The way he talks about the meanings of the stories of the bible make me think he is a perfect fit for the Higherside. There is also his recent health battles that saw him fleeing to Russia to seek treatment. I have a little bias, he also grew up in the berta prairies.
I love this suggestion. Though it might be difficult now that he blew right up and has greatly scaled back his media appearances.
Peterson is mediocre at best and fraudulent at worst. I should be surprised he is even a professor, but it explains a great deal regarding why we find ourselves where we do in 2020.
shamangineer wrote: Peterson is mediocre at best and fraudulent at worst. I should be surprised he is even a professor, but it explains a great deal regarding why we find ourselves where we do in 2020.
I see this sort of thing a lot and am always curious about where exactly it comes from. I’m not looking for an argument but genuinely interested as I’ve listened to all your shows with Greg and generally appreciated your insights. Any chance you could enlighten me on Peterson’s fraud and mediocrity?
This is about Peterson's MBA "fellowship" which is about as legit as Trump U:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgzH2V79MoQ
There are many critiques of Peterson out there but the main points that are of interest are:
- Peterson is a religious fundamentalist in ideology, he couches this in intellectual terminology.
- Peterson's political, historical, and economic arguments are incorrect as the "facts" he uses are proven false with the most cursory verification. An enormous case in point is the discrepancy between the pronoun policy he supposedly railed against to gain prominence and the actual letter of that law being relegated to workplace discrimination.
- Peterson's books are all self-help books whose central message is "clean up your life" and actively ignores any form of systematic repression or need for social support.
- The above message is undermined by Peterson's need for drug rehab for previously prescribed drugs a year ago.
- Peterson is a money-grubbing shill, I doubt he would ever appear on THC without a payday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kktI8-lZw8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0s0PUrm5rc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbriPG-cCvY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVBkxy3-Ir4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL7rZTV0nHw
I appreciate your detailed response. First off, I’m not exactly a Peterson fanboy and definitely disagree with some of his positions, but there are an awful lot of off the cuff dismissals that are obviously driven more by ideological differences rather than solid refuting of his ideas or philosophy. I actually agree that Peterson is no good for THC, in the interests of spirited debate though, I’d like to take a crack at your bullet points and then give a sort of blanket response to the video work.
-
I think the label of fundamentalist is way too hardline in this instance. Peterson’s uses myths and moral stories from throughout history to make points about society and meaning in general. Sure, he definitely seems to lean into Judeo-Christian thought and that certainly could be a play to his base- but take a look at some reviews of his works over at amazon and the one star reviews that aren’t from far left ideologues are from far-right actual fundamentalists who do not appreciate his appropriating of their myths. He does not strike me nearly as enamored with faith as some others who’ve graced THC
When it comes to C16 it does look like he may have started a tempest in a teapot for sure. Lots of time has passed and there haven’t been any real cases of it coming up and being used in the way he feared. This could well be a legit misstep. But- I still am in agreement with his stance that compelled speech is not something that should be taken lightly by any one anywhere that values individual freedom. Voltaire said it best. As far as other facts go - throw some out there if you’d like. I’d love to hear them.
I agree. That’s why they’re called SELF help books. Most anyone who’s writing to help people lift themselves up and get through a rough patch or make real meaningful change don’t put a lot of onus on what the world outside is doing but what you can do yourself to navigate in the world as it exists and maybe raise yourself to place where you can make meaningful change to the system
- I don’t think his his drug problem at all goes against this. In fact just the opposite. Yes, he fell into addiction so badly he was in need of rehabilitation but you’ll note that, though no doubt a series of videos or updates or whatever would have brought in some major attention and thus a big money grab, the man went quite and continues almost total silence. . I imagine he’s taking his own advice and you know, cleaning his room. Getting his own shit back together before he sets back out into the world and tries to help people with theirs. I could be totally wrong, but I don’t think so and his fall in no way invalidates the message he was conveying. Imagine if every public figure out there was called a fraud because they didn’t live up to an ideal or had a moment of failure. We’ll know for sure when he does make his inevitable return and how he frames this moment in his life. He might prove me a fool but it’s too soon to know for certain.
