Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE 禄

Is Jordan Peterson a fraud?

I originally gave his ideas a listen after a recommendation from a friend following the Cathy Newman interview. I read his book and watched some of his videos too. His self-help stuff seems genuinely useful but aha... he is not just a self-help guru because he has politics. I'll be more specific... he has very very bad and very stupid politics.

Someone needs to explain to me how Post-Modern-Neo-Marxism is supposed to work. I've read Marx and some post-modernism and they are not mutually compatible. Post-modernism is a fringe faction within social-science academia which is critical of power and also grand narratives, universal truth, and positivism. I don't get what it has to do with political correctness or a desire to define people as victim groups. I also don't get how it was supposed to take over the world, regain its Marxist aspects and also stay a fringe faction within social science academia.

I also don't get how Peterson can define all things he does not like as collectivist as therefore linked to Stalinism. Trans-gender activists apparently have the 'same philosophy' which has killed millions of people. The Google HR department is the same thing too. 馃し

What Peterson is doing is producing the same silly right-wing conspiracy theories and straw-man arguments of Glenn Beck and Alex Jones whilst repackaging it with a fake intellectual mystique. He might be a talented academic psychologist but his understanding of political theory wouldn't pass undergraduate standard. He doesn't use sources and his arguments do not hang together. I struggle to think that he does not understand the flaws in his own arguments.

He speaks confidently and he speaks well. He is an excellent clinical psychologist and his videos probably help turn some people's lives around. Its because of this he is a snake charmer who fools people who should know better into being uncritical of his very weak political ideas.
CountScrofula41-45, M
Yeah, and you've given him FAR more time than I have. His political arguments are appallingly simple. The idea that Marxism and Postmodernism are somehow the same thing is a strong indication he doesn't understand either.

He also takes the vague ideas about the left I see on here from conservative users on here a lot, but tries to sound intellectual about them which just makes the whole thing some sort of farce.

His self help stuff is also boring and obvious, if useful advice. I don't see what's so urgent about it.

And finally, his entire career kicked off because he took a brave stand against a hypothetical situation he'd never dealt with in response to a law he ridiculously exaggerated.
CountScrofula41-45, M
@Burnley123 Well there's one podcast I'm adding to my already bloated list!
Burnley12341-45, M
@CountScrofula I could add more!

Can you recommend me a good North American one, apart from Jacobin?
CountScrofula41-45, M
@Burnley123 The Daily by the New York Times is probably the best news podcast in the US.

The Canadaland network of podcasts is great for a Canadian stuff. The main podcast (media criticism) or Commons (politics) probably.
I think He knows exactly what he鈥檚 doing where he鈥檚 catering to a certain demographic of people which happen to be extremely profitable today which are 18-35 alt right white males who think society is out to get them. His political arguments and ideology is usually extremely simplistic and straw man as it reminds me of someone who tries to intillecualize political memes. As far as the self help aspects of him, I think that鈥檚 more fraud like as self help books are usually pseudoscience in nature and his in particular just strokes the ego. It鈥檚 almost cult like. He has an arrogant aura around him that reeks of insecurity and wanted affirmation. Just because someone attended Harvard doesn鈥檛 give them a free pass to bullshit every viewpoint they come across.
Burnley12341-45, M
@Insomniac100 I agree.
SW-User
It seems to me a case of someone being brilliant in one area and that alone being enough to convince them that they are brilliant in all areas.
Burnley12341-45, M
@SW-User It could be that. Though I also think that there is a performance aspect there, at least.
SW-User
@Burnley123 I guess it comes down to whether he actually, genuinely believes in what he's talking about, or if he seems to have found an audience he believes he can play to with as little effort as possible.
Burnley12341-45, M
@SW-User Agreed. Perhaps its a mixture of the two. He earns a good living from what he does and was trying to get noticed on Youtube for ages before he became famous.
Burnley12341-45, M
Shit. This is a really good discussion with people on SW and I haven't been attacked by the crazies yet.

