The Jordan Peterson phenomenon

[GostHacked]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I refer to bubbles of influence, wherein people just communicate with those who agree with them.

Actually he seems to be the person that goes to talk to those who don't agree with him. Which he does often. And yes he does talk to some who do agree with him, and even some who don't at least can ask pointed questions instead of what that Cathy Newman over at Channel 4 did.  'So what you are saying (and twist everything he said) in which Peterson replies 'that's not what I said'.  I have a feeling that is what is happening here.

Quote

Do you have a cite ?

I said 'from what I can tell' meaning it's my opinion.

Quote

Why ?  That had nothing to do with him.  Some profs acted beyond their authority and misunderstood his points - how does that increase his reputation "with good standing" ? 

It's obvious you have made up your mind and nothing would even convince you in the slightest.  But what do you think of the Linsday Sheppard incident? She was not a fan of Peterson before, but I can tell with the conversations Peterson and Sheppard had, she has moved somewhat to his camp.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I have a feeling that is what is happening here.

What I can see is this: my personal social feed has a bunch of right-wing people saying "listen to this guy, he makes sense" and middle of the road and left people replying with indifference, or derision.

 

12 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

I said 'from what I can tell' meaning it's my opinion.

OK, then.  Fair enough.

 

13 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

It's obvious you have made up your mind and nothing would even convince you in the slightest

Last time: Again, you show your terrible reading/listening skills.  I have said that I was reading him, and was disappointed that he threw the potential to speak to a public in the garbage by aligning with The Rebel.  

 

13 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

But what do you think of the Linsday Sheppard incident?

What's there to say ?  Everything Peterson warned us about came true and it can't be a one-off.   There are probably many other examples of such groupthink happening in Canadian universities.  It would be great if we could have a reasonable conversation and lay down some principles for us to follow rather than just talking in our own bubbles.  That's what I think.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What I can see is this: my personal social feed has a bunch of right-wing people saying "listen to this guy, he makes sense" and middle of the road and left people replying with indifference, or derision.

Well, actually he DOES make a lot of sense.

Quote

Last time: Again, you show your terrible reading/listening skills.  I have said that I was reading him, and was disappointed that he threw the potential to speak to a public in the garbage by aligning with The Rebel. 

You are really stuck on this one The Rebel thing aren't you? Can you tell me if there was another incident with another alt-right or whatever? Or was it just the one? Only one?

Quote

What's there to say ?  Everything Peterson warned us about came true and it can't be a one-off.   There are probably many other examples of such groupthink happening in Canadian universities.  It would be great if we could have a reasonable conversation and lay down some principles for us to follow rather than just talking in our own bubbles.  That's what I think

Then come out of your bubble. Because I feel you are very susceptible to group think.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Ironically, there is an interview with him in the Post today and in it he's asked if he believes in God. His answer was I think the proper response to that is No, but I’m afraid He might exist. So I'm a bit curious about what you're talking about.

This is not what I meant specifically, having never seen this before, but it gives you the idea.  Strangely, I'm unable to copy and past from this site.

https://ideapod.com/scientist-explains-can-believe-god-scientist-time/

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

One ?

It's just one decision on his part, but a major one.

[Hal 9000]

^^ have you ever really listened to what he says - i mean really listened to and thought about the it?  I really doubt it.  The guy is very smart and knows what he is talking about.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

^^ have you ever really listened to what he says - i mean really listened to and thought about the it?  I really doubt it.  The guy is very smart and knows what he is talking about.

Yes.  For like the 5th time ... I listened very closely to his objections to C-16 and, leaving aside the legal realities, I thought he articulated a reasonable fear and created a point upon which some real public dialogue - post-social-media - could begin.  I have said this several times already.

"The guy is very smart"...  duh... he's a university professor. But 'smart' is only part of what we need right now.  

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes.  For like the 5th time ... I listened very closely to his objections to C-16 and, leaving aside the legal realities, I thought he articulated a reasonable fear and created a point upon which some real public dialogue - post-social-media - could begin.  I have said this several times already.

"The guy is very smart"...  duh... he's a university professor. But 'smart' is only part of what we need right now.  

