Post: #351

dupe

Post: #352

Actually Peterson has said on a few occasions that one of the reasons free speech is so important is that you don't really know what you think until you say it, and once you have said it, you can refine it. It isn't an act, I don't think, a lot of the time he is working out his ideas in real-time. Not all the time though.

Comedians can spend a year touring to come up with an hour of material, though they do improvise along the way to get their material, as well as to deal with the crowds. NONE of them make it all up on the spot, even the ones who seem to, like Robin Williams did.

It seems like you are expecting Peterson to come up with totally original and totally new theories in a completely extemporaneous way night after night.

So he has influences. So what?

Post: #353

(12-21-2017 07:09 AM)oilbreh Wrote:  Ill keep my opinion of him until I have sufficient information to change. I come from a scientific background. If the professor was going to work out a proof or derive and equation, he didnt play some elaborate act for the sake of the fluidity and entertainment of the lecture, with slow valve tuning gestures by his head as if he is trying to fine tune his neurons. He just said who came up with it, the important, and maybe more places to research for interested minds. Maybe having the syllabus is different, never took psychology classes so idk.

Not saying he is shit, I will still watch him, but he lost a few points in my book.

For those who would like to learn more, I found a great free source. http://themathesontrust.org/

This is a guy that gets the best from our tradition and articulates ALL OF it in a manner that it's not only interesting but useful to the problems of my generation. Do you know how many kids had no idea about the Bible, Nietzsche, basic psychology, etc? He is able to present the core of all of it to people that otherwise would not put the work to find it. Even more, I did put the work in, but I didn't articulate all of it like he has, he has literally flipped a switch in my mind that illuminated and harmonized tons of otherwise disjointed knowledge I already had. That's really something. I don't know why you would expect someone to build something from zero, even more, if we already have our glorious tradition.

Post: #354

(12-22-2017 08:48 AM)ExploringReality Wrote:  

(12-21-2017 07:09 AM)oilbreh Wrote:  Ill keep my opinion of him until I have sufficient information to change. I come from a scientific background. If the professor was going to work out a proof or derive and equation, he didnt play some elaborate act for the sake of the fluidity and entertainment of the lecture, with slow valve tuning gestures by his head as if he is trying to fine tune his neurons. He just said who came up with it, the important, and maybe more places to research for interested minds. Maybe having the syllabus is different, never took psychology classes so idk.

Not saying he is shit, I will still watch him, but he lost a few points in my book.

For those who would like to learn more, I found a great free source. http://themathesontrust.org/

This is a guy that gets the best from our tradition and articulates ALL OF it in a manner that it's not only interesting but useful to the problems of my generation. Do you know how many kids had no idea about the Bible, Nietzsche, basic psychology, etc? He is able to present the core of all of it to people that otherwise would not put the work to find it. Even more, I did put the work in, but I didn't articulate all of it like he has, he has literally flipped a switch in my mind that illuminated and harmonized tons of otherwise disjointed knowledge I already had. That's really something. I don't know why you would expect someone to build something from zero, even more, if we already have our glorious tradition.

I still don't know wtf oilbreh is talking about. A "great free source"? Why doesn't he read the _actual sources_ Peterson talks about _all the time_ in his lectures - Nietzsche, Jung, Freud, B.F. Skinner, Solzhenitsyn, classical mythology, Harry Potter, Lion King.

This idea JP is hiding his sources is ludicrous, he talks about his influences continuously.

Post: #355

Post: #356

Jordan Peterson with two WLU professors on the Lindsay Shepherd affair.





Some still make the case that these are isolated incidents with no real impact on wider society.

Post: #357

That girl is okay.

Post: #358

Somebody just asked Peterson about dragons in the East. Immediately thought of this forum, where this has been pointed out before. Also, he talks about ONSs as teenager fantasies. It would be interesting to hear some of the best players here sharing their thoughts about it.

Post: #359

JP lays out the main themes at play among the regressive left here:





[Time-stamped link: 22:00]

- They want to feel good about themselves (by saying words)
- They want to bring others down to levels they feel comfortable with (not prepared to elevate themselves to those levels)
- They want to redistribute the value of those they attack to themselves or their constituents (not prepared to strive to create that value themselves)

This is the height of selfishness and laziness.

I'm currently pondering further the deep psychology of this mindset and one of the themes at play in their minds is a conflict between their conscious image of themselves and who they actually are, which they don't want to confront.

