Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Fine by me, if you took reviews of peers of his field. There is much misinformation out there coming from mainstream sources.

"

You can't call a clinical psychologist who cribs Nietzsche, Jung, Campbell, Dostoyevsky, Milton and of course The Bible to preach how great the 50s were for Alpha Males 'primary'. Sorrynotsorry. And sure, that wasn't always his agenda but it's certainly an underpinning to 12 Rules To Not Be Little Shits or whatever it was called. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Care to eleborate why (excerptly)? :)

I don't think that his first book, Maps of Meaning necessarely is a Secondary Source. I need to research that argument though.

What, then, isn't secondary today? Psychology of the human is pretty much established and everything on that topic should be 2ndary then, generally.

He backs up his claims with his studies of his clients over 30 years, isn't that primary source?

I agree that on some topics he might interpret more then the creators intended. IMO he overinterprets quite alot in some cases and is too encased or narrow if he goes down the rabbit hole.

Still I think he stands for his believes and his work and is willing to change his POV. I like him personally, and I am in no position to critique his work, since I am not nearly educated enough in his fields.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

http://time.com/5176537/jordan-peterson-frozen-movie-disney/

"

This interview has been edited and condensed.

Translation: We considered some of Dr. Peterson's argument boring, or something, and eliminated it.

Nice primary source.

For what it's worth, though, I'm not against Frozen. Yes, it's primarily about the bond between sisters of differing sexual orientations, against a male villain, but there's a straight white male good guy for a little balance, and I don't think every single story about sibling bond needs to have one or more brothers in it. I kinda see how one might label it feminist propaganda but if so it's old-school second-wave feminist and that shit doesn't really bother me.

Jordan Peterson is ZIONIST CONTROLLED OPPOSITION...! Ask him about Israel's CRIMES and he will NOPE out of the conversation!

A reply in general:

So, apparently, young people are going ga-ga over this guy. Here's a snippet, just an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-77NpxbE7k

"

“We’re going to start with a website in the next month and a half that will be designed to help students and parents identify post-modern content in courses so that they can avoid them,” announced Peterson on CTV’s Your Morning in August.

“I’m hoping that over about a five-year period a concerted effort could be made to knock the enrollment down in postmodern neo-Marxist cult classes by 75 per cent across the West. So our plan initially is to cut off the supply to the people that are running the indoctrination cults.”

“Women’s studies, and all the ethnic studies and racial studies groups, man, those things have to go and the faster they go the better,” he said. “It would have been better if they had never been part of the university to begin with as far as I can tell.”

“Sociology, that’s corrupt. Anthropology, that’s corrupt. English literature, that’s corrupt. Maybe the worst offenders are the faculties of education,” added Peterson.

(Plans for that website have been cancelled, AFAIK)

He has harnessed social media and a confrontational interview to propel himself into the ranks of "notables" among many young netizens. OK, fine.

But, he's politicizing "knowledge" while claiming that's what others are doing. "The "postmodern neo-Marxist cult" is infecting our yutes! ZOMGZ WE MUST ACT!" (Paraphrased... probably.)

Are there more liberals as University professors than not, especially in the soft-sciences? Probably so. Is that some result of a concerted effort of a "postmodern neo-Marxist cult" trying to infect the minds of our youth and destroy whatever the heck he's claiming they're doing? Doubtful...

But, he's popular. Why? Because he dove into the net culture and actively cultivated it. Moreover, he's continued to increase his popularity by doing what? Pushing the envelope, becoming more inflammatory, more radical, and by making even more sensational claims. All of which, of course, incites those who have latched onto him to get even closer, desiring to promote his notoriety and to share it among peers. More identity-seeking, group-searching, behavior that is predictable.

But.

Could he have, instead, proposed that the reason that there are many liberal professors associated with the humanities and soft-sciences not because they're liberal, but because they, as individuals, are more attracted to these subjects and, as a result, may be more likely to actually be liberal as a result of their interests? Social structures, the study of societies, social organization, study of culture, human behavior, social programs and implementation, etc, all mostly things that focus on human behavior and how societies are structured, which are generally things focused on by liberal ideologies...? These people may not be agent provocateurs, just people who have aligned their personal interests with their preferred profession.

ie: Someone is interested in how social programs are implemented and why or they are interested in how groups of people behave, next thing they know they become interested in these subjects as a profession and also become interested in liberal ideologies, since they have a great deal to do with how social programs are implemented and how government influences the behavior of groups of people...

This ain't rocket-science, folks. It's "psychology" and he's an extremely poor clinical psychologist if he can't recognize this simple mechanism at work.

There are, however, some concerns, there. (There are, indeed, some professors that like to discuss their liberal ideals. AND, there are those who discuss their conservative ideals, too. I've met both and interacted with them when I was in college, too.) But, these are not as dire as he maintains. Where are the Marxists? They're dead. The Socialists? Mostly in Europe, some in South America. The Communists? No such animal, anymore. And, are any of these political-economic systems unchanged since their inception? No. In fact, many of the same principals that far-right activists rail against are, in fact, incorporated in current Western political thought. (I'm a fiscal conservative, btw.)

Now, this guy is engaging in more "relevance seeking" behavior, being called upon in interviews, likely book-publicity driven, so he can comment on Disney films... "KIDS ARE BEING INDOCTRINATED!" Holy crap... Maybe they're just being entertained, instead? And, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it for your own kids. You know... exercise some freedom, here, and just not buy it or allow your kids to watch it. He interprets Frozen as he sees fit, then rails against that interpretation. Asked and answered - An old underhanded tactic that results in someone being able to say exactly what they want to say while still looking "smrt" and "relevant."

And, people eat that up like it's self-actualization candy.

He is making much ado about nothing. But, he's doing it in such a way as to promote himself. He has endeared himself to younger audiences because he's embraced preferred mediums, has accepted and "spoken" to them, directly, in their own room, through the intimate comfort of their screen.

What we may wish to be more concerned about than this guy is, truly, the politicization of knowledge. After all, he is proposing the exact same course of action that he accuses "postmodern neo-Marxist cult(s)" of being guilty of. Will his supporters admit that, to themselves? And, if they do, how can they justify supporting him?

"

Morkonan wrote:

Are there more liberals as University professors than not, especially in the soft-sciences? Probably so. Is that some result of a concerted effort of a "postmodern neo-Marxist cult" trying to infect the minds of our youth and destroy whatever the heck he's claiming they're doing? Doubtful...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Morkonan wrote:

Are there more liberals as University professors than not, especially in the soft-sciences? Probably so. Is that some result of a concerted effort of a "postmodern neo-Marxist cult" trying to infect the minds of our youth and destroy whatever the heck he's claiming they're doing? Doubtful...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_institutions

OOh, scary!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_student_movement

Are you saying that this is occurring, now? Did the German Student Movement, with all of its specific aims and the causes that gave rise to it, hop on a boat and steam to Canada? That some ideologue 40+ years ago started a post-modern neo-Marxist cult that moved to the Americas and is marching through our institutions of higher learning?

There are a lot of professors that insert their personal opinions into their courses. Some even structure the entire course around such things. (Usually profs with their own books to sell...) Does that mean, however, that they all must be part of some concerted action by some "cult?"

Maybe they're just human beings and do what all human beings have a tendency to do?

I would agree that political "leanings" should not be in our institutions of higher learning. BUT, that would apply to all such notions. Professors should not attempt to personally influence their student's political "beliefs" just as they shouldn't try to influence their religious beliefs. But, that doesn't mean that courses on Marxism or Conservatism or Evolution or Religion should not be taught.