What do you think of JORDAN PETERSON (I only capitalized that bc I know it will get your attention).

Here are my thoughts on this guy...

1)As a PHD in clinical psychology, most of what I hear him say about his field is insightful
2)A lot of his self help stuff is great, and backed up by data and multiple studies which he cites. Some is just common sense but sounds smarter.
3)He uses academic jargon for no reason, and speaks alegorical, sounding way more complex than the point he's making is. Sometimes this comes off as poetic and cool sounding, and other times it sounds like a pretentious. He uses the term "biblical corpus" and when someone asked "Does that just mean the bible" he basically said yeah. Like, why not just call it the bible then? lmfao.
4)What I seriously like about him is that he connects mythology to biology, using jungian theory to explain profound concepts from various religions and stories in general.
5)I really hate the way he does or doesn't talk about women. As a guy who gives advice to young men (such as myself), I feel like it's rare to ever hear him say anything about the female sex that actually inspires enthusiasm about interacting with them. I think that while some of his evolutionary psychology takes on the dynamics between males and femaels are probably sound, it just seems like fuel for incels, and is the last thing you should have on your mind when talking to women. Like, idk what nerd needs to hear this, but knowing more about the field of evolutionary psychology won't help you get laid lmfao. Getting a cool hobby and hitting the gym more will. Women are not alien beings.
6)I wish he'd stop getting invoved in climate change. He's only had one solid take on it which is that not having kids isn't gonna help and would hurt (which actually is true).
7)He's a classical british liberal, which is gay as fuck.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

I think he knows his field and then fallaciously appeals to that knowledge to make unsupported logical leaps in other domains that sound good at first but don't really hold up to reality.

BRUUH

@ViciDraco I think you might be right. I'm not sure tho.

He implied for instance that a lot of the climate change movement is motivated by a misanthropy, which is why we say "the world is over-populated" and "we need less people". This could be true for some of the radical activists, especially at the start. I believe in man-made climate change due to human activity (mostly c02 and deforestation), and it's mostly because that's what the peer reviewed evidence shows. I'm not even really a lefty on climate change. I hate when he brings a social science into a conversation about physical science when it's not needed. I do agree that the Earth is not overpopulated, and less people won't mean less global warming, and will have negative effects on the ecnomy tho. We are underpopulated

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@BRUUH we're only underpopulated if you do not value biodiversity. We COULD fit more people on the planet, but there would be sacrifices to do so because resources are finite and some of them we use faster than they replenish, which means more people shortens how long into the future we can rely on those resources being available. Water is a great example. And one of our main limiters at the moment. A lot of the western US is burning through aquifers that took thousands of years to fill in order to support agriculture. The Panama canal is actually at risk of running out of water in the lake that feeds the channel lock systems used to raise and lower the ships. We may eventually get more efficient desalination systems that would make coastal populations more dense. Or potential looking for icey asteroids to harvest water from (though doing that too much would affect sea levels)

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@BRUUH overall, I think fewer humans would help us balance resource usage and improve overall quality of life. But we're not at a critical point where we have to have some government telling people how many kids they should have. The natural plateau happening now will help that. But our economic systems would have to adjust because they are growth focused right now.

I think we should work towards having less people, but I think anyone who says our population is at a crisis point is overexaggerating.

BRUUH

@ViciDraco Our population is at a crisis point, but on the entirely opposite end. There will not be enough young workers to support industry once the boomers die and gen x gets too old to work. The only options are 1)Be automated out of our jobs by AI, or 2)Use immigrant labor. Both of which are problematic. There is also a simple lonliness crisis among the youth because of this. It's genuinely hard to meet people without being active as fuck these days. Back in the 1950s, you could just walk outside your door and most people were your age. Now, it's mostly boomer, then Gen x, then millenials. Simply having siblings also helps you make friends for life; how many friends were made cause like my older brother brought his friend who brought his younger bro? Low birth rates are terrible for the west.

Overall, it's also not about how many people, but what kind of people. Individuals with lower IQ are statistically more likely to have babies outside of wedlock. It's literally a fact that smart people are outbreeding dumb people; it's not just a meme. Less people, and less smart people proportionately is terrible for the world.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@BRUUH that's what I meant by needing to shift. There's a lot of jobs that could be automated away already, or just really don't need to exist as jobs.

The problem isn't too few workers, it's that we try to make everyone work for a living when they really don't have to in order for society to function.

It's not the population that is broken, it's the economics.

BRUUH

@ViciDraco There are definitely too few workers. When you half the workforce, you don't get half as much work (done in as much time), you get WAY less work done. If me and you are moving an object that's heavy as fuck, it may take us x amont of time. If me you and literally one other person are moving the same object, we don't get it finished in 50% more time, but probably 5x as fast.

Western birth rates declining is worse for reasons other than just economics, as I pointed out. There is a loneliness and friendless epidemic on the youth. This is because a gen z kid goes outside and see's a ton of people twice his or her age. What do you wanna do about that?

Also, it's not how many people, it's the kinds of people. Low IQ individuals breed more.

If you're concerned about overpopulation, you should be ecstatic, because we aren't headed for it at all.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

BRUUH

@SatanBurger Yeah, people are working less, and we're also seeing some consequences. None the less, it wouldn't begin to compare to what would happen when boomers die and Gen x retires. It would be far, far worse. Our only hope would be for AI to take over our jobs (which would itself propose a problem).

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BRUUH universal basic income

BRUUH

@SatanBurger It's a hell of a gamble to say that it's okay that we are facing an economic crisis, but it's okay cause AI will autmate us out of our jobs, which is also ok cause we can fix it with an economic proposal that has never been empirically implemented before. I actually DO think UBI sounds awesome. I think we should experiment with it now. Not something we should gamble with the fate of humanity with tho.

And if I haven't said it enough, AI might not automate us out our jobs. Projections for the development of technology are FAR from perfect. And more importantly than any of this, Gen Z faces a loneliness crisis. It's hard to find people your own age without making an effort to, and that's seriously fucked up. Youngsters should be able to literally take a walk and meet friendly ppl their age.

ViciDraco · 41-45, M

@BRUUH Gen Z loneliness problem isn't about number of peers. It's about the social media disconnect. Millennials have been facing that issue as well and are considered a somewhat large demographic (not as big as baby boom, but bigger than gen x).

Another big factor is that people move away from there hometowns to pursue jobs. So all of the friends they made growing up scatter and drift apart because nobody is close anymore. My father's generation have largely rebounded back home and know a lot of people they went to school with there. My graduating class as an older millennial is all over the place. And Gen Z is seeing that happen even more, especially after the covid work from home migrations that happened.

BRUUH

@ViciDraco There are more millenials than gen x NOW, but that's cause many boomers have died. Most people are close to the people they'v met in their younger years.

It absolutely has to do with numbers, and I don't know how or why you don't see that or don't want to (maybe you hate humans and want there to be less of us?) In Palestine, there are more kids than any group; birth rates are high. young people in palestine can't go outside without meeting someone their age. In America, a gen z person goes to the gas station, and may or may not (probably not) see someone their age .A world where every time you order a happy meal you see three people your age is obviously going to be a less lonely world. I'm not saying video games and social media don't play a factor, they do, but when it OBVIOUSLY wouldn't if there were more ppl offline than online.