Like I said for humans it is not. As we have contraceptives and separate the pleasure from the purpose. But the reason it is pleasurable and addictive, is because in the past, prior to contraception, in most cases it given time inevitably lead to babies. That is why nature made it so pleasurable and addictive.
That... doesn't address what I said. Yes, we have genes to code for a foundation. But it is not rigid. The genes code for a plastic foundation because that is far more advantageous than coding for a thousand specific concepts. For instance, we start with a bunch of neural pathways in the brain with general areas of specialty and then as we experience things they reduce in number and sharpen focus. Humans didn't evolve in a way that makes explaining their actions genetically so easy.
I didn't say those things. I said art and science. Those have only been around in the thousands to tens of thousands of years. Genes for new traits are commonly developed over millions of years of time unless you're talking about single celled organisms. So yes, these things are sexually selected for, but there hasn't been enough time for art skill to develop into an allele for a proper trait.
He's not really a big deal, and his horrible interpretation of Nietzsche would probably turn you off of him anyway.
Funny that this just popped up, one of my acquaintances recently told me about him and told me to check him out. My first reaction was, holy shit this guy is a complete hack. I actually like some Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and the like from time to time, but this guy is a complete fucking idiot. I watched a video where he said that we can't just give money to poor people to fix inequality because "when you have a low IQ, you're an alcoholic, and you're addicted to cocaine" they're incapable of bettering their lives with their money. What the fuck? What percentage poor people fit those parameters? This guy bullshits about statistics when he thinks it helps his argument, and then leverages bullshit anecdotes when he can't. This wasn't just me picking out moments to be outraged from his twitter or cherrypicking quotes, I watched a couple hours of "debates" and found plenty to be outraged on my own, in context. How do I tell my acquaintance Jordan is an idiot?
What part of his Nietzsche interpretation do you think is horrible? I watched a few clips and he seemed accurate to me.
The whole going backwards back into Christianity for one. Nietzsche is pretty adamant about not being able to get that genie back in the lamp. That's a pretty big oversight. I'll admit I might be reading a bit too much into him here. It seems to me that his whole shtick is relying on the reading of Nietzsche that appeals to angsty teenage boys. It seems to me that this interpretation is behind the popular understanding of Nietzsche being so horrible.
I haven't really seen this. He's actually very hard on antgy teenage boys and young men in general. He's very much traditional conservative in that regard--man up, get married, get a career, life suffering so do your best and don't complain. This is very traditional masculinity stuff conservatives have been saying for decades now. He's also nowhere near an orthodox Christian, although he enjoys the Bible from a Jungian point of view. The only thing I've notice about Nietzche is that he agreed that Christianity's diminished role in the West would leave a void.
How do you explain lipstick shades other than red, if red lipstick =sex. How do you and Peterson not know that high heels are derived from male fashion meant to replicate cavalry boots that make it easier to shoot arrows from standing in stirrups. His points don’t actually stand up to examination, His irrelevant points only works as a “win” if they’re thrown out dead cat style.
Not angsty in the mopey way. Angsty in a "I am the best and society is dumb and meaningless sheeple" kinda way. Nietzsche also very much advocated for a "return" to values similar to these, especially "manning up". Andreas literally meant both manliness and nobility in Greek after all. The difference is this was part of a much broader attempt to create meaning for Nietzsche. It seems to me that Peterson is saying we already have the meaning, people just are moving past it because of "cultural-marxism." Except the kind of meaning he's getting at is the very meaning that Nietzsche is saying humanity is moving past. As an early part of this thread shows that's very unclear. Peterson is very difficult to actually pin down to any position in particular. I would say their concerns are quite similar. How do we have meaning? That said Nietzsche is one of the greatest human minds of any age and Peterson is a hack, so of course they deal with it in very different ways. A big part of this is that Christianity doesn't just mean organized religion for Nietzsche either, it's basically an entire weltanschauung, or maybe even a macro grouping of weltanschauungen. It's a much philosophically broader thing, and thus we need to look beyond the more immediate elements that Peterson focuses on. Ironically it's those who probed after Nietzsche in this direction, especially Foucault, that Peterson hates the most.
