Back
to top
Dr Jordan Peterson
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Love him or hate him, it can't be denied that this psychologist is one of the influencers of our time.
If you are a fan, what would you say you like about him? Would you say he's changed your life in some way?
If you dislike the man, I'd be curious to hear what you dislike about him.
If you are a fan, what would you say you like about him? Would you say he's changed your life in some way?
If you dislike the man, I'd be curious to hear what you dislike about him.
0
reply
Report
#2
A very skilled debtor. Can make precise cogent points backed up by evidence, is very careful with his words and who he affiliates with himself. It's wise of him to distance himself from the alt-right. He hasn't changed my life, upon watching some YouTube videos I already knew/agreed with most of what he said but I was impressed by his dexterity in debate.
0
reply
(Original post by Hirsty97)
A very skilled debtor. Can make precise cogent points backed up by evidence, is very careful with his words and who he affiliates with himself. It's wise of him to distance himself from the alt-right. He hasn't changed my life, upon watching some YouTube videos I already knew/agreed with most of what he said but I was impressed by his dexterity in debate.
A very skilled debtor. Can make precise cogent points backed up by evidence, is very careful with his words and who he affiliates with himself. It's wise of him to distance himself from the alt-right. He hasn't changed my life, upon watching some YouTube videos I already knew/agreed with most of what he said but I was impressed by his dexterity in debate.
If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Fruli)
Are his views aligned with the alt right?
If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
Are his views aligned with the alt right?
If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
I haven't watched too much of his work so I can't speak for the man himself. Alt-right leans toward nationalism, Peterson seems like an ardent individualist and opposed to the alt-right. Obviously he doesn't want to agree with some of the views from ugly facets of the alt-right such as their proclivities toward anti-Semitism and misogyny.
0
reply
Report
#5
He's an interesting chap, some of his views are a tad questionable whilst others are bang on the money. My only gripe is he seems to have attracted a cult like following from the far right or 'alt-right' which is beginning to quickly make him far less socially acceptable.
I did rather enjoy his sparring with Kathy Newman on C4 the other day though.
I did rather enjoy his sparring with Kathy Newman on C4 the other day though.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Fruli)
Are his views aligned with the alt right?
If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
Are his views aligned with the alt right?
If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by Napp)
He's an interesting chap, some of his views are a tad questionable whilst others are bang on the money. My only gripe is he seems to have attracted a cult like following from the far right or 'alt-right' which is beginning to quickly make him far less socially acceptable.
I did rather enjoy his sparring with Kathy Newman on C4 the other day though.
He's an interesting chap, some of his views are a tad questionable whilst others are bang on the money. My only gripe is he seems to have attracted a cult like following from the far right or 'alt-right' which is beginning to quickly make him far less socially acceptable.
I did rather enjoy his sparring with Kathy Newman on C4 the other day though.
0
reply
(Original post by Napp)
He's an interesting chap, some of his views are a tad questionable whilst others are bang on the money. My only gripe is he seems to have attracted a cult like following from the far right or 'alt-right' which is beginning to quickly make him far less socially acceptable.
I did rather enjoy his sparring with Kathy Newman on C4 the other day though.
He's an interesting chap, some of his views are a tad questionable whilst others are bang on the money. My only gripe is he seems to have attracted a cult like following from the far right or 'alt-right' which is beginning to quickly make him far less socially acceptable.
I did rather enjoy his sparring with Kathy Newman on C4 the other day though.
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by Fruli)
He definitely did own her. I thought she was really misguided in her agenda.
He definitely did own her. I thought she was really misguided in her agenda.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Hirsty97)
A very skilled debtor. Can make precise cogent points backed up by evidence, is very careful with his words and who he affiliates with himself. It's wise of him to distance himself from the alt-right. He hasn't changed my life, upon watching some YouTube videos I already knew/agreed with most of what he said but I was impressed by his dexterity in debate.
A very skilled debtor. Can make precise cogent points backed up by evidence, is very careful with his words and who he affiliates with himself. It's wise of him to distance himself from the alt-right. He hasn't changed my life, upon watching some YouTube videos I already knew/agreed with most of what he said but I was impressed by his dexterity in debate.
2
reply
Report
#11
Coincidentally I only heard of this fellow at the beginning of this week. I'll do further research and then get back to you on that one.
0
reply
Report
#12
Ironically the interviewer was a prime example of the sorts of personality traits and flaws which people display which make them more or less likely to succeed in their career. She was extremely low on agreeableness but it didn't come across as controlled or dominant, the biting negative emotion came through and she just looked vicious as Peterson calmly addressed her points.
