I think Peterson would agree though that in retrospect, on a platform designed to be contextless, he shouldn't have tweeted that since it invites these kinds of situations. The tweet has been deleted, after all.
Absolutely, and I think it lends itself to his worry in the most recent interview about making mistakes or saying the wrong thing, something he too often does.
For an intelligent man who prides himself an expert on culture, he’s not very good at navigating it. Perhaps because he doesn’t care to, which is likely.
He just has a lot of comments that he can explain away. But when they build up, eventually people are going to stop listening.
For an intelligent man who prides himself an expert on culture, he’s not very good at navigating it. Perhaps because he doesn’t care to, which is likely.
* Peterson's easily in the top 0.1 per cent of people in the amount of speech he puts out there - tweets, lectures, videos, livestreams.
* Pretty much all of it is about controversial issues.
* He has no PR training, and on principle tries never to evade questions or answer in vague generalities.
Combine those three things, and the simple law of averages make it inevitable that he'll say something scandalous.
I'm watching South Park season 20 right now, and they're bang on with the consequences of everyone having their complete social media and internet histories made public - wild panic and anarchy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I think Peterson would agree though that in retrospect, on a platform designed to be contextless, he shouldn't have tweeted that since it invites these kinds of situations. The tweet has been deleted, after all.
If that tweet is the worst thing that they could dip up on him, then I think that he'll still be riding that 100 foot wave for a little while longer.
Maybe, but how can you even tell what's going to suddenly be the kiss of death? I mean, have you heard the name "Milo Yiannopoulos" for a year or so? Used to be he was all over the place, saying horrible and provocative things that you'd think would be public relations suicide. Granted, appearing to defend pedophilia was terrible, but he'd said other stuff that I'd have thought would be roughly the same level of terrible and no one ever batted an eye (other than the people he was deliberately trying to offend). It all worked in his favour. Suddenly, it was decided he was done. Why was it that, and not one of his other crazy positions? I don't know, maybe I'm tone deaf, but I don't really understand the rules here.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Absolutely, and I think it lends itself to his worry in the most recent interview about making mistakes or saying the wrong thing, something he too often does.
For an intelligent man who prides himself an expert on culture, he’s not very good at navigating it. Perhaps because he doesn’t care to, which is likely.
He just has a lot of comments that he can explain away. But when they build up, eventually people are going to stop listening.
In the Red Corner: Jordan Peterson
In the Blue Corner: PepsiFree
Out of curiosity, what areas would those be, in your opinion?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Since this thread is at the top right now, I'll post this, even though I won't get a chance to read it until probably tomorrow. It's the article I referenced earlier that I was waiting for about Peterson. I have enough faith in the author that I figure it'll be very much worth reading (regardless of whether you're a Peterson fan).
The Guru Appeal of Jordan Peterson in our Post-Everything World
The key words in that brief biography of Jordan Peterson are, in increasing order of importance, “life-coach,” “passionate,” “churches” (in the given context), and “guru.” Put another way, Peterson’s star appeal isn’t curious at all to anyone who understands the inner mechanics of religious movements. Whether he realizes it or not, Peterson is leading one. That explains his star appeal effectively entirely.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Since this thread is at the top right now, I'll post this, even though I won't get a chance to read it until probably tomorrow. It's the article I referenced earlier that I was waiting for about Peterson. I have enough faith in the author that I figure it'll be very much worth reading (regardless of whether you're a Peterson fan).
I don't know if I buy that it's a cult or a religion. Peterson is trying to improve individuals in an ever-changing world. Perhaps in this world men are losing their way or feel left behind (rightly or wrongly). So he teaches men (mostly) to improve themselves and not be victims. In life you have two choices, you can be a leader or a victim. So take the lead and improve yourself everyday. If you're shy, say hi to the kiosk girl. It's their job to be friendly. If you're uncomfortable at parties or networking events just go there first to observe and then maybe talk to one person. Set small goals.
I don't know why there is such a backlash. And then there's a backlash to the backlash. He's not the only one doing this, just his language might be a bit stronger than others.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Since this thread is at the top right now, I'll post this, even though I won't get a chance to read it until probably tomorrow. It's the article I referenced earlier that I was waiting for about Peterson. I have enough faith in the author that I figure it'll be very much worth reading (regardless of whether you're a Peterson fan).
In the apparent cultural vacuum that has been left by the retreat of tradition and religion, seekers today largely have to choose between social justice leftism and alt-right idiocy if they seek some deeper sense of meaning and belongingness in their lives. Here, Peterson offers a middle way...
Quote:
They are the root of what Jonathan Rauch called the “fundamentalist impulse,” which is the perennial enemy of liberal society against which American Enlightenment figures urged we must always retain vigilance — specifically because people crave them so. It isn’t coincidental, then, that “principles” and “certainties” are precisely what the social justice left and alt-right (not to mention the Islamic State) are selling by the truckload to disaffected Western kids.
I agree that to many of his followers, at least, Peterson is a guru. Which is my biggest problem with the movement - many of his most enthusiastic fans reject the simplistic dogma of progressive leftism, but demonstrate many of the same tribalistic behaviours. They hone their critical thinking skills when challenging identity politics, but suspend them when Peterson speaks.
