Jordan Peterson (Psychologist PhD) on pathological ideology

Dr Peterson, from Canada, has been a professor at Harvard and Toronto universities. Here he analyses politics from a psychologists perspective. This is part of a series of lectures that can be found on his channel.

(I think he's pretty objective and watching this probably won't annoy anyone)

This guy is huge, selling out arenas and venues as an academic. Brilliant man.

I've been following his Youtube interviews and conferences for a couple of years, already. He's quite eccentric, but I think a lot of people can relate to his rational philosophies.

Yea he is definitely an intelligent man. He has gotten a bit more political since he gained popularity, but at least he can argue well unlike some other agenda-driven youtubing politicians out there.

You don't he's agenda driven, ElG?

He's one of the most agenda driven dudes out the. He's so clearly trying to cash in on right wingers to gain popularity.

Just look at his racist/sexist bingo on comments like this:

Jordan Peterson: Feminists support the rights of Muslims because of their "unconscious wish for brutal male domination." pic.twitter.com/ozddRgSEl2

— Saeen (@_Saeen_) 23. januar 2018

Also he's on multiple occasions suggested women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings.

Freeza wrote:

Also he's on multiple occasions suggested women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings.

He's by no means racist or sexist Please link to a credible source where he states that women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings. I have actually watched the video where he talks around that topic, but you're the one who made this sensationalist claim, so you better back it up with evidence.

Yes, one out-of-context clip means Peterson is sexist and racist and everything he says has no value.

He's a very intelligent individual and I knew you would go against him Freeza since he lays out and exposes people like you.

That's what you do. Put all those labels on a person (racist, sexist, whatever-phobic) and insist that their opinion doesn't matter but YOUR TRUTH does.

Please, man. Open your eyes.

Thimmy wrote:

Freeza wrote:

Also he's on multiple occasions suggested women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings.

He's by no means racist or sexist Please link to a credible source where he states that women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings. I have actually watched the video where he talks around that topic, but you're the one who made this sensationalist claim, so you better back it up with evidence.

It's the context in which he says this stuff that's bad.

Forced monogamy is basically that you have to, in every action, stop people from celebrating sexual freedom. You shouldn't encourage anyone to be with more people than a single one.

He says it's because it makes people unhappy. And that we're already enforcing monogamy in the world in most cases.

But combining this with when he says it, and that the only people who like him are right wingers, and neo-nazi incels basically it can most definitely be combined with the incel logic of sex. That 1/10 men get 9/10 women, because all women want the same kind of man.

I never said he was racist or sexist. He's definitely trying to feed into a cult of personality by speaking to what these dangerous people want, and he's obviously succeeding. He's by no means an objective non-agenda guy though. I even agree with a lot things he says on some subjects. But he's really far out there on a lot of stuff.

Myesyats wrote:Yes, one out-of-context clip means Peterson is sexist and racist and everything he says has no value.

He's a very intelligent individual and I knew you would go against him Freeza since he lays out and exposes people like you.

That's what you do. Put all those labels on a person (racist, sexist, whatever-phobic) and insist that their opinion doesn't matter but YOUR TRUTH does.

Please, man. Open your eyes.

People like me? You do realize I'm not even considered left wing here in Denmark? I'm a centrist. Respecting other people isn't as ridical of a thing as you might have it seem.

I'm so done with shit like this. If this is everything you can muster to say on every single subject, then it doesn't surprise me that every single opinion you have is parrotted from a Bill Burr or Jordan Peterson YouTube clip.

Have you ever formed an opinion of your own? Like seriously

@Freeza everyone has political views to some extent, or they say stuff that can be labeled as either a left-wing or right-wing view. It happens to everyone unless you come out blatantly and say you are a politician and you are representing "this side" or "that side". Otherwise, it is almost impossible to remain "objective" "neutral" and "central", especially as we know politics today where what we define left-wing or right-wing is through the sides you choose on when it comes to immigration regulation, focus or lack of focus on "identity politics", gun control, etc etc etc.

I think he is much more of a traditional clinical psychologist than a politician, that's all I meant. And very elaborate in his explanations, I have not found myself agreeing with everything he has said (no one single man or woman has all the answers), but he definitely makes strong arguments and cases. Even his views on some social justice issues are quite libertarian leaning in some ways as opposed to what a lot of other traditional clinical psychs and right-wing politicians would explain them to be.

Freeza wrote:
But combining this with when he says it, and that the only people who like him are right wingers, and neo-nazi incels basically it can most definitely be combined with the incel logic of sex.

