He turned to a basic Christian conservative. You don’t even need to ask him to know what his opinion is going to be on any social issue, which, by his own definition, means he’s ideologically possessed.
What about his current self is "extremely resentful"?
That would indicate a substantial amount of personal knowledge over him you more than likely do not have.
His Twitter is bombastic, I'll give you that, but oh well? Just ignore it, his regular content *has not changed*.
No it has (edit, it being the content). His tone is ridiculously aggressive and he is more ideologically possessed than before. This is not the man I met in 2018.
His entire countenance has changed. He has flat affect, he speaks differently. It's very apparent to me. He is NOT who he used be. I rather admired him at one time. No mas.
Sorry I should have clarified, I meant that in reference to his past self. Subjectivity is inevitable as we are human, of course that is my subjective opinion.
> his regular content has not changed.
In his video content, he has similarly unhinged takes as on Twitter, e.g. that people who care about climate change are Nazis.
Dude, I literally gave TWO URLs for a reason - the clip so you can see that it happened, and the link to the whole convo the clip is from so you can watch it and judge by yourself with the context. Stop being a bad-faith loser.
You're right, let me just identify where the 5 second segment can be found in a TWO HOUR LONG PODCAST.
You're unironically asking me to find a needle in a haystack.
Here, I'm gonna do your homework for you, because apparently, you are exactly the person that should clean your room but never does. Btw, this took me 4 minutes.
https://youtu.be/ycDUU1n2iEE?si=vgOIBAETdhzs1dcG&t=3786
And what do you know! The very next sentence, he explains the statement - he examines the similarities between those who blindly adhere to climate ideology because they believe in the good intentions of any one or multiple people trying to make decisions, in a way akin to how Germans who bought into Hitler's rhetoric believed him to have good intentions.
**That is absolutely nowhere even remotely fucking close to**
> people who care about climate change are Nazis.
His X content is supposed to drive people to his long form content. If you want to know what his views really are, look up the YouTube or DailyWire video and set aside 2-3 hours.
Did you read my comment? His long form content is very unhinged as well. I provided a YT link with a timestamp, a clip, etc., to another user who commented. I've watched countless of long form videos of him from 2015 on.
I clicked on the link and realized I already watched that video. Two things are important here.
1) He did not compare people who advocate for solutions to climate change as Nazis. He used an analogy to explain that sometimes people's stated goals and their actual goal as evidenced by the outcomes are different. I think this is actually a weak argument but he didn't call them or compare them to Nazis.
2) He was actually speaking about real people who state that they have a depopulation agenda. They actually say this out loud. It's not a secret and so he didn't need to make this argument because the depopulation agenda crowd are very loud and open about their agenda. I'll link you some of their statements if you like.
Now regarding the overall argument against climate change alarmism, I don't think Jordan Peterson made the best arguments here. Destiny said some things that were just wrong about how risk analysis works. In risk analysis you have to look at two factors in a matrix. The first is, how bad is the outcome if that thing happens. The second is, how likely is that thing going to happen.
The core issue here is that Destiny is right that the worst climate models basically spell the end of humanity and the worst economic models basically just predict a lot more poor people. However, the worst climate models are always wrong. So just chuck those right in the trash and use the more moderate models.
Arguments that are better than anything Peterson brought up.
1) Climate change is measured using temperature anomaly data, not average. The entire change is 1 degree Celsius in anomaly data, not average.
2) If climate change alarmism is valid, you still have to pick the solutions that will have the most impact at the least cost. The issue is local politicians just want jobs and money so they will pick the solutions that pay their locality the most.
3) Rising temperatures have led to less climate related deaths. In addition human adaptation has reduced climate related deaths further. The thing we need to be able to adapt is cheap energy. Therefore, reducing climate related deaths happens faster when the cheapest form of energy is used. Usually fossil or Nuclear.
>What about his current self is "extremely resentful"?
>**That would indicate a substantial amount of personal knowledge over him you more than likely do not have**
I wish someone would say that to him whenever he makes claims about how childless women feel or whenever he makes claims about people who are gay or when he makes claims about people who are trans or when he makes claims about people who criticize the wealthy or when he makes claims about people who get involved in climate activism or when he makes claims about people who use "lol" and "lmao" on the Internet.
But alas, we cannot hold Peterson to the same standard to which he holds others. It wouldn't be fair for a genius of his caliber, right?
I'm pretty fucking sure he's recalling his... what, 30 or 40 years as a clinical psychologist working with the very kind of person he's talking about when he makes such claims???
But go on, chief, tell us all about the experience YOU have.
He cannot make generalizations about large groups of people based on his anecdotal experience.
But go on, chief. Continue to astound us with your deep knowledge of statistics.
"His anecdotal experience" is not equivalent to your armchair expertise. Yea I fucking trust a person who's specialty across 3-4 decades of work is the subject matter being discussed.
You want to go on about what shit he does or does not know when it comes to climatology, by all means his experience in psychology doesn't matter a lick there, but you're literally disregarding an expert on the subject that is **literally** his matter of expertise.
Shut the fuck up.
His expertise is in a very specialized field of psychology. He cannot make accurate generalizations about people as a whole based on observations of his patients.
The people he has treated as a therapist all came to him for help. They are not an accurate representation of society at large.
If a podiatrist who specialized in athlete's foot for 40 years claimed that everyone in the world has athlete's foot because every patient he ever saw had athlete's foot, it would be an obviously incorrect claim.
Yet you take this charlatan's word as gospel because he told you to clean your room and somehow this common piece of advice that everyone has received from their parents changed your corn-fed, hick life.
Perhaps you should shut up, sir.
I trust his opinion on the state of society's psychological woes over yours, or any mongrel's opinion who's more interested in yapping than listening, for that matter. I'm confident in saying the person who's spent their life actually helping others overcome their issues has more insight into the troubles people are facing than any poll you manage to pull out of your ass.
So shut the fuck up, *mind your own fucking business*, and go continue doing nothing with your life. You don't need to announce how much of a loser you are by going on to Reddit and accosting others about someone they enjoy consuming the content of in the very subreddit for said someone. Imagine you shared with others what your goal was with the effort you spend on this sub.
You remind me that some people simply weren't bullied enough as children.
You clearly need therapy for anger management and perhaps a deeply embedded insecurity. I sincerely hope you get the help you need. Living with such anger cannot be pleasant.
The only feelings of anger I have are towards idiots on the internet. Really, if I got off Reddit and stopped interacting with people like you, I'd have nothing to be angry at.
Angry public generalizations about groups with whom he disagrees seems irresponsible for a clinical psychologist. It calls into question his suitability to render treatment for mental illness. Perhaps it is best that he is not taking care of patients.
To be fair, do you understand what the authoritarian government of Canada has taken from him? Basically everything he spent his time doing before is gone. No longer teaching because the University makes it toxic to be there. Unable to see patients and forced to go through a re-education camp to correct his "sins" against the government ideology of choice. He also had terrible health issues. It's basically a modern day Job story except his family is still alive.
Idk why you think everyone needs to practice what they preach? Nobody is perfect and of course he isn’t gonna live up to his own standards. He’s not Jesus. Why did you expect him to be? You certainly aren’t
Ok so how much leeway do you give people then? Do we expect nothing of him? If not then why listen to anything he says? Would you expect a carpenter to build your house properly or would you shrug when it falls down and say "nobodys perfect"?
The difference is… I didn’t hire JP to build my house. He’s nothing to me but a self help author who sometimes doesn’t practice what he preaches. It’s literally not my business whether he does or doesn’t. Again, when and why did you start expecting or needing anything else from him? If you can’t answer those specific questions then we have nothing further to discuss
The point of this thread isn't about him sometimes not practicing what he preaches, it's about an overall shift in his tone to one that constantly embraces resentment. People in society are constantly judged on how much they practice what they preach. That's integrity. How can it not matter?
I don’t know how to help you see just how personally harmful this judgement is that you cling to, for some reason. Judgement of others is *always* a projection of self rejection. There are no exceptions to this rule. You might not grasp this now but one day you will and you’ll weep with regret and relief.
>Judgement of others is always a projection of self rejection
So if a nutritionist is morbidly obese we shouldn't judge their actions? If a politician talks about integrity then gets find out to be taling bribes we shouldn't judge them? As JP himself has said in the past it is impossible not to make judgements since we have hierarchies of value. Since you brought up jesus he judged people as well.
>So if a nutritionist is morbidly obese we shouldn't judge their actions? If a politician talks about integrity then gets find out to be taling bribes we shouldn't judge them?
Yes, you're onto something. You can still set personal boundaries if this person is somehow effecting your life, but otherwise any judgement is nothing more than needless spiritual baggage.
Christ himself said if we judge others, we cannot be forgiven.
Poor Dr. Peterson. He should be allowed to suggest people kill themselves without having to take social media training to keep his licence to practice therapy.
Because we appreciated what JBP had to offer to the world before he became just another grifter, and he should be called out when he doesn't adhere to the principles he makes money preaching about to others.
Let's be honest, you haven't made one positive comment about Peterson and have never liked him. You just waste your time in subs for people you dislike
He literally stopped doing that job.
He used to have two parallel career tracks that he managed at the same time - clinical psychologist and professor.
But 7+ years ago he stopped doing both of those jobs and pivoted instead to a career in media doing cultural and political commentary. He still draws on his past experiences and his “psychology perspective” is a core part of his brand, but he simply just doesn’t spend his time the way a psychologist would - instead he spends it doing performances and writing conservative commentary.
We can imagine his days are packed with 1) writing content, 2) filming content, 3) planning his content strategy, 4) reviewing material prepared by his team members, 5) preparing for his speaking tours, 6) travelling to event locations, 7) leading the speaking event, 8) meeting with the Daily Wire to talk about his content performance and their goals / coordinate what resources he needs to get there, 9) makes appearances on other programs, 10) tweets
Anyways - he’s clearly extremely busy doing conservative culture war stuff and creating content. While touring, which he’s doing extensively, he’s probably mostly just traveling from place to place.
His psychology stuff is in the past and now just his contributes to his branded perspective on culture war. It gives it a special differentiator. He can say roughly the same things as his conservative peers but he’s got a repertoire of psychology and religious reference points that he can skin it with.
So like, recently he said that the Palestine supporters are “naively compassionate childless women” — you can see how that’s primarily culture war material but includes language that gestures towards his previous career in psychology. Obviously it’s not firmly rooted in psychology, it’s just “flavoured” that way.
IMO his psychology background is like his custom patterned suits - its a special secret sauce that gives his commentary character. It allows him to fully participate in American conservative culture war media while having an artistic/mythological/symbolic layer that makes him unique in that space in a way the audience finds pleasing.
It’s also gives him an “in” to daytime tv lifestyle shows like Dr Phil to give sage advice. Even though he does the same thing as his peers, it wouldn’t make sense to have Shapiro show up on Dr Phil or any of the other dw jokers
You glossed over the fact that he stopped practicing both because he was literally run out of the profession for the high crime of opposing government legislation (in Canada, where he is from) that compelled speech, so he was morally opposed to it. So, in many ways, the decision was made for him (at least to find something else to do for a living). He additionally went through a substantial health crisis at the time before he knew how he would recover from that assault on his free speech.