Another thing which made it hard to take her seriously was how she intentionally said things which are scientifically or logically foolish for rhetorical effect and this is something which I'm sure Peterson is used to dealing with, given that he's a professor. Humans and lobsters share certain biologically determined traits so the origin of those traits is clearly at least partly biological rather than being social, whereas she implied he was telling silly stories about humans being like lobsters. A similar thing was the transgender activist/Mao comparison, you can understand one thing has elements of another even if they are different on some level, he never said that transgender activists were carrying out a genocide. Either she's too mean spirited to argue in good faith and wants to mislead viewers by creating transparent straw men or she is genuinely that intellectually incapable in which case she should be taken off air to limit her public influence. You could switch such bad faith arguing around and reframe it in a White Supremacist context, if a working class White male goes to the pub and says we need to remove anyone who isn't White from Europe you might say he's a Nazi since he's removing his ability to understand a person as an individual and is defining their worth based on their race. Intellectually he is acting like Nazi, the fact he's not actually killed six million Jews isn't a defence to the accusation brought against him.
Another thing which made it hard to take her seriously was how she intentionally said things which are scientifically or logically foolish for rhetorical effect and this is something which I'm sure Peterson is used to dealing with, given that he's a professor. Humans and lobsters share certain biologically determined traits so the origin of those traits is clearly at least partly biological rather than being social, whereas she implied he was telling silly stories about humans being like lobsters. A similar thing was the transgender activist/Mao comparison, you can understand one thing has elements of another even if they are different on some level, he never said that transgender activists were carrying out a genocide. Either she's too mean spirited to argue in good faith and wants to mislead viewers by creating transparent straw men or she is genuinely that intellectually incapable in which case she should be taken off air to limit her public influence. You could switch such bad faith arguing around and reframe it in a White Supremacist context, if a working class White male goes to the pub and says we need to remove anyone who isn't White from Europe you might say he's a Nazi since he's removing his ability to understand a person as an individual and is defining their worth based on their race. Intellectually he is acting like Nazi, the fact he's not actually killed six million Jews isn't a defence to the accusation brought against him.
0
reply
(Original post by Ganjaweed Rebel)
Ironically the interviewer was a prime example of the sorts of personality traits and flaws which people display which make them more or less likely to succeed in their career. She was extremely low on agreeableness but it didn't come across as controlled or dominant, the biting negative emotion came through and she just looked vicious as Peterson calmly addressed her points.
Another thing which made it hard to take her seriously was how she intentionally said things which are scientifically or logically foolish for rhetorical effect and this is something which I'm sure Peterson is used to dealing with, given that he's a professor. Humans and lobsters share certain biologically determined traits so the origin of those traits is clearly at least partly biological rather than being social, whereas she implied he was telling silly stories about humans being like lobsters. A similar thing was the transgender activist/Mao comparison, you can understand one thing has elements of another even if they are different on some level, he never said that transgender activists were carrying out a genocide. Either she's too mean spirited to argue in good faith and wants to mislead viewers by creating transparent straw men or she is genuinely that intellectually incapable in which case she should be taken off air to limit her public influence. You could switch such bad faith arguing around and reframe it in a White Supremacist context, if a working class White male goes to the pub and says we need to remove anyone who isn't White from Europe you might say he's a Nazi since he's removing his ability to understand a person as an individual and is defining their worth based on their race. Intellectually he is acting like Nazi, the fact he's not actually killed six million Jews isn't a defence to the accusation brought against him.
Ironically the interviewer was a prime example of the sorts of personality traits and flaws which people display which make them more or less likely to succeed in their career. She was extremely low on agreeableness but it didn't come across as controlled or dominant, the biting negative emotion came through and she just looked vicious as Peterson calmly addressed her points.
Another thing which made it hard to take her seriously was how she intentionally said things which are scientifically or logically foolish for rhetorical effect and this is something which I'm sure Peterson is used to dealing with, given that he's a professor. Humans and lobsters share certain biologically determined traits so the origin of those traits is clearly at least partly biological rather than being social, whereas she implied he was telling silly stories about humans being like lobsters. A similar thing was the transgender activist/Mao comparison, you can understand one thing has elements of another even if they are different on some level, he never said that transgender activists were carrying out a genocide. Either she's too mean spirited to argue in good faith and wants to mislead viewers by creating transparent straw men or she is genuinely that intellectually incapable in which case she should be taken off air to limit her public influence. You could switch such bad faith arguing around and reframe it in a White Supremacist context, if a working class White male goes to the pub and says we need to remove anyone who isn't White from Europe you might say he's a Nazi since he's removing his ability to understand a person as an individual and is defining their worth based on their race. Intellectually he is acting like Nazi, the fact he's not actually killed six million Jews isn't a defence to the accusation brought against him.
Yes, her disagreeable nature wasn't appealing and yes, on top of that she did offer ridiculous suggestions. She didn't help her cause at all and she inadvertently proved his point.
She actually made Dr Peterson, who is arguably controversial (AKA alternative views) actually come across as very decent.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Have your say on 2021 assessmentOfqual and DfE want students' thoughts
- Who has received uni offers?
- Starting my new job - AMA!
- Win a year of Headspace
- Private candidates support thread