I slagged off [i]the[/i] guru of the right-wing internet too. WTF?
okaybut56-60, M
I agree he often simplifies things to a large extent. However I have noticed some of these arguments are being placed against similarly simple theories. I am a philosophical materialist with knowledge being based up physical laws read by our senses. I find the notion that gender as being more than binary to be illogical and appreciate his simplified response on this. Of course we can define gender however we wish and with time terms may change with culture, but for a group to arbitrarily shape definitions of gender and legally imply they must be followed is preposterous in my view.
Burnley12341-45, M
@okaybut I think there are two genders which are binary, distinct and linked to sexual reproduction. I think that there are also a number of people who genuinely do not fit into either camp. They are a tiny and persecuted minority who deserve protection. I don't regard mandating people to change their language when describing these people as a huge problem for me.
okaybut56-60, M
@Burnley123 I certainly believe in the protections. However, let me phrase it from a personal level. When I teach my classes, I can barely remember a name let alone a gender. I can see a boy or girl and say him or her easily enough. Someone could state to me their gender (I think 31 in Canada), however it will be very likely I will forget (often 600 students in a term - way too many to remember names or genders). In Canada the use of expressed Genders is somewhat mandated by law - has not yet been brought to a case. So if someone asks that I use a gender, I may likely forget. I could ask them to use a card (you could ask me to create a map of the room, but honestly I don't want to), however, I am not sure if this is illegal that I ask them to do this. This for me is the problem on a personal level and to some extent reveals an issue where language is created ahead of its natural formation by culture. If the government legally stays out, the words should naturally form. We could have government penalizes racist word use, but not neutral. If he or she is not neutral for now, that concerns me greatly.
Burnley12341-45, M
@okaybut I teach too but young kids and the same ones every day, so I remember their names LOL.

Personally, I don't think anyone would mind as long as you show respect to people. If you misgender someone once, it's surely no big deal?

[quote]This for me is the problem on a personal level and to some extent reveals an issue where language is created ahead of its natural formation by culture.[/quote]

I dunno. Governments have always had rules on what language not to use. Even the US Constitution is against hate speech. I agree that having so many gender names is a bit much but I just don't see a huge problem being caused here. Peterson is utterly wrong to imply this will lead to tyranny because he has no historical comparisons.
AynRand100+, F
He's a smug self satisfied cretin shamelessly cashing in on the anger of stupid racists.

But he's better than the twat Stefan Molyneux.
GeistInTheMachine31-35, M
@AynRand There's a supreme irony in an account with your name insulting internet racists, and the pompous, cultish Molyneux.

Ha. Even their free market goddess doesn't like them.
AynRand100+, F
"An account with your name"???

I'll have you know I'm actually Ayn Rand for real!!!

Hopefully this will heighten your sense of irony
GeistInTheMachine31-35, M
@AynRand ... A ghost?

You've now broken my irony meter.

How do I fix it?

Also, I thought Ayn Rand was an atheist... Must have been surprising for her

I guess that's what she gets for taking government assistance as she was dying - the hypocrite.
Picklebobble256-60, M
I agree entirely.
His political views are totally unrelated to his academic achievements.
One having no relation to the other than that which he spins as if to add gravitas to his right wing point of view.
Helganvisari2551-55, M
I don't believe he's a fraud. However, he tends to set himself up as an authority on subjects he has not really researched thoroughly. For instance, he angered many MGTOW and Incels when speaking to some students in one of his lectures. That always been the knock on him.
Burnley12341-45, M
@Helganvisari25 I think our personal psychology does inform our politics and that is one of the very few things Peterson gets right LOL. I think in a rational and mutually beneficial world, the angry young men and women on the internet would meet each other and have babies. Not gonna happen anytime soon though. 馃槀
GeistInTheMachine31-35, M
@Burnley123 Ah, I went through a MGTOW/Anti-Feminist/Gamergater phase after a particularly nasty breakup several years ago.

