What is often lost since Peterson became "famous" after the whole gender pronoun controversy is the quality and depth of his thinking and lecturing that was already available on YouTube. This article starts with that, and explains his popularity as a teacher at Harvard and Toronto. I had been watching his lectures for about a year before the pronoun issue, and his ideas are fascinating and deep. They tie together many disparate fields and ideas into an original and interesting synthesis.
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.
is generally regarded (by those I know, at least) as Jordan at his best. He goes through the first few stories in the Bible and tries to bring meaning to them, not from the fundamental Christian lens of "this is absolute truth," but more like:
"Here are some archetypal patterns about the world and how to act in it that our ancestors have discovered over thousands of years and distilled into stories. Maybe they hold truth that isn't the 'word of God' truth, but observations about the world that have utility to us even as a modern, rational, scientific civilization. I'll back this up by tying it to studies on psychology, neuroscience, evolution, and animal behavior, and show that variations of the same archetypal stories appear in non-Judeo-Christian societies all over the world."
You can be a hardline atheist and still get tons of value out of these lectures.
He does a similar thing with the story of Pinocchio instead of the Bible for the first few lectures, which might be more palatable for some. There's a lot of overlap with the Bible series as well.
I was quite surprised to discover that the alt-right venerate him. I got the impression that he was pretty liberal. I mean, I support LGBTQ rights, but don't agree that people should be forced to use appropriate gender pronouns.
I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about.
You can think of Jordan Peterson as going just a bit farther than Sam Harris, when Sam Harris says that we should learn from religion by practicing things like meditation. Jordan Peterson comes from the position that things like myth and religion co-evolved with human beings and human society. Even if the literal epistemology of religion and myth is dead wrong on the conscious/rational/scientific level, it still contains insights into the nature of human beings' self regulation because of that co-evolution. Often, these things operate at below the level of consciousness, as we would expect such things to, given that they co-evolved with us from a time before sentient consciousness.
I would place myself in the conservative corner, but I find Peterson quite problematic.
1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
2. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them with 1.
No wonder he has a sect like following.
His conservative debates are more to the point but I‘m not sure if it is not just advertising for his „religious lectures“.
1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures...just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive.
Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
Do you actually think he says that life is only suffering? Sorry, but that seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of his views. What evidence do you have that Dr. Peterson is anti-joy? Here's an exercise: find evidence in what he says that shows he values joy.
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
Let's go right for the most disturbing: The Gulag Archipelago. It's disturbing as an indictment of the worst human beings can do, while those same people are spouting the most positive sounding utopian ideology. It's not going to depress anyone in the West, unless they have already tied up their identity and self worth in a similar ideology.
As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life -- strikes me as a worthwhile and positive message.
It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se. So many people get this wrong.
He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without involvement from an elected legislature.
In everyday life I've never found it to be too inconvenient to be as accommodating as possible to others and communicate with them on their own terms, whether that means remembering to use the pronouns they want or using alternative terminology if they think some word is offensive.
I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiring ever more varied pronouns, or if so many words get soft-banned as being offensive that it's difficult to communicate with clarity). Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. I can understand and be sympathetic to Peterson's position in that sense, although I'm not sure if I agree.
Not to mention scientifically dubious tests of "unconscious bias" used against you as evidence in kangaroo courts -- enshrined into law. That's something that might be in Room 101 in the world of Orwell's1984.
Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)
He actually wrote a letter to the administration of his university to state that if he had a trans student he would not be compelled to use their gender pronoun of choice. The admin told him, in so many words, to not be an asshole for no reason. He then published to response on the internet and played the victim.
So he more or less had to create a controversy out of nothing. The great majority of people consider the question a matter of courtesy and hold no strong feelings.
I try to treat people with respect and in the manner they would like to be treated (within reason) but I also reserve my right to be offensive to other people, to be rude and crude and aggressive because some times that's appropriate.
Exactly. I have no problem calling a genetic male "she" that's what she prefers. I take issue with being held to a standard of somehow needing to "know" that ahead of time, and respect it, with no effort on the part of the woman in question.
I'm perfectly able to be understanding in these cases, but I'm not capable to be psychic.
> It’s worth pointing out that Peterson is actually not against using a variety of gender pronouns per se.
At some point, what someone literally says they are or aren't against starts to pale in comparison to the perception of their stance. And if that perception persists, at some point, one has to call into question their sincerity.
