I actually have, and, there is nothing in it that puts it above any other self-help guide, aside from it’s specific audience (which is a rare focus). I don’t see how it’s arrogant, I’m not the first person to think so and I’m unlikely the last. Lots of self-help guides make a difference in people’s lives, what gives you the right to place the difference Peterson makes to young men above any other basic self-help guide makes to anyone else?
I’m aware of who he is, and I’m aware of how he put himself in the spotlight very particularly.
As I said, I find it very fascinating how people (your post is a good example) just sort of... embrace it, because he’s speaking to an audience who isn’t normally spoken to. It’s rarely concrete examples of what is so astounding about it, it’s things like “He’s a clinical psychologist, so it MUST be good”... or “People say it helped them! So it MUST be more than basic!” and, weirdly, this seems to be from people who haven’t even read the thing.
Not everything he says is gold, he makes some interesting points, and, I think, is good at making people think of things in a different way. But it’s just strange watching him gather this cult-like status, people just blindly defending anything and everything, sight unseen, and throwing their money towards him.
Among all the help he provides are some basic, sometimes stupid or funny, sometimes just socially conservative ideas backed up by... religion, a lot of the time. So I guess that’s fine if that’s what you’re happy with.
I think a big reason he is become so popular has a lot to do with timing. Bill C-16 played a major role in putting him into the spotlight, and given the reaction many Canadians and people across the world have had probably speaks a lot to the frustration across the 'post secondary' world in regards to how our kids are being taught.
There are many 'other' views right now in the world that he speaks about that have possibly come to a breaking point and people are just so frustrated with what has been happening for 30-40 years with political and social tendencies that they are taking what he is saying and firmly latching onto it.
The whole pronoun deal doesn't apply to me. I've never even given it a second thought until I came across his interviews and videos. Now I see how incredibly stupid and short-sighted the legislative part of the whole thing is, and I think a lot of other everyday Canadians feel the same way which along with the whole Kinder Morgan deal goes to show how completely out of touch 'government' and 'politicians' are with everyday Canadians.
Purposely misgendering a trans person is one of the biggest piece of #### moves someone can do. It's disrespectful and hurtful to their dignity as a human being. I see him as nothing more than an ignorant and spiteful dickhead.
Is there a reason you generalize everything?
I responded earlier to your comment about all the abuse and suffering surrounding residential schools in regards to what we should do going forward and you didn't respond to that either.
Seems to me that your outlook here is a lot like your outlook there. Call attention to all the 'ignorant and spiteful dickheads' but not actually think beyond that in terms of actual solutions and the ways and means of moving forward. I don't think there is a single person in Canada who isn't ashamed and utterly disgusted at what happened with the residential schools. But, you can go through history and find MANY examples of people that suffered at the hand of their oppressors, often far WORSE than the poor students who were abused in those residential schools. Does that make it okay? No, absolutely not. But at some point simply calling attention to all the abuse and trying to legislate around it with apologies and legislative action like financial recompense isn't going to help anyone move forward. We need to find a way to help those people move forward without attaching labels and laws to everything.
And that is exactly why C-16 is in my mind a completely tragedy. Because our government and by extension the people of Canada are reducing a major problem of extreme suffering and hardship to a small worthless, non-involved legislative 'pass a law' solution. And like Peterson told our good Senate, that is not going to help at all.
Purposely misgendering a trans person is one of the biggest piece of #### moves someone can do. It's disrespectful and hurtful to their dignity as a human being. I see him as nothing more than an ignorant and spiteful dickhead.
Lol, you are such an angry person. You must be a blast to hang around with.
A few times I've thought about how JP sounds to some people is like how DC sounds to me, an obnoxious word salad that makes me want to put my head through a wall, but in practice, both of these guys are just trying to get people to become their best version of themselves, so how upset can you really let yourself get? If experimenting with DCs gobbledeguuk convinces someone to do yoga, meditate and eat some salad, then I'd have a tough time trying to paint that as a bad thing.
A) Writing instructional material and leading classes on archetypes, personality, and meaning. He's been doing these for 20 years, and is now posting them on youtube. This work is highly regarded in his field, earning Peterson positions at prestigious schools and a large number of citations from his peers.
B) An indictment of identity politics and its ideological underpinnings, particular in the academy. This is what thrust him into the popular consciousness as an uncommonly articulate/dishonest and defiant/malicious combatant in today's culture wars.
C) Clinical psychiatry and self-help. He's been doing this for decades as well, but only with his recent book reached the status of pop culture guru.
Each of the projects appeals to a different audience, though there's a lot of overlap. B is what gave him a public profile and massively expanded the audience for A and C.
He doesn't strike me as cynical as most self-help gurus. He genuinely believes this stuff, and the fact his book is a massive best-seller is really just good fortune (he should probably send Cathy Newman a cut of his earnings). While I don't think he's in it for the money, he does seem to be embracing a kind of messianic role. How else to explain his musings about entering politics? That, of course, would be delusional folly. It's hard to imagine someone less temperamentally suited to politics.
__________________
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.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
...speaks a lot to the frustration across the 'post secondary' world in regards to how our kids are being taught.
