So, I've been following this guy's work and recently listened to his audiobook "12 Rules For Life" and I have to say that I am REALLY suspecting that this guy is a false idol. I am not sure if he wanted to be idolized and of course it takes two to tango, and the fault partially rests a bit with the men that seek him out as a father-figure, but you still need to have someone wanting to cash in on the desperation.
So, my question is: Is Jordan Peterson a hack or not?
he literally just says common sense things like "seem more confident and people will respect you" but dresses it up in some ironically post-modern interpretation of world myths and religion all being the same metameme
Nathaniel Fisher
he's a bitch
Jackson Diaz
Yeah it's all so mundane and obvious. I mean, just look at all the common sense that is prevalent in Western society today :^) Clearly the message is not needed.
Jayden Peterson
He's not a hack, but he's not really an original thinker and he admits that; Most of what he espouses is just shit psychologists from the 20th century researched and wrote papers on.
Xavier Diaz
24/7 attack threads. Wew. You guys are rattled
Colton Baker
No he is not a hack.
You're discarding all of his work because he cucks on the JQ.
This. He a truth teller re-hashing the obvious narratives that have escaped or been ((removed)) from western society. Appreciate his efforts and the ideas he spreads but do not idolize him or anyone else, frankly.
Gavin Jenkins
>tells college kids why it's important to have responsibility and why tradition is important >Jow Forums hates him
This. He gives some basic bitch psychology 101 dadpill advice. That's good.
What is shite is when he goes on about post-modernism all while implicitly engaging in post-modern approaches. He is the pseud's idea of an intellectual.
Juan Scott
Having being a hack isn't predicated on whether or not you have basic bitch dadpill advice to give.
His work is exactly why he is a hack user. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with him cucking on the JQ, it has to do with his baby-tier understanding of pomo all while engaging in pomo.
Or the fact that he goes on about liberalism without understanding how liberalism gave rise to post-modernity.
Peterson is a genius and has articulated clearly the position that defeats the new atheist movement. His brand of christanity represents the beginnings of the rebirth of genuinely western thought. He's had a tremendously positive affect on the cultural zeitgeist and that alone makes him one of the most important people of our day.
His criticism of modern far left and far right movements was absolutely correct... and the people who are butthurt about that need to get over it and clean their room already.
Jace King
You are misrepresenting what he actually says. Peterson never dismissed post-modernism or the post-modernist critique as a whole, rather, he says It's accurate in many of its claims and points but fails on the conclusions. Moreover, someone criticizing something doesn't equate to him disagreeing with it on literally all aspects. That should be self-evident.
Charles Moore
>he says It's accurate in many of its claims and points but fails on the conclusions.
Citation needed.
Which specific claims and points does he say are accurate and which conclusions does he reject and why?
Nolan Roberts
>His brand of christanity represents the beginnings of the rebirth of genuinely western thought. His brand of Christianity is agnostic heresy, it's not Christianity at all. He is not a Christian by Protestant or Catholic definitions.
>His criticism of modern far left and far right movements was absolutely correct... and the people who are butthurt about that need to get over it and clean their room already. No, his criticism of the Right is total nonsense. It's Prager U-tier horseshoe fallacy garbage, it has no validity whatsoever.
Go ahead and state what Petersons arguments are against the Right (I want to see if you even know what they are) and I will refute them.
Colton Cruz
>It's Prager U-tier horseshoe fallacy garbage, it has no validity whatsoever. This. His alt-right stuff is so riddled with strawmen it is hard to consider him anything but a political dilettante.
>There might be no God, but these ideas are useful for society.
Parker Hughes
>This. His alt-right stuff is so riddled with strawmen it is hard to consider him anything but a political dilettante. The chesscucks are going to come out of the woodwork now and say that his arguments are weak and fallacious on purpose because he's secretly on our side. Wrong.
What kind of a message is the most urgent in a society that has lost touch with common sense? Oh, right.
Evan Perez
>His brand of Christianity is agnostic heresy, it's not Christianity at all. He is not a Christian by Protestant or Catholic definitions. Those two sects have already been defeated and poisoned by marxist thought. Peterson is the reformer--- of course, reformation is another way to say heresy.