Exactly. This video is basically peak Peterson for me. It's powerfull and motivating stuff. Anyone trying to understand Peterson's appeal should look no further than this video. Yes, Peterson is obviously a flawed individual like all of us. But I'll be damned if these kind of video's aren't doing a lot of good for the people watching them.
He definitely is hard to pin down. But that's mostly if you get his stuff from secondary sources. He has tons of content where he explains his worldview. I got into him via his psychology stuff via the Bible lectures he did. Way before his Channel 4 interview where he went viral. I honestly don't care about his PC culture gone amok schtick. It's quite boring to me. I do like that's he's getting people interested in Nietzche, Jung, Frankl, the last author being the most accessible for those into the psychology of meaning. There is definitely a hunger for this stuff and his popularity shows that. But I do agree that most of his twitter diatribes and obsession with progressive politics is rather silly.
I have very deep issues with public reception of intellectuals in general, so as much as their might be a hunger, and I think that hunger is more a desire for esoteric knowledge than thinking well, I don't think I like that this is the platform. Personally, I think we need to reform primary and secondary education to have a greater focus on ideas and discussion, and universities need to go back to a stronger core curriculum a la Chicago. We need to be teaching kids not just about the ideas as pieces of information, but how to think about them and their connections. Moreover, we need to teach kids to think about how they receive these ideas. Watching a youtube video on a topic or reading a blog about it is fundamentally different than being part of a discussion led by a serious qualified intellectual on the topic, like in a university seminar. That doesn't mean the former are valueless, but it does mean we should think about what it means.
Well Peterson got famous from new media--Youtube. Traditional media is very much dumbed down. It just shows there is a palpable hunger for this beyond academia. Not to mention what you're positing sounds very expensive and thus inaccessible to many. It's why he's seems to scatching that itch. I do agree with you, but as a student of the US educational system, from a policy perspective, it's not too realistic, at least right now and to the masses.
Part of the issue is this stuff isn't just silly. It has a real effect. A friend of mine received threats because she was on that list. America is already dealing with a crisis of anti-intellectualism. Peterson giving that "intellectual" support is a serious problem. Right, but I think we need to find a way to distill it from academia, instead of presenting it in a way totally and intentionally removed from it. I might be biased, but basically I think in large part what we need to do is train people to think more like historians. To actively think about what it means that they have these sources and that their ideas in some part derive from them. There's a reason Peterson isn't saying this stuff in serious well reviewed journals, and there's a reason it's not being taught in seminars at Chicago, Harvard, or Cambridge. Peterson's not taking serious intellectual work and making it publicly accessible. That's not necessarily damning in itself, but people need to think about why that might be. The problem is the alternative to trying is a bad thing. This isn't a choice between good and better. It's a question of horrible and good. Youtube and blogs give people the sense that they know what they are talking about. It's much better for people to have never even begun to think they understand something, than to watch a 10 minute video and believe that they do.
Well he's not really doing research. He's just having long form monologues on specific topics--suffering, psychology, etc. You can't really do that in primary or secondary education these days. No time. And universities have most of their students focused on getting gainful jobs than serious research. So then comes someone like Peterson and he fills a void. While I understand you concern about intellectual rigor. This is not what he's scratching so much. Peterson is just seems to be a reaction to our completely entertainment focused media landscape. We're much less religious overall in the West, yet people want to have the discussions that religion once prompted in our culture and haven't found those avenues. This is what I see Peterson is tapping into. I mean, selling out lectures on the Bible? That's rather insane today.