I wouldn't categorize myself as a fan, as I don't follow him consistently and don't subscribe to any of his news sources. I don't agree with him on every single topic he discusses either, like his view on religion and how the presence of religion is necessary to keep our society in check. However, I think he speaks a lot of sense around other topics, and I can understand why he's popular. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that the people who like him are only right wingers and neo- nazi "incels" (will have to look up that word). He doesn't exclusively talk about issues that concern these groups of people, so I find that hard to believe, unless it was an intentional exaggeration.

Thimmy wrote:

Freeza wrote:
But combining this with when he says it, and that the only people who like him are right wingers, and neo-nazi incels basically it can most definitely be combined with the incel logic of sex.

I wouldn't categorize myself as a fan, as I don't follow him consistently and don't subscribe to any of his news sources. I don't agree with him on every single topic he discusses either, like his view on religion and how the presence of religion is necessary to keep our society in check. However, I think he speaks a lot of sense around other topics, and I can understand why he's popular. I don't know how you came to the conclusion that the people who like him are only right wingers and neo- nazi "incels" (will have to look up that word). He doesn't exclusively talk about issues that concern these groups of people, so I find that hard to believe, unless it was an intentional exaggeration.

It was def an intentional exaggeration. "Overdrivelse fremmer forståelsen". I weren't speaking about you at all there.

People who like him, I mean to say his "super" fans. People who buy tickets, and books etc. A lot of them belong to those groups, and they're almost entirely right wing males, which means the two other groups are a percentage of that as well.

He has some good points of different subject, some I agree with, some I don't.

Ah, that makes more sense then. The saying should be "overdrivelse fremmer forståelse, men kan også skape misforståelse" I assumed that was what you meant, but I can see how some people might take it literally.

He is intelligent, articulate, and debates well, so people take his word as gospel. Just yesterday I listened to this 2 hour interview between him and a woman for GQ Britain. Now, because he is right to tell people to clean their rooms in his book for success, doesn't mean he is right about everything. Particularly 2 things stuck out to me in this interview. His contradictions about honesty above all else in sociological arguments, and his absolute contradiction regarding science.

The first one I don't care for debating since it relates to his mental gymnastics to avoid saying that men oppressed women in the past. An absurd claim to deny. If equality between genders have been obtained (or is being obtained) then it is because in the past it was not so. Just 1 century ago (and much less in many places) women couldn't vote, so...

The second was shocking from someone who is a (social) scientist. He said that science is undoubted for facts, while the humanities are for values. Of course this is true. Then proceeds to discard science when it comes to climate change. 2018 and there are still people skeptical to climate change, it is the pinnacle of ignorance and arrogance. Furthermore when it came to nutrition he completely disregarded a field of study, saying we know nothing about it and that its all correlational studies (?), which he claims are bullshit. This just means he doesn't understand science, physics, nutrition, and correlational studies, but he goes and throws this all-beef diet on the table which is good because he "stopped snoring" Anecdotal correlational studies are ok to back up pseudoscience I guess.

He responded to "how would you like to be remembered?" with "as someone honest". That's pretty much a perfect answer for the fight he fights. If he is actually being honest, and not hypocritical with these responses, then next to honest we can also remember him as blind. Someone that claims total honesty and rational arguments to fight against agenda-driven pseudo-science shouldn't commit the same mistakes as the people he aims to debunk. He makes plenty of good points and cites actual research and studies to support his claims, using the weight of the scientific method to  squash the controversy of some of these topics... and then proceeds to ignore research and facts when they don't suit him. You don't get to pick and choose, he is just a hypocrite.

I'm not sure if he doesn't believe in climate change. But doubt he can say otherwise, as the people buying his books are against it.

Not that it would make him any less of a hypocrite though

What he thinks when he is alone in his bedroom matters little when he goes on tv and says something dangerous to his public. Either way, like you say, still makes him a hypocrite.

Which for me is particularly inflammatory since he claims to be about science, research, and honesty above all else.

Freeza wrote:

Thimmy wrote:

Freeza wrote:

Also he's on multiple occasions suggested women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings.

He's by no means racist or sexist Please link to a credible source where he states that women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings. I have actually watched the video where he talks around that topic, but you're the one who made this sensationalist claim, so you better back it up with evidence.

It's the context in which he says this stuff that's bad.

Forced monogamy is basically that you have to, in every action, stop people from celebrating sexual freedom. You shouldn't encourage anyone to be with more people than a single one.

He says it's because it makes people unhappy. And that we're already enforcing monogamy in the world in most cases.

But combining this with when he says it, and that the only people who like him are right wingers, and neo-nazi incels basically it can most definitely be combined with the incel logic of sex. That 1/10 men get 9/10 women, because all women want the same kind of man.