You know, that video of him taking apart a left wing interviewer on British TV has been viewed millions of times on youtube. Think about that a minute. A thirty minute long interview of a psychology professor viewed millions of times. Why? I think it's because angry, hectoring progressive types like this interviewer have so irritated so many people with their holier-than-thou lectures on identity politics and white privilege and how everyone in the West is supposed to be burdened by this collective sense of guilt and shame that they just love seeing one of them having her face metaphorically shoved into a pie. What does that tell you about how much the Left has cast of any pretense of even-handedness you're angry at Peterson for not demonstrating?

[Hal 9000]

This is also a good lecture.

 

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

I think it's because angry, hectoring progressive types like this interviewer have so irritated so many people with their holier-than-thou lectures on identity politics and white privilege and how everyone in the West is supposed to be burdened by this collective sense of guilt and shame that they just love seeing one of them having her face metaphorically shoved into a pie.

Yes, I agree.

 

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

What does that tell you about how much the Left has cast of any pretense of even-handedness you're angry at Peterson for not demonstrating?

Well, there's definitely a distaste for a type of hectoring you are talking about.  Does that serve policy discussion though ?  It seems more like story-telling and entertainment to me to watch people discuss things in that way.

[Hal 9000]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I agree.

 

Well, there's definitely a distaste for a type of hectoring you are talking about.  Does that serve policy discussion though ?  It seems more like story-telling and entertainment to me to watch people discuss things in that way.

It happens non-stop in the media and politics.  The reason this was so popular is because unlike most interviewees that would cower away and try to apologize, Peterson was unapologetic and made her (and us) understand the true point of not only the question at hand, but of her spin of his answers.  Many real feminists are disappointed that Newman kept attacking Peterson while claiming the victim role.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

It happens non-stop in the media and politics.

It's not helpful, though.  It sets up a construction of two embattled sides.

 

[GostHacked]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I agree.

Well, there's definitely a distaste for a type of hectoring you are talking about.  Does that serve policy discussion though ?  It seems more like story-telling and entertainment to me to watch people discuss things in that way.

It's actually showing you how the much of the main stream media treats Peterson. Which influences the views of those that are really not familiar at all with his work. But when all you have is media that wants to entertain and not so much inform, really help to drag down that conversation.  And as much as I hate to say it, I have listened to more of Ann Coulter and I agree with some things she says.  Maybe she ain't so crazy after all.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not helpful, though.  It sets up a construction of two embattled sides.

The only people that are constructing two embattled sides are people like Cathy Newman in that Channel 4 interview with Peterson. 

Peterson also told about the difference between the mediums (cable tv compared to internet/youtube) The longer formats on YT help get that whole message out and people have some time to hash it out and really discuss it. I am enjoying that format myself. Cable TV has a very limited time frame to work with and it's hard to properly get the point across on such complex issues. So it degrades to sound bites that piss people off because they are missing most of the context and the words before and after that sound bite. And the commentator can then spin that up several ways.

But when it gets down to the embattled states, there are not just two, there are a whole bunch of smaller groups that want to get recognized. So they are all screaming for equality and essentially they already have it, just no one really gave a damn about it. And why should they? You are gay? Meh, so what. Trans, sure I get it. It does not matter to me. IF you are a good person then the rest of it does not really matter. People are more accepting of things than ever. It's those that I think are insecure in themselves that cause them to go through much of this experimentation with their selves. A question of 'who the hell am I?' is replaced with 'what the hell am I?'.   That's kind of my take on this whole thing. I find much of it confusing to say the least. I guess that is why this is very interesting to me and what it really means for our society going forward.

 

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

This is also a good lecture.

 

That seems pretty recent too. Thanks, for this. What he says about the education system seems frightening to say the least.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

It's actually showing you how the much of the main stream media treats Peterson. Which influences the views of those that are really not familiar at all with his work.

  It's good for him, isn't it ?  Isn't that what you said ?  I'm just reminding you of that.

 

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

IF you are a good person then the rest of it does not really matter.

Somehow your post drifted into talking about the content of his ideas themselves...

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

People are more accepting of things than ever.

...and so this means what to trans people ?  People have resisted social change since forever, and it will continue.  If you say people are more accepting of things than ever, then resist bill C-16 it seems to be a big contradiction to me, I dunno.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not helpful, though.  It sets up a construction of two embattled sides.

