Jordan Peterson

[Chuck Naill]

Do you agree?

""Stand up straight with your shoulders back."
"Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping."
"Make friends with people who want the best for you."
"Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today."
"Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them."
"Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world."
"Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)."
"Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie."
"Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t."
"Be precise in your speech."
"Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding."
"Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street."

[dneal]

The "rules", specifically and with no exception? Many of them. To the larger principles he elaborates on in the book? Yes, generally.

[Chip]

Stand up straight with your shoulders back. Even while having sex or sleeping.

Treat yourself like you are someone you are responsible for helping. Like an old lady crossing the street or a screeching child.

Make friends with people who want the best for you. But do explore their idea of what's best.

Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today. Same weight, same looks, same house, bank balance a bit lower, could use a shave.

Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them. Like talking behind your back or playing loud music or arguing with your politics or having sex.

Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world. But don't be too sticky about "perfect."

Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient). While recognising that "meaningful" is subject to a broad range of definitions.

Tell the truth — or, at least, don’t lie. Which will rule out virtually all your present beliefs and political affiliations.

Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t. Whether worthwhile or not.

Be precise in your speech. But not necessarily accurate.

Do not bother children when they are skate-boarding. Especially with your car.

Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street. (Always carry a first aid kit with disinfectants, butterfly bandages, etc.)

https://i.imgur.com/AJQ3S4W.jpg

[kazoolaw]

Cats, why did it have to be cats?

[Chip]

Cats have smaller teeth.

https://i.imgur.com/f87qGBu.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

Thanks for the replies. I was not impressed with his list.

[Chip]

Confucius, he ain't.

[TSherbs]

Confucius, he ain't.

I had never heard of this guy until today. I see that his research in the 90s and early 2000s is respected in the field. But his culture war pronouncements? Misguided and misleading and now monetized to make him rich. Not impressed. There are times he has no idea what he is talking about.

The list posted above here is further inanity. But whatever. Sometimes bland sells.

[manoeuver]

The list is ok. if nothing else it might inspire folks to make their own (Tyler Cowen made a far more interesting list here (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/tyler-cowens-12-rules-life.html).)

Peterson himself I can take or leave. An entry level philosopher.
Like any intellectual, many of his ideas are discardable upon examination, I s'pose the examination is where the real value lies.

[dneal]

My wife and I were listening to a conversation between Jordan Peterson, Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKh0ni7HlNw); as we were working on a jigsaw puzzle. This thread came to mind.

He's a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology. He's certainly well versed in psychological literature, and clearly a deep and deliberate thinker. His fame resulted from his disagreement with a Canadian bill that would require compliance with gender pronouns - under penalty of law. He argued it violates free speech principles, and his media presence took off from there.

The "gotcha" journalists tried to paint him as an "alt-right" figure, "misogynist", and other labels they're fond of, but ultimately were unable to "get" him. The more he spoke the more he offended by speaking truth they found unpleasant. There are numerous examples of this, the Cathy Newman interview being one of the most notable.

His lectures have been on YouTube for years, and he has a following of young men in particular who listen to him and attend his talks. He discovered how lost this millennial/video game playing/living in mom's basement/whatever generation appeared to be, and wrote 12 Rules for Life for them. I read it, and it doesn't impart any particular wisdom to me; but to a lost late teen - early 20 something male, ideas in the book are novel. They're also valuable. Responsibility. Hard work. Resilience. Yeah, an "unimpressive list" from an "entry-level philosopher" that coincidentally has helped tens of thousands of young men.

I'm no fan of Jung and the "collective unconscious", which Peterson is; although I appreciate his use of archetypes as a framework for understanding personality types or traits. Peterson argues Jung well and thoroughly. He can talk Solzhenitsyn and a host of other writers and thinkers, and he can present their ideas in context of contemporary issues.

So it's disappointing how superficial (and even mocking) the comments are. What is clear is how ignorant most of you seem to be regarding him, and seem little more informed than the Twitter-level "debate" regarding him.

