The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson • Hacker News Board

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#51

Post by apocalypstyx » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:00 PM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #44

apocalypstyx wrote: post #28

Having been raised in fundamentalist Christianity, Peterson always sets off preliminary warning bells for me: The enemy is all around you. Access to secret "true" knowledge. The world is corrupt. A plan that if you follow correctly will lead to good things. An enemy that alternates between specific and generalistic states. Everything has to be framed through a set of ideological points at all times, which are reitera…

A warning bell for me is that (in my experience) his fans almost uniformly recommend watching or listening to recordings of Peterson himself speaking. Not transcripts, not articles, not a canon of closely aligned materials by his grad students. The power to convey these truths evidently resides in Peterson and Peterson alone. That suggests to me something closer to a cult of personality than anything like a robust th…

Largely, I have to agree with you. Although, I decided to keep that observation separate from my issues stated above. It disturbs me about the amount of young people 'fawning' over him. There are people whom I will admit vastly more intelligent and more erudite than myself, people whose opinions or reasoning I would would give great weight to when considering, people whom I would call first order geniuses, even, but I can stand to see people turn their lives over to them and outsource their thinking.

And I can't help but feel Peterson knows this. (His field alone should equip him with knowledge of these circumstances.) And it sometimes flashes through my mind that Edward Bernays has brought Freud to America all over again (which is not necessarily an indictment of Freud directly so much as how his techniques were put to use), and that Peterson, and others like him, know on one level exactly what they are doing. After all, evolution has primed us to jockey into position for the best possible access to mates, and power has always been intimately connected with that. (Which is another ways that Peterson reminds me on the 'Bernaysian Era', when the rich elite needed to guide the irrational masses but managed to conveniently ignore the applicability of those very same theories to themselves and their own motivations for operation.)

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#52

Post by ghoststories » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #46

tazjin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's opposition to one extreme of the spectrum, which doesn't necessarily place him at the (perceived) other end. As a very contrived analogy, you can dislike iOS and not be an Android fan.

I just don't see it - the universities being taken over by rabid leftists and such. From my point of view, things have changed, they're more inclusive, less deferential, more open and so on, all changes for the better, but obviously disturbing for those used to the old status quo.

What does "more inclusive" actually mean? People are being forced to be overly accommodating to the sensitivities of certain "oppressed" groups, for fear of being ostracized and branded as horrible people.

For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social minefield that has been created.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#53

Post by kirghiz » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #17

skrebbel wrote: post #4

I'm sad that some enthusiastic well meaning lefties often associate Peterson with the extreme right. If anything, this man is radically centrist. It's just that he debunks extreme right wing arguments in 5 sentences instead of the 2 hour long talks he uses to address what he calls neo-marxism. I think people like him might very well help keep disgruntled young men away from the extreme right, by offering a moderate a…

Yeah, he's a celeb on the derp-right because he goes hard on postmodernism and third/fourth wave feminism. That doesn't mean he agrees with the derp-right or the PUA contingent that have latched onto him. I think he gets postmodernism wrong and frankly, so do a lot of postmodernists. I see postmodernism as "Defense Against the Dark Arts". The postmodernist's tool kit -- the silly word games, denial of reality, and so…

Foucault's argument and its less literate successors (eg the one about the master's house and tools) are ultimately reactionary and quietist. Not to mention historically nonsenical, but that never got in Michel's way when he was on a rhetorical roll.

Forget Foucault (h/t Baudrillard)

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#54

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

ghoststories wrote: post #48

Synaesthesia wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s when he refers to so-called “cultural marxism” taking over universities and political correctness being a huge problem that sets off warning bells for me.

What exactly bothers you here? How else would you refer to the processes that lead to forcing professionals at these universities to use dozens of novel non-binary gender pronouns, or to shield students from content that may be considered "offensive" or "triggering"? If you don't think those things are in fact serious problems, then I guess you aren't "woke" to that side of the debate. The "campus left" has done ever…

Is that really so oppressive though? I'm glad trans and other people are getting more respect.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#55

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

ghoststories wrote: post #52

Synaesthesia wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see it - the universities being taken over by rabid leftists and such. From my point of view, things have changed, they're more inclusive, less deferential, more open and so on, all changes for the better, but obviously disturbing for those used to the old status quo.

What does "more inclusive" actually mean? People are being forced to be overly accommodating to the sensitivities of certain "oppressed" groups, for fear of being ostracized and branded as horrible people. For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social…

What I mean is 50, 60 years ago, a university was mostly white males, wearing suits, hats, mostly deferential. These days it's women, people of all colours, they can say what they want, express themselves etc. That's what I mean by more inclusive.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#56

Post by ghoststories » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

Fezzius wrote: post #50

err4nt wrote: post #37

I think a lot of why people like him is he speaks so CLEARLY, whether you agree with him or not you thoroughly understand his position, and he usually has some thought-provoking reasons for everything he says or does. I think people are starved for somebody who can be persuasive and calm, not relying on hyperbole or name-calling to make their points, and he shows everybody a way they can do that.