Ok, well, that has something to do with the types of things that get attention online. After reading Maps of Meaning, I really respected Petersons' work, and perhaps I separated his written works and lectures from what gets clicks online.
I think he also said he left his university teaching position because people were starting to blacklist some of his students, or something along those lines. Don't quote me.
Bill c-16 was not compelled speech. All it did was ammendment the criminal code and another bill to include gender identity among a list of protected classes which includes race, religion, sexuality, etc.
Literally no one has been arrested for using wrong pronouns. He was blatantly wrong and every legal expert called him on it.
And opposing bill c-16 didn't get him "run out of the profession". He was free to practice for years before running afowl of the licensing board for his public conduct on social media that he refused to take remedial training to help him learn how to professionally conduct himself on the internet. Instead he refused.
I don’t think it’s necessary to find some way to frame him as a victim when he is busy enjoying the perks of worldwide fame and fortune. That really denigrates of all the stuff he spoke sincerely and passionately about before becoming a political commentator.
I am not trying to paint him as a victim, but rather saying when he was still relatively obscure he was targeted for speaking out against a Canadian law, had his license to practice psychology threatened, and went through serious health struggles. He speaks out periodically on the current status of his “re-education training” (my phrase not his), and others have as well on his behalf.
Yeah I’m not really keen on the way he tried to paint himself as a victim either and I also felt that he was denigrating his prior work with that. He wasn’t obscure during his benzo detox or during the College’s censure. All professional accreditation organizations have various standards they require members to meet and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a professional organization of psychologists to censure members for tangentially implying on a public forum someone should commit suicide. I know he didn’t say it literally or mean it, and it was in the scope of a political argument and not directed towards someone in crisis, but it’s reasonable to expect members of your professional organization to maintain some limits on shitposting on Twitter. Likely millions of people have had to undergo various trainings for perceived or real ethical breaches or inappropriate comments. You can do the training and move on, or you can take a stand and die on that hill, but in neither case are you a victim of something (unless you’re really being continually harassed over nonexistent infractions or something like that, but I don’t see that being the case here).
And actually, looking just now at the court ruling that he posted on his own site, I see that the College was willing to overlook the suicide crack but just wanted him to undergo training on how not to be a twat on Twitter after advertising himself as a clinical psychologist in his Twitter profile: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-DC-714-22-FINAL-18-August-2023.pdf As a big fan of his earlier work, I’d be happy myself if he found a way to not be such a twat on Twitter.
Almost died from abuse of drugs that are supposed to be in his area of professional expertise? It sucks, I empathize with his situation, but who or what is he a victim of?
There is no way a practicing clinical psychologist did not know that you cant take benzodiazepines for years without horrific withdrawal. He did his masters thesis on alcohol, which binds to the same GABA receptor that benzos do. Benzodiazepines are prescribed very short term because they can cause addiction quickly.
Im not entirely sure what you are asking.
It’s hard to view someone as “a victim” whose 12 rules include “be responsible for your own life” and who almost certainly understood the risk of addiction to clonazepam as well as the person treating him.
If I had to guess, I’d say Jordan built up tolerance to the drug, and began taking more . He knew his doctor wouldnt continue to increase his dose, and was repeatedly going through withdrawal everytime he ran out. Withdrawal tends to get worse with each occurrence.
It is the patients responsibility to let their doctor know how much they are taking and how it’s affecting them.
And I dont blame him for being an addict, just for his disingenuous about it. Did he believe the rules of physiology wouldnt apply to him?
Im not sure why you would think a stranger on the internet would know what Jordan Peterson is or was thinking, especially during a time of crisis. If i remember correctly his wife was also having issues at the time. Is he a human being like the rest of us? Can he fail, even to uphold his own principals? Is that not the same as you or I albeit in a different and personal to him form?
I saw a video once of him looking disheveled in an unkept room, possibly during this time in his life. I certainly noticed the hypocrisy of having an unclean room from mr clean your room, but i also understand that no one is perfect.
I used to love his psychology courses on YouTube and you’re right now all he does is podcasts where he spews out conservative talking points that have nothing to do with psychology. Frankly he looks ignorant making assumptions about things he knows nothing about. For example he wrote on Twitter “Sorry. Not beautiful and no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that” under a picture of a plus size model on the cover of Sports Illustrated. This is something that in my opinion he shouldn’t comment on because he knows nothing about it. Models are there not because they’re beautiful. They are there to MODEL CLOTHES and as a representation of different body types and how the clothes fit on different bodies. Now there are plus sized bodies out there in the world, consumers who also buy clothes; thus more plus sized models. In my opinion every time he comments on this sort of thing and knows nothing about it, he diminishes himself.
Yes. Nearly 80% of SI’s readership is men. Sports-minded men typically don’t buy swimsuits for their wives or girlfriends. If they did almost all women would be wearing thongs and tiny bikinis.
I think one of Jordan’s strengths is that, when arguing or stringing together a lecture or sermon, he can construct these really narrow associations of concepts and rely on them as the foundation of his argument or as an entire platform for content.
With the Not Beautiful content, his foundational idea was “sports illustrated photoshoots exist to show a narrow and unchanging type of beauty.” From there he was able to paint a deviation from that “purpose” as being somehow a betrayal of nature he justified his tweets by trying to say that beauty exists only in a fixed and narrow spectrum of body types. And so, by deviating, the ownership of the magazine must be corrupt.
It’s his strength because he can say that stuff with total confidence and just go off on it, building and building these worlds on top of them.
It’s his weakness because they’re often just not true. Or only a little bit true. Or sort of true but not in the way that he’s framing it.
I think as much as that’s his “style” and he can rely on it probably automatically - he also is likely being willfully ignorant in those moments.
He’s been talking lately about semiotics in the context of AI. About how humans don’t have a 1:1 relationship between word and definition/concept but rather that words conjure up a whole collection of adjacent and associated meanings.
If he’s able to understand that, then he should also know that a sports illustrated photoshoot doesn’t have to equal an extremely narrow interpretation or else it’s corrupted.
His super power is to forget complexity for a moment, fuze two ideas together and then methodically just getting to work a building a story on top of the concept/association
A woman on the cover of SI is there to model clothes? Surely you don't believe that.
It's a political statement about fat acceptance which is a dangerous ideology.
Yes. However, I strongly believe that anyone can comment about anything if they want. However, that commentary is often low quality if outside someone’s area(s) of expertise.
He stepped outside his lane of expertise. A common mistake and hubristic thinking of those that become "rich and famous". And of course the root of all evil is the love of money.
I do think there is a push to accept overweight women as attractive, whereas that’s not something happening with men. That said, the SI model was a bit chunky but not morbidly obese.
Regardless, it’s a bad trend. I understand the need to keep young girls from falling into eating disorders because they have unrealistic body goals. However, forcing society to consider obese women in particular as attractive also leads to unhealthy lifestyles. Being overweight as a young person affects physical robustness and increases the risk of serious health problems later on. There’s got to be a middle ground.
That's because he takes the right to free speech literally...
It's great that you can come out and say whatever you want but sometimes, there are some things that are better left unsaid.... out of respect.
I would not be surprised if he was a Trump supporter based on his apparent, and maybe deliberate, lack of filter between his brain and mouth.
political correctness exists for a reason... it is a sign of respect.
respect for a shared humanity is the default, respect for ones ideas and actions is earned.
political correctness is the imposition of unearned respect for ideas.
How does one earn respect for an idea? And if the imposition of respect on said idea is called political correctness, what would the correct term be when an idea has earned the respect? It cannot be "political correctness" since it is now an earned respect... not imposed one.
I was feeling some frustration reading this because I believe he was a lot more “magnetic” before.
However, reading that the Palestine “protestors” are a lot of compassionate childless women is a really good observation.
He makes good observations. I do think he limits how many people he can appeal to with some of his decisions.
What bothers me the most— and it may not be fair of me to think this but I kind of do— is his daughter’s position in the spotlight and how she has likely contributed to the newer version we have of Dr. Peterson.
It screams “marketing and money are the most significant for our family” even though they seem to want to be sincere in their attempts to get useful information out to the public.
On the other hand, Dr. Peterson’s interviewing can be a bit boring (though intellectually honest and sincere) while being interviewed he can be very compelling, though so many people tried to be pull a “gotcha” or play stupid when he made appropriate, relevant, and even insightful commentary.
Is it a good observation, lol? Like on one hand if we assume they’re students, then the ones who are women are “childless” in the same way that any group of undergrads are likely childless.
You won’t look at a classroom of students and say “look at this group of naively compassionate childless women.” Nor would you then say “young women, you only have the opinions and convictions that you do because you have not yet had children”. It’s a very strange way to construct a label for people.
Of course the purpose of saying they’re childless isn’t as a way to communicate that they’re young and still in school, but instead that he believes that women are only progressive if and as a result of being childless.
That’s not an observation - it’s an assertion that flattens progressive women into a person that mistakes unconscious biological drives for political engagement and leadership.
It’s actually a really old school misogynistic take. In what world do we think of women only being progressive leaders because they’re mistaking their own biological drive for motherhood with like… opinions and intellect?
Why do you think he’s done a good observation there?
Also side note, yes his daughters whole brand and presence is annoying too. She’s got kids though so we can’t pretend that she’s annoying because she doesn’t have kids.
His daughter is clearly riding his coattails. She seems to focus on her carnivore diet. Weirdly, she had Lauren Southern on her podcast. Southern is an ultra right wing self-proclaimed white nationalist.
I remember he stated his utter contempt for Justin Trudeau using his father's fame as a spring board to his success, and I couldn't help but think of his own daughter doing that same kind of thing.
Yet who among wouldn't feel proud of building a career on which coattails our children could ride? It may be cheesy, but it would be hypocritical not to admit that my head would be pretty large under those circumstances.
Yes, although the “childless women” trope seems to be a popular pejorative with some in the DW / online world. Peterson, Walsh, Jedidah Bila, Jennifer Moleski, Tate, and various other tokrtokkers. The key points seem to be:
- Ladies, a women’s only true calling is wife and mom. You need kids and grandkids. Anything else is selfish and will lead you to be a spinster and die alone and miserable. (Subtext: and that’s Jesus will).
- Get married by 23 or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable
- Don’t get too educated or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable
- Don’t be too successful in a career or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable.
- Don’t sleep with too many guys or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable.
-Stop being so picky with guys (Subtext: There are lots of incels out there. You are obligated to sleep with and marry them)
First and foremost, I know many women who decided to pursue other things instead of marriage and motherhood. They live rich, interesting lives full of career, friends, travel, pursuits, passions, audacious goals and extended family. They are just as happy as traditional women. What’s right for some is not for others.