>on the far right Peterson is absolutely correct about the prevalence of collectivists in the far right who are motivated by bitterness and inferiority.
Eli Perry
>This [agnosticism] is the future of modern religion. Total nonsense. Faith is an integral part of religion.
Peterson's ideas about Jesus Christ are not something new, they're typical of your average new age cult or ever Freemasonry. It's spiritually dead pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
>It's spiritually dead pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
So something that appeals to a broad audience and is easily consumed by the populace? Look, I share your angst about the lack of spirituality in modern culture, but most "Christians" don't even read the bible. They just repeat that God loves everyone and celebrate Christmas.
Just to mention one example, it starts around 1:12:00 (It begins before, but just to make your job easier) , he mentions how the post-modernist critique claims that there's an infinite amount of interpretations someone can make about a given work, which according to him is a correct observation, but he disagrees with the conclusion of It, which claims that because of this high number of interpretations that can be made about that work, no ''objective'' conclusion about it can be taken. On the same lecture, or in one of the other Biblical episodes, he also outright claims that the post-modernist do have accurate critiques about some points, but they reach wrong conclusions, I just can't remember exactly which lecture it was.
Levi Murphy
What a worthless fucking thread.
Oliver Morris
>Those two sects have already been defeated and poisoned by marxist thought. In what way does the fact that Marxism has poisoned our society invalidate the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Tell us how denouncing the divinity of Jesus Christ strengthens society against the threat of Marxism.
>Peterson is absolutely correct about the prevalence of collectivists in the far right who are motivated by bitterness and inferiority. Ad-hominem pyschopathologizing of random individuals that you think are part of a political movement is not an argument against the that movement and its goals.
>Prevalence of collectivists Not an argument, an observation.
>motivated by bitterness Mind-reading and psychoanalysis. Assumption and generalization. Not an argument.
>and inferiority Same as above.
Your ideology is going to get us all killed, allow us to be overrun with hostile foreigners who are collectivist to their core, all so that you can die on a hill protecting your virtue as a "good individual who isn't collectivist or racist".
Jose Bell
Massive faggot, along with his faggy followers.
Samuel Rodriguez
Give this a read. It basically proves he's a fraud.
> On the proposed area of how interviewing techniques affect the reliability of responses, Dr. Peterson’s opinion was that suggestive or leading questions, such as the style of questioning of O’Donovan and Depencier, can cause the interviewee to infer the desired or correct response through deduction as opposed to stating what they actually remember. The judge ruled that Dr. Peterson’s opinion had two shortcomings. He was not properly qualified as he had no experience in the area of the psychology of police interrogations. Also, his opinion had no scientific qualities and was unnecessary. The judge held that the jury was quite capable of viewing the confession and coming to their own conclusions about its reliability in light of the other testimony in the trial and the submissions of counsel.
>The judge ruled that three of the four areas of Dr. Peterson’s proposed evidence did not meet the criteria required for the admissibility of expert evidence
This one's my favorite
>On the proposed area of how personality traits can make a person more prone to suggestion, Dr. Peterson’s opinion was based on an online personality assessment that the appellant had completed called “the Unfakeable Big Five.” The Unfakeable Big Five purports to scientifically measure the five recognized areas of a person’s personality (agreeableness, stress tolerance, conscientiousness, openness and extraversion). The Unfakeable Big Five was devised by Dr. Peterson for his private consulting business and is used as a tool for hiring employees.
Jose Peterson
Not a hack but a drunkard pleb on antidepressants milking retards for money.
Joseph White
Look carefully at your own words:
>So something that appeals to a broad audience and is easily consumed by the populace? >but most "Christians" don't even read the bible. They just repeat that God loves everyone and celebrate Christmas.
You want want something that is dumbed down, neatly packaged, and spiritually dead for the masses to CONSUME (your words), but your argument against Christianity as a whole is that in your personal opinion most Christians aren't Christian enough for you.