Considering those who espouse the doctrines of white privilege. When they tell you they are privileged, they are by extension telling you they are better than most people in the world, particularly those in Africa. They have more things, more money, better jobs, more opportunities, a richer life, more intelligent etc. than most people. They're telling you they are in the global top 10%. This is subconscious self-agrandisment of the ego - that is their being. However, what they are communicating is the exact opposite of self-agrandisment. They are telling you they are self-deprecatory, considerate, compassionate etc. By communicating this they are seeking two things: a positive image of oneself and social validation of that. Yet all they have done is say a few words. These people typically do nothing - give up nothing - to earn this. They don't dismantle their real, physical and social capital, which they are saying is an accoutrement of oppression and supremacy. They are seeking to show themselves as highly moral people, while at the same time telling you they are inherently immoral. This is the Freudian slip into their internal conflict.

All people have desires. As a child the desires are completely self-centered and narcissistic. These should be repressed as they grow older by exposure to the reality of the world: you can't just have sex with who you want, you don't just get things etc. My observation is that people on the new, regressive left tend to come from quite privileged backgrounds, where they were protected from the reality that would suppress their rampant desires. Then when they start to enter the real world, their childlike model that they just get what they want is shattered and in this vacuum leftist ideology becomes appealing to explain why their childhood of the mother's safe space and conveyor-belt of things stops. Thought there are other ways in which people reach such positions, this appears to be dominant at present. They swallow these left ideologies that are highly repressive towards any sort of accumulation of value: having beautiful women/men, money, a business etc. These are things all people want, but their ideaology forces them to suppress these inherent and virtually immutable human desires to the subconscious. This is the conflict: they want certain things in the life, convince themselves they don't want them while refusing to give them up and come out with these bogus statements; all the while failing to recognize any of their hypocrisy. To realise who they are would be an utter shattering of their persona.

This is their way of rationalising their desires away. It's easier to explain their internal conflict as well as why their real desires are unfulfilled as white privilege than acknowledge a part of themselves they have convinced themselves is oppressive: their desires. They are identifying social constructs as oppressive, when the oppression is actual internally applied.

These manifestations are quite extreme markers that they are more of what they claim not to be than most people. They refuse to see any bad in themselves and create this holier than thou persona as a way to hide from themselves their negatives impulses. This means those negative impulses are completely unchecked and ignored when they do manifest. Whereas someone who is aware of their negative impulses can control them. Hence the old addage:

Quote:Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster

Last point is that all of the left's various ideologies are fascias that emanate from the aspects I listed at the top of this post and likely others. They will play the white privilege card in The West, but if someone becomes incredibly wealthy in Africa a new ideological fascia will be dropped in to attack them, all based on the same pulsions and seemingly largely rooted in their suppressed desires, which manifest as jealously, easily visible through their angry, wooly concepts.They will come up with anything to perpetuate this.

I am the left's complete lack of self-awareness.



Also, to link these:

Quote:- They want to feel good about themselves (by saying words)
- They want to bring others down to levels they feel comfortable with (not prepared to elevate themselves to those levels)
- They want to redistribute the value of those they attack to themselves or their constituents (not prepared to strive to create that value themselves)

to Maslow's hierarchy of needs:



The spirit of leftism is cultivated in university, largely among upper-middle class kids who were provided too much emotional safety and things as a model for life. They go to university and their reality is rocked. In school, they may have reached the pinnacle of the hierarchy of needs: with being a top-tier students, accomplishments and friends, but all this was achieved from the comfort of being under their parent's protection. When they go to university, all that is stripped away and they may struggle even with their basic needs. This is a prime territory for neo-Marxist predators to offer explanations into this period of often intense social, sexual, scholastic etc. turbulence.

Rather than earning relationships, achievements, status and a positive self-image as Maslow would suggest, they are instead convinced they obtain these as such:

Relationships: All guys desire the hottest cheerleader and all girls the most high status jock. By this stage these have become archetypes that are regularly seen in cultural Marxist tinged music like KoRn and Marilyn Mason. Rather than putting in the effort to make themselves more attractive by cultivate a style, hitting the gym, wearing makeup etc., they have come up with ideological fascias to their internal conflict which revolve around what Peterson outlines in his video: they identify the attractive as oppressors and the unattractive as victims and set about coming up with new social constructs that attempt to bring down the value of the oppressors, making them more accessible to them and increasing their own value. This is fat positivity and notions that everyone is equally beautiful, which there is an attempt to force on society, even though the people who push them don't even believe in them.