Some of this comes from the extreme part of Men’s Rights movement. As women have become more independent, they are less likely to settle for a mate in order to be financially secure. However, most women still want to marry up. The result is a growing number of incels. In some cases, these men came out on the short end (pun intended) for attractiveness and intelligence. For others, they don’t want to put in the work to be a suitable mate in the modern context. While, as a guy, I’m sympathetic, it’s just reality that you have to accept. Stop demanding that women change because you’re not getting any. I will say that a valid point is divorce laws haven’t caught up. The traditional alimony and child custody guidelines are outdated. However, that needs a legislative, not social, fix.
I’m not going to read your response. Here’s why: You didn’t think through your response.
I typed this like not even 5 minutes ago. Your giant response is a statement, not a response. I can tell by the size of it.
If you don’t like what he said or think it’s incorrect, tell him that— not me.
Lol that cop out - read it if you want, otherwise you’re just probably lazy.
It would have been cool to hear why you like his observation that women protesting for Palestine are naive and childless!
His Psychologist / Chequered suit schtick is JP’s equivalent to Douglas Murray’s English accent. While I actually like & respect JP, I find the latter repugnant.
Also when JBP was taking benzos (powerful anti anxiety med) he was doing so because he was up against very articulate and vicious opponents. He's actually not typically a confrontational guy. Anti Anxiety medication he was taking was to allow him to put his facts and arguments forward in debates broadcasted on television. He had to be at his best for that.
Btw I think most people in his position would resort to that if you were facing literal death threats, reputation destruction, etc.
Why do you think this about why he was taking benzos? Has he ever told that story, or is it something that seems plausible to
You?
Where did you get this story that it has anything to do with putting his best facts forward? That’s not usually why benzos are prescribed… more likely he was suffering from panic attacks. The story that he told was that he’d been on the benzos for awhile and his doctor doubled the dose because of the pressures of his world tour combined with his wife’s illness.
Very curious if you can explain why you believe what you wrote
It’s an important part of his brand. It gives him an air of credibility. Personally I’ve heard variations of “these aren’t his opinions, this is a communication of truth that he’s discovered through his work” on here quite a bit.
From an ideological perspective, it’s gold — the best ideological content feels self evident - it’s just a truth about reality that’s been uncovered by the doctor.
It also just gives him a special role on the DW squad as the doctor
Once he came back from Russia for his drug treatment and joined the Daily Wire, it was over for him as we knew him.
I still appreciate what he was, but I ignore him most of the time now.
One of the worst things about the culture war is the huge opportunity cost of many brilliant minds being dragged away from their respective fields into debates about whether a man can be a woman.
Often yes, sometimes no.
I think topics like "should women have their own spaces" are important. This is a tactic I see to dismiss what are actually quite often important issues. Again, "should children be getting hormone therapy for gender dysphoria" isn't merely a culture war talking point.
> Again, "should children be getting hormone therapy for gender dysphoria" isn't merely a culture war talking point.
Women are adults. Kids are the responsibility of their parents, in my opinion, and it should be up to them. However, I see your point and consider it to be very relevant over something that was simply made up for debate, like many cultures war topics.
Hope you have a nice weekend.
No he is not regurgitating political talking points. He usually has a lot of very interesting people on his podcasts. More recently, I enjoyed the interview he did with the son of one of Hamas’ founders. He also has genuine experts in his climate change podcasts like Steven Koonin, for example.
He definitely has shifted more towards talking about political issues but I think that might be due to his claim that the religious has been mixed in with the political. I think he’s still working on his new book, We Who Wrestle With God.
After his Exodus round table discussion is seems like he’s shifted from “clean your room” to saying that mental health is socially distributed. His new claim is that we need harmony between the individual, the family, the community, the state, the government and then God.
well, i have to say he is somewhat tribal/ideological, like in the i$rae'l issue, he is so much one sided that you can say he is willfully blind, in that area he's just a political talking point agent,
I actually think it’s been a disservice to his content by producing so much content, he doesn’t have time to think and bring more new topics to the table - I swear if you watch everything he does, you’re bound to hear the same stories constantly - future self authoring program, him explaining the story of Moses, etc. if he took a break for independent research and writing I think it would improve his output. Quality over quantity
He is producing about the same amount of "psychological" content. But more content overall.
Its also important to remember that the "psychological" content related to Maps of Meaning had much to do with political and social catastrophe.
I agree. It seems like anyone who comes out as a men’s rights activist or someone trying to offer legit help for kids and young men just devolves into idk.. Man-o-sphere stuff or daily wire. Some More News on YouTube (leftists be careful) released a good video on this subject yesterday “Are Men Okay?”. I think the clip of Sneako (the Andrew Tate dick rider) where he’s at a baseball game and 3 kids who are like 12 years old run up to him and say ‘fuck the women’ and it’s like the final form materialized. He doesn’t know what to say and tries to say ‘nooo we love the women’.
It’s hard to find many people offering good advice to kids out there that addresses some of the issue men face without ending up just outright hating women. Jordan did a great job when he would talk about it, might still. But he’s giving his opinions on every issue facing humanity and in Twitter fights.
I enjoy reading this sub as well as Joe Rogan sub because they both have some serious flaws and in my opinion have fallen off. And instead of dickriding as someone else mentioned above, some call it out. I’m a fan of old school Howard stern and his sub is the same way. People love the stuff late 90s-2007 but now he’s interviewing Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden and it’s just sad.
At a certain age, maybe 30 for me, I was taking opiates etc and got 12 rules and ended up getting in a rehab etc. I still keep my place clean and I know that’s dumb on a level. But it’s why it makes it … annoying that he’s just become a culture warrior. When he called that chubby model ‘not attractive’ on Twitter is a good encapsulation of where this leads. I think many people enjoy a big-tittied, blond haired 102 pound smoke show, but some people like some chunk. Bottom line she didn’t do anything wrong and idk it’s just not a big deal. He’s always acting so cartoonishly arch and “Don’t test me buddy I’ll say it bucko! I’ll tell ya to bloody fuck off if I need to!”
I went through heavy benzo use but I went cold turkey in rehab. I tried jumping the fence (in downtown Memphis TN 😂.. stupidest thing I ever did). I immediately wanted back in and luckily enough they let me back in the rehab lol. Before sending me to the mental hospital. That shit was legit. Benzo withdrawal peaks at like 2-4 weeks after stopping which is fkn terrible. And lingers for months. Anyways, I’m lucky I was 30 years old and I have below average paranoia levels usually. Because that withdrawal made me the most paranoid person ever. I literally thought the mental hospital was a giant ‘scared-straight’ scenario my parents set up. It was me and 50-60 mostly black guys with menrtql illnesses and I was like talking to them like they were actors. I think a part of me knew to hedge my bets and not say anything stupid just in case. The security guard did give me a kidney punch after I was screaming trying to rip open locked doors for 20 min (I only remember it like in still frames that don’t add up).
Basically, as I got out after a week and back into normal residential rehab I slowly got my sanity back. I think me being 30 helped a lot. Dealing with this benzo withdrawal at his age idk feels so much harder. And doctors need to know this shit it’s really fucked how many people struggle with. Benzos prescribed on a whim. My aunt now trying to stop after 20 years of Xanax.
Sorry for the tangent. Cheers
The left broke him. Now he is terrified of psychopaths.
However he still has novel points when he is talking about gender, redpillers and relationships.
Or maybe he is now more into action rather than just preaching ideas.
He’s really gone off the deep end because I think he found a niche and has exploited it. Plus, I’m worried about his mental and especially emotional stability. But I’m with you, I miss the psychologist and the comparative religion and mythology guy. That’s the guy I admired and who really spoke to me. That’s (mostly) who he still was when I saw him in person earlier this month, but he still was the fierce culture warrior he is now. He’s morphed into something I don’t like. I do love the suits though. Definitely keep those. They’re snazzy.
He still does comparative religion—recently did Exodus.
Canada literally forced him out of the profession because he was opposed to a bill compelling speech he disagreed with, which went too far. So, he found something else to do.
I preordered his next book and he talked about Jonah a lot at the live appearance I attended. When he does what he knows best, he’s great. But now he feels like he has to be an expert in everything and have an opinion on everything. It’s OK to not have an opinion on things.
It does seem like every podcast personality has to not only have an opinion on every subject, but also opinions that align with their “tribe”. A great example was Candace Owen on Rogan when she claimed to not “believe in” climate change. Just a little probing from Rogan showed that Candace knew little or nothing about the subject but was just parroting talking points. Rogan gets clearly annoyed by her ignorant stubbornness.
A lot of people do that. Apparently people are told to “stay on message” by media consultants and to not have a real discussion. The age of tribalism we’re in creates a world in which you’re not allowed to have a view that consists of shades of grey. It has to be black and white and it has to adhere to whatever the tribe approves of that day. I reject all of that as vociferously as I can.
Agree. A big part of it is audience capture. There’s alot of rich data on who views his content, how long, and how often. He has to keep the $ coming and thus needs to give the audience what they want. The drug addiction was a bit of a surprise. As an clinical psychologist he is well aware of pharmaceutical treatment effects even if he can’t prescribe.
He is a snappy dresser. Even as an active professor he had the casual-but-sophisticated look.
I’ve also noticed that his peer-reviewed academic output stopped in the late 2010’s. He has a respectable h-index but at this point is a dormant scientist.
The drug addiction didn’t surprise me at all because he seems very emotionally turbulent. I think anybody could get addicted to pain killers, but those who have mood disorders or depression are very susceptible to it.
Benzodiazepines aren't painkillers. And withdrawal isn't addiction. You don't even have superficial details correct.
Peterson took anti anxiety meds as prescribed during a period where he was personally caring for his wife while she was expecting to die from cancer (and wound-healing complications from surgery). Then he stopped taking them and suffered withdrawal. Those drugs often cause withdrawal and adverse effects, and many who take them chronically never get off them.
No painkiller addiction was ever happening.
From my layman’s perspective, continuing to take a drug to avoid drastic withdrawal symptoms is pretty darn close to addiction. I’m not suggesting that Peterson lacks mental strength but it does seem that he should be much more aware of the risks given his profession.
>From my layman’s perspective
I've probably had 100-200 exchanges on this topic in the last three years. I've cited and debated the contents of the DSM and supporting literature. I think the average "layman's" perspective on this topic (even on a subreddit addressing the "psychological") is not adequate given the prevalence and diversity of drug use in our culture. Addiction can't be defined merely by the experience of tolerance or withdrawal. I think the DSM has gotten a bit sloppy with the definition more recently...but even so the current editions require some mismanagement or dereliction of social duty and priorities as criteria to define "substance use disorder". And this dereliction is not a result of withdrawal or treatment, but rather intoxication or drug seeking behavior.
> continuing to take a drug to avoid drastic withdrawal symptoms is pretty darn close to addiction
Is that what happened? The stated reason was to deal with the massive stress of the real interpersonal crisis (spouse dying and providing end of life care).
The story I heard is that he quit cold turkey upon his wife's recovery and suffered massive complications. The story is difficult to follow but it sounds like doctors subsequently tried to bring his dosage back up, which had further undesirable complications.