Well, if you're a Christian, which I think Peterson is, then you're going to disagree with Nietzsche's interpretation on the way forward - haha. I don't think that's a misinterpretation of Nietzsche, though, but a difference. And Peterson does acknowledge, correctly, that modern leftist politics typically pretend there's no void if we leave Christianity behind. Moral values are just assumed, and you even see an exacerbation of typical Christian thinking among the left in terms of hate-mongering and shaming. I haven't seen anything from Peterson that suggests he misunderstands Nietzsche, though, and I don't think you gave me such an example here. I do think that Peterson appeals to angsty teenage boys and young adults (who might as well be teenage boys in most cases), but he's open about that being his target audience: young men who feel lost. So it's hard to consider that as a criticism unless you think that "lost boys" should be ignored. I'm sure a Ph.D in psychology who focuses on psychoanalysis, which evolved from Nietzsche's thinking, has no real background in the subject. /eyeroll I don't think I've heard Peterson say "we already have the meaning", or suggest anything like that. I don't pretend to be well-versed in him, but I've been watching a lot of his content this last week, and everything I've heard is the opposite of "the answers have already been given to us". I do think that Peterson is attempting to impose his own values on others, but that's Nietzschean. Remember that Nietzsche is anti-egalitarian and anti-enlightenment; any attempt to construe him as someone who wants everyone to reach enlightenment is a significant misreading. I think Peterson, like Nietzsche, is suspicious of any mass movement, because they are inherently based in mob intellect and attempt to suppress differences. The mob is guaranteed to be happy just to be a mob taking power, and I do find it disconcerting that so many on the left think this is only a feature of the right (though I think the problem, temporarily, belongs more to the right than the left). Does Peterson hate Foucault? If you have some video content I could listen to while working in the background, I would appreciate that. I do think it's fair to be irate with the "continental" philosophers who have focused solely on deconstruction, but did not have the courage to reconstruct. Or maybe they were too lazy - I don't know.
Yeah, the bolded is the key problem. That's why reform needs to come from within the university. We can actually affect that. I'd love to address you right now, but I actually have to run. I'll try to get to this later tonight.
Im sure that as a user on this forum, you could see that I was making a joke, just like how I joked that Peterson has sex with lobsters. Wait, why doesn’t he like post modernists? I find it hard to find something so simple as “fix yourself” to be inspiring. Like he said, it’s older than Christianity and it is something that is still encouraged every single day from pretty much every facet of society.
Goddamn, that was a super generic self help talk. We are so easily impressed with smug man posing as intelectuals. Well, dude is an asshole but at least he can give me the same bullshit pep talk that everyone does since God created this big rock floating in space.
That's fine, but you're still limiting audience there to a small subset of the population, privileged undergrads. You raise real concerns, but what if my dad wanted to listen to a lecture on Bible stories like Peterson has done? He's not going back to university. This is precisely why Peterson has become appealing to many. But we're talking about two problems really--the decline of the love of pure learning and the dumbing down of mainstream entertainment. And how that entertainment has not filled the "meaning" void in the West post religion. This is what Peterson is capitulating on. I do hope this opens things up for more voices too. Although it's easy to critique Peterson's stances, he is at least a dynamic public speaker and that means a lot in this medium.
Depends on what you mean explain their actions. Altruism, emotions such as love anger jealousy. The desire for status, the desire for a youthful appearance. At their core there are genetic roots for all of these. I've heard that human females change the frequency with which they talk to their father based on the point they're on the menstrual cycle, and also their selection of clothing and the physical traits they look for in a short term partner subtly vary depending on where they are on their menstrual cycle. They also become more attractive to men when most fertile, and dancers earn more tips while in the most fertile point in the cycle. Math which is at the core of science is founded on general intelligence as is most of human culture. General intelligence is selected by natural selection as it aids survival. Thus as byproducts of man's intellect they too are selected. There is rumor that part of the reason general intelligence rose so drastically in humans is sexual selection, like the peacock's gargantuan costly tail, we developed a gargantuan costly brain. Just so happens unlike that useless tail the brain is the engine of change and dominion over all of nature.
Glad it was a misunderstanding. Re: inspiration - sometimes you just need a good salesman. I would actually wager that most social and philosophical ideas did not originate with the people we associate with them, but it took time for those ideas to find a home in a person who can make other people listen to that idea.
