making animals "less aggressive", which as we know on the forum, is completely backwards. Whether he claims to be a final authority or not, he acts like one and knows millions of men look up to him, and that's all that matters in so far as his own responsibility to integrity and responsibility to be more humble to his audience, to concede some self-doubt on everything he thinks he knows, and not to present topics in a way that reflects undue self-certainty, and to be more willing to change his own mind.

Some compelling arguments here, but I'm unconvinced that JBP is intentionally deceptive (if that is your suggestion), or that he needs to "get off the podium." If his effect is to present an alternative world view, such that it can be considered and critiqued, that seems to me a net benefit to free expression and exchange of ideas, vs the vow of silent humility you apparently are suggesting here.

As for his thinking having "gone down a very wrong path and he is sending other men that way as well", that is surely for said other men to consciously determine for themselves, and for critics (such as yourself) to re-orient such people, presumably through superior reasoning, using the same or better platforms as are available to you.

Side point: His success is kind of a perfect example of the competence/meritocracy structure that he outlines.
Although I would dispute that he attempts to 'justify' capitalism - and the lobster analogy (while arbitrary) does serve it's purpose in illustrating how hierarchies work, whether or not that's how they should work according to your world view.

So yeah, cards on the table - I like Jordan Peterson. I'd prefer he be alive and have a platform. I feel like I'm more enlightened for hearing his ideas, and I apparently know people who have personally benefited from his work.

Giving a platform to the likes of Peterson opens up new avenues for discussion, and that's a good thing for global consciousness. Same thing with Ray Peat.

 

[Energizer]

Your posts are refreshing. This is an ongoing conversation on this forum - Leftists! Liberals! Snowflakes! Transgender rights communists!!! They’re all lumped into one.

Thanks, yeah it does get a bit tiresome but its understandable, I think what it comes down to is a lot of people are frustrated including on the forum with the way things are but have no guiding philosophy and can't picture a way forward or alternatives to the system in place. I'm glad we're having this conversation on the forum too and that it seems like people are more open to thinking differently about this kind of stuff and I know you definitely are, and a handful of people on the forum are talking about this kind of stuff so that's good. I think probably the best hope forward is if more people can learn dietary principles about lowering PUFA and increasing their metabolism, since that itself seems to help promote an anti-authoritarian mindset and a lot of the political movements tend to fracture/fizzle out. Just imagine how much could be accomplished if most people realized we have more in common than we might think and a lot of us are facing the same struggle. It reminds me of this Ray quote:

I'd like to +1 the above comment and draw attention to a couple of examples;



So, his content is spam and his lectures are useless? You would prefer he was de-platformed or otherwise censored? Isn't this exactly the authoritarian mindset?




Some compelling arguments here, but I'm unconvinced that JP is intentionally deceptive (if that is your suggestion), or that he needs to "get off the podium." If his effect is to present an alternative world view, such that it can be considered and critiqued, that seems to me a net benefit to free expression and exchange of ideas, vs the vow of silent humility you apparently are suggesting here.

As for his thinking having "gone down a very wrong path and he is sending other men that way as well", that is surely for said other men to consciously determine for themselves, and for critics (such as yourself) to re-orient such people, presumably through superior reasoning, using the same or better platforms as are available to you.

Side point: His success is kind of a perfect example of the competence/meritocracy structure that he outlines.
Although I would dispute that he attempts to 'justify' capitalism - and the lobster analogy (while arbitrary) does serve it's purpose in illustrating how hierarchies work, whether or not that's how they should work according to your world view.

So yeah, cards on the table - I like Jordan Peterson. I'd prefer he be alive and have a platform. I feel like I'm more enlightened for hearing his ideas, and I apparently know people who have personally benefited from his work.

Giving a platform to the likes of Peterson opens up new avenues for discussion, and that's a good thing for global consciousness. Same thing with Ray Peat.

No, I wasn't arguing he should be "de-platformed", I have never supported censorship. What I meant by "get off the podium" was to exert a more humble attitude with his beliefs and not pretend to be an authority, for him to pause and reflect, I don't want to silence him. I just don't like how he tries to use his interpretations of philosophy/"science" as a way to defend his reactionary politics that seem to be in favor of defending the status quo. You may not see that but I do. Someone on the forum has sent him Ray articles and he ignored them, so he needs to sort his health out on his own and go through the same thing most of us had to go through trying out fad diets and other unhealthy crap. Nevertheless, I am entitled to criticize Peterson's views and you can still get value out of something he says, but that doesn't mean that his prevailing philosophical framework is correct, especially his politics.

While he may again, try to deflect and claim that his views have nothing to do with politics, that is a bunch of bologna, you cannot ignore the interdependence of politics and science and the stuff he talks about is rife with political significance. Furthermore, the company that he courts and people he associates with is very telling. See the previous post of him at the Trilateral Commission. To me that picture says a lot about how he views everyone who doesn't belong to the rich/elite class. To me, he is just one guy out there talking about his interpretations and opinions, and I just wish people would take him and his ideas off the pedestal.