There are many 'other' views right now in the world that he speaks about that have possibly come to a breaking point and people are just so frustrated with what has been happening for 30-40 years with political and social tendencies that they are taking what he is saying and firmly latching onto it.
Regarding how kids are being taught, I don’t think that’s accurate. Peterson himself is a professor and, I believe, from my own recent personal experience, that he is not rare among professors who don’t align with the kind of silly “safe space liberal hotbed” that gets trotted out now and again. In the states it might be different, but I think it’s just a loud minority who takes that stance here. Maybe not, just my experience.
What has been happening over the past 30-40 years that is frustrating?
Yeah I don't get what that's referring to either. Is that just a different way of saying things were better back in the good old days?
It's referring to the hardening ideological conformity in many fields of academia, particularly social constructivism, which argues that the only factor responsible for different outcomes of individuals or groups is systemic privilege and oppression.
The fact entire degree programs have been created that essentially preach a fixed moral dogma is no longer passing under the radar of most Canadians. The Lindsay Shephard affair showed how bad things have gotten on campus.
Regarding how kids are being taught, I don’t think that’s accurate. Peterson himself is a professor and, I believe, from my own recent personal experience, that he is not rare among professors who don’t align with the kind of silly “safe space liberal hotbed” that gets trotted out now and again. In the states it might be different, but I think it’s just a loud minority who takes that stance here. Maybe not, just my experience.
What has been happening over the past 30-40 years that is frustrating?
And, again, have you read 12 Rules?
I have read the 12 rules, yes. Sorry for not answering that earlier. I agree its not 'revolutionary', however I do believe it is well written and easy to understand.
As for the other points, I won't even call it a 'liberal hotbed.' I think the pandering to privilege and and political correctness is not a 'liberal' thing, especially in the Canadian sense of Liberalism. I think the current Liberal government has been caught up with a incapable party leader who has also been caught in the pandering and belief in legislative action will lead to social change bullcrap. If you go back and study the beliefs Pierre Trudeau had, he actually had some great ideas and as a result of that legislative action ready to try and deal with the problems Canada has with our indigenous people basically living as 3rd world citizens in a 1st world country. I can't particularly remember what came of it, however I would imagine it didn't become reality because the political climate and social construct at THAT TIME was already being framed around the stupidity of ignoring individualism and self betterment, including being responsible for ones own actions, and instead trending towards being politically correct even at the expense of not actually solving the problem. As a nation we are responsible for the fact that our indigenous people live as 3rd world citizens, however because of political correctness and the sensitivity of the whole situation, practical solutions cannot be proposed because it is not socially acceptable to talk about creating a culture where people are responsible for their own actions, and secondly whoever would do that faces political suicide.
Just look at what is happening with the pipeline issue. Despite the undeniable scientific evidence that the pipeline is the most safe and responsible way of transporting the oil, our current political leaders are not willing to risk political suicide in exchange for economic success. So instead they are focusing on propped up 'legislative' solutions without needing to REALLY be involved, and to REALLY risk something politically.
Over the last 30-40 years I think that has gotten worse. The fact that we actually now have legislative action based around compelled speech is a good sign of that.
I think there's an inverse corollary between people who find Peterson's comments on universities accurate and the length of time it's been since they stepped foot into one (if ever).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
Last edited by PsYcNeT; 04-21-2018 at 07:28 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
I think there's an inverse corollary between people who find Peterson's comments on universities accurate and the length of time it's been since they stepped foot into one (if ever).
I generally agree. Peterson of all people should know, having a job in one after all, but I don’t find his commentary on universities (in Alberta at least, which probably curbs things thanks to a stronger conservative presence) accurate at all. I wonder if it’s personal bias, seeing only that which he wants to see.
I wonder if it’s personal bias, seeing only that which he wants to see.
Of course it is. But it is also understandable. Based on his degree, and his personal ideological leanings, he is going to see things through a very specific lens. Peterson is not some clear thinker who is on the leading edge of critical thought. He sounds just like every clinical psychologist in practice or clinical practitioner in development I have run into on multiple campuses or in practice. He is very analytical and sounds like a real deep thinker to the sheep, but is really just locked into the thought processes of his profession/training, and as a result, his particular bias. You can hear the exact same perspective repeated in pretty well every Psych Department faculty meeting.
Peterson's view of the academy is predictable, because he has only ever been an instructor/researcher. His perspective is limited to what he views from his department, and he unintentionally wears blinders, just like all faculty. What would help Dr. Peterson develop a more rounded understanding of the academy is to do some time in administration and get to know the needs of the whole university, and not just his single program. I personally know this changed my perspective from one very similar to Peterson's to one much more open about how a university/college needs to run, and the open culture it requires. I agree with a lot of what Dr. Peterson has to say on many issues, but his commentary on the academy is very myopic and general in nature, not truly representing the current state of most universities or colleges around the continent.
So Bill Maher blasted those calling for her head, and I do agree free speech and all that, but wow this professor is a piece of human trash. In her own words, a liberal, feminazi Muslim woman.
So Bill Maher blasted those calling for her head, and I do agree free speech and all that, but wow this professor is a piece of human trash. In her own words, a liberal, feminazi Muslim woman.
I hate having to defend people that say stupid ####, except every single one of those soundbites is edited and provided without any context whatsoever. We're better than that.