Self Image: Most people want to think they are a good person. Again, they identify the oppressors (everyone not part of the radical left) and the radical left and their desired constituents as victims. They then tell the oppressors how bad they are and from that they derive their self-worth.

Rinse and repeat for other areas.

One problem is this is all very easy. It's easy to lecture people that fat is beautiful and it's easy to tell people they are bad and not say anything about yourself. None of this actually works to ascend Maslow's hierarchy and it demands other people who have climbed it be stuck down in an act of jealousy. Things that are easy don't beget much value, just as the virtual achievements of playing computer games don't make you feel a real sense of achievement, the methods of the left don't work in getting what they actually desire. They make it harder for anyone to get what they desire as all the left's models require both more input and less output at the same time. This is social destruction, which is a very conscious desire and goal for much of the new left. It comes from the same place as self-destructive behaviour - a hate of self, but in this case, also of society.

Post: #360

Oy vey...
Can only shake my head at this dogmatic cunt from the BBC...



Adequately demonstrates AB's objective / rational intelligence vs. this bint's "university dumb" subjective / emotional thinking.

Post: #361

(01-16-2018 07:19 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Adequately demonstrates AB's objective / rational intelligence vs. this bint's "university dumb" subjective / emotional thinking.

This distinction is inaccurate and actually contradicts Peterson and his influences.

For instance, two of the men Peterson quotes the most, Jung and William James, wrote extensively on the inadequacies of a purely rationalistic, objectivist viewpoint and placed a lot of value in subjective viewpoints.

Quote:"The actual universe is a thing wide open, but rationalism makes systems, and systems must be closed." -- William James

I cover some of Jung's thoughts on the issue in this thread.

Or simply listen to Peterson's views on things like truth.

This might seem pedantic but it's actually a very important distinction, one that forms the core of Peterson's philosophy. Jung, James, Peterson, etc. all advocated for a synthesis or middle path between objectivism and subjectivism.

Post: #362

(01-16-2018 08:28 PM)Enigma Wrote:  This distinction is inaccurate and actually contradicts Peterson and his influences.
For instance, two of the men Peterson quotes the most, Jung and William James, wrote extensively on the inadequacies of a purely rationalistic, objectivist viewpoint and placed a lot of value in subjective viewpoints.

Quote:"The actual universe is a thing wide open, but rationalism makes systems, and systems must be closed." -- William James

I cover some of Jung's thoughts on the issue in this thread.
Or simply listen to Peterson's views on things like truth.
This might seem pedantic but it's actually a very important distinction, one that forms the core of Peterson's philosophy. Jung, James, Peterson, etc. all advocated for a synthesis or middle path between objectivism and subjectivism.

What I noticed though, is that this Cathy Newman(?) would get rather defensive & dogmatic (if not knee-jerk) about very specific instances.
Whereas it was clear Peterson was able to separate himself from that same instance, step back & look at it from a much more broad /grand & multi-faceted viewpoint.
Thus having a far less personal investment in the instance & a far more objective viewpoint.
I recall Peterson used the term - "multi-varied".

Post: #363

(01-16-2018 07:19 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Can only shake my head at this dogmatic cunt from the BBC...

Post: #364

And she called him 'a provocateur'!

A masterclass by Peterson. Never came close to losing his cool.

Post: #365

What's interesting about the interviewer in this video (and all women who bitch about workplace discrimination) is that if you banned all men from the workplace, the women who current excel would continue to do so and the women who aren't winning wouldn't magically start to win.

Corporate policy is put into place by people who own business designed to increase their wealth. The only way to create a workplace to give more opportunities for those who aren't driven to compete/fight for the promotions and raises would be to force the people with the money/power (who own the company) to enact policies not of their choosing.

It's basically saying "even though you stand to lose the money you've invested into this business if these 'more inclusive' ideas fail to generate revenues, you still have to adopt them because otherwise its not fair to women who aren't willing to learn how to compete in a corporate environment. If the experiment fails, you are fucked, but that's ok, because we tried."

The bottom line is that you have to choose between the free will of every person in a society to pursue happiness and given into people who simply demand happiness.

The logic is really weird. But women like this hostile interviewer never take it that far. As long as a solution benefits them (theoretically), that's simply the end of the discussion. If they don't like the way business is conducted, they are more than welcome to create their own business and outcompete the people using the outmoded systems that reward people who fight for success and do not reward those who refuse to take risks or do something uncomfortable, like asking for a raise.

(01-17-2018 03:59 AM)3extra Wrote:  And she called him 'a provocateur'!