And now to the money grubbing and shilling. This one is...man, I don’t know. You’re using the platform of a guy who has repeatedly been accused of just the same. Not only that, every one of the guys whose opinions you yourself ‘shilled’, most of whom accuse him of grift and greed ALL have links right there in the drop to Patreon and most them have a secondary funding option. I’m sure that each and every one of them would cap their donations once they hit a certain point, right? Not only that, Peterson himself has admitted how much he was bringing in, it wasn’t a secret. He’s been pretty open in interviews about what was coming in. But here’s an example of a living up to his purported ideals- once he saw things happening at the platform that he fundamentally disagreed with , a free speech issue he shut his account down. That 80k a month he was pulling in off the platform? He had a principled disagreement- whether you agree with him and what he has to say about it or not - and he let it go. Sure, he’s talking about putting together a new platform for crowdfunding and no doubt he’s got other means of taking donations but that’s a helluva move.
But here’s the saddest thing about these kinds of arguments- guys like Seder and The PV and all the rest repeatedly make videos trying to break down Peterson or Harris or Pinker or Rogan (whose show Seder has all repeatedly all but begged to be on) knowing that it will bring in the eyeballs. It’s clickbait horseshit. It’s sad. And inevitably they willfully misrepresent what is being said. The ant video is a perfect example. It’s like the lobster analogy that he’s been so derided for. He’s not saying that we’re exactly the same as lobsters or that we should live like ants - it’s a critique of the widely touted idea that things like hierarchies or distributions are the result solely of the boot heel of western society and capitalism and would never occur otherwise. That’s it. It’s not a terribly hard concept. It doesn’t make those things okay or something that we just shrug off and say “sucks for you that you’re at the bottom” but it’s ignorant and unscientific to claim that it’s the fault of Western society - which is happening with more and more frequency every day. But guys like these take them and attribute much more to the statement than is intended and attempt to play some gotcha game. Again, for the clicks and for that dirty lucre that apparently Peterson shouldn’t be taking. It’s laughable really.
And there, in the Jim Jeffries video the man with almost no hesitation admits he’s wrong. And you make a video of that? Proving that he has a principled and critical view of himself? That’s a bad thing? I sure don’t think so
I’m sure we won’t be convincing each other of much, but I respect you and I think we should all respect one another especially in this space and in these times. Just because you’ve got a ideological issue with someone doesn’t mean you should swoop in and shit on somebody else’s suggestion.
Well, I definitely see the shadiness of the ‘fellowship’, though comparing it to Trump U is a bit of a stretch. Otherwise, these look to be the same tired ideological differences that don’t really do much to refute any actual arguments or ideas he so much as rail against a rising interest in what are largely center-right intellectuals being framed as alt-right figureheads. It would explain the charge of mediocrity for certain but doesn’t do much to prove blatant fraud or unfitness for a professorship. It’s hard to accuse a guy of being an evil money hungry monster when everyone making these clickbait, gotcha videos aimed at popular figures who inevitably draw in viewers by name recognition include links to a Patreon and another potential donation source, while on the platform of a gentleman who has repeatedly been falsely accused of the same. I totally understand not liking the politics involved but hardly think that precludes him as being a wishlist guest for somebody else. I appreciate the response but I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
jawoods787 wrote: Well, I definitely see the shadiness of the ‘fellowship’, though comparing it to Trump U is a bit of a stretch. Otherwise, these look to be the same tired ideological differences that don’t really do much to refute any actual arguments or ideas he so much as rail against a rising interest in what are largely center-right intellectuals being framed as alt-right figureheads. It would explain the charge of mediocrity for certain but doesn’t do much to prove blatant fraud or unfitness for a professorship. It’s hard to accuse a guy of being an evil money hungry monster when everyone making these clickbait, gotcha videos aimed at popular figures who inevitably draw in viewers by name recognition include links to a Patreon and another potential donation source, while on the platform of a gentleman who has repeatedly been falsely accused of the same. I totally understand not liking the politics involved but hardly think that precludes him as being a wishlist guest for somebody else. I appreciate the response but I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
The dude admits his definition of truth stems from religion and everything spirals as circular logic from there. If you simply choose to believe things because you want to feel free to listen to him. Just don't be surprised when your conception and reality don't align. It's a little unclear from the scripture if Jesus cleaned his room.
shamangineer wrote: The dude admits his definition of truth stems from religion and everything spirals as circular logic from there. If you simply choose to believe things because you want to feel free to listen to him. Just don't be surprised when your conception and reality don't align. It's a little unclear from the scripture if Jesus cleaned his room.
