Jordan Peterson

He doesn't understand postmodernism and his psychology leans heavily on Jungian archetypes, which no serious psychologist entertains. As a post said earlier, he has the ear of the cucked generation and is making hay

Entertaining but not groundbreaking.

Also his writing style is total garbage

he's afraid of postmodernism because he knows his ideas are incredibly flimsy and easily deconstructed

He's an easy guy to like until you listen to a lot of what he has to say and realize the contradictions. After that, he just comes off as a guy with a mental block that he's trying desperately to navigate around. Also the fame seems to have gotten to his head and he's starting to come off as arrogant.

>Btw I support women, black, Jewish, Latino, and Asian collectivism.
do you have a link to where he does this?

>postmodern marxism
umm what

Psychology is probably the worst of the Humanities as it tries to use natural science methods to prove things you cant prove with these methods.
And the typical example of womens studies is a small field compared to the really important ones.

>tries to use natural science methods to prove things you cant prove with these methods

I really disagree with that. Given a proper framework we can understand any phenomena, and we can discover that framework through the scientific method.

What would you consider the best of the Humanities?

>marxism: a modernistic meta narrative
>postmodernism: the rejection of all meta narratives

Attached: 1525243907233.png (857x1202, 1.14M)

this is all true. most humanities research isn't even cited later. i keep at it because my research is partially about pedagogy so at least fellow teachers can take something from it. avoiding theory unfortunately often suggests a lack of detail expected of a scholar but i still avoid it because not everything must be politically motivated despite what critical theorists believe.

>Given a proper framework we can understand any phenomena, and we can discover that framework through the scientific method.
not that user but you sound like a cognitive scientist more than a psychologist but i guess there is some overlap

>Given a proper framework we can understand any phenomena, and we can discover that framework through the scientific method.
While this is technically correct, it's also complete garbage, both on a conceptual level and on a practical level.

Some phenomenas are too complex (by now) to be understood that way.
Subjects that try to do this (mostly psychology, sociology or political science) use surveys and statistics to "prove" their points and by now we should all know how easily mistakes are made using these.

I dont think there is a best one as I believe you have to see it as a whole (natural sciences and cultural sciences would complement each other in that system).
I personally study classical/ancient literature, so I am probably biased in that case.

Nope, I'm just an opinionated engineer who's annoyed by the lack of rigour in the humanities at large.

That's an interesting assertion, could you back it up?

Attached: pro_mc-chicken.png (600x422, 86K)

>has some solid points
>nice to see more people say "nah not gonna do that" when the sjw mob cries foul
>annoying that people worship him
>associate himself with stefan molyneux which is a red flag

As a Psychology Major, I really think you should take a lot more courses before making a condemnation of this field. You may also want to take a course in Behavioral Statistics. There's so much evidence to support my opinion that it's almost silly for me to even post this.

Attached: 18879339_1082442481888125_8069792852495826944_n.jpg (1080x1080, 99K)

Of course I can.
Conceptually it is wrong, because it's religious faith in the scientific method, asserting that every phenomenon there is is observable.
It's classic hard empiricist drivel.

Practically it's wrong, because we don't have an infinite amount of time to develop frameworks for everything.

Take your pick, either of them works.

You guys should discuss this difference in opinion

I like his videos, I just wish he would stick to one Fable per paragraph worth of words or at least sentence. It's kinda cringey the way he switches from story to sorry as if you make as many pop culture references as possible except they're fables.

>phenomenon
>literally means things that appear
>not observable
You probably mean noumenon, simple mistake.

If something is not observable (in the physical sense) then it is not a phenomenon, and I would argue does not exist.

Of course we have time to develop frameworks for everything. That's literally been the purpose of academia since its inception, and I don't see why it would stop.

I know you can make a point for the subject too, its a respected work field and I believe psychological work is important.
I was just using a hyperbole to make my point, that I believe this method is not the right one.

Christian Conservative, he is somewhat better then the avarage christcuck in terms of arguments.
But seriously this guy believes in "free will" and the resurection of Jezus (at least in some metaphorical/magical/mistical/archetipical way).
People fall for him because he opposed some traines/fags special names, and he is a self help guru with zero understanding of how the real world works.

>What do you think of this guy?
Panders to a fatherless, numale audience who eat up what he says and thinks it's some kind of amazing revelation.

>WHOA dude...he told me to clean my room...fuck this guy is a genius bros...

Attached: 1510236607976.jpg (592x644, 87K)

The idea of developing a framework for everything doesnt work in the humanities as an object is more than the sum of its parts.

>Have you ever watched his videos?

Yes and they made me more suicidal and madder than I was before

I feel like you probably have a point, can you articulate it more clearly?

>made me more suicidal and madder
why?
did you start feeling guilty of your past actions or inactions?

I like him a lot. He's a father figure for the generation raised by single mothers. Also he has a lot of great practical advice for dealing with depression/anxiety. I don't like how he dismisses the new atheists with semantics and question-dodging whenever someone asks him about his own religious beliefs. Shame Hitchens isn't around to debate him.

No, the sound of his stupid voice made me want to kill myself.

If Hitchens had lived another decade or so the intellectual/cultural landscape would be so different.

he's a typical evangelical sophist. It's hilarious and sad how he is able to exploit vulnerable robots that aren't well read.

Pure materialism might seem logical at first and if you look at something, lets say a dog, you can observe every little part of him. You can observe single organs, single cells, even single atoms.
You can try to understand what happens inside and outside of a dog on even an atomic level.
But the question is, is there not something behind it? Wouldnt the dog be more than just four legs, a trunk and a head?
You dont have to be religious to believe there might be another level of meaning behind an object.
A bigger example: Is a nation just the sum of its laws, traditions and people? Or is more behind that than what you can easily observe?
You can apply that thought to every thing and concept and especially in the humanities this is more important than anywhere else.

I guess you would use "beyond" instead of "behind" in line 3 in English, can someone confirm?

How would you know if some conclusion you make about human behavior is true in general or only in the cultural context in which you did a study?

or maybe you were just too envious of his voice to continue living bucko

Hey bucko do you want my 2'000 $ signed carpet?

If he helps people i have no problem with him.

I couldn't believe when he did that. What a fucking money hungry wolf.

>is there not something behind it
Yes, maybe but we don't know, and probably never will. So since we don't want to end up doing useless speculations, we try to use a materialistic interpretation of reality (because it is the only one that can produce observable results).

It is also millions of years of evolutionary biology and psychology. It is thousands of years of guided development and domestication. It is a reflection of cultural attitudes and traditions of the people who keep it as pets. Etc.

I believe all of these aspects can be defined within materialistic frameworks. The same is true for a country, or an individual, or an earthquake. We might not have a complete framework yet, but I don't see any hard limits that would prevent one from being created.

Could you provide an example of a level of meaning that can not studied/analyzed empirically?

le lobster man

r/The_Donald incarnate

Attached: a9mmp8olviw01.png (508x711, 630K)

He's a voice of reason and motivation to me. I've watched around 30 hours of his videos in total ever since some user on Jow Forums introduced me to his channel a couple of years ago.

Postmodernism is just fucking boypucci or pro sodomy. Literally only boysoys have a huge problem with Jordan Peterson.

he makes somewhere around 80'000 $ each month from patreon alone
but its not enough lets milk the cow even more
He is doing the same thing every tv evangelist would do (exploiting stupid people) wouldn't you?

how do i into well read ???

thing is that there is no such thing as "postmodernism", at least not in the way he understands it

I don't know why user says "surveys and statistics" are used to prove. There is no "prove" in the entire field. Or any field. I think user doesn't have a firm grasp of basic science. The scientific method is used to "disprove" the null hypothesis.

There is also this. Lumping statistics and surveys together is like lumping quantum mechanics and hopscotch together.

And also this. We have a lot of physical evidence now that supports many theories. For example, do you believe in free will? Well, whether you do or not, you didn't freely make that choice whether or not to believe in free will. Scientists can hook your brain up to a machine and watch as they ask you to "choose" between several different things, and they can show you on a video how your brain unconsciously makes the choice for you before you ever even think about choosing. Spooky fucking shit. But it's been replicated over and over and over again. It's something a lot of scientists don't talk about. But they will be talking about it more as the evidence mounts against the idea of free will.

"free will" always just seemed like a lazy cop out to me. Every thing has a cause and effect, why would our consciousness be any different?

nigger visit that shit

Well, if he were just pro leftism the left would be worshipping this guy. Thats literally the biggest reason the left doesnt like him, because he doesnt like any bullshit leftist ideas.

Start with the greeks
also nice dubs

Jordan Peterson one part muh postmodernism and one part shitty self help rebranded for the young "intellectual". Nothing of value.

He's ok i guess. At the very least he's a lot more palatable than a lot of the other faggots like stefan molyneux, Milo yinyangoctopuss and Gavin Mcginess the fatherless numales have latched on to.

did you watch JP's april Q & A, he talks about free will, and in his view it works only in long term decisions.
Also your subconscious mind, is still you.

I'm a leftist, and i don't like him just because: first he doesn't know what he is talking about, second he is a Christian.

>in his view it works only in long term decisions
I'd say that's because there's not immediate evidence to disprove that yet.

>your subconscious mind, is still you
Wouldn't your conscious narrator-mind really be "you". The subconscious mind is the mysterious actor that "decides" to make a choice before we even realize it.