He is not radical but he is outspoken and does not let himself be cowed. This antagonises other outspoken people who have been able to silence a large part of their opposition by labelling them as racist, insert-whatever-identity-phobe, nazi and such. When they tried the same with Peterson by calling him a 'transphobe' their attempts spectacularly backfired in that they drew the attention of the general public to Peterson which quickly gave him a much larger following than he normally would have had.
Surprisingly well written and balanced article in today's world of demonizing those we disagree with and deifying those we agree with. Something increasingly lost in the noise is that in the end we're all just people -- something that this article emphasizes.
> his most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago
God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.
He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
Respectfully, I'd like to put this in a different frame.
"Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes."
When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?"
Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.
There are some 4 or 5 new pronoun classes, totally over 30+ new gender pronouns recognized by some transgender rights activists. This UW LGBT Resource Center lists an additional 7 pronoun classes, totaling 35 new pronouns [1].
So imagine the typical college professor. They've got what? Three or four classes of up to 50 or 60 students?
So you want them remember not only each student's name, but also which of these new pronoun class they prefer, as well as the proper declination of that pronoun class?
And if someone prefers not to do this, it's because they're an asshole?
My guess is that Peterson would have been happy to try to use preferred pronouns for his students, if only he weren't being forced to do so by some human rights act about pronouns and coerced by various activists groups. He's basically said as much before.
For the record, I'm in favor of most transgender rights issues (re: employment, anti-violence, identity documents, etc). But you can't go passing laws to force changes in attitude. US lawmakers did the right thing by passing civil rights laws in the 1960s, but those lawmakers didn't then go and outlaw the use of the n-word. That would have been a bridge too far. People have to learn from those around them what is and isn't appropriate. You can't just force them to think and speak the way you want by force of law.
Or at least, we don't typically try to do that in free societies.
He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole.
AFAIK, he does use preferred pronouns.
Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
If one is faced with oppressive ideologues who refuse to engage in dialogue and just want to coerce you, the proper response is to stand up to them.
He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
I genuinely think that the critiques of Postmodern Social Construction are thoughtful and interesting. I also think they provide intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism, dressed up as "activism."
Perhaps the asshole is the person who expects the rest of the world to jump through linguistic hoops in order to protect their carefully maintained delusions.
> Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole.
Let me ask you, do you think requests for preferred pronouns are rooted in a correct understanding of human nature? Or are you merely accommodating something you believe to be mistaken so as to not hurt someone who likely be (on net) hurt by a more honest approach?
I think I generally agree with your second paragraph. We should not deliberately be jerks to others, even if they are different from us. And also, we should not be under legal coercion to not be jerks - that way lies at least serious trouble, and maybe social madness.
But I think I disagree with your third paragraph. People who have thoughtful, interesting things to say should say them. (They should also take care to specify what they don't mean, to discredit "followers" who run off in bad directions. Or else, if they agree with those followers, non-followers will conclude that the bad directions taint the thoughtful and interesting things.)
>He believes that the insistence on the use of gender-neutral pronouns is rooted in postmodernism, which he sees as thinly disguised Marxism.
I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.
If I remember correctly, Peterson says that the Neo-Marxists followed up on the theories of postmodernism as a way to bring Marxist thought back into the academically-acceptable realm, and that led to where we are today. So, the author is slightly wrong in his description of Peterson's beliefs. He doesn't see Postmodernism as "thinly disguised Marxism". He see Neo-Marxism as having its roots in Postmodernism.
There's the academic philosophical postmodernism, which rejects metanarratives. Then there's a derived ideology taken up as the basis for a lot of Intersectional activism which can be termed "Social Constructionism." As is the case for many activist derivations of ideology, there is some straying away from the original academic version.
While postmodernism claims it rejects metanarratives, like the one in Marxism, the derived ideologies share a lot of parallels in effect. They both result in opposing groups which can't effectively talk to each other, so must coerce each other by force. (Doesn't this remind you of the Intersectional "Stack Ranking" and the "Oppression Olympics?") They both effectively result in a rejection of logic. They both effectively create their own forms of obscurantist alternative "logic." The ideological effect of both Marxism and Social Constructionism is to come up with a pretext for rejecting existing standards and tearing society apart -- one which is ideologically sealed against negotiation, logic, and adaptation to evidence.