Well, from my perspective, it at least sets up an opposition to that hectoring, nattering, nagging progressive/SJW identity politics game. Heretofore you either ignored it or agreed with it, but if you dared to oppose it you were automatically a racist, sexist fascist etc.. So pretty much the only people or organizations that dared to say "up yours" were the likes of the rebel - which is where their viewership comes from. I'm quite sure if their web site is as exciting as their TV show was it's not coming from brilliant commentary.

[Michael Hardner]

42 minutes ago, Argus said:

Well, from my perspective, it at least sets up an opposition to that hectoring, nattering, nagging progressive/SJW identity politics game.

I suppose you're right, in that it's a step better than FOX news berating liberals, or liberals just berating deplorables.  But a right-wing academic shouldn't be a unicorn, and shouldn't be put on a talk show.  He should be speaking with other academics.  It's time.

[Argus]

21 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I suppose you're right, in that it's a step better than FOX news berating liberals, or liberals just berating deplorables.  But a right-wing academic shouldn't be a unicorn, and shouldn't be put on a talk show.  He should be speaking with other academics.  It's time.

Jonathan Haidt has been speaking to academics for quite some time now about this, and he and other academics of a similar belief even set up what he calls the heterodox academy to try and encourage universities and academics into embracing more diverse viewpoints. He's not really right wing, though, more of a left center type

https://heterodoxacademy.org/

Edited February 7, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

Jonathan Haidt has been speaking to academics for quite some time now about this,  

https://heterodoxacademy.org/

Yes, and I will give it another look.

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I suppose you're right, in that it's a step better than FOX news berating liberals, or liberals just berating deplorables.  But a right-wing academic shouldn't be a unicorn, and shouldn't be put on a talk show.  He should be speaking with other academics.  It's time.

I think if you asked Peterson, he would classify himself as a liberal and center left.  His obvious frustration is that the left has gone so far left that anyone who is not lock step with the Trudeau or Pelosi types are considered right leaning. 

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

  His obvious frustration is that the left has gone so far left that anyone who is not lock step with the Trudeau or Pelosi types are considered right leaning. 

Polarization goes two ways.  First step is to rebuild.  As such, I will rebuild a raft and push JP out into the middle of the ocean...

[Hal 9000]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Polarization goes two ways.  First step is to rebuild.  As such, I will rebuild a raft and push JP out into the middle of the ocean...

Agreed, however western society is not being pulled to the far right, it's being pulled far left.  Despite what you may think, the far right groups are still marginalized - as they should be, whereas society hardly recognizes just how far left we've moved.  And, as the far left (Socialist, Antifa and BLM types) take hold, the far right will resist - this was the Charlottesville problem.  That, in a nutshell is the issue.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Agreed, however western society is not being pulled to the far right, it's being pulled far left. 

I'm going to stop you there.  The President himself calls the far-right "fine people" and you have a Holocaust denier running for the Republicans.  Your leftist bogeyman have a sum total of zero power, except as FOX News fuel for the mill.

Tell me where this far left power is again.

[Hal 9000]

51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm going to stop you there.  The President himself calls the far-right "fine people" and you have a Holocaust denier running for the Republicans.  Your leftist bogeyman have a sum total of zero power, except as FOX News fuel for the mill.

Tell me where this far left power is again.

At Charlottesville there was good people, peaceful protesters on the left as well as on the right.  There were radicals on both sides too.  The president shouldn't diminish the peaceful protesters on either side, and shouldn't give one side a free pass.  The fact that he is required to side with Antifa...or else, is pretty good evidence that what JP is saying is true.  You'll remember, i'm sure, that Antifa showed up in the thousands to various other events last summer with the intent to cause trouble and that the amount of "far right" protesters was generally fewer than 100.  I'm sure you know about all the college riots and the shutting down of any event that featured someone with an opposing view.  I'm sure you're aware of the far left political leaders like Trudeau and the problems they're having in Europe and Scandinavia.  The fact that Trump isn't continuing down the road that Obama created has the left seriously freaking out.  That should tell you something.  You're post is a misrepresentation and the views ignorant.  

Anyway, before we derail a perfectly good thread, JP can look at psychology, politics and history can see exactly what is going on.  He makes a lot of sense.  I don't people should simply disregard him without seriously thinking about what he is saying.  That said, you and people like you have already been convinced to not listen and certainly not allow dialogue.     

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

That said, you and people like you have already been convinced to not listen and certainly not allow dialogue.     

I already said I was following his arguments.

Good luck with your bogeymen.