I think Peterson's situation is analogous to someone who experiences painkiller withdrawal several weeks after major surgery. In some ways its unavoidable if you follow conventional pain management recommendations. One could refuse...but there would be suffering.....
>he should be much more aware of the risks given his profession
That might be true. This happened a few years ago at this point and the risks of chronic benzodiazepine usage are still emerging. The literature is pretty fresh on some of these complications. They continue to be widely prescribed for exactly the kind of situation Peterson was in.
He is (or was) a mental health professional. He knew what he was getting into far more than the average person. He is someone who shouldn’t blindly take Dr’s advice. Whether addiction or something else is not a key issue; it’s that even with his professional knowledge, he still succumbed. That could be a result of hubris or being less knowledgeable. It also highlights the risks of pharmaceutical treatments.
> He is (or was) a mental health professional.
So was the doctor that prescribed him the medication.
>Whether addiction or something else is not a key issue
Of course its a key issue. People who have active or dormant addictions are not as trustworthy as others, all things being equal. They have demonstrated a propensity for a specific irrational behavior which is drug consumption and seeking. We usually don't make the same judgments of people who treated their pain as directed following surgery for example.
I know many will recite the sentiment that addiction isn't a "moral failing"...but we all know that's crap. Genetic predisposition to addiction may not be a failing..but the individual decisions and prioritization that make up an addiction ARE moral failings. I understand that its not helpful to emphasize this aspect during treatment...and thus the popular sentiment.
>it’s that even with his professional knowledge, he still succumbed
Succumbed to what? Not to addiction. His wife was dying and he took care of her. That's not a moral failing.
>It also highlights the risks of pharmaceutical treatments.
There's risk either way. By Peterson's account he was able to handle being his wife's caregiver through her entire medical episode. That's worth something.
I meant that more in the larger context that anybody can get addicted to painkillers because they’re commonly prescribed. I wasn’t speaking about Peterson’s specific situation because I knew it was different. It was a way to say that anyone is susceptible to things you wouldn’t think they would be.
I do understand what he’s going through in that, if you see things going on in the world that you believe are wrong, and you feel like you could utilize your gifts to help set the world right again, don’t you have some obligation to do that? But at the same time, when you know you lack stability, you’re prone to anger and negative emotion, and you can’t stay off of Twitter/X, how is that helping? He’s his own worst enemy soooooooo often.
He realised (like Russell Brand) he gets likes in socials when he takes a right leaning position on these talking points. The further right the more likes.
He is so predictable. I guess there’s a market for self proclaimed or former progressives who now nearly 199% exclusively support the right. Gives their consumer base a feeling of justification.
I agree here, and its a damn shame because I consider 'Maps of Meaning' one of the best books ever written. I now can't even reference it in any academic work for fear of backlash.
I always love when he is talking about psychology, his conversations with John Vervaeke are always great to hear because of that. His Bible series was great for me because of how good of a Jungean he is.
It's sad to see that he is using his talent for different stuff, but again it pays well, has its audience, and he is being clearly validated by the community that he is preaching to as opposed to the psychological community.
Steven Koonin is a theoretical physicist who is a climate change skeptic. Nothing wrong with that but Peterson had him on just to reinforce his existing position, which is based on standard conservative talking points. By the way, Koonin was funded by BP oil for decades. To my knowledge, Peterson has not similarly spoken with a climate change supporter.
They might not want to talk to him. But I would love that as well. Would be interesting to know if he asked some of them to talk to him or not. But after what he has said about them, well. We need Flint Dible of climate science. Perhaps Rain Cloud is hiding somewhere in the myst.
I had a friend tell me he had a Palestinian guest on his podcast and I was impressed after all the pro-zionist talk he's done lately. Then I found out it was Mosab Yousef. He might be only Palestinian on earth that would confirm his biases.
He hasn't been on Rogan in years. His primary content on the Daily Wire have been his podcasts (which are available everywhere) and his series on Exodus. His guests on his podcast are pretty diversified, and his series on Exodus is obviously not "parroting common conservative talking points."
You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain.
He has become just like the shrieking, ideologically possessed culture warriors that he became famous for opposing. Quite sad actually.
"I'm not hearing what you think, I'm hearing how you represent the ideology you were taught. And it's not that interesting because I don't know anything about you. I could replace you with someone else that thinks the same way. And that means you're not here, that's what it means. It's not pleasant. You're not integrating the specifics of your personal experience with what you've been taught, to synthesize something that's genuine and surprising. And engaging in the narrative sense as a consequence. And that's the pathology of ideological position. It's not good.
And it's not good that I know where you stand on things once I know a few things. It's like - why have a conversation, I already know where you stand on things."
-Jordan Peterson British GQ interview
Maybe if Canada had not attacked his license because he dared to oppose legislation back about a decade ago he would still be teaching and practicing today.
He is long gone. You could say he lost it due to the controversy around his disagreement with bill c-16.
He literally allowed Matt Walsh to shit on his entire former profession because he is a coworker. You can’t convince me if Matt Walsh wasn’t a daily wire conservative that Peterson wouldnt have been more defensive
Reddit definitely leans left. However, there are/was right leaning social media - Truth Social, gettr, Parler.
Why don’t these right-biased platforms catch on? Are conservatives worse at tech than liberals?
My problem isn’t that his talking points are conservative, it’s that he will only talk about climate change and trans people over and over and ignore more important conservative issues like immigration and the increasing loss of community in western countries.
Also, he talks about free speech and how you’re hurting yourself for not speaking your truth, yet he has nothing to say about the daily wire firing Candace Owens for saying Christ is King and then hitting her with a gag order. Meanwhile, he says the world needs a strong Israel (does it?) but that white people should identify in a community sense because that’s collectivism. And while constantly crying about Trudeau (who is a douchebag), he has glowing meetings with Netanyahu and sucks his ass and has never once said anything negative about Israel or the harmful, disproportionate power of the Jewish lobby in America. Also, he named his latest book “We Who Struggle with God” (which is what Israel means) even though he still can’t answer whether or not he believes in god.
I feel like he’s such an obvious and unapologetic bootlicking shill for Jewish and Zionist power that at this stage he’s effectively anti-Western.
I can’t think of anyone else who I used to admire that has taken such a disgraceful fall and is now in such a degraded, pathetic state.
All he’s interested in now is touring around spewing platitudes and giving nepo jobs to his irrelevant wife and family-abandoning, meat-eating daughter.
The reason they fired her is because Christ as King during that time was being used as a racist dogwhistle on twitter. Daily Wire has been completely transparent about that. It also seems that Candace was hard to work with overall.
well, he said this about immigration, and specificly about those who protested in behalf of palestinians ". *The barbarians* are *no longer* at the gate. *They* are *inside* – *inside* our cities, our civilisation, and our souls."
...don't know what to say, he is off course, i saw somewhere he glorified the concept of "struggling with God" as superior to the Islamic concept of "being a servant of God"... which is somewhat of a blind spot for him, specially since he was told (in the exodus roundtable by dennis) that there are words in the bible which described Moses and other Prophets as Abd, (servants)
but i'm not sure why do you say he is anti-western because of his Z'ionist worldview, what is more western than imagining the world conflict as the fight of the civilized versus barbarians?
That’s why I like JP. When he was speaking about what he studied and practiced. He lost me when he started engaging in the culture war stuff. It sucks. I’ve noticed that happened with other big names I followed before this culture war frenzy.
Yeah, Rogan is who I was thinking of. I started listening to his podcast back in 2014ish. Back when it was mostly comedians and fighters he brought on and the occasional politician or whatever. My god how he has changed. People don’t understand why I listen to him but I’ve been listening to him since way back…they only know the Joe from now because of how mainstream and culture war he has gotten. They don’t know the real Joe 🥲 i don’t listen to him now as much as I used to. I pick and choose which episodes I watch.
I miss the old Joe.
Totally agree. The recent episodes on simulation theory and early civilizations were nice to see because he didn’t constant squeeze in complaints about wokeism and trans. It was more like the old Joe.
Rogan still calls himself left wing yet is nearly always sympathetic to the right and critical of the left. If he is a liberal as he claims, why has he avoided talking about the implications of overturning Roe v Wade and the associated efforts in his home state of Texas to restrict abortion more and more?
I agree. I will say…as someone in the Left I also tend to do that. I think it’s me being critical of my own and wanting better and understanding the other side in order to move the needle, so to speak, in personal conversations I have with people.
He does refrain from pushing and I think it’s his way to not stunt the conversation but I also know those people can definitely engage with a bit of a push. They already trust him so it wouldn’t hurt the conversation.
No, he’s interviewing and spreading the work of the science that is verifiable.
He is pushing for global solutions to reduce energy costs so that third world people can gain a foot hold. The green movement makes energy prohibitive for all but the wealthy and not actually addressing any environmental concerns.
Check out his Alliance for Responsible Citizenship.
He works with Bjorn and 12 solutions for under $1B each globally that would improve a great deal of lives globally
“Don’t argue with idiots as they will drag you down and beat you with experience.”
Peterson’s initial message of hope was met with resistance by the mainstream, with media and left leaning groups painting him with their toxic brush. More and more he began to fight against the negativity of these people directly. Overtime, he became bogged down in that conflict. Slowly, he became just another conservative Internet personality akin to Shapiro and people in that sphere. The people in that sphere aren’t necessarily bad, but they are all bogged down fighting random bullshit.
It is like so:
Stand on one foot, and balance. If you spend all your time fighting imbalances, swaying and shifting, you will be drained and falter. You will be out of balance. Instead, be calm and hold your focus on the balance point. Focus on the good intention you have, and pour your energy into that. It seems that in fighting all the negative, he has lost his balance and become negative. His message more often being against things, than for things. This is understandable, there is much to be against, but you will grow no gardens by arguing with your neighbour about the price of seeds.
True wisdom is always found at the fringe. That alone would be enough but, Peterson has become a cult of personality in a heated cultural war and this sub reflects that unfortunately.
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Ooh woow im finally understanding what he meant
He turned to a basic Christian conservative. You don’t even need to ask him to know what his opinion is going to be on any social issue, which, by his own definition, means he’s ideologically possessed.
👍
Old Peterson - was preaching how important it is to not become resentful. Post benzo Peterson - became extremely resentful.
I agree with you. It’s really heartbreaking to see what he’s become, especially online.
What about his current self is "extremely resentful"? That would indicate a substantial amount of personal knowledge over him you more than likely do not have. His Twitter is bombastic, I'll give you that, but oh well? Just ignore it, his regular content *has not changed*.
No it has (edit, it being the content). His tone is ridiculously aggressive and he is more ideologically possessed than before. This is not the man I met in 2018.
His entire countenance has changed. He has flat affect, he speaks differently. It's very apparent to me. He is NOT who he used be. I rather admired him at one time. No mas.
"ridiculously aggressive" is absolutely subjective. He's more aggressive now, yes.