It's debatable whether he is a provocateur. However, there's no question that she is a bitch.

I'm 31 now and my parents have never pressured me towards marriage, as they understand me very well and realize that I don't follow trends and I would need to meet someone very special.

However, the topic of my suitability for marriage came up a couple nights ago when I was on the phone with my mother.

It was difficult to explain to her, but the woman in the above video sums up a big one of my reasons. Every educated, intelligent woman that I meet is just like her. They are convinced that they have the moral authority to decide right and wrong, are uninterested in any new information and consider themselves my intellectual equal (or superior) just because.

They simply don't believe in the concept of challenging ideas to prove their worth. They just simply decide what is right and wrong. This is deadly when political correctness is on their side. Despite a desperate desire to acquire as many participations ribbons as possible (masters degree, etc), they appear to have no intellectual curiosity to be right. They just want be given what they believe should simply belong to them.

How could I possibly share a life with someone who is always right no matter what?

(01-17-2018 03:59 AM)3extra Wrote:  A masterclass by Peterson. Never came close to losing his cool.

His response a certain points and near the end of the video was "amused mastery."

Post: #366

(01-16-2018 07:19 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Oy vey...
Can only shake my head at this dogmatic cunt from the BBC...



Adequately demonstrates AB's objective / rational intelligence vs. this bint's "university dumb" subjective / emotional thinking.

Nah, not BBC. Channel Four. They're worse than BBC because people regard C4 much more highly in Britain. It's our "serious" news program, but they're as treacherous as any other major news outlet.

Watched this interview live. Whilst I'm familiar with Peterson, this was the first time I watched an interview of his. Very nice to see the interviewer getting spanked. All the Channel Four hosts are prats who get very snarky when they don't get what they want. That interviewer who got shut down by Tarantino and Downey Jr. is basically what you'll find there.

I also had to watch it after seeing this excellent analysis on Peterson's style. It was cool seeing the traits highlighted in the video being demonstrated in the interview.

Post: #367

(01-17-2018 12:20 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  What I noticed though, is that this Cathy Newman(?) would get rather defensive & dogmatic (if not knee-jerk) about very specific instances.
Whereas it was clear Peterson was able to separate himself from that same instance, step back & look at it from a much more broad /grand & multi-faceted viewpoint.
Thus having a far less personal investment in the instance & a far more objective viewpoint.
I recall Peterson used the term - "multi-varied".

I wasn't denying that the woman is an idiot.

My point was about the objectivism/rationalism vs. subjectivism distinction.

Post: #368

Great interview, she really showed herself up by losing control and trying to humiliate him by saying 'lets talk about lobsters'. She just lost control. Great example of your British journalist.

Post: #369

(01-17-2018 04:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  What's interesting about the interviewer in this video (and all women who bitch about workplace discrimination) is that if you banned all men from the workplace, the women who current excel would continue to do so and the women who aren't winning wouldn't magically start to win.

Corporate policy is put into place by people who own business designed to increase their wealth. The only way to create a workplace to give more opportunities for those who aren't driven to compete/fight for the promotions and raises would be to force the people with the money/power (who own the company) to enact policies not of their choosing.

Excellent points.

Post: #370

Post: #371

A fantastic interview. Well worth watching. The presenter was PWNED.

Best line:

"I'm a clinical psychologist."

Post: #372

On a side note, Matt Frei works for Channel 4 and for the last 2 years he's been swanning around the USA, to get inside of those nasty white people who voted for trump, "the uneducated", they love re-running his Trump objective documentaries (no they aren't)

Post: #373

(01-17-2018 08:52 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  A fantastic interview. Well worth watching. The presenter was PWNED.

Best line:

"I'm a clinical psychologist."

At around 25:00, was exciting stuff, he talks the slow creep of all these identity politics groups, and its clear she's never thought of it like this.

"How can you possibly compare people to Mao? Comparisons are bad. You're like the alt right"

The whole interview felt like this:

Post: #374

He put her in a tough spot.

Normally these people have a smooth answer for everything.

The essence of her position is that she deserves free speech and he doesn't, and in the moment, she couldn't quite seem to come up with a reason why.

Post: #375

The more time I spend on the internet, the less pleasure I seem to get from it. It is not a variable reward system, it is a punishment system with some, very few, exceptions.

I am going through my bookmarks right now, and deleting them in a mad dash.

One of the few things that still makes me feel good, and that there is justice in the world, is when people I like, who I discovered independently of one another, either meet each other, have a conversation, or stand in support of one another.