Fun stuff... I eventually snapped out of it and started dating again.

There's some wisdom and good advice for men in the overall MGTOW thought/ideology, but the racism that stemmed from the rise of the alt-wrong and 2016 election helped to push me away from MGTOW.

That, and the YouTube videos became stale.

Just rehashing the same things over and over about women, divorce, breakups and dating:

Anger, shock, longing, sadness, loneliness... Ad nauseam.

It all led to me feeling ennui towards the "movement," or whatever it is/was.

I have no idea as to the state of MGTOW currently. I imagine it's ugly.

It's funny. I'm processing a semi-recent breakup currently, and I feel no pull to go back to my old MGTOW ways.

Much of MGTOW is just thinly-veilled misogyny.

Misanthropy is where it's at.
Burnley12341-45, M
@GeistInTheMachine I completely agree. I think MGTOW is kind of the most honest but least self-aware of rightish Youtube cults. It basically admits its problem is women but dresses it in political narrative. I think the rest of the online right do something similar but don't dive as deep, or are less explicit about the real reasons for their anger.

I've always kind of been a leftist so I was never tempted by these things, fortunately. I have flirted with anti-feminism (lefty-pol or whatever it would be called now) and yes it was because of a girl.

I think the important thing is to have self-awareness and understand that your shit doesn't always have political causes.
Jm31xxx41-45, M
I pretty much agree with you. He's overrated and just a more sanitized repackaging of nasty right wing sentiments.
GeistInTheMachine31-35, M
Yes - bingo. A thorough, yet concise analysis.

I was never impressed by him.
BlovingN826-30, M
"hurhur right wing conspiracy theories! These people that go on about the many before the few can't be grouped as a collective or linked to Stalinism despite so many of them being self-identifying marxists and communists and calling for the current system to be torn down to make way for their arrogant utopian fantasy. Peterson must be a fraud!"

The fact that you're entirely leaving out that Dr. Peterson holds traditionally classical liberal values is very telling. It's like you're trying to convince people that he's right wing. But hey, I suppose to people that are far enough to the left [i]every single person[/i] to the right of you is right wing.

P.S. Nice poisoning of the well in the first paragraph. Peak intellectual dishonesty.
Burnley12341-45, M
@BlovingN8 Everything I wrote is true, even the personal story.

[quote]But hey, I suppose to people that are far enough to the left every single person to the right of you is right wing.[/quote]

I think its more apt to say that Peterson massively generalises the left. Please explain to me how Marxists and Post-modernists are the same. Or how the Google HR department believes in historical materialism? These narratives can only be sustained if you [i]completely [/i]misunderstand and [i]completely [/i]generalise the left. I think Peterson does this deliberately. I think you do this by accident.

I make plenty of distinctions within the right; though on that point Peterson is more of a traditional Burkean Conservative than a Classical Liberal.

He is right wing. He has appeared on platforms with Lauren Southern and been interviewed by Stephan Molineux. He thinks abolishing divorce laws was a mistake and has done work for the Canadian Conservative Party. He thinks that human beings live in glorified lobster society. This is not me straw-manning Peterson, just facts and what he has said in his own words.
Burnley12341-45, M
Still no crazies attacking me! Two right-leaning people did contribute and did so respectfully. Thanks guys.
GeistInTheMachine31-35, M
@Burnley123 Shh. Give it time.

They will come.
Burnley12341-45, M
@GeistInTheMachine [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3c_pJ_CLJQ]
SW-User
I do admire some of his work, some is simply nonscence. Maybe it's an ego thing?
Burnley12341-45, M
@SW-User Perhaps it is that. He seems to have struck a nerve though. There is a huge market for an intellectual looking self-help guy who has center-right politics on the culture war. I don't think he's tapped into it completely by accident.

 
Post Comment