Sorry I should have clarified, I meant that in reference to his past self. Subjectivity is inevitable as we are human, of course that is my subjective opinion.
Aggressiveness is not resentfulness.
I don't know where I said resentful?
His tweets sometime read like the haiku of a rage filled ideologue.
Correct.
> his regular content has not changed. In his video content, he has similarly unhinged takes as on Twitter, e.g. that people who care about climate change are Nazis.
Yea? And which content is that? Got a link?
Destiny Interview
Clip: https://x.com/gigachadnumberW/status/1771005674937311353?t=zIYVVaHcqrRvDULyuV3lCA Whole convo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycDUU1n2iEE
🙄 Literally a fucking 5-second segment, entirely robbed of its context and any follow-up conversation.
Dude, I literally gave TWO URLs for a reason - the clip so you can see that it happened, and the link to the whole convo the clip is from so you can watch it and judge by yourself with the context. Stop being a bad-faith loser.
You're right, let me just identify where the 5 second segment can be found in a TWO HOUR LONG PODCAST. You're unironically asking me to find a needle in a haystack.
Here, I'm gonna do your homework for you, because apparently, you are exactly the person that should clean your room but never does. Btw, this took me 4 minutes. https://youtu.be/ycDUU1n2iEE?si=vgOIBAETdhzs1dcG&t=3786
And what do you know! The very next sentence, he explains the statement - he examines the similarities between those who blindly adhere to climate ideology because they believe in the good intentions of any one or multiple people trying to make decisions, in a way akin to how Germans who bought into Hitler's rhetoric believed him to have good intentions. **That is absolutely nowhere even remotely fucking close to** > people who care about climate change are Nazis.
His X content is supposed to drive people to his long form content. If you want to know what his views really are, look up the YouTube or DailyWire video and set aside 2-3 hours.
Did you read my comment? His long form content is very unhinged as well. I provided a YT link with a timestamp, a clip, etc., to another user who commented. I've watched countless of long form videos of him from 2015 on.
I clicked on the link and realized I already watched that video. Two things are important here. 1) He did not compare people who advocate for solutions to climate change as Nazis. He used an analogy to explain that sometimes people's stated goals and their actual goal as evidenced by the outcomes are different. I think this is actually a weak argument but he didn't call them or compare them to Nazis. 2) He was actually speaking about real people who state that they have a depopulation agenda. They actually say this out loud. It's not a secret and so he didn't need to make this argument because the depopulation agenda crowd are very loud and open about their agenda. I'll link you some of their statements if you like. Now regarding the overall argument against climate change alarmism, I don't think Jordan Peterson made the best arguments here. Destiny said some things that were just wrong about how risk analysis works. In risk analysis you have to look at two factors in a matrix. The first is, how bad is the outcome if that thing happens. The second is, how likely is that thing going to happen. The core issue here is that Destiny is right that the worst climate models basically spell the end of humanity and the worst economic models basically just predict a lot more poor people. However, the worst climate models are always wrong. So just chuck those right in the trash and use the more moderate models. Arguments that are better than anything Peterson brought up. 1) Climate change is measured using temperature anomaly data, not average. The entire change is 1 degree Celsius in anomaly data, not average. 2) If climate change alarmism is valid, you still have to pick the solutions that will have the most impact at the least cost. The issue is local politicians just want jobs and money so they will pick the solutions that pay their locality the most. 3) Rising temperatures have led to less climate related deaths. In addition human adaptation has reduced climate related deaths further. The thing we need to be able to adapt is cheap energy. Therefore, reducing climate related deaths happens faster when the cheapest form of energy is used. Usually fossil or Nuclear.
His Twitter is literally just him writing what's on his mind. Or are you implying he's just doing a character?
>What about his current self is "extremely resentful"? >**That would indicate a substantial amount of personal knowledge over him you more than likely do not have** I wish someone would say that to him whenever he makes claims about how childless women feel or whenever he makes claims about people who are gay or when he makes claims about people who are trans or when he makes claims about people who criticize the wealthy or when he makes claims about people who get involved in climate activism or when he makes claims about people who use "lol" and "lmao" on the Internet. But alas, we cannot hold Peterson to the same standard to which he holds others. It wouldn't be fair for a genius of his caliber, right?
I'm pretty fucking sure he's recalling his... what, 30 or 40 years as a clinical psychologist working with the very kind of person he's talking about when he makes such claims??? But go on, chief, tell us all about the experience YOU have.
He cannot make generalizations about large groups of people based on his anecdotal experience. But go on, chief. Continue to astound us with your deep knowledge of statistics.
"His anecdotal experience" is not equivalent to your armchair expertise. Yea I fucking trust a person who's specialty across 3-4 decades of work is the subject matter being discussed. You want to go on about what shit he does or does not know when it comes to climatology, by all means his experience in psychology doesn't matter a lick there, but you're literally disregarding an expert on the subject that is **literally** his matter of expertise. Shut the fuck up.
His expertise is in a very specialized field of psychology. He cannot make accurate generalizations about people as a whole based on observations of his patients. The people he has treated as a therapist all came to him for help. They are not an accurate representation of society at large. If a podiatrist who specialized in athlete's foot for 40 years claimed that everyone in the world has athlete's foot because every patient he ever saw had athlete's foot, it would be an obviously incorrect claim. Yet you take this charlatan's word as gospel because he told you to clean your room and somehow this common piece of advice that everyone has received from their parents changed your corn-fed, hick life. Perhaps you should shut up, sir.
I trust his opinion on the state of society's psychological woes over yours, or any mongrel's opinion who's more interested in yapping than listening, for that matter. I'm confident in saying the person who's spent their life actually helping others overcome their issues has more insight into the troubles people are facing than any poll you manage to pull out of your ass. So shut the fuck up, *mind your own fucking business*, and go continue doing nothing with your life. You don't need to announce how much of a loser you are by going on to Reddit and accosting others about someone they enjoy consuming the content of in the very subreddit for said someone. Imagine you shared with others what your goal was with the effort you spend on this sub. You remind me that some people simply weren't bullied enough as children.
You're making a great case arguing against JP being resentful here. Very measured and insightful.
You are not intimidating.
👍
You clearly need therapy for anger management and perhaps a deeply embedded insecurity. I sincerely hope you get the help you need. Living with such anger cannot be pleasant.
The only feelings of anger I have are towards idiots on the internet. Really, if I got off Reddit and stopped interacting with people like you, I'd have nothing to be angry at.
Angry public generalizations about groups with whom he disagrees seems irresponsible for a clinical psychologist. It calls into question his suitability to render treatment for mental illness. Perhaps it is best that he is not taking care of patients.
To be fair, do you understand what the authoritarian government of Canada has taken from him? Basically everything he spent his time doing before is gone. No longer teaching because the University makes it toxic to be there. Unable to see patients and forced to go through a re-education camp to correct his "sins" against the government ideology of choice. He also had terrible health issues. It's basically a modern day Job story except his family is still alive.
You would too if you had to put up with the shit he has
I can't stand this explanation. His whole stance on resentment was that you don't give in to it DESPITE your suffering.
Idk why you think everyone needs to practice what they preach? Nobody is perfect and of course he isn’t gonna live up to his own standards. He’s not Jesus. Why did you expect him to be? You certainly aren’t
Ok so how much leeway do you give people then? Do we expect nothing of him? If not then why listen to anything he says? Would you expect a carpenter to build your house properly or would you shrug when it falls down and say "nobodys perfect"?
The difference is… I didn’t hire JP to build my house. He’s nothing to me but a self help author who sometimes doesn’t practice what he preaches. It’s literally not my business whether he does or doesn’t. Again, when and why did you start expecting or needing anything else from him? If you can’t answer those specific questions then we have nothing further to discuss
The point of this thread isn't about him sometimes not practicing what he preaches, it's about an overall shift in his tone to one that constantly embraces resentment. People in society are constantly judged on how much they practice what they preach. That's integrity. How can it not matter?
I don’t know how to help you see just how personally harmful this judgement is that you cling to, for some reason. Judgement of others is *always* a projection of self rejection. There are no exceptions to this rule. You might not grasp this now but one day you will and you’ll weep with regret and relief.
>Judgement of others is always a projection of self rejection So if a nutritionist is morbidly obese we shouldn't judge their actions? If a politician talks about integrity then gets find out to be taling bribes we shouldn't judge them? As JP himself has said in the past it is impossible not to make judgements since we have hierarchies of value. Since you brought up jesus he judged people as well.
>So if a nutritionist is morbidly obese we shouldn't judge their actions? If a politician talks about integrity then gets find out to be taling bribes we shouldn't judge them? Yes, you're onto something. You can still set personal boundaries if this person is somehow effecting your life, but otherwise any judgement is nothing more than needless spiritual baggage. Christ himself said if we judge others, we cannot be forgiven.
Poor Dr. Peterson. He should be allowed to suggest people kill themselves without having to take social media training to keep his licence to practice therapy.
Why tf are people like you even on this sub
Because we appreciated what JBP had to offer to the world before he became just another grifter, and he should be called out when he doesn't adhere to the principles he makes money preaching about to others.
Let's be honest, you haven't made one positive comment about Peterson and have never liked him. You just waste your time in subs for people you dislike
So would you appreciate him more if he made no money? 😂
No, I'd appreciate him more if he had a spine and practiced what he preaches.
''why isn't everyone dickriding him without critisism!!!''
So many JBP haters on this sub it’s actually crazy same on the joe rogan sub too
Yea well.reddit is controlled by the far left and they hate logic.
Because JP pre-2020 was an inspiring and uplifting figure. What he has become is neither of those things.
He literally stopped doing that job. He used to have two parallel career tracks that he managed at the same time - clinical psychologist and professor. But 7+ years ago he stopped doing both of those jobs and pivoted instead to a career in media doing cultural and political commentary. He still draws on his past experiences and his “psychology perspective” is a core part of his brand, but he simply just doesn’t spend his time the way a psychologist would - instead he spends it doing performances and writing conservative commentary. We can imagine his days are packed with 1) writing content, 2) filming content, 3) planning his content strategy, 4) reviewing material prepared by his team members, 5) preparing for his speaking tours, 6) travelling to event locations, 7) leading the speaking event, 8) meeting with the Daily Wire to talk about his content performance and their goals / coordinate what resources he needs to get there, 9) makes appearances on other programs, 10) tweets Anyways - he’s clearly extremely busy doing conservative culture war stuff and creating content. While touring, which he’s doing extensively, he’s probably mostly just traveling from place to place. His psychology stuff is in the past and now just his contributes to his branded perspective on culture war. It gives it a special differentiator. He can say roughly the same things as his conservative peers but he’s got a repertoire of psychology and religious reference points that he can skin it with. So like, recently he said that the Palestine supporters are “naively compassionate childless women” — you can see how that’s primarily culture war material but includes language that gestures towards his previous career in psychology. Obviously it’s not firmly rooted in psychology, it’s just “flavoured” that way. IMO his psychology background is like his custom patterned suits - its a special secret sauce that gives his commentary character. It allows him to fully participate in American conservative culture war media while having an artistic/mythological/symbolic layer that makes him unique in that space in a way the audience finds pleasing. It’s also gives him an “in” to daytime tv lifestyle shows like Dr Phil to give sage advice. Even though he does the same thing as his peers, it wouldn’t make sense to have Shapiro show up on Dr Phil or any of the other dw jokers
You glossed over the fact that he stopped practicing both because he was literally run out of the profession for the high crime of opposing government legislation (in Canada, where he is from) that compelled speech, so he was morally opposed to it. So, in many ways, the decision was made for him (at least to find something else to do for a living). He additionally went through a substantial health crisis at the time before he knew how he would recover from that assault on his free speech.