You're just looking for excuses to justify your own lack of faith and understanding of God.
William Gomez
Jordan Peterson is just another follower of Jung. I wouldn't under estimate what's going on with this line of thought. This is how religions are created. I wouldn't mind if the new European religion became in some way based in Jungian thought. It would be an improvement on Christianity, and something different from the paganism which won't ever catch on again. On the otherhand Jordan Peterson himself is hard to trust, although the fact that he appeared on Tara McCarthy's show, his exposure of philosophy such as Nietzsche, and his attempt to empower young men. I haven't made my mind up personally, sometimes he is helpful, sometimes he is self serving.
Connor Green
He's been putting out the same ideas for roughly 25 years. Seriously. Guy is a model of consistency. Is he doing things to also make some money now? Sure. Why not? Is he doing anything sneaky or underhanded? Doesn't seem to be.
Kayden Rodriguez
>I wouldn't under estimate what's going on with this line of thought. This is how religions are created. Peterson has declared that he has prophetic dreams, he thinks he's an actual prophet.
He's starting a cult, not a religion.
Ethan Murphy
Wow, BTFO:
>his opinion had no scientific qualities and was unnecessary.
I had no idea Peterson had a career as an expert witness in court hearings.
James Bell
i am a former human intelligence collector and i can tell you right the fuck now that leading questions or any question that would make someone say yes or no is a bad question.
Easton Gray
I love how in one post some of you will say that what he's saying is common sense so it's worthless while being mad that he said it.
That's the entire point. We've reached the point where common sense is controversial.
Easton Russell
I don't think he's a hack, but he's extremely overrated.
He doesn't hold the answers to life.
Jaxon Young
Of what little "career" he has according to that document
>former human intelligence collector This is a court hearing from the Court of Appeal in Manitoba. Not the military.
Evan Stewart
>He's starting a cult, not a religion. After a certain point, what is the real difference between the two? Christianity was considered a death cult in Rome for a time. And really, it was.
A literal faggot killed his one night stand after they had sex and the guy told him "heh I'm HIV positive BTW":
>The Crown alleged that after having sex with Stuart Mark (the deceased), and learning the deceased was HIV positive, the appellant killed the deceased in a rage. The key evidence against the appellant was his video-recorded confession to two police officers admitting to the crime. The appellant’s defence to the allegation was that his confession was false; he testified he did not kill the deceased. The appellant told the jury his confession was false for three reasons: he was emotionally unstable when he confessed; he was confused during the interrogation as he was under the influence of the drug Tylenol No. 3; and finally, the two police officers manipulated him into admitting to something he did not do.
Peterson was trying to get this guy off of a manslaughter charge by using his personality test as an argument for why the faggot's confession to the murder was not a real confession.
Brandon Garcia
Utterly BTFO:
>The judge concluded that Dr. Peterson’s methodology about the appellant’s personality lacked a sufficient scientific basis and was unreliable.
Anthony Morgan
Wow so you have demonstrated that he doesn't understand the difference between post-structuralism and post-modernism. Peterson is actually a low-brow retard.
Brayden Brooks
Tenured former Harvard professor with a high h-index by other academics so... no.
Levi Jones
>After a certain point, what is the real difference between the two? When we use the term cult it is commonly used to refer to a group centered around a living charismatic leader. This leader usually uses the cult member's for his own personal gain and agenda.
Cult leaders exploit the inherently religious nature of human psychology for their own ends. Usually for wealth and power, or to achieve some kind of political goal. Sometimes they are insane and their goals don't make any sense, and sometimes the goals are very concrete.
Real religion is focused on the human relationship with the supernatural divine. If you want to try to discern if a movement is a cult, ask yourself this: Do they place more importance on the divine (such as God) or on a living person? Who is up on the pedestal? Who is being worshiped?
I'm not suggesting that all religions are good or that the distinction between religion and cult is always clear cut. Sometimes people use existing religions (such as Christianity) to start cults, and again the giveaway is that the group is focused on a charismatic living leader.