"As for his thinking having "gone down a very wrong path and he is sending other men that way as well", that is surely for said other men to consciously determine for themselves, and for critics (such as yourself) to re-orient such people, presumably through superior reasoning, using the same or better platforms as are available to you."

Yes, but the difference between me and Peterson is he has millions of people hanging onto his every word. The damage he can do is a lot greater than I can. I'm not saying it's permanent either. But I don't see enough criticism of his ideas in the mainstream. His ideas are just more palatable to the crowd. Rays ideas don't have the same mass-market appeal (nor would I want them to; I like that he doesn't dumb himself down). A lot of people who listen to JPB never hear about Ray Peat either. I also find it ironic you seem fond of JPB when so much of his philosophy is contradicted by the ideas that Ray talks about, especially politics. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but they're very different people, both politically and philosophically. Diametric opposites in a lot of ways.

Ray doesn't go into detail about his own politics, but unlike Peterson, he doesn't smear Stalin, communism, or promote fascist literature like Peterson does (The Gulag Archipelago). On the contrary, Peat has spoken quite positively about Stalin, communism, the USSR, and negatively about Trotsky, implicating him as a fascist co-conspirator. There's really only two Western historians that I know of that are doing good work as far as clearing Stalin's name and myths about the USSR: Grover C Furr and Domenico Losurdo. If people don't understand the conspiracy to smear Stalin, to smear communism in general, especially in the West, and have bought into the propaganda, how can they possibly understand communism?

The competence and meritocracy idea ignores everything about being born into and growing up in a middle class environment that Peterson enjoyed. Evidently that's an important factor in success too, but Peterson conveniently seems to gloss over that factor.



Here's an example of Peterson's bloviation: waxing on and on about IQ and its "predictors". One of his numerous mistakes in thinking, but a glaring one. Contrast this type of myopic, determinist obsession with IQ with Peat's more holistic perspective on intelligence: Intelligence and metabolism

Notice the difference? Whatever IQ is a "predictor of" doesn't get to the root of understanding intelligence, but Peterson is proud to mention it in his lectures regardless. Notice only one of them understands the origins of IQ tests in eugenics and as a tool to exclude immigrants and lower classes. Despite this being outside Peterson's domain, he's happy to talk about it as if that's what his background is, even though he is a psychologist, not a neuroscientist or biologist. His understanding of intelligence and the brain is very limited, which is why he has to resort to quoting outdated social psychology IQ "research". It seems like Peterson enjoys mystifying and giving special status to the idea of IQ as this magical thing that you're just "born with" and he seems unaware he is promoting harmful folklore and not science, not surprisingly because Peterson isn't a biologist (Interesting how Peterson never questions whether it's intelligent to want to "succeed" according to the role society gives people in the first place):

 

[inurendotoxin]

No, I wasn't arguing he should be "de-platformed", I have never supported censorship. I just don't like how he tries to use his interpretations of philosophy/"science" as a way to defend his reactionary politics that seem to be in favor of defending the status quo. You may not see that but I do. Someone on the forum has sent him Ray articles and he ignored them, so he needs to sort his health out on his own and go through the same thing most of us had to go through trying out fad diets and other unhealthy crap. Nevertheless, I am entitled to criticize Peterson's views and you can still get value out of something he says, but that doesn't mean that his prevailing philosophical framework is correct, especially his politics.

While he may again, try to deflect and claim that his views have nothing to do with politics, that is a bunch of bologna, "you cannot ignore the interdependence of politics and science and the stuff he talks about is rife with political significance. Furthermore, the company that he courts and people he associates with is very telling. See the previous post of him at the Trilateral Commission. To me that picture says a lot about how he views everyone who doesn't belong to the rich/elite class. To me, he is just one guy out there talking about his interpretations and opinions, and I just wish people would take him and his ideas off the pedestal.

"the stuff he talks about is rife with political significance. "

Political significance, maybe. Political bias? I don't see it.

"Furthermore, the company that he courts and people he associates with is very telling. See the previous post of him at the Trilateral Commission. To me that picture says a lot about how he views everyone who doesn't belong to the rich/elite class. "

That's a lot of inference from a very small snapshot of information. To me, that picture is a picture. And I've listened to that DR/Jay Dyer podcast a couple times. There are many virtuous reasons to hang with influential people if given the opportunity. If I was given even a couple of dots to line up, I'd line 'em up. From this, I still have no reason to infer any foul play.

I'm all ears to the defamation of JBP, but I need a little substance. A little more than "that is a bunch of bologna" if you know what I mean . Public credibility will soon shift away when a convincing counter-narrative is presented. For now, I hear the man speak and he makes a lot of sense, and much of his subject matter is affirming, even uplifting. On the other side (including in this thread) I hear bold claims and speculation; "You may not see that but I do"

Well, what do you see? Or at least, why is it you think you see what you see?

 

[thomas00]

calling for the collapse of western civilization

no

and who really cares about concrete figurines? It's just insipid cultural politics.