Dr Jordan Peterson

Watch
Fruli
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
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.
0
reply
Hirsty97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#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
Fruli
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(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.
Are his views aligned with the alt right?

If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
0
reply
Hirsty97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Fruli)
Are his views aligned with the alt right?

If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
Some views overlap definitely. It depends what you define as the alt right though, right?

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
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#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.
0
reply
LotusFlowerm
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Fruli)
Are his views aligned with the alt right?

If they are then why has he chosen to distance himself?
His views are aligned with truth and objective reality. The only reason the alt right like him is because he opposes left wing ideologues that have infested much of our media and political establishment.
0
reply
LotusFlowerm
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#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.
I agree, if you ever wanted to see a ritual killing on live television it's great to watch.
0
reply
Fruli
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#8
(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 definitely did own her. I thought she was really misguided in her agenda.
0
reply
LotusFlowerm
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Fruli)
He definitely did own her. I thought she was really misguided in her agenda.
Misguided? She almost had a mental breakdown near the end as her ideologue brain tried to process information. It was almost like she was having a malfunction.
0
reply
cman123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#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.
Every man has a flaw, i would disagree that he's a "very" skilled debator, allot of the time he does just spew garbage dressed up with complex words and jargon. Prime example, his views on veganism, he compares the vegan view point to that of a religious one. And the fact that he could not give a direct answear to wheather or not he belived that jesus literally rose from the dead like some kind of angelic zombie is quite worrying.
2
reply
Ganjaweed Rebel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#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
Ganjaweed Rebel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#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.
0
reply
Fruli
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(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.

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

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (70)
67.31%
I don't have everything I need (34)
32.69%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise