Thoughts on Jordan Peterson?

Hypocrisy is his number one virtue, considering how he never directly answer even the most simplistic questions to avoid exposing his bigotry.

I vividly remember one journalist asking him a very direct question : whether he is for or against gay marriage , instead of giving a very bold and straightforward yes/no answer he proceeds with a long explanation that reveals in no palpable form his real stance on gay marriage. One observant person would ask, why simply not give a frank reply ? Why chose this evasiveness instead ?

It's really unbelievable so many people are falling for this scheme. but I guess I can't expect any better from conservatives, or incels who feel a strong kinship to a man whose statements justify some fundamental aspects of their movements.

 

He answers questions directly all the time... maybe you just aren't understanding his answers. Explaining yourself clearly isn't a bad thing. It's a very valuable thing, especially when people are constantly asking you about hot button issues and trying to look for a sound bite to condemn you with. What's wrong with him explaining his stance fully instead of a simple yes or no? Some issues are more complicated than a simple yes or no answer. Why not answer more fully so your stance is complete and clear and not misunderstood?

 

The problem with his explanations is that by the end of his monologue, the interlocutor will still be unable to address his response as an overt affirmation or the opposite, which was the point of the entire question from the start. And if that what happens, then the whole answer is useless since it doesn't fulfill the purpose of answering adequately the original question.

And, in any case, this whole demeanor doesn't demonstrate anything else besides lacking the necessary honesty to show your true face. It all boils down to not having the endurance to bear criticism, or take accountability for your own viewpoint.

 

Then I am going to ask you to explain something, when he was asked to give his opinion about sexual harassement at the workplace, why the first thing he felt concerned to bring was the role women's makeup and appearance play in instigating this issue ?

Also, why state 'enforced monogamy' as the most accurate solution to the problematic of incel mass-shooters ?

 

That's the vibe I get from him yes. If he helped you and many others then I'm happy for you.

 

The vibe I get from him is that of a very mentally unstable man, who only rely on superficial observation and unreliable informations to sell his covert alt-right worldviews.

And Sergei Lavrov's quote : 'He says many things, depending on what he drink or what he smokes, he says many things' Now is more applicable to him after the exposure of his benzo addiction

 

That sounds like a stupid interviewer then. I've never heard him evade questions. He just answers them fully.

That's entirely your opinion... I've never seen him as someone who doesn't adequately answer questions. So idk why you feel that way.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Answering a question fully, so that you can be fully understood and not have your words twisted and taken out of context, is not dishonesty, nor is it hiding your true face... it's showing exactly what your true face is, accurately and in context.

It seems like you just have a problem with him having nuanced opinions. Which is stupid. If someone asked me a complicated question about a difficult subject, I'm not just going to say yes or no, if I think I need to clarify and be more accurate. There is nothing dishonest about that... how is that dishonest? He's literally saying exactly what he believes. It's perfectly honest.

I would need to actually see the interview you're talking about... I have no idea what he said in those interviews or what you are talking about. How could I possibly answer this question without hearing what he actually has to say?

By asking this question you're literally showing exactly why it is not only good, but necessary for him to explain his answers fully instead of just saying a simple statement. Because you don't understand the simple statements, because they require explanation. So listen to the explanation...

 

Your "vibes" don't really matter as much as his credentials and decades of experience.

It just seems really silly to me to dismiss someone with such credentials as if they're the same as some idiot spouting nonsense on the internet, like Andrew Tate or something. There is an obvious difference between the two, even if you dislike both of them. Like, there are plenty of scholars I greatly disagree with, but I think it would be insulting of me to act like they are the same as trolls on the internet. But that's just my opinion, I guess.

 

I think about that Peterson/Zizek debate and I wonder if Psychoanalysis is actually useful to anyone as a treatment modality or is it mostly a way for Materialist Atheists to be Christians.

 

You can look them up yourself, they're not hard to track down. You can just type 'Jordan Peterson enforced monogamy'. You'll see that I am certainly not lying.

If the whole issue of whether he is for or against something still remains unclear after all that zealous lip service, then his responses fail to fulfill their original purpose which is to clarify if he is in favor of a phenomenon or not. And by chosing evasiveness, he only demonstrates his lack of motivation to expose his stance. Which is obviously done for a reason.

His opinions aren't as nuanced as you see them to be, the global pattern they follow is more inclined toward alt-right conservative ideologies.

 

The interviewer has every right to be frustrated, after all they ask for a question and instead of getting a real reply they get a bowl of word salad.

 

I can't recall ever hearing him evade a question like that. If you could provide any evidence of that, that'd be cool. It's just hard for me to judge whether or not he actually evaded the question, or if you just didn't understand his answer, if I don't know what specific instance you're talking about.

I also think it's perfectly fine for people to not answer questions they don't want to answer, honestly. An interviewer asking you something doesn't mean you're somehow legally obligated to answer.

Yeah, I'm aware that you think that, and I think you're wrong. It's why you are so upset about him not answering questions directly enough for your liking. Because you think he has some kind of alt-right opinion, and if he doesn't just outright say that, then you accuse him of being evasive and dishonest. But it could also be that he doesn't actually have the alt-right opinions you assume he does, so his responses are more nuanced... because that's actually what he believes.

It just seems a little arrogant of you, in my opinion, to declare that you know what his secret beliefs are, and if he says anything other than what you declare he believes, then he's just being dishonest.

Yet again, it's confirmation bias... which seems to be a consistent problem with you. You make judgements about what you think everyone believes and how you think they are, and if they say or do anything contrary to that, you never see it as proving your assumptions wrong. You just see it as them being sneaky and dishonest and hiding their "true face."

Do you really not see how problematic that is? How can anyone ever possibly show you that your assumption about them is wrong if you just call all evidence to the contrary "dishonest" and "evasive"? You're just going to be stuck in whatever your assumption is, forever, and nobody can ever convince you otherwise.

 

Again, that's your opinion. I don't see his responses as "word salad." I think there is a lot of depth there that goes over most people's heads.

 

What's the point of all this 'depth' when the question remains unanswered ?

 

Again, if you could give any specific situation or video, then maybe I can actually judge whether or not the question really was left unanswered. Just because you didn't understand the answer doesn't mean it was unanswered.

And also, as I said previously, it's also fine for people to decline to answer a question they don't want to answer.

 

You can do the effort of researching this evidence yourself, you can start by the question surrounding gay marriage.

 

There was that one subject he would not talk about:

 

K, first of all, I never said you were lying, so stop being dramatic.

And secondly, here, maybe this will clear things up:

 

Aside from the habitual accusations, Can you at least provide a plausible, coherent explanation as to why he refused to give his viewpoint on whether or not he approves of gay marriage ?

 

I'm sorry, what? How am I supposed to do this research myself when I need to know what YOU saw and what you are referring to? I have no idea what article you read or video you watched. I suppose I can randomly try to search for any time he's ever talked about gay marriage, but I wanted to know what you were specifically talking about. I really don't see how that's too much to ask. But whatever.