How this connects to Peterson is that maybe the best thing he says is to tell the truth as best you can, take the consequences, and revise as necessary.

It is the endless image management of media types, and even normal people, that really gets me down, and is also why I, like so many others, may think Trump is crass, but when he calls a country a shithole, it is invigorating because there is an absence of spin, he is simply calling things as he sees them in normal person language.

So, Douglas Murray is one of those people for me, and his take on immigration in Europe seems so sensible, so plainspoken, that it gives me hope for the lost art of plain talk.

Which is why it was such a charge today to find that he saw this most recent interview with Peterson, and actually wrote an article:

I would be happy with the title alone.


Watch: Cathy Newman's catastrophic interview with Jordan Peterson

Quote:In the magazine this week (out tomorrow) I have written a piece about the Canadian Professor Jordan Peterson. He has been in the UK over the last week to talk about his new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Among many other things – much more of which I go into in the piece – his visit showed up the UK’s broadcast media in a very bad light.

On Saturday morning, Peterson made an appearance on Radio 4’s Today programme. They gave him a hurried four minutes at the end of the show. They could have quizzed him on almost anything and got a point of view different from almost any other they had ever allowed their listeners to hear. Instead they decided to treat him in an alternately jocular and hostile manner. First: ‘Look at this whacky Canadian from out of town’. Then: ‘warning signs: heretic’. The Today programme wasted the opportunity.

But they scored a veritable home-run compared to the interview Cathy Newman did with him yesterday for Channel 4 News. The full half-hour interview is available online. If I was Channel 4 I would take it down. If I was Cathy Newman I would sue or seek a super-injunction. I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.

Whatever else anybody might think of him, Professor Peterson is a man of remarkable learning and experience, and does not appear to have arrived at any of his views by the now common means of ‘I reckon’. Yet Newman, who approaches the interview with the trademark sourness she employs for everyone she expects to disagree with, treats this is just another chance to burnish her own social justice credentials and expose her guest as a bigot. Big mistake.

Storming straight in with the differences between the sexes, in the opening minutes it is clear that Professor Peterson is willing to back up all his views with references, data and calm analysis. By 4 minutes in Cathy Newman is saying ‘What gives you the right to say that?’. One answer to which is ‘Because you invited me on your show.’ Another being ‘Because I have years of experience in these fields as a psychologist and academic as well as being a human being with eyes.’ Peterson is too polite to say this. But it becomes clear that in the face of the facts Channel 4’s prize interviewer has nothing more than stances. And not even especially intelligent stances.

By 11 minutes in she is saying ‘I think I take issue with (that)’, before demonstrating that she can’t. Soon she is reduced to dropping the bombshell observation that ‘all women are different’. By 16.45 there is a palpable win, as Peterson points out that Newman has exactly the disagreeable and aggressive qualities that allow certain types of people to succeed. By 19.30 she is having to throw out things to him that he hasn’t even said, such as ‘You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run top companies’. A minute later and she is reduced to countering empirical evidence with anecdote. Peterson presents the data about men in general and Newman responds with the ‘I know plenty of men who aren’t (like that)’ card. Shortly after that (at 22.25) Newman is reduced to spluttering and then silence. She tries to pull herself together. But she can think of nothing to say. She tries to whip herself back up to a fever of indignation, but that doesn’t work either. And then finally she tries to finish off the interview in the same way the Today programme did by taking up a half-humorous evolutionary case-study Peterson has written about (lobsters) and used it to try to present him as some kind of madman or imbecile.

The general British broadcast media treatment of Peterson was not just ignorant and parochial (and aren’t some ‘internationalists’ just the most parochial people of all?). It showed that it has become acceptable for an interviewer to go in with nothing other than an ambition to demonstrate their moral superiority at the expense of the interviewee. This may be fun and help burnish the sense of moral preening of the presenter. But it allows the audience to learn nothing. Indeed the only thing it does do is to replace serious discussion with an embedding of existing prejudices. It is in places like this that the ‘division’ that we hear so much occurs. If you happen to share Cathy Newman’s views then you want her not only to show them but to crush or expose any and all enemies. But if yesterday’s interview is anything to go by, all she has is attitudes. And lazy attitudes at that. In the face of facts she is reduced to talking about people she knows.

That isn’t news. It isn’t even interviewing. It is grandstanding. This nation’s broadcasters should feel ashamed.

"In the face of facts, she is reduced to talking about people she knows."

Savage. Put it on her tombstone.