However, I don't know that this should be laid at the feet of Peterson. First, I don't see any signs that Peterson is deliberately fostering blind obedience or cult-like group-think. There are people who hang on every word from the mouth of a Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris, but that doesn't make them religious figures. Secondly, tribalism is evident in every community. We can't seem to escape it. I mean, just look at this forum - its entire purpose is to foster collective, irrational support for a sports team.
And Peterson never misses an opportunity to warn of the dangers of ideology, of political movements rooted in simplistic and wishful thinking. His attitude towards religion is conflicted, but I don't see anything suspicious or problematic about that. An atheist (and Peterson has suggested he doesn't believe in God) can see value in eternal myths of the sort Joseph Campbell illuminated, and recognize that this part of the human psyche can never be truly understood with reason and empiricism alone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-31-2018 at 09:20 AM.
I listened to that Rogan interview and thought Peterson was very well spoken. The one criticism I have is that he takes positions that are rational (The logical conclusion of neo marxism/equality of outcome is a tyrannical state, ie soviet union, and the logical conclusion of far right is Nazism) and suggests we are heading that way, which seems like a bit of a stretch.
I think part of the reason Peterson is popular is simply that he speaks like an intelligent adult, which is pretty rare to see these days. A lot of people are tired of shallow hashtag social justice outrage but also of obvious con men like Trump. Most adults (especially politicians) we see still try to fit in on one side or the other instead of cutting through all the BS. We are pretty rarely presented with a respectable adult who actually has some knowledge on what he speaks about, gives things careful consideration, and can communicate truthfully about what he thinks. He speaks like he's a strong parent -- he doesn't fall over himself to gain his kids approval and also wants to see them develop their own potential. It just looks like leadership to me, the same way you would respect a strong coach in a sport.
That's not to say people should deify the man. But he has a perspective that obviously comes from life experience and deep intellectual study -- so it carries weight. I think people are actually starved for wisdom of that sort.
I've watched a lot of his lectures online, he seems like an outstanding professor. I think any student that took his classes has probably come out better for it.
__________________
A few weeks after crashing head-first into the boards (denting his helmet and being unable to move for a little while) following a hit from behind by Bob Errey, the Calgary Flames player explains:
"I was like Christ, lying on my back, with my arms outstretched, crucified"
-- Frank Musil - Early January 1994
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Igottago For This Useful Post:
I think part of the reason Peterson is popular is simply that he speaks like an intelligent adult, which is pretty rare to see these days. A lot of people are tired of shallow hashtag social justice outrage but also of obvious con men like Trump. Most adults (especially politicians) we see still try to fit in on one side or the other instead of cutting through all the BS. We are pretty rarely presented with a respectable adult who actually has some knowledge on what he speaks about, gives things careful consideration, and can communicate truthfully about what he thinks. He speaks like he's a strong parent -- he doesn't fall over himself to gain his kids approval and also wants to see them develop their own potential. It just looks like leadership to me, the same way you would respect a strong coach in a sport.
That's not to say people should deify the man. But he has a perspective that obviously comes from life experience and deep intellectual study -- so it carries weight. I think people are actually starved for wisdom of that sort.
I've watched a lot of his lectures online, he seems like an outstanding professor. I think any student that took his classes has probably come out better for it.
This is a good point. He speaks with nuance, which feels like a lost art in modern parlance.
I listened to that Rogan interview and thought Peterson was very well spoken. The one criticism I have is that he takes positions that are rational (The logical conclusion of neo marxism/equality of outcome is a tyrannical state, ie soviet union, and the logical conclusion of far right is Nazism) and suggests we are heading that way, which seems like a bit of a stretch.
If you have the time, read the article Corsi linked to. The author makes a good case that with the decline of traditional religious and moral authority, people are searching for alternate sources of meaning. The movements that are emerging to meet that need are the identarian social justice left, and alt-right nationalism.
I doubt we'll see genuine communism or fascism take over any time soon, but I do think those two illiberal, quasi-religious movements will have an increasingly powerful and malign influence on society. At the very least, they need to be identified for what they are and called out by the rational, liberal centre.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 01-31-2018 at 10:34 AM.
If you have the time, read the article Corsi linked to. The author makes a good case that with the decline of traditional religious and moral authority, people are searching for alternate sources of meaning. The movements that are emerging to meet that need are the identarian social justice left, and alt-right nationalism.
I doubt we'll see genuine communism or fascism take over any time soon, but I do think those two illiberal, quasi-religious movements will have an increasingly powerful and malign influence on society. At the very least, they need to be identified for what they are and called out by the rational, liberal centre.
This is interesting. We've had different ideologies overthrow monarchies. Nationalists in China, Communists in Russia (indirectly), Liberalism in France, treaty in Japan. And many other places for different reasons. To the point now where any country that has a monarchy its more symbolic then anything.
Do you feel we are reaching a point that maybe 'the republic' is at risk and could be replaced by something else either right-wing or left-wing?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