There's a lot in the video linked above, but "a lot" happens when three brilliant people have an unscripted conversation. There's a point where they compare it to the internet trolls, and describe honest dialogue's importance as:

"...that's where education takes place... and being there is way better than being right."

They go on to point out that:

"...then something happens sometimes. Something intervenes from the outside to disrupt it..."

They're right, and it's a shame so many of the "disruptions" intervene here.

[TSherbs]

The list is ok. if nothing else it might inspire folks to make their own (Tyler Cowen made a far more interesting list here (https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/tyler-cowens-12-rules-life.html).)

Peterson himself I can take or leave. An entry level philosopher.
Like any intellectual, many of his ideas are discardable upon examination, I s'pose the examination is where the real value lies.

As a high school teacher, I have sat through approximately 40 years of commencement speeches that use lists like this. Over it. Not much new under the sun, and everyone wants to be "original" or cheeky or irreverent or witty-with-the-banal (etc).

[manoeuver]

...snip...
His lectures have been on YouTube for years, and he has a following of young men in particular who listen to him and attend his talks. He discovered how lost this millennial/video game playing/living in mom's basement/whatever generation appeared to be, and wrote 12 Rules for Life for them. I read it, and it doesn't impart any particular wisdom to me; but to a lost late teen - early 20 something male, ideas in the book are novel. They're also valuable. Responsibility. Hard work. Resilience. Yeah, an "unimpressive list" from an "entry-level philosopher" that coincidentally has helped tens of thousands of young men.

I'm no fan of Jung and the "collective unconscious", which Peterson is; although I appreciate his use of archetypes as a framework for understanding personality types or traits. Peterson argues Jung well and thoroughly. He can talk Solzhenitsyn and a host of other writers and thinkers, and he can present their ideas in context of contemporary issues.

So it's disappointing how superficial (and even mocking) the comments are. What is clear is how ignorant most of you seem to be regarding him, and seem little more informed than the Twitter-level "debate" regarding him.

...

dneal, I think we actually mostly agree about Peterson's value.
I agree he's literally a godsend for the teens/20s guys who he's helped out of the basement, out of depression and into responsible manhood (as it were.)

I feel there is great need for entry-level philosophy per se, I suppose my use of that term definitely sounds more dismissive than I meant it to.

Unfortunately, or maybe not, I dunno, he's got his culture warrior baggage with him so many folks (here and elsewhere) are operating with the opinion they've been assigned.

I went in optimistic and now like him less than when I first heard him (on Rogan a couple years back.)

Things I appreciate about him: He reads and references Solzhenitsyn. He's willing to speak unpopular truths. He's helping lost dudes find meaning and responsibility where our education system and popular culture have failed them (miserably.)

Why I don't really care for his stuff: I have a low opinion of Psychology as Science. I believe IQ is an intellectual swindle (he leans hard on it.) If you've read even moderately widely, his stuff is pretty banal.

All in all I think one can do better than Peterson for a role model.
Specifically, listening to an interview with Henry Rollins of all people, I thought this guy is a way better intellectual role model for JP's audience.

ok, thanks for reading all that.

[dneal]

@ maneuver - fair enough and my bad for misreading "entry-level".

The majority of the interviews of Peterson get boring quickly, mainly because they're repetitive. I already know what's going to be asked and how he will answer. I've watched a few of his classroom lectures, and came away with just "meh". Some people can speak, some can write. I love listening to Douglas Murray, but hate his prose. Victor Davis Hanson is the opposite. I can't listen to him. In the case of Peterson, I'm not a big fan of either.

I do enjoy listening to him when he's outside his realm of expertise, and he is essentially thinking out loud. The discussion I linked above is a good example, and there's another with Ben Shapiro where they end up in a sidebar of the Hebrew word describing Eve. He can take an abstract idea, or one he isn't familiar with, and consider how it fits (or doesn't) with his worldview; and how that might reshape it. The breadth of his knowledge is impressive, and his musing in concert with other smart people can be very inspirational food for thought. He is as philosophical as he is clinical.