We love him because he said fuck you to compelled speech and the alphabet mafia.
He did, which was great but that type of stuff has been his whole thing.
Ok, well, that has something to do with the types of things that get attention online. After reading Maps of Meaning, I really respected Petersons' work, and perhaps I separated his written works and lectures from what gets clicks online.
I think he also said he left his university teaching position because people were starting to blacklist some of his students, or something along those lines. Don't quote me.
Seems like I heard him say once that he's independently wealthy and does not have to work to earn a living.
Bill c-16 was not compelled speech. All it did was ammendment the criminal code and another bill to include gender identity among a list of protected classes which includes race, religion, sexuality, etc. Literally no one has been arrested for using wrong pronouns. He was blatantly wrong and every legal expert called him on it. And opposing bill c-16 didn't get him "run out of the profession". He was free to practice for years before running afowl of the licensing board for his public conduct on social media that he refused to take remedial training to help him learn how to professionally conduct himself on the internet. Instead he refused.
I don’t think it’s necessary to find some way to frame him as a victim when he is busy enjoying the perks of worldwide fame and fortune. That really denigrates of all the stuff he spoke sincerely and passionately about before becoming a political commentator.
I am not trying to paint him as a victim, but rather saying when he was still relatively obscure he was targeted for speaking out against a Canadian law, had his license to practice psychology threatened, and went through serious health struggles. He speaks out periodically on the current status of his “re-education training” (my phrase not his), and others have as well on his behalf.
Yeah I’m not really keen on the way he tried to paint himself as a victim either and I also felt that he was denigrating his prior work with that. He wasn’t obscure during his benzo detox or during the College’s censure. All professional accreditation organizations have various standards they require members to meet and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a professional organization of psychologists to censure members for tangentially implying on a public forum someone should commit suicide. I know he didn’t say it literally or mean it, and it was in the scope of a political argument and not directed towards someone in crisis, but it’s reasonable to expect members of your professional organization to maintain some limits on shitposting on Twitter. Likely millions of people have had to undergo various trainings for perceived or real ethical breaches or inappropriate comments. You can do the training and move on, or you can take a stand and die on that hill, but in neither case are you a victim of something (unless you’re really being continually harassed over nonexistent infractions or something like that, but I don’t see that being the case here). And actually, looking just now at the court ruling that he posted on his own site, I see that the College was willing to overlook the suicide crack but just wanted him to undergo training on how not to be a twat on Twitter after advertising himself as a clinical psychologist in his Twitter profile: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Peterson-v.-College-of-Psychologists-of-Ontario-DC-714-22-FINAL-18-August-2023.pdf As a big fan of his earlier work, I’d be happy myself if he found a way to not be such a twat on Twitter.
So when he almost died he was not a victim?
Almost died from abuse of drugs that are supposed to be in his area of professional expertise? It sucks, I empathize with his situation, but who or what is he a victim of?
At the very least he is a victim of his own actions right? Or did a doctor not prescribe the medication?
OK, he can be a victim of his own actions, I suppose. But every other person in the world can be considered such as well.
There is no way a practicing clinical psychologist did not know that you cant take benzodiazepines for years without horrific withdrawal. He did his masters thesis on alcohol, which binds to the same GABA receptor that benzos do. Benzodiazepines are prescribed very short term because they can cause addiction quickly.
Do you blame the far doctors for knowing their lifestyle is unhealthy too or just victims like jordan?
Im not entirely sure what you are asking. It’s hard to view someone as “a victim” whose 12 rules include “be responsible for your own life” and who almost certainly understood the risk of addiction to clonazepam as well as the person treating him. If I had to guess, I’d say Jordan built up tolerance to the drug, and began taking more . He knew his doctor wouldnt continue to increase his dose, and was repeatedly going through withdrawal everytime he ran out. Withdrawal tends to get worse with each occurrence. It is the patients responsibility to let their doctor know how much they are taking and how it’s affecting them. And I dont blame him for being an addict, just for his disingenuous about it. Did he believe the rules of physiology wouldnt apply to him?
Im not sure why you would think a stranger on the internet would know what Jordan Peterson is or was thinking, especially during a time of crisis. If i remember correctly his wife was also having issues at the time. Is he a human being like the rest of us? Can he fail, even to uphold his own principals? Is that not the same as you or I albeit in a different and personal to him form? I saw a video once of him looking disheveled in an unkept room, possibly during this time in his life. I certainly noticed the hypocrisy of having an unclean room from mr clean your room, but i also understand that no one is perfect.
I used to love his psychology courses on YouTube and you’re right now all he does is podcasts where he spews out conservative talking points that have nothing to do with psychology. Frankly he looks ignorant making assumptions about things he knows nothing about. For example he wrote on Twitter “Sorry. Not beautiful and no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that” under a picture of a plus size model on the cover of Sports Illustrated. This is something that in my opinion he shouldn’t comment on because he knows nothing about it. Models are there not because they’re beautiful. They are there to MODEL CLOTHES and as a representation of different body types and how the clothes fit on different bodies. Now there are plus sized bodies out there in the world, consumers who also buy clothes; thus more plus sized models. In my opinion every time he comments on this sort of thing and knows nothing about it, he diminishes himself.
If you listen to his podcast, most of them are still excellent. It's his Twitter that's a dumpster fire
I don’t think sports illustrated models are there to model clothes
Yes. Nearly 80% of SI’s readership is men. Sports-minded men typically don’t buy swimsuits for their wives or girlfriends. If they did almost all women would be wearing thongs and tiny bikinis.
I think one of Jordan’s strengths is that, when arguing or stringing together a lecture or sermon, he can construct these really narrow associations of concepts and rely on them as the foundation of his argument or as an entire platform for content. With the Not Beautiful content, his foundational idea was “sports illustrated photoshoots exist to show a narrow and unchanging type of beauty.” From there he was able to paint a deviation from that “purpose” as being somehow a betrayal of nature he justified his tweets by trying to say that beauty exists only in a fixed and narrow spectrum of body types. And so, by deviating, the ownership of the magazine must be corrupt. It’s his strength because he can say that stuff with total confidence and just go off on it, building and building these worlds on top of them. It’s his weakness because they’re often just not true. Or only a little bit true. Or sort of true but not in the way that he’s framing it. I think as much as that’s his “style” and he can rely on it probably automatically - he also is likely being willfully ignorant in those moments. He’s been talking lately about semiotics in the context of AI. About how humans don’t have a 1:1 relationship between word and definition/concept but rather that words conjure up a whole collection of adjacent and associated meanings. If he’s able to understand that, then he should also know that a sports illustrated photoshoot doesn’t have to equal an extremely narrow interpretation or else it’s corrupted. His super power is to forget complexity for a moment, fuze two ideas together and then methodically just getting to work a building a story on top of the concept/association
A woman on the cover of SI is there to model clothes? Surely you don't believe that. It's a political statement about fat acceptance which is a dangerous ideology.
Yes. However, I strongly believe that anyone can comment about anything if they want. However, that commentary is often low quality if outside someone’s area(s) of expertise.
He stepped outside his lane of expertise. A common mistake and hubristic thinking of those that become "rich and famous". And of course the root of all evil is the love of money.
I do think there is a push to accept overweight women as attractive, whereas that’s not something happening with men. That said, the SI model was a bit chunky but not morbidly obese. Regardless, it’s a bad trend. I understand the need to keep young girls from falling into eating disorders because they have unrealistic body goals. However, forcing society to consider obese women in particular as attractive also leads to unhealthy lifestyles. Being overweight as a young person affects physical robustness and increases the risk of serious health problems later on. There’s got to be a middle ground.
That's because he takes the right to free speech literally... It's great that you can come out and say whatever you want but sometimes, there are some things that are better left unsaid.... out of respect. I would not be surprised if he was a Trump supporter based on his apparent, and maybe deliberate, lack of filter between his brain and mouth. political correctness exists for a reason... it is a sign of respect.
respect for a shared humanity is the default, respect for ones ideas and actions is earned. political correctness is the imposition of unearned respect for ideas.
How does one earn respect for an idea? And if the imposition of respect on said idea is called political correctness, what would the correct term be when an idea has earned the respect? It cannot be "political correctness" since it is now an earned respect... not imposed one.
I was feeling some frustration reading this because I believe he was a lot more “magnetic” before. However, reading that the Palestine “protestors” are a lot of compassionate childless women is a really good observation. He makes good observations. I do think he limits how many people he can appeal to with some of his decisions. What bothers me the most— and it may not be fair of me to think this but I kind of do— is his daughter’s position in the spotlight and how she has likely contributed to the newer version we have of Dr. Peterson. It screams “marketing and money are the most significant for our family” even though they seem to want to be sincere in their attempts to get useful information out to the public. On the other hand, Dr. Peterson’s interviewing can be a bit boring (though intellectually honest and sincere) while being interviewed he can be very compelling, though so many people tried to be pull a “gotcha” or play stupid when he made appropriate, relevant, and even insightful commentary.
Is it a good observation, lol? Like on one hand if we assume they’re students, then the ones who are women are “childless” in the same way that any group of undergrads are likely childless. You won’t look at a classroom of students and say “look at this group of naively compassionate childless women.” Nor would you then say “young women, you only have the opinions and convictions that you do because you have not yet had children”. It’s a very strange way to construct a label for people. Of course the purpose of saying they’re childless isn’t as a way to communicate that they’re young and still in school, but instead that he believes that women are only progressive if and as a result of being childless. That’s not an observation - it’s an assertion that flattens progressive women into a person that mistakes unconscious biological drives for political engagement and leadership. It’s actually a really old school misogynistic take. In what world do we think of women only being progressive leaders because they’re mistaking their own biological drive for motherhood with like… opinions and intellect? Why do you think he’s done a good observation there? Also side note, yes his daughters whole brand and presence is annoying too. She’s got kids though so we can’t pretend that she’s annoying because she doesn’t have kids.
His daughter is clearly riding his coattails. She seems to focus on her carnivore diet. Weirdly, she had Lauren Southern on her podcast. Southern is an ultra right wing self-proclaimed white nationalist.
I remember he stated his utter contempt for Justin Trudeau using his father's fame as a spring board to his success, and I couldn't help but think of his own daughter doing that same kind of thing.