I’m going to give you a piece of advice. It’s ancient. Older than Confucianism. You must eat to provide yourself energy. That’s it. Please donate to my Patreon
Billions go to religious services every week for a similar message. The mundanity of the message does not counteract its appeal. Moreover, isn't self help the bestselling non fiction genre? People cannot get enough of this stuff.
This. I've never seen someone who doesn't believe in Sky Fairy get a standing ovation from a mostly nonreligious crowd for telling the story of Cain and Abel. If that doesn't provide some perspective I don't know what does.
I mean, hearing this stuff is motivational sure (even if he's not saying anything particularly insightful here), but all this talk of be a better person and the shit he spews on twitter is just hollow af.
I agree with you on that. He's a great salesman effectively gaining attention with a culture war issue and then using self-help as a means of keeping followers while always sprinkling in some heinous shit. I think he's a poor messenger because of the heinous shit he says or alludes to. If someone came in here espousing other self-help speakers, I wouldn't think much of it. You're right about that. Still, it is generic and it is pervasive in our society from our schools to our TV shows to work. It's everywhere and usually with less lobsters. A Christian getting standing ovations from a mostly nonreligious crowd for the Cain and Abel story is a feat, I'll admit.
Is this what happens when Alexas and Google Homes manage to register an account on Era? This is pure babble. Signed, a human female.
Yeah, and this guy ISN'T a Christian, at least by honest definitions. He'll tell you he is but bullshit, anyone can tell he isn't. A genuine Christian believes prayer is an honest message to a real, sentient God that listens. He thinks it's the acting out of the unconscious realization that the future is like a judgmental father, who encompasses both kindness and wrath.
Again generic is not a bad thing and having a talented communicator interpret it means a lot. Same with Tony Robbins, who has private sessions in the six figures, essentially saying the same thing as Peterson but giving his spin on it. I think you discount presentation and delivery. That's huge, man! It's like saying Marvel films are just the Hero's Journey with fancy GC and quips. Well, yeah, they are. But they make billions although they're rather predictable stories. Yeah, he's not a Christian in the orthodox sense, although he appeals to that demographic since they have similar traditional conservative views.
From the limited stuff I have seen from him, he's a Christian, or at the very least, not an atheist or agnostic. What he talks about goes way the fuck out there, but he believes in God, or as he puts it, he acts as if God exists. I don't discount presentation and delivery. I can see it in the videos. He's really great at it. But it's trussing up something very bland. It frustrates me how certain people basically exploit the hopes of others with basic advice like Joel Osteen, but with Peterson, because of how he got famous on the internet and other shit he has said, I think he's a poor messenger. Or rather, he's not the ideal messenger for this.
Um, you do realize that the reason he's invited by people like Sargon of Akkad and Ben Shapiro and the like has almost nothing to do with what you posted, right?
Kristoffer is right. He's more of deist than anything. He does not believe Christian doctrines of salvation, hell, heaven, he wiggles out questions about believing in Christ's deity and such.
But why go to him, when I can follow this generic advice from better people, without having a cult like behaviour towards them?
To answer your question. Are they YT? This huge part of his outreach. His stuff is all up there for free. Hours of it. Easily watchable from any internet connected device. Are they talented communicators? This is not a common gift. That said, Peterson isn't the best communicator, but he's a great public speaker. Again, you can dock Peterson for many things. He's far from an authority on many things, but he can give a riveting talk. I think he uses big words just to impress people. Not to convey a message. That's really his big appeal and why he's so popular.