I never said he was racist or sexist. He's definitely trying to feed into a cult of personality by speaking to what these dangerous people want, and he's obviously succeeding. He's by no means an objective non-agenda guy though. I even agree with a lot things he says on some subjects. But he's really far out there on a lot of stuff.

That has little to do with what you initial claim was: "He's on multiple occasions suggested women should be forced to have sex with men to prevent mass shootings.". Vast exaggeration.

In no way is he suggesting that. He may have a false perception on that particular matter and the nature of his claim that change in sexual behavior causes a decrease in violence is quite ridiculous since there is no evidence to back that up and it cannot be said with complete certainty but again, it may be wrong on his part, but it is not inherently sexist. It is not Peterson's idea to impose monogamy, it has been the norm for Western culture in general. And again, at no point he's racist or sexist. He may be wrong in certain cases, everyone makes mistakes, everyone has a different world-view, but that doesn't mean you have to label him with your generalized and, by and large, vague terms.


Just because he's wrong on some issues, it doesn't matter that we should discard him completely. Is anybody ever right 100% of the time? I agree with him on most issues and the truth is we, in Eastern Europe, don't deal with most of the issues you deal with on the West (well, not completely but to a much lesser extent or degree), hence I have to seek an opinion somewhere. For instance, we have never, ever (I mean never) dealt with the issue of pronouns in Poland. Never. In my day-to-day life, if I didn't have internet, I probably wouldn't have encountered that topic and I'm being serious. Hir, zir, xem? What is that? In some languages they have one pronoun for all genders, but you have to have fifty for some reason?

I like a lot of what Peterson says, but i think it is pretty obvious that he has ideological leanings that affect his capacity for optimally objective analysis.

From what I've gathered (he's purposely elusive about this), Peterson doesn't believe God actually exists, but he lives his life with the conviction as if he did because of the necessary value and order that he perceives-- Christianity in particular-- religion  has to offer, particularly when interpreted through the kind of logic found in texts such as Joseph Campbell's about myth, storytelling, and character conceptualizing.

I believe his life is guided by Christianity-related morals, and this fundamentally colors his views on subjects like monogamy,  social dynamics, etc. Joe Rogan has rightfully called him out before when Peterson proposed that the best thing Incels can do is practice being celibate and monogamous to resolve their issues with anger and hatred. The way and nature in which he posited that and has posited other stuff leaves evident the effect of his ideological leanings on his reasoning, but i suspect he'd be the first to admit this as well as the fact that he thinks the way he does after already having gone through a lot of self aware introspection. Who knows.

I like him a lot though, i like the way he decimates the stupidities of the radical left (and to be honest, a lot of those stupidities are not exclusive to the radicals) and gives men useful advice in succeeding in what i truly believe is an increasingly man-hating world.

You can bet your house that a lot of people with sketchy ideologies and leanings are his fans, but that is true of pretty much anyone and it does not indicate that he supports or caters to their ideologies.

To me, the best thing he offers is the, i suppose provocative idea that you should channel your "inner psychopath" with the exception of having a good moral code, as you need assertiveness, confidence, and intelligence to thrive.

The Madrid One wrote:I like him a lot though, i like the way he decimates the stupidities of the radical left (and to be honest, a lot of those stupidities are not exclusive to the radicals) and gives men useful advice in succeeding in what i truly believe is an increasingly man-hating world.

Precisely. That's essentially the reason why I follow him and enjoy him talk. A lot of genius people have spewed controversial claims but it doesn't necessarily make them less of a genius. Thomas Edison said "direct thought is not an attribute of femininity. Woman is now centuries behind man." And? He's still the greatest American inventor, right?

The guy is a dick who's actually pretty stupid, considering how smart he's supposed to be.

Calling him a genius and comparing him to Edison is wild.

He’s not even smart. Compared to a lot of other figures the right wing has clinched on to he might a genius by comparison though.

For example, I can easily say that I am smarter than Peterson. Not more well read, or more articulate, or more academically drilled, but smarter? Sure.
I'd say 75% of posters on here are smarter than he is.

Probably more like 90%

Well, I may have gotten overboard with the genius comment, for the record I do not think he is genius but he definitely appears to be one when conversing with modern day feminists and the likes.

I never turned to him for life advice or opinion on most political issues. He only appeals to me because he is efficient in overthrowing modern Western figments regarding gender, pay gap and political correctness to name a few.

Hapless_Hans wrote:For example, I can easily say that I am smarter than Peterson. Not more well read, or more articulate, or more academically drilled, but smarter? Sure.
I'd say 75% of posters on here are smarter than he is.

Smart (adjective)

1. (of a person) clean, tidy and well-dressed
2. having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.


Maybe you're better dressed, we don't know, but in regards to point 2 you're definitely way behind Peterson.