Jordan Peterson Thread.
- Thread starter mezzrow
- Start date
- Status
Not yet, but I'm going in July, looking forward to it. Have no idea how it will work tbh
Decent article, but a bit fawning, and it doesn't cover his weird creepy views on women vis-a-vis Christianity. It also doesn't cover his meandering, laughably obtuse Maps of Meaning.
To his credit: I'm happy Peterson is providing a voice and guidance for some wayward youth, they need it.
To his detriment: He doesn't need to dress up his obvious self-help platitudes with big words or Jungian references, it just doesn't work (though I guess it impresses some folks). He also doesn't understand human nature as most of his take on humans is superficial Evolutionary Psychology references that have no solid emprical grounding, or the "five factor model" which is simplistic at best.
Mate, however you view his mad takes on certain issues, he probably has far more empirical research to back up his psychological claims than you do.
Black Belt Jones
Player Valuation: £25m
Aye, he doesn't understand human nature. You realise that's like criticising a physicist for not cracking cold fusion? Worse, actually, as physicists know what they don't know, have the tools to make problems tractable, whereas what's the frame of reference for understanding human nature in psychology? There isn't one, and Peterson is just talking the same amount of bollox as everyone else, plus or minus.
I should have worded that better. He thinks he understands human nature (which is why he writes self-help books), but his understanding appears to be simply dressed up Evolutionary Psychology and other simplistic psychology (e.g., Big Five), etc.
And no, no one understands human nature, including me...and I'm not claiming I do, and I'm not peddling self-help books either.
Which is why his “women only wear heels in the workplace to make themselves sexually attractive” was such clear bollocks.
There is reams and reams of empirical research on how height alters peoples perceptions that he would have been well aware of yet to consider women might be influenced by that (consciously or subconsciously) he just ignored as it didn't fit the argument he was trying to peddle at the time.
I know there's a lot of "but that's not what he was trying to say" when it comes to Peterson, but if you listen to that whole portion of the interview, it's not quite what he's angling at.
The gist of it is that if passes or off-colour remarks are absolutely obliterated in offices, and a general policy of sexual sterility pursued, he is reasoning that you could call into question anything pertaining to workplace sexual dynamics including appearance and dress. He's openly pondering where the line is, but at no point endorses anything he says, it's more of a thought experiment.
That being said, he comes off v weird when he's saying it, and the lad definitely has some unresolved issues. I'm into Peterson for the life advice stuff, I'm in no way advocating him sticking his nose into absolutely every issue and debate now that he's famous
If he had raised attractiveness as “one” reason for wearing make-up and heels I’d be more sympathetic to your “look at in the context of his entire argument” approach.
But he didn’t, he declaratively states “they are there to exaggerate sexual attractiveness, that is what high heels do” 0.55
lol
Tbf I can somewhat see where Prev is coming from.
It is just that as a woman who is almost a foot shorter than Peterson his arguing that the only reason I would wear heels/make up in a meeting with him is to be sexually attractive to him whearas him cleaning up his appearance from his university days is just assumed as to be for him to look more professional - well to be blunt it gets right on my tits
goodisonopheliac
Player Valuation: £30m
And some workplaces expect women to wear heels. I'm glad mine isn't one of them. I can only walk in flat shoes.
Ironically high heels force women to adopt Peterson’s rule #1 “stand up straight with your shoulders back” as if you slump forward you are likely to land flat on your face so he should be all for them
Steve0
Player Valuation: £35m
lol
Tbf I can somewhat see where Prev is coming from.
It is just that as a woman who is almost a foot shorter than Peterson his arguing that the only reason I would wear heels/make up in a meeting with him is to be sexually attractive to him whearas him cleaning up his appearance from his university days is just assumed as to be for him to look more professional - well to be blunt it gets right on my tits
That's the thing that gets me, he equates wanting to look good with a desire to be sexually attractive. He reduces it to its basest level.
Just as a thought experiment, think how many heads would explode if a 'feminazi' said (or openly pondered) men in the workplace is a bad thing because they wear suits, shine their shoes and clean their teeth, all a clear attempt to make them more sexually attractive to women so they can't really be trusted.
It would be openly laughed at. She wouldn't be called one of the most important thinkers of her time and sell out speaking tours throughout the world.
The more I hear from this guy the less impressed I become.
- Status