This

>second he is a Christian.
that's fine. but if you all of a sudden pay attention to muslim thinkers just of out fear of them without noticing the hypocrisy of that (typical of the left) then that's not a valid reason to discount him. i have issues with christianity as a polytheist but i don't discount specific religious thinkers for no reason other than fashion and the left's smug sense of morality being disconnected from religion

I don't put much credence in any modern day religious philosophers. Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/polyamorous-heathen, if they can't separate their beliefs from their studies (protip: JP doesn't) then they are inherently biased and arguing from a preset agenda.

I agree with this. We don't really know what the subconscious is or how it operates. We speculate, but in all honesty, there is a mysterious force making choices for us that we do not understand.

Hes a pseud hack that appeals to other pseud hacks

I do economics and I strongly disagree with this.
This mentality creates the most cringey research. If you are very clever, you can discover very specific truths about people through the scientific method
The issue is that when you reduce the human experience to data, you loose a lot of relevant information

I have, Jungian archetypes are really interesting. That being said I do think he's kind of pathetic preaching form his soapbox made of pol patreon money.

gassing is a very ineffective way of genocide
we wouldnt have jews if the nazis just put a bullet in them when they found them

That's really interesting. How do you handle the relevant information if you don't use a scientific framework?

>engineer criticizing the social scientists
in most cases, engineers and social scientists have the same amount of 'rigor'
the issue is that if you find a spurious correlation in the hard sciences, generally it won't bite you in the butt.

i'm agnostic, and i view any religious believe as an admission of a bias. it doesn't matter what religion you adhere to.
would you trust the judgement and/or opinion of a Scientologist? same thing with christians/muslims/buddhists/etc.

>insulting German efficiency
They couldn't spare the bullets. That's why they tied people together, shot 1, and then threw them in rivers so the other drowns.

is the clean your room lobster really tall or is the redditor just a manlet?

>in most cases, engineers and social scientists have the same amount of 'rigor'
youtu.be/GGn25URIss8

german hard work is the only reason they managed to kill so many with such an ineffective method

those are both fair views but in my experience with the left they are not typical views

I translated one of his videos and watched some others. He says reasonable things that have already been said a lot of times.

>you need the same amount of rigour to publish a sob story in a cultural studies journal as you do to build a bridge

/sci/ actually believes this

forgot to add this one to the previous message

He's a fucking hack and anyone who thinks he's at all insightful might be genuinely retarded.

Attached: scrd6fphz9e01.jpg (576x586, 66K)

maybe he's wondering why they would shoot a man before throwing him into a river

Attached: big guy.jpg (1280x720, 31K)

Idk man, I think you're conflating leftists with liberal-sjws. Two totally different things...

We also like guns

Attached: 1518723903275.jpg (528x720, 109K)

by making assumptions about the problems structure
For example, if i want to know how price effects the amount of widgets i sell, i can't actually run an experiment. Both the quantity of widgets and price are dependent on each other.
you solve the problem by assuming structure
i.e. supply and demand. these are invisible forces that don't exist in data. But, by assuming they exist you can identify them using factors that in theory only affect supply and only affect demand.
> scientific framework
there's a popular school of thought in economics that tries to 'run experiments' with peoples lives (i.e. randomized control and experimental groups).
I find this dumb. i don't want to be responsible for playing with people's lives for my academic curiosity

Youre a typical leftist. Bigot. Enjoy the Trump Presidency fuckface.

when you find people in the social sciences who understand statistics, they are usually way better than engineers

The man is a psychologist, that should tell you all you need to know about him. His job is literally making up fairy tales for sick and desperate people and charging them for the privilege while calling himself some kind of authority. Funnily enough, that's also exactly what he does in his "academic" lectures and politics. He's a fraud, a very successful one too.

Attached: 1525293863140.png (820x460, 598K)

social-sciences is an oxymoron

Nigga you literally just described scientific modeling

I agree those experiments are dumb, there are way to many things to control for. Case studies and reviewing historical data seems like a much better option

He helps normies not fall to the left he is alright in my book

your looking at it wrong. think of it as designing a bridge vs a traffic light.
designing the most efficient traffic light possible is way harder than designing a bridge that can hold a car.
granted, if you fuck up the traffic light the consequences are lower than fucking up the bridge

>scientific modeling
making assumptions and using equations doesn't make things any more 'rigorous'
there's no way to prove this structure exists. And, often times its kind of like a flying spaghetti monster you can use when its convenient

Those are both examples of engineering rigour though... Who do you think optimizes the traffic lights and traffic flow, it rhymes with civic pthengineer.

Also, bridge building is a similar optimization problem when you have to deal with construction cost/time, material availability, projected traffic rates for the next 50 years, and the multitude of environmental effects that can send dozens of motorists careening into a canyon

He is a hack and a snake