I apologize if I caused you any offense by questioning you or by not being convinced by the links you provided- I don’t think it’s necessary to rub against the waters of ad hominem by implying my view of reality is skewed. I’m open to listen to and hear from anybody, especially individuals whose ideologies I don’t fully agree with. I should hope that as someone who, if I remember correctly, was doing some actual solid work and research in the alternative community you wouldn’t throw accusations of fraud or mental inefficiency around lightly. Which is why I asked you specifically- I’ve listened to you speak and take you to be a reasonable and highly intelligent individual. I’ve delved into to quite a lot of Peterson’s work and interviews and most of the criticisms that are out there. At the end of the day they seem to be almost exclusively ideological - coming from the Left and the Right. The Right shares your critique of his faith, asserting that he is a false Christian and is manipulating the faith by lumping it in and tying it to other myths from throughout the world which he very often does. I myself am not nor have ever been a Christian, but I don’t see the sense of writing someone off who was or is of that or any background if their philosophies have some semblance of logic. I legitimately thought maybe you had come across something solid that I had not.
Obviously most of us here have a helluva lot of common interest and crossover, I don’t want a battle over Peterson, I’ve got no skin in that game. I just want civil conversation where maybe we don’t see exactly eye to eye without lowering ourselves to thinly veiled insults. There’s enough of that out there man. I love your work and look forward to hearing you again someday on THC
I don't find hand-waving away legitimate arguments with polite references to ideology very convincing. Calling me an ideologue doesn't refute my argument, just like getting the last word doesn't win an argument.
Peterson explicitly stated that he uses his religious understanding as the foundation of his definition of truth, which means he is starting from a conclusion and shoring up his argument from there. This is fundamentalist rather than logical thinking, using academic language doesn't change this fact. This is the root of the problem with Peterson. He states ideology as fact and the goes from there, most of what he cites as "facts" are misrepresentations masquerading as truth. Peterson is literally a self-disclosed ideologue. This is why I said what I said in the beginning, I've provided plenty of evidence to show this, I'm calling the horse dead on my end.
And yes, if you subscribe to fundamentalist philosophy your view of reality is going to be heavily skewed because you are actively cultivating confirmation bias. Until framed against the backdrop of a gaslit hellscape this was not a controversial stance to take.
carltheheir wrote: The way he talks about the meanings of the stories of the bible make me think he is a perfect fit for the Higherside. There is also his recent health battles that saw him fleeing to Russia to seek treatment. I have a little bias, he also grew up in the berta prairies.
♀️ Yes I have two votes for this in my household. And I’ve thought this too! Since Greg likes him maybe he’s reached out in the past, but he should keep trying if that’s the case! I bet they’d both really enjoy that convo. And so would we!
> Peterson explicitly stated that he uses his religious understanding as the foundation of his definition of truth,
He also states that he came to that approach through his study of biology, psychology, myth etc. So it's not like he's a throwaway standard apologist.
Either way, it would be interesting to see Carlwood take a stab at him. I don't care if the guests are right or wrong. I just like interesting conversations. And Peterson on THC is almost certain to be interesting. I'd like to see him proded more on his familiarity with Jung and on his knowledge of soviet propaganda tactics. He has a deep understanding of the power of story. He's also talked about experiences/encounters he's had that would be classified as paranormal contact by the THC audience. He talked about these more openly when he first started getting some attention. But when the Cathy Newman thing happened he clamped down and got a bit more "Academically correct". Assuming he would go on THC, I figure that would be because buzz around him has reduced or he's old as fuck and doesn't give a shit anymore. I'd like to hear him go on completely uncensored rants and raves.