I have a love/hate relationship with Psychology. I started out as a Psych major and would have a bachelors absent a long story about one professor and a psych statistics class I ended up dropping. I also realized most of the professors were bat-shit crazy. My opinion degrades further when the topic of the DSM and the ever narrowing "normal" range of behavior is hacked away with new and nebulous "disorders". When something like 80% of boys are diagnosed with ADHD, maybe it's the "disorder" that is misdiagnosed due to nebulous criteria rather than a prevalent problem that needs a pharmacological solution... but I digress.

Psychology is also a relatively young science (formally, anyway), and some strides have been made to correct problems it introduced. The DSM V begins to correct the "everything is a disorder" DSM IV. It has also made significant progress in treating PTSD. As a veteran with many friends who suffer, that's a good thing. Seeing how it (mainly Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Mindfulness) is applicable to other forms of emotional trauma is even better.

Agree with Henry Rollins.

[kazoolaw]

Determined to be a psychology major. Took Intro to Psych: easy A. Next class would be getting my own rat and working on mazes. Was living in a guys' dorm: didn't see the point of a rat in comparison. Maintain skepticism of the social "sciences" to this day, reinforced by cross-examinations of their practitioners.

[Chuck Naill]

I read a book in the 1980's "Happiness is a Choice". I don't remember much except it got me to realize I was an angry 20 something. I learned to forgive my father and pursue things I truly wanted to do like hiking the Appalachian Trial, paddling white water, playing stringed instument, and running 2000 miles per year. As a family we camped for 20 years while they were growing up, and I coached baseball because of my son's natural ability.

When I was left without a job in 2004, I went back to school. Thinking I had a learning disability I was petrified. I didn't have a learning disability, but I had to learn how to learn and used my experiences in doing things I wanted to do and applied it to learning academic topics.

One of the best things you can do to become a decent human is to use your poor experiences as what not to do. If you had a bad father, be a good one.

[Chip]

Update on Peterson: He seems addicted to public notice, even when he has nothing to say. The bit about a larger climate database increasing the chance of error is dead wrong. Seems like Rogan is a one-man misinformation factory: climate, vaccines, et many ceteras.

‘Word salad of nonsense’: scientists denounce Jordan Peterson’s comments on climate models

Graham Readfearn
Thu 27 Jan 2022 02.05 EST

Leading climate scientists have ridiculed and criticised comments made by controversial Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson during an interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

During a new four-hour interview on Spotify’s most popular podcast, Peterson – who is not an expert on climate change – claimed that models used to forecast the future state of the climate couldn’t be relied on. Peterson told Rogan that because the climate was so complex, it couldn’t be accurately modelled.

He said: “Another problem that bedevils climate modelling, too, which is that as you stretch out the models across time, the errors increase radically. And so maybe you can predict out a week or three weeks or a month or a year, but the farther out you predict, the more your model is in error.

“And that’s a huge problem when you’re trying to model over 100 years because the errors compound just like interest.”

Peterson said that if the climate was “about everything” then “your models aren’t right” because they couldn’t include everything.

But climate scientists have described Peterson’s comments as “stunningly ignorant” and said he had fundamentally misunderstood the concept of climate modelling. Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales Canberra, said Peterson’s description of how climate models work was fundamentally wrong. While weather forecasts do become less accurate the further out they go, this was a different process to climate modelling.

“He seems to think we model the future climate the same way we do the weather. He sounds intelligent, but he’s completely wrong.

“He has no frickin’ idea,” she said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/27/word-salad-of-nonsense-scientists-denounce-jordan-petersons-comments-on-climate-models?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[Chuck Naill]

“He sounds intelligent” is the issue. Many are fooled because someone sounds intelligent.

[TSherbs]

It's the beginning of the end for Spotify.

[Chuck Naill]

It's the beginning of the end for Spotify.

@dneal still listens .

[Chip]

It's the beginning of the end for Spotify.

@dneal still listens.

Repeatedly. :o