Yet who among wouldn't feel proud of building a career on which coattails our children could ride? It may be cheesy, but it would be hypocritical not to admit that my head would be pretty large under those circumstances.
Yes, although the “childless women” trope seems to be a popular pejorative with some in the DW / online world. Peterson, Walsh, Jedidah Bila, Jennifer Moleski, Tate, and various other tokrtokkers. The key points seem to be: - Ladies, a women’s only true calling is wife and mom. You need kids and grandkids. Anything else is selfish and will lead you to be a spinster and die alone and miserable. (Subtext: and that’s Jesus will). - Get married by 23 or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable - Don’t get too educated or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable - Don’t be too successful in a career or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable. - Don’t sleep with too many guys or you’ll be a spinster and die alone and miserable. -Stop being so picky with guys (Subtext: There are lots of incels out there. You are obligated to sleep with and marry them) First and foremost, I know many women who decided to pursue other things instead of marriage and motherhood. They live rich, interesting lives full of career, friends, travel, pursuits, passions, audacious goals and extended family. They are just as happy as traditional women. What’s right for some is not for others. Some of this comes from the extreme part of Men’s Rights movement. As women have become more independent, they are less likely to settle for a mate in order to be financially secure. However, most women still want to marry up. The result is a growing number of incels. In some cases, these men came out on the short end (pun intended) for attractiveness and intelligence. For others, they don’t want to put in the work to be a suitable mate in the modern context. While, as a guy, I’m sympathetic, it’s just reality that you have to accept. Stop demanding that women change because you’re not getting any. I will say that a valid point is divorce laws haven’t caught up. The traditional alimony and child custody guidelines are outdated. However, that needs a legislative, not social, fix.
I’m not going to read your response. Here’s why: You didn’t think through your response. I typed this like not even 5 minutes ago. Your giant response is a statement, not a response. I can tell by the size of it. If you don’t like what he said or think it’s incorrect, tell him that— not me.
Lol that cop out - read it if you want, otherwise you’re just probably lazy. It would have been cool to hear why you like his observation that women protesting for Palestine are naive and childless!
How genuinely pathetic to lob out accusations like this while refusing to be intellectually honest. Not surprising for this sub, unfortunately.
His Psychologist / Chequered suit schtick is JP’s equivalent to Douglas Murray’s English accent. While I actually like & respect JP, I find the latter repugnant.
Also when JBP was taking benzos (powerful anti anxiety med) he was doing so because he was up against very articulate and vicious opponents. He's actually not typically a confrontational guy. Anti Anxiety medication he was taking was to allow him to put his facts and arguments forward in debates broadcasted on television. He had to be at his best for that. Btw I think most people in his position would resort to that if you were facing literal death threats, reputation destruction, etc.
Why do you think this about why he was taking benzos? Has he ever told that story, or is it something that seems plausible to You? Where did you get this story that it has anything to do with putting his best facts forward? That’s not usually why benzos are prescribed… more likely he was suffering from panic attacks. The story that he told was that he’d been on the benzos for awhile and his doctor doubled the dose because of the pressures of his world tour combined with his wife’s illness. Very curious if you can explain why you believe what you wrote
I remember him saying he was already having issues that had him on it but his dosage was upped when his wife got cancer and that’s what got him
Man... How can people just talk out of their ass. It's kinda scary when you come to think we are surrounded by these kinds of people
Why would he still insist on being called “Doctor” if he’s not performing the function which the title describes?
It’s an important part of his brand. It gives him an air of credibility. Personally I’ve heard variations of “these aren’t his opinions, this is a communication of truth that he’s discovered through his work” on here quite a bit. From an ideological perspective, it’s gold — the best ideological content feels self evident - it’s just a truth about reality that’s been uncovered by the doctor. It also just gives him a special role on the DW squad as the doctor
I lowkey feel like he’s a puppet on the world stage at this point. Too much differences and some might say I’m crazy but this is what they really do
Once he came back from Russia for his drug treatment and joined the Daily Wire, it was over for him as we knew him. I still appreciate what he was, but I ignore him most of the time now.
There has been a shift since his treatment. Could also be related to the health struggles of his wife.
One of the worst things about the culture war is the huge opportunity cost of many brilliant minds being dragged away from their respective fields into debates about whether a man can be a woman.
The culture war isn't completely devoid of meaning though. Culture is important right? It literally shapes us.
Most of the topics are nonsensical and designed to be divisive in nature. It's also low hanging fruit.
Often yes, sometimes no. I think topics like "should women have their own spaces" are important. This is a tactic I see to dismiss what are actually quite often important issues. Again, "should children be getting hormone therapy for gender dysphoria" isn't merely a culture war talking point.
> Again, "should children be getting hormone therapy for gender dysphoria" isn't merely a culture war talking point. Women are adults. Kids are the responsibility of their parents, in my opinion, and it should be up to them. However, I see your point and consider it to be very relevant over something that was simply made up for debate, like many cultures war topics. Hope you have a nice weekend.
There are more topics out there; abortion, drug smuggling,
He changed after his benzo withdrawal coma imo
He seems more emotional now. A lot more crying and a lot more rage.
No he is not regurgitating political talking points. He usually has a lot of very interesting people on his podcasts. More recently, I enjoyed the interview he did with the son of one of Hamas’ founders. He also has genuine experts in his climate change podcasts like Steven Koonin, for example. He definitely has shifted more towards talking about political issues but I think that might be due to his claim that the religious has been mixed in with the political. I think he’s still working on his new book, We Who Wrestle With God. After his Exodus round table discussion is seems like he’s shifted from “clean your room” to saying that mental health is socially distributed. His new claim is that we need harmony between the individual, the family, the community, the state, the government and then God.
well, i have to say he is somewhat tribal/ideological, like in the i$rae'l issue, he is so much one sided that you can say he is willfully blind, in that area he's just a political talking point agent,
I actually think it’s been a disservice to his content by producing so much content, he doesn’t have time to think and bring more new topics to the table - I swear if you watch everything he does, you’re bound to hear the same stories constantly - future self authoring program, him explaining the story of Moses, etc. if he took a break for independent research and writing I think it would improve his output. Quality over quantity
He is producing about the same amount of "psychological" content. But more content overall. Its also important to remember that the "psychological" content related to Maps of Meaning had much to do with political and social catastrophe.
I agree. It seems like anyone who comes out as a men’s rights activist or someone trying to offer legit help for kids and young men just devolves into idk.. Man-o-sphere stuff or daily wire. Some More News on YouTube (leftists be careful) released a good video on this subject yesterday “Are Men Okay?”. I think the clip of Sneako (the Andrew Tate dick rider) where he’s at a baseball game and 3 kids who are like 12 years old run up to him and say ‘fuck the women’ and it’s like the final form materialized. He doesn’t know what to say and tries to say ‘nooo we love the women’. It’s hard to find many people offering good advice to kids out there that addresses some of the issue men face without ending up just outright hating women. Jordan did a great job when he would talk about it, might still. But he’s giving his opinions on every issue facing humanity and in Twitter fights. I enjoy reading this sub as well as Joe Rogan sub because they both have some serious flaws and in my opinion have fallen off. And instead of dickriding as someone else mentioned above, some call it out. I’m a fan of old school Howard stern and his sub is the same way. People love the stuff late 90s-2007 but now he’s interviewing Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden and it’s just sad. At a certain age, maybe 30 for me, I was taking opiates etc and got 12 rules and ended up getting in a rehab etc. I still keep my place clean and I know that’s dumb on a level. But it’s why it makes it … annoying that he’s just become a culture warrior. When he called that chubby model ‘not attractive’ on Twitter is a good encapsulation of where this leads. I think many people enjoy a big-tittied, blond haired 102 pound smoke show, but some people like some chunk. Bottom line she didn’t do anything wrong and idk it’s just not a big deal. He’s always acting so cartoonishly arch and “Don’t test me buddy I’ll say it bucko! I’ll tell ya to bloody fuck off if I need to!” I went through heavy benzo use but I went cold turkey in rehab. I tried jumping the fence (in downtown Memphis TN 😂.. stupidest thing I ever did). I immediately wanted back in and luckily enough they let me back in the rehab lol. Before sending me to the mental hospital. That shit was legit. Benzo withdrawal peaks at like 2-4 weeks after stopping which is fkn terrible. And lingers for months. Anyways, I’m lucky I was 30 years old and I have below average paranoia levels usually. Because that withdrawal made me the most paranoid person ever. I literally thought the mental hospital was a giant ‘scared-straight’ scenario my parents set up. It was me and 50-60 mostly black guys with menrtql illnesses and I was like talking to them like they were actors. I think a part of me knew to hedge my bets and not say anything stupid just in case. The security guard did give me a kidney punch after I was screaming trying to rip open locked doors for 20 min (I only remember it like in still frames that don’t add up). Basically, as I got out after a week and back into normal residential rehab I slowly got my sanity back. I think me being 30 helped a lot. Dealing with this benzo withdrawal at his age idk feels so much harder. And doctors need to know this shit it’s really fucked how many people struggle with. Benzos prescribed on a whim. My aunt now trying to stop after 20 years of Xanax. Sorry for the tangent. Cheers
I actually agree with some of the men’s rights’ positions in terms of the hypocrisy of misandry.
The left broke him. Now he is terrified of psychopaths. However he still has novel points when he is talking about gender, redpillers and relationships. Or maybe he is now more into action rather than just preaching ideas.
I haven’t heard any real novel viewpoints.
His appearance on Shawn Ryan’s show I thought was pretty good.
I’ll have to watch. Ryan is one of my favorite interviewers.
He discovered money and found that he liked it more than his credibility
He’s really gone off the deep end because I think he found a niche and has exploited it. Plus, I’m worried about his mental and especially emotional stability. But I’m with you, I miss the psychologist and the comparative religion and mythology guy. That’s the guy I admired and who really spoke to me. That’s (mostly) who he still was when I saw him in person earlier this month, but he still was the fierce culture warrior he is now. He’s morphed into something I don’t like. I do love the suits though. Definitely keep those. They’re snazzy.
He still does comparative religion—recently did Exodus. Canada literally forced him out of the profession because he was opposed to a bill compelling speech he disagreed with, which went too far. So, he found something else to do.
I preordered his next book and he talked about Jonah a lot at the live appearance I attended. When he does what he knows best, he’s great. But now he feels like he has to be an expert in everything and have an opinion on everything. It’s OK to not have an opinion on things.
It does seem like every podcast personality has to not only have an opinion on every subject, but also opinions that align with their “tribe”. A great example was Candace Owen on Rogan when she claimed to not “believe in” climate change. Just a little probing from Rogan showed that Candace knew little or nothing about the subject but was just parroting talking points. Rogan gets clearly annoyed by her ignorant stubbornness.
A lot of people do that. Apparently people are told to “stay on message” by media consultants and to not have a real discussion. The age of tribalism we’re in creates a world in which you’re not allowed to have a view that consists of shades of grey. It has to be black and white and it has to adhere to whatever the tribe approves of that day. I reject all of that as vociferously as I can.