You don't care about his biggest gimmick for appeal? Most of the reason the alt-right holds this man as an intellectual champion is exclusively because of his attack on PC cultural-Marxism postmodern boogeyman. He got famous almost exclusively from this. Even in the video linked on this very page Peterson's gimmick of attacking a boogeyman is still planted in the core of his arguments. "Alleviate suffering, the postmodernists don't care about suffering." I'm paraphrasing, but what are the postmodernists doing that they know that they're doing that is apparently opposed to the elimination of suffering, then? They are an enemy to this topic in Peterson's view. His attacks on PC culture carry very much into nearly everything else he does. I mean, what kind of person breaks down in tears over the ineptitude of an Ayn Rand quote? Someone who very clearly opposes "collectivist" efforts, and almost always these individuals promote a sort of status quo where one should not even entertain rocking the boat. This is how Peterson can simultaneously admit society and inequality get worse year over year, but actively oppose any and all solutions to the problem. The same man talking about gini coefficients also believes inequality is a "burden of being", and that's purely Christian-esque goobledegook. Of course he has an enemy with the PC cultural-Marxist postmodernists, for they criticize this very system that produces the problem. As I said in much earlier post, Jordan Peterson is a poor man's Joseph Campbell, giving a very watered down Hero's Journey. He's helpful in the sense of helping people engage in self-inquiry and self-actualization, but much like Osho was, he's created a cult, and most damning of all, isn't even one of the better sources one can have on these topics. He's a good entry point, but like using a boat to cross a metaphorical river, he should dropped immediately when you cross over. Peterson's fanbase is trying to carry the boat on land, and that creates an enormous problem.
You asked why he's popular and I answered it. Being on YT is not the only aspect. I gave two reasons that create a perfect storm of his popularity. Those are not easy to duplicate. I agree with your last paragraph. I'm not really familiar with Peterson's fanbase, though. My social media feeds are very tightly curated so I don't see a lot the stuff this thread mentions. My history with him were the Biblical lectures and some Sam Harris debates, which were very hard to listen since Peterson just did the intellectual version of dancing around the ring lol. Nor have I read his book. But yes, his cult of personality of obvious. I was a big Hitchens fan, who I thought was much more dynamic speaker than Peterson, but also very flawed in many ways. The Peterson phenomena is interesting to me because of the real curiosity in these topics he's exposed. But like you, I hope that those that found interest in his lectures don't just stick to his ideas and see what he's actually opposing and make their own judgments.
I think there's a lot of value in appealing to the positive qualities conservatives have while also bulwarking against ideological extremism. That's also why I get annoyed when people treat him like a gateway drug. I think our paradigm of describing people is flawed. I know conservative people and "JP is a conservative" is a woefully incomplete description of him even on a political dimension. He talks about income inequality, the intense marginalization effect of people at the bottom (the Matthew Principle), saving the oceans, evolution as incontrovertible science, the dangers of nationalism, the dangers of racism, and "disgust gone wrong" which is a good way to describe most hardcore conservatism. Even as a college student he was a socialist, so we know he at least used to tend in that direction. I've come to think that: 1) all people exist on a distribution of personalities that has many dimensions but can be reduced somewhat into a single dimension of openness vs orderliness 2) most people exist in the center because it is a normal distribution 3) forcing people to choose between the poles, like (first past the post) politics does, makes them tend toward the extremes at the expense of the other qualities they already have. This is the process of pathologizing ideologically. 4) I think people should be balanced instead. I also think Jordan Peterson is a fairly balanced person. So when JP appeals to conservatives, it's because he says things that they already know and cherish. As he puts it, he makes a case for responsibility when few other people are making a good case for it. And he doesn't appeal to self identifying orthodox liberals because they don't tend to recognize those values in the ritual practice of politics. So when he says that ideologies are like hobbled religions... that's really true. Religions are integrated, complete value systems. Ideologies always tend to leave behind valuable things.
@entrement: you also forgot the confirmation bias that comes along some of his most controversial opinions
Oh he's definitely not the caricature of American Conservatism. I definitely agree there. But he does have a strong traditional conservative angle, especially in traditional masculinity--get to work, take a partner, commit to them for the long run, have children. He's also very critical of casual sex. That's pure traditional conservatism there. But yeah, many of his views are much more nuanced than what conservatism has become.
I was going to bring up Hitchens earlier but decided against it so I'm glad someone else did it for me. :P I'm very worried Peterson will fall into the same trap Hitchens did, which is devote the last part of his life to a dumb battle and pigeonhole himself into the dustbin of ephemeral hacks. Hitchens is one of my favorite writers by a long shot and almost nothing that I like about him had anything to do with Iraq. Peterson might be doing the same thing with "social justice".