Have you ever listened to him for one hour? He never answers a direct question, it's always wordsalad(no wonder people don't understand him) , he has a few interesting concepts which he repeats constantly His claim to fame is misunderstanding a discrimination law about transgenders. Which is all you need to know about him.

"His claim to fame is misunderstanding a discrimination law about transgenders."

If that was true, why did his university send him a warning letter that essentially confirms his concerns? He consulted a lawyer on the matter, he confirmed them as well.

Laws are subject to interpretation, bad laws are subject to bad interpretations. He considers bill C-16 a bad law. There no "one correct understanding" of a law, otherwise we wouldn't need lawyers and legal cases would be trivial matters.

The fact that you refer to bill C-16 simply as "a discrimination law about transgenders" shows that you poorly interpreted it yourself.

"Which is all you need to know about him."

I interpret that as a display of pure and utter ignorance - was that your intention?

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#57

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:33 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #49

Synaesthesia wrote: post #39

I personally love Noam Chomsky, but he’s not easy to watch speak (very motonous sounding) and his books are also mostly fact-laden. I think he’s toned down his heavy academic style a bit in his newer publications. Still his knowledge and wisdom are second to none IMO

This is somewhat offtopic, but Chomsky speaks that way to stop his detractors from talking about his style. If he's too loud, too animated, too flashy, people will focus on him as a person as opposed to his ideas. His solution is to be as bland as possible, in the hope this forces people to engage with the substance and nothing else.

Yes he also dislikes appeal to emotion, or emotive talking, as it can be abused or be misleading.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#58

Post by gizmo » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

ghoststories wrote: post #52

Synaesthesia wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see it - the universities being taken over by rabid leftists and such. From my point of view, things have changed, they're more inclusive, less deferential, more open and so on, all changes for the better, but obviously disturbing for those used to the old status quo.

What does "more inclusive" actually mean? People are being forced to be overly accommodating to the sensitivities of certain "oppressed" groups, for fear of being ostracized and branded as horrible people. For example, if as a Christian you don't like the idea of gay marriage, you better not mention it in a group, unless maybe if you're Muslim, in which case your oppressed religious status allows that. It's a social…

You can't have a group that is inclusive of X and also of people who believe that X are subhuman, e.g. to be inclusive towards Jews you have to exclude antisemites. Or generally: to be inclusive of marginalized people you have to exclude the intolerant.

If you don't push away the intolerant then those who are discriminated against figure out they're not welcome in the group and so they leave. Those who remain are the intolerant and those indifferent to intolerance. That results in very bad communities.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#59

Post by ghoststories » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #54

ghoststories wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly bothers you here? How else would you refer to the processes that lead to forcing professionals at these universities to use dozens of novel non-binary gender pronouns, or to shield students from content that may be considered "offensive" or "triggering"? If you don't think those things are in fact serious problems, then I guess you aren't "woke" to that side of the debate. The "campus left" has done ever…

Is that really so oppressive though? I'm glad trans and other people are getting more respect.

First of all, don't you know you should not otherize people? You better check your privilige!

Sarcasm aside... they aren't getting more respect. You can't force people to respect anything.

Here's what actually happens: People control their speech (but not their thoughts) around those "other" people for fear of social reprisal. They'll simply avoid socializing with those people for the rest of their lives.

Will they hire a gay/trans/black/muslim person? What a minefield! Better find something in their CV that makes them "less qualified"...

Few people will say these things openly, just like how fewer people would admit to voting for Trump. In the real world, Trump is still president.

Re: The curious star appeal of Jordan Peterson

#60

Post by DanAndersen » Sat, Jan 20, 2018, 4:46 PM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #44

apocalypstyx wrote: post #28

Having been raised in fundamentalist Christianity, Peterson always sets off preliminary warning bells for me: The enemy is all around you. Access to secret "true" knowledge. The world is corrupt. A plan that if you follow correctly will lead to good things. An enemy that alternates between specific and generalistic states. Everything has to be framed through a set of ideological points at all times, which are reitera…

A warning bell for me is that (in my experience) his fans almost uniformly recommend watching or listening to recordings of Peterson himself speaking. Not transcripts, not articles, not a canon of closely aligned materials by his grad students. The power to convey these truths evidently resides in Peterson and Peterson alone. That suggests to me something closer to a cult of personality than anything like a robust th…

>Not transcripts, not articles, not a canon of closely aligned materials by his grad students. The power to convey these truths evidently resides in Peterson and Peterson alone.

I don't think that's entirely true. The Peterson fan-groups on Reddit often have group readings of books that haven't been written by Peterson but have been recommended (Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn).

I do agree that there's something of a cult of personality surrounding Peterson, and for that reason I try to keep that in mind and keep him at arm's length despite agreeing with a lot of what he says. But I do think that such behaviors are common and inevitable. Consider the "I f*cking love science" crowd and their focus on clips from Neil deGrasse Tyson or Carl Sagan (their written material is a distant second in popularity to their broadcast presentation) or the trend a few years ago of receiving news through a Stewart/Colbert-style format of ideology + humor. There's something almost inescapable about the human desire to associate with a group/club/tribe, to find a leader to rally around, and to indulge the urge to worship.