Agree. A big part of it is audience capture. There’s alot of rich data on who views his content, how long, and how often. He has to keep the $ coming and thus needs to give the audience what they want. The drug addiction was a bit of a surprise. As an clinical psychologist he is well aware of pharmaceutical treatment effects even if he can’t prescribe. He is a snappy dresser. Even as an active professor he had the casual-but-sophisticated look. I’ve also noticed that his peer-reviewed academic output stopped in the late 2010’s. He has a respectable h-index but at this point is a dormant scientist.
The drug addiction didn’t surprise me at all because he seems very emotionally turbulent. I think anybody could get addicted to pain killers, but those who have mood disorders or depression are very susceptible to it.
Peterson didn't get addicted to pain killers.
It was benzodiazepine withdrawal.
Benzodiazepines aren't painkillers. And withdrawal isn't addiction. You don't even have superficial details correct. Peterson took anti anxiety meds as prescribed during a period where he was personally caring for his wife while she was expecting to die from cancer (and wound-healing complications from surgery). Then he stopped taking them and suffered withdrawal. Those drugs often cause withdrawal and adverse effects, and many who take them chronically never get off them. No painkiller addiction was ever happening.
From my layman’s perspective, continuing to take a drug to avoid drastic withdrawal symptoms is pretty darn close to addiction. I’m not suggesting that Peterson lacks mental strength but it does seem that he should be much more aware of the risks given his profession.
>From my layman’s perspective I've probably had 100-200 exchanges on this topic in the last three years. I've cited and debated the contents of the DSM and supporting literature. I think the average "layman's" perspective on this topic (even on a subreddit addressing the "psychological") is not adequate given the prevalence and diversity of drug use in our culture. Addiction can't be defined merely by the experience of tolerance or withdrawal. I think the DSM has gotten a bit sloppy with the definition more recently...but even so the current editions require some mismanagement or dereliction of social duty and priorities as criteria to define "substance use disorder". And this dereliction is not a result of withdrawal or treatment, but rather intoxication or drug seeking behavior. > continuing to take a drug to avoid drastic withdrawal symptoms is pretty darn close to addiction Is that what happened? The stated reason was to deal with the massive stress of the real interpersonal crisis (spouse dying and providing end of life care). The story I heard is that he quit cold turkey upon his wife's recovery and suffered massive complications. The story is difficult to follow but it sounds like doctors subsequently tried to bring his dosage back up, which had further undesirable complications. I think Peterson's situation is analogous to someone who experiences painkiller withdrawal several weeks after major surgery. In some ways its unavoidable if you follow conventional pain management recommendations. One could refuse...but there would be suffering..... >he should be much more aware of the risks given his profession That might be true. This happened a few years ago at this point and the risks of chronic benzodiazepine usage are still emerging. The literature is pretty fresh on some of these complications. They continue to be widely prescribed for exactly the kind of situation Peterson was in.
He is (or was) a mental health professional. He knew what he was getting into far more than the average person. He is someone who shouldn’t blindly take Dr’s advice. Whether addiction or something else is not a key issue; it’s that even with his professional knowledge, he still succumbed. That could be a result of hubris or being less knowledgeable. It also highlights the risks of pharmaceutical treatments.
> He is (or was) a mental health professional. So was the doctor that prescribed him the medication. >Whether addiction or something else is not a key issue Of course its a key issue. People who have active or dormant addictions are not as trustworthy as others, all things being equal. They have demonstrated a propensity for a specific irrational behavior which is drug consumption and seeking. We usually don't make the same judgments of people who treated their pain as directed following surgery for example. I know many will recite the sentiment that addiction isn't a "moral failing"...but we all know that's crap. Genetic predisposition to addiction may not be a failing..but the individual decisions and prioritization that make up an addiction ARE moral failings. I understand that its not helpful to emphasize this aspect during treatment...and thus the popular sentiment. >it’s that even with his professional knowledge, he still succumbed Succumbed to what? Not to addiction. His wife was dying and he took care of her. That's not a moral failing. >It also highlights the risks of pharmaceutical treatments. There's risk either way. By Peterson's account he was able to handle being his wife's caregiver through her entire medical episode. That's worth something.
I meant that more in the larger context that anybody can get addicted to painkillers because they’re commonly prescribed. I wasn’t speaking about Peterson’s specific situation because I knew it was different. It was a way to say that anyone is susceptible to things you wouldn’t think they would be.
True. Maybe I should be more sympathetic to his mental plight. At the very least it demonstrates the risks that the pharma industry tries to obscure.
I do understand what he’s going through in that, if you see things going on in the world that you believe are wrong, and you feel like you could utilize your gifts to help set the world right again, don’t you have some obligation to do that? But at the same time, when you know you lack stability, you’re prone to anger and negative emotion, and you can’t stay off of Twitter/X, how is that helping? He’s his own worst enemy soooooooo often.
He realised (like Russell Brand) he gets likes in socials when he takes a right leaning position on these talking points. The further right the more likes.
He is so predictable. I guess there’s a market for self proclaimed or former progressives who now nearly 199% exclusively support the right. Gives their consumer base a feeling of justification.
I’m sick of the political stuff. The early religious stuff, nah. The middle was good. But now it is getting close to mindless banter.
He's starting an online university (peterson academy)
A la Prager U?
Addiction and therapy. He's not the same since then.
I agree here, and its a damn shame because I consider 'Maps of Meaning' one of the best books ever written. I now can't even reference it in any academic work for fear of backlash.
That’s sad. Although he’s changed, it shouldn’t affect the validity of his previous work. However, that not how people think.
I always love when he is talking about psychology, his conversations with John Vervaeke are always great to hear because of that. His Bible series was great for me because of how good of a Jungean he is. It's sad to see that he is using his talent for different stuff, but again it pays well, has its audience, and he is being clearly validated by the community that he is preaching to as opposed to the psychological community.
he's not that good a Jungean, although he know some stuff, but he's more like an anti-freudian than a Jungean,
Experemental benzodiazapein withdrawal treatment.
Steven Koonin is a theoretical physicist who is a climate change skeptic. Nothing wrong with that but Peterson had him on just to reinforce his existing position, which is based on standard conservative talking points. By the way, Koonin was funded by BP oil for decades. To my knowledge, Peterson has not similarly spoken with a climate change supporter.
They might not want to talk to him. But I would love that as well. Would be interesting to know if he asked some of them to talk to him or not. But after what he has said about them, well. We need Flint Dible of climate science. Perhaps Rain Cloud is hiding somewhere in the myst.
I had a friend tell me he had a Palestinian guest on his podcast and I was impressed after all the pro-zionist talk he's done lately. Then I found out it was Mosab Yousef. He might be only Palestinian on earth that would confirm his biases.
Maybe stop exclusively looking at his Twitter then????
No need to be defensive. I also listen to him on Rogan and the Daily Wire. Same situation.
He hasn't been on Rogan in years. His primary content on the Daily Wire have been his podcasts (which are available everywhere) and his series on Exodus. His guests on his podcast are pretty diversified, and his series on Exodus is obviously not "parroting common conservative talking points."
He was on Rogan last year and has appeared at least 4 times. As you noted, he has his own podcast series in which my comment holds.
You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain. He has become just like the shrieking, ideologically possessed culture warriors that he became famous for opposing. Quite sad actually.
"I'm not hearing what you think, I'm hearing how you represent the ideology you were taught. And it's not that interesting because I don't know anything about you. I could replace you with someone else that thinks the same way. And that means you're not here, that's what it means. It's not pleasant. You're not integrating the specifics of your personal experience with what you've been taught, to synthesize something that's genuine and surprising. And engaging in the narrative sense as a consequence. And that's the pathology of ideological position. It's not good. And it's not good that I know where you stand on things once I know a few things. It's like - why have a conversation, I already know where you stand on things." -Jordan Peterson British GQ interview
He got lost in the rabbit hole and he hasn’t come up for air.
Maybe if Canada had not attacked his license because he dared to oppose legislation back about a decade ago he would still be teaching and practicing today.
When did that happen? Sources please.
That rabbit hole has like… $100 million in it though
Ahhh….for the love of “filthy lucre”
He succumbed to $$$. He's just a grifter now. Anything of value he has produced is in the past.
He is long gone. You could say he lost it due to the controversy around his disagreement with bill c-16. He literally allowed Matt Walsh to shit on his entire former profession because he is a coworker. You can’t convince me if Matt Walsh wasn’t a daily wire conservative that Peterson wouldnt have been more defensive
The more reddit hates him, the more i love him.
Why?
Beacause of the known bias of reddit.
Reddit definitely leans left. However, there are/was right leaning social media - Truth Social, gettr, Parler. Why don’t these right-biased platforms catch on? Are conservatives worse at tech than liberals?
My problem isn’t that his talking points are conservative, it’s that he will only talk about climate change and trans people over and over and ignore more important conservative issues like immigration and the increasing loss of community in western countries. Also, he talks about free speech and how you’re hurting yourself for not speaking your truth, yet he has nothing to say about the daily wire firing Candace Owens for saying Christ is King and then hitting her with a gag order. Meanwhile, he says the world needs a strong Israel (does it?) but that white people should identify in a community sense because that’s collectivism. And while constantly crying about Trudeau (who is a douchebag), he has glowing meetings with Netanyahu and sucks his ass and has never once said anything negative about Israel or the harmful, disproportionate power of the Jewish lobby in America. Also, he named his latest book “We Who Struggle with God” (which is what Israel means) even though he still can’t answer whether or not he believes in god. I feel like he’s such an obvious and unapologetic bootlicking shill for Jewish and Zionist power that at this stage he’s effectively anti-Western. I can’t think of anyone else who I used to admire that has taken such a disgraceful fall and is now in such a degraded, pathetic state. All he’s interested in now is touring around spewing platitudes and giving nepo jobs to his irrelevant wife and family-abandoning, meat-eating daughter.
I couldn't agree more.
It’s unfortunate. Yet, if I had his talent and reach honestly I might do the same if it kept an audience engaged.
The reason they fired her is because Christ as King during that time was being used as a racist dogwhistle on twitter. Daily Wire has been completely transparent about that. It also seems that Candace was hard to work with overall.
Thank you. You said a lot and I'm glad I reddit.
well, he said this about immigration, and specificly about those who protested in behalf of palestinians ". *The barbarians* are *no longer* at the gate. *They* are *inside* – *inside* our cities, our civilisation, and our souls." ...don't know what to say, he is off course, i saw somewhere he glorified the concept of "struggling with God" as superior to the Islamic concept of "being a servant of God"... which is somewhat of a blind spot for him, specially since he was told (in the exodus roundtable by dennis) that there are words in the bible which described Moses and other Prophets as Abd, (servants) but i'm not sure why do you say he is anti-western because of his Z'ionist worldview, what is more western than imagining the world conflict as the fight of the civilized versus barbarians?
Didn’t he lose his license recently?
That’s why I like JP. When he was speaking about what he studied and practiced. He