Jose Kelly
>In what way does the fact that Marxism has poisoned our society invalidate the divinity of Jesus Christ? Of course, peterson doesn't deny the divinity of jesus.
>Ad-hominem pyschopathologizing of random individuals that you think are part of a political movement is not an argument against the that movement and its goals. Yes it is. If a movement is directed by evil actors, with evil ideas that's a reason not to follow it. What other possible reasons could there be to invalidate a movement??
>Mind-reading and psychoanalysis. Assumption and generalization. Not an argument. Of course, it is a generalization. But it's true. "Movements" have a character to them. Assessing the character of a movement doesn't require disproving all the arguments they make. As we see in the case of feminism, the arguments themselves are often completely irrelevant to the true nature of the movement.
>Your ideology is going to get us all killed, allow us to be overrun with hostile foreigners who are collectivist to their core, all so that you can die on a hill protecting your virtue as a "good individual who isn't collectivist or racist". No it isn't.
Hunter Taylor
>peterson doesn't deny the divinity of jesus. Yes he does, he teaches that Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh, and that the resurrection did not actually occur.
>If a movement is directed by evil actors, with evil ideas that's a reason not to follow it. Whose definition of evil?
Now you need to identify these "evil actors" for us and make arguments for their ideas being evil. By the way, the Right does not have any real "leaders" at present, so if you are going to select some random person on youtube (including CIA asset Richard Spencer) and try to claim they are the leader of the Right, then you're off to a bad start.
>What other possible reasons could there be to invalidate a movement?? To invalidate the movement you need to identify the movement's goals and give your arguments against them. Please proceed.
>"Movements" have a character to them. Assessing the character of a movement doesn't require disproving all the arguments they make. What bullshit, you're stating here that you think your personal feelings are argument enough to invalidate something. You sound like a Leftist.
>No it isn't. Yes, your ideology is going to cause people of European descent to become minorities in their own countries and lose their self-determination as unique peoples. It's suicidal.
Brody Thompson
Yes. 1. He believes in pragmatist epistemology. So basically, he can't distinguish between the true, the good, and the beautiful, or he just won't. 2. He preaches personal responsibility. The ethic of personal responsibility just makes you feel bad for not achieving your goals, which just makes you give up. So, its actually self-defeating.
Logan Powell
>Jordan Peterson's Fancy Backswing
Thnx m8, required viewing for all JP acolytes
Elijah Thomas
>Yes he does, he teaches that Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh, and that the resurrection did not actually occur. No. Peterson says the story of jesus is more real than you are.
>Whose definition of evil? Mine.
You can say that spencer is not YOUR leader, but he is A leader and would have power in the case that the alt right succeeded. Pushing the alt right WOULD mean giving a retard like spencer real power.
>To invalidate the movement you need to identify the movement's goals and give your arguments against them. Please proceed. No I reject that. Invalidating the arguments that the movement makes is different than invalidating the movement itself. People lie.
>What bullshit, you're stating here that you think your personal feelings are argument enough to invalidate something. You sound like a Leftist. Yea, of course. I wouldn't lend support to people I judge unworthy of it. That is important. We're talking about a group of people.
>Yes, your ideology is going to cause people of European descent to become minorities in their own countries and lose their self-determination as unique peoples. It's suicidal. No it isn't. My ideology, if it were to catch on, would save the west from all manner of stupid endings.
Angel Ward
100% and he only appeals to absolute losers and meathead podcasters.
Jose Watson
>>Whose definition of evil? >Mine. Okay, tell us what you think is evil and why.
>No I reject that. Invalidating the arguments that the movement makes is different than invalidating the movement itself. People lie. Sounds to me like you have zero arguments.
>Yea, of course. I wouldn't lend support to people I judge unworthy of it. That is important. We're talking about a group of people. Not an argument.
>No it isn't. My ideology, if it were to catch on, would save the west from all manner of stupid endings. Your ideology is classical liberalism which is what allowed the Marxists to take over in the first place.
Since you won't even state your arguments, I'll help you out:
A. Convince me to become a minority in my own country. What are the benefits of being a minority? Why should I desire it?