"Postmodernism" and "deconstructionism" are often used synonymously: https://jakeseliger.com/2014/10/02/what-happened-with-decons... and like many overarching "isms" they've come to mean such different things that they can be used to mean almost anything.
That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.
Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).
So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.
This, anyway, is the line of thinking, though it isn't my own view of the world. To say that everything is linguistic seems unlikely. When I was in grad school in English (note: don't do this: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo... ) and would hear this argument, I liked to observe that everyone, given the choice between getting punched in the face or having someone say something mean to them, chooses the latter. This would seem to me to argue that not everything can be reduced to language, even apart from all the other very good and obvious-seeming arguments along those lines.
It's still great to read but rereading I noticed at the core the same oppression narrative that seems to appear out of all postmodern discourse at some point and which JBP associates with Marxism. Here the programmer is oppressed by stuck up programming languages, Perl reverses the roles and is happy to be like a butler/slave. Which is fine for a programming language, but offers problems when reversing the oppressor/oppressed roles is the only solution you can think of, the only interpretation you wish to dwell on however flimsy the interpretation is (which seems to be where postmodernism went wrong / taken over by Marxists), and each side involves real people.
I’ve never encountered this interpretation before either.
The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.
Many take issue with the minutae of his arguments, like his understanding of postmodernism. Still, if you focus on the problematic symptoms he describes and skip his causal arguments, that is, what he attributes as the cause of those symptoms, he is pointing out real issues that deserve attention.
So, to put it short: "What's dangerous about Jordan Peterson is that he makes ideas we don't like sound plausible"? I don't really see an answer to the question in title.
Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off-handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely available on youtube.
As an interlocutor, Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable person to debate with. But his followers are quite dangerous, much like many other political thinkers, whose suggestions were modest, but the followers took it to mean something else...
I think the "danger" around Jordan Peterson goes beyond the pronoun debate.
Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.
Below is a very good related article about the "intellectual dark web" consisting of academics like Peterson who are being driven out of the academy by orthodoxy and instead work through podcasts, Youtube, Patreon, etc
The article mentions the first interview Sam Harris did with Jordan Peterson. It appeared frustrating for both parties because they got caught up in definitions of words, etc. Still, it was civil so they parted and agreed to talk again. Harris says, "I’d received more listener requests for him than for Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Edward Snowden—or, indeed, any other person on earth."[0]
Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1]
The article really tries hard to paint Jordan Peterson (JP) as a controversial figure who espouses fringe messages. The article uses adjectives like "controversial" and "polarizing" to describe JP. His public presence is "notoriety". His followers are said to be "something akin to a cult following". He "appears on TV, including on Fox & Friends, President Trump’s preferred morning show". WoW so edgy.
But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing?
Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.
In an environment where non-progressives are shunned, he refrains from shunning them.
Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized.
And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason.
We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will always seek an icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law).
Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.
[+] [-] Erik816|8 years ago|reply
But that synthesis is complex, nuanced, and requires a lot of time to think about. There are problems with it, and it deserves to be criticized (Peterson would be the first to agree). There are also profound insights that can help elevate your thinking if you can incorporate them. Lots of people don't have the intellectual background or ability to do so. But everyone can form a 2 second hot take on one of his more recent controversial statements, so that is what gets discussed.
[+] [-] nicolashahn|8 years ago|reply
His series on the Bible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&index=1&list=PL2...
is generally regarded (by those I know, at least) as Jordan at his best. He goes through the first few stories in the Bible and tries to bring meaning to them, not from the fundamental Christian lens of "this is absolute truth," but more like:
"Here are some archetypal patterns about the world and how to act in it that our ancestors have discovered over thousands of years and distilled into stories. Maybe they hold truth that isn't the 'word of God' truth, but observations about the world that have utility to us even as a modern, rational, scientific civilization. I'll back this up by tying it to studies on psychology, neuroscience, evolution, and animal behavior, and show that variations of the same archetypal stories appear in non-Judeo-Christian societies all over the world."
You can be a hardline atheist and still get tons of value out of these lectures.
I also found his 2017 Maps of Meaning lectures particularly interesting, and personally more relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Xc2_FtpHI
He does a similar thing with the story of Pinocchio instead of the Bible for the first few lectures, which might be more palatable for some. There's a lot of overlap with the Bible series as well.
[+] [-] mywittyname|8 years ago|reply
I thoroughly enjoyed his old lectures, but I've avoided watching any of his newer stuff for fear of finding out if he's begun to pander to his (largely) awful followers.
[+] [-] stcredzero|8 years ago|reply
You can think of Jordan Peterson as going just a bit farther than Sam Harris, when Sam Harris says that we should learn from religion by practicing things like meditation. Jordan Peterson comes from the position that things like myth and religion co-evolved with human beings and human society. Even if the literal epistemology of religion and myth is dead wrong on the conscious/rational/scientific level, it still contains insights into the nature of human beings' self regulation because of that co-evolution. Often, these things operate at below the level of consciousness, as we would expect such things to, given that they co-evolved with us from a time before sentient consciousness.
[+] [-] lixtra|8 years ago|reply
1. It just feels too good to hear him talk in those maps of meaning lectures. But if you don’t „follow“ and instead analyze what he is saying and how he forms an argument, then you realize that he is not arguing but just putting metaphors together and interpreting them as he sees fit in the moment. That’s why it’s so appealing. But quite often it’s not logic and even less conclusive.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
2. and 3. put his followers in a depressed state where he can uplift them with 1. No wonder he has a sect like following.
His conservative debates are more to the point but I‘m not sure if it is not just advertising for his „religious lectures“.
That’s what I find dangerous about him.
[+] [-] stcredzero|8 years ago|reply
Pretty much like a TED talk. Actually, if you look up TED talks about how to be an effective speaker, you will find the advice to talk in simple language and to use metaphors. Also, they advise you to throw in sentiments to which your audience will agree.
2. His often repeated „life is suffering“ is in the presented totallity not a useful nor true worldview. Life is suffering and joy. (I say this as a pessimist.)
Do you actually think he says that life is only suffering? Sorry, but that seems like a deliberate misrepresentation of his views. What evidence do you have that Dr. Peterson is anti-joy? Here's an exercise: find evidence in what he says that shows he values joy.
3. If you then check out his reading list you find mostly very disturbing titles and no silver lining.
Let's go right for the most disturbing: The Gulag Archipelago. It's disturbing as an indictment of the worst human beings can do, while those same people are spouting the most positive sounding utopian ideology. It's not going to depress anyone in the West, unless they have already tied up their identity and self worth in a similar ideology.
As for a silver lining -- to buck up, bear your burdens, and strive to live a worthwhile life -- strikes me as a worthwhile and positive message.
[+] [-] hashberry|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomsthumb|8 years ago|reply
He is against being compelled to use a variety of gender pronouns by legislation which is internally inconsistent, scientifically inaccurate, and additionally lacks clarity by punting process and standards to the Ontario human rights commission which can change their process and definitions without involvement from an elected legislature.
[+] [-] savanaly|8 years ago|reply
I've never had to think about how my outlook might change if all of that got a lot more inconvenient though (if more people start requiring ever more varied pronouns, or if so many words get soft-banned as being offensive that it's difficult to communicate with clarity). Much less have I thought about what if I were compelled by force/law to do the thing I've been doing voluntarily all along. I can understand and be sympathetic to Peterson's position in that sense, although I'm not sure if I agree.
[+] [-] stcredzero|8 years ago|reply
Also, enshrining into law of scientifically false statements. (Anyone remember the bit about Indiana doing that with pi == 3?)
[+] [-] upofadown|8 years ago|reply
So he more or less had to create a controversy out of nothing. The great majority of people consider the question a matter of courtesy and hold no strong feelings.
[+] [-] wavefunction|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FussyZeus|8 years ago|reply
I'm perfectly able to be understanding in these cases, but I'm not capable to be psychic.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] acjohnson55|8 years ago|reply
At some point, what someone literally says they are or aren't against starts to pale in comparison to the perception of their stance. And if that perception persists, at some point, one has to call into question their sincerity.
[+] [-] _pvu0|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yetanfou|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indubitable|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chaebixi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hashberry|8 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA
Many people see him as an enemy because of his conservative viewpoints. His most recent debate with Cathy Newman from three days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
[+] [-] js8|8 years ago|reply
God, that was a terrible interview. The interviewer refused to understand a single thing that JP was saying. I am no fan of Peterson (in particular, I am left liberal), but he makes quite a lot of good points.
[+] [-] beat|8 years ago|reply
He's arguing that he should not be coerced into using preferred pronouns. Ok, that's fine. But he should use preferred pronouns anyway, in order to not be an asshole. Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
And this is the real headache with Jordan Peterson. He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
[+] [-] DanAndersen|8 years ago|reply
"Being an asshole" isn't some universal quality. If someone is complaining that someone else is "being an asshole," what is essentially meant is that person "is doing something for which they should be socially shamed." There's nothing inherently right or wrong with having a system of shaming in a society, but it's something particular to a culture and a time. These things come about through consensus and if there isn't some consensus that that's the way things are, then those attempting to impose new norms are ironically also "being assholes."
When you have moral society in recent decades changing very rapidly in terms of what is being considered acceptable or not (whether or not you consider that positive progress), it's going to feel like whiplash to people who are not on the vanguard of the latest new definition of what's acceptable. People say, "Wait a second, I was taught to be a decent person, I think I'm a decent person -- who are these people telling me that I'm now a hateful person for doing or not doing what seemed reasonable up until a couple years ago? Do the people telling me this have moral authority in my eyes?"
Cultural practices take time to adjust or to be adjusted externally. Move too fast and people won't be happy about it, and that should be understood.
[+] [-] jnbiche|8 years ago|reply
So imagine the typical college professor. They've got what? Three or four classes of up to 50 or 60 students?
So you want them remember not only each student's name, but also which of these new pronoun class they prefer, as well as the proper declination of that pronoun class?
And if someone prefers not to do this, it's because they're an asshole?
My guess is that Peterson would have been happy to try to use preferred pronouns for his students, if only he weren't being forced to do so by some human rights act about pronouns and coerced by various activists groups. He's basically said as much before.
For the record, I'm in favor of most transgender rights issues (re: employment, anti-violence, identity documents, etc). But you can't go passing laws to force changes in attitude. US lawmakers did the right thing by passing civil rights laws in the 1960s, but those lawmakers didn't then go and outlaw the use of the n-word. That would have been a bridge too far. People have to learn from those around them what is and isn't appropriate. You can't just force them to think and speak the way you want by force of law.
Or at least, we don't typically try to do that in free societies.
1. http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/
[+] [-] nouveaux|8 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=21m39s
23m16s is where he states he would use preferred pronouns.
[+] [-] stcredzero|8 years ago|reply
AFAIK, he does use preferred pronouns.
Because refusing to use preferred pronouns isn't standing up to oppressive postmodern SJWs. It's being an asshole.
If one is faced with oppressive ideologues who refuse to engage in dialogue and just want to coerce you, the proper response is to stand up to them.
He may be thoughtful and interesting. But for thousands of followers, he's just providing intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism.
I genuinely think that the critiques of Postmodern Social Construction are thoughtful and interesting. I also think they provide intellectual cover for bigotry and emotional sadism, dressed up as "activism."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj28qAS8MWU
[+] [-] pluto9|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lliamander|8 years ago|reply
Let me ask you, do you think requests for preferred pronouns are rooted in a correct understanding of human nature? Or are you merely accommodating something you believe to be mistaken so as to not hurt someone who likely be (on net) hurt by a more honest approach?
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|8 years ago|reply
But I think I disagree with your third paragraph. People who have thoughtful, interesting things to say should say them. (They should also take care to specify what they don't mean, to discredit "followers" who run off in bad directions. Or else, if they agree with those followers, non-followers will conclude that the bad directions taint the thoughtful and interesting things.)
[+] [-] renlo|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sincerely|8 years ago|reply
I've only been studying theory for a few years but how is this interpretation of postmodernism possible? It seems to run counter to one of what I understand to be the foundations of the movement - the rejection of metanarratives.
[+] [-] carradjm|8 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5rUPatnXSE
Good video where he discusses these things in terms of political correctness.
[+] [-] stcredzero|8 years ago|reply
While postmodernism claims it rejects metanarratives, like the one in Marxism, the derived ideologies share a lot of parallels in effect. They both result in opposing groups which can't effectively talk to each other, so must coerce each other by force. (Doesn't this remind you of the Intersectional "Stack Ranking" and the "Oppression Olympics?") They both effectively result in a rejection of logic. They both effectively create their own forms of obscurantist alternative "logic." The ideological effect of both Marxism and Social Constructionism is to come up with a pretext for rejecting existing standards and tearing society apart -- one which is ideologically sealed against negotiation, logic, and adaptation to evidence.
[+] [-] jseliger|8 years ago|reply
That being said, many strands of postmodernism in universities have come to teach that there is nothing outside of language itself (that's a common reading of Foucault and Derrida), so everything can be seen as a language or sign system. Want to change "reality" (as if there is such a thing!)? Just change the language.
Another stand holds that there are only two really important groups: the powerful / powerless, which could also be seen as the "oppressors" and "oppressed." Everyone is supposed to be in one of the two groups. This gets grafted onto identity politics in rather unpleasant ways (IMO).
So in the pronoun debate, people who are transgendered or non-gendered are the oppressed and need help; everyone who is not "helping" them is the oppressor and must be opposed.
This, anyway, is the line of thinking, though it isn't my own view of the world. To say that everything is linguistic seems unlikely. When I was in grad school in English (note: don't do this: https://jakeseliger.com/2012/05/22/what-you-should-know-befo... ) and would hear this argument, I liked to observe that everyone, given the choice between getting punched in the face or having someone say something mean to them, chooses the latter. This would seem to me to argue that not everything can be reduced to language, even apart from all the other very good and obvious-seeming arguments along those lines.
[+] [-] Jach|8 years ago|reply
It's still great to read but rereading I noticed at the core the same oppression narrative that seems to appear out of all postmodern discourse at some point and which JBP associates with Marxism. Here the programmer is oppressed by stuck up programming languages, Perl reverses the roles and is happy to be like a butler/slave. Which is fine for a programming language, but offers problems when reversing the oppressor/oppressed roles is the only solution you can think of, the only interpretation you wish to dwell on however flimsy the interpretation is (which seems to be where postmodernism went wrong / taken over by Marxists), and each side involves real people.
[+] [-] scribu|8 years ago|reply
The only way I can make some sense of it is by drawing a correspondence between postmodernism’s “there is no absolute truth, only convenient fictions” and marxism’s class warfare.
[+] [-] naasking|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] krick|8 years ago|reply
Anyway, his lectures for psychology students on youtube are quite nice to listen, even though I find it problematic how often he treats hard facts off-handedly to speak in favor of his overall narrative. I wonder if there are more courses (especially on non-technical subjects) of the same quality freely available on youtube.
[+] [-] moksha256|8 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM
[+] [-] empanadada|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mizzack|8 years ago|reply
Individualism and wariness of ideological collectivism seem to be tenets of what he espouses. No surprise, then, that ideological collectivists are his most vocal enemies.
[+] [-] superquest|8 years ago|reply
http://conatusnews.com/rise-intellectual-dark-web/
edit:
I made a thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16189120
[+] [-] emptybits|8 years ago|reply
Notably, but not in the article, Harris interviewed Peterson again, two months later.[1]
[0] https://samharris.org/speaking-of-truth-with-jordan-b-peters...
[1] https://samharris.org/podcasts/meaning-and-chaos/
[+] [-] jsnk|8 years ago|reply
But is JP really the one who is controversial and polarizing?
- JP is against the Pomo stuff that passes for scholarship now a days. https://twitter.com/realpeerreview?lang=en
- We have professors university calling for violence against his political opponents. http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/criminal-justice-professor...
- We had a Antifa professor who nearly killed a guy hitting someone with a heavy bike lock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg (WARNING: GRAPHIC)
Is JP really the one who is polarizing and extreme here? The left academic really dropped the ball not pointing out their own dirty laundry and cleaning out their own cesspool of fake academics and violent thugs.
[+] [-] ihsw2|8 years ago|reply
Where non-progressives are demonized, he dispels the myth that non-progressives deserve to be demonized.
And so forth -- we are en an environment where progressives are increasingly assertive and increasingly hostile to non-progressives, for whatever reason.
We can wax poetic about the quality of his zealots' character until the cows come home but it doesn't address the fact that people will always seek an icon to revolve around. The only solution to such a situation, like insurgencies in war-zones, is de-escalation and re-integration (of militant progressives and social conservatives into a cohesive society where they both achieve political representation and fairness in the eyes of the law).
Unfortunately modern-day progressives (regressives) have no interest in this and as such social conservatives will continue to gravitate towards those that they don't fully understand but nevertheless find appealing.
[+] [-] icantdrive55|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] macrael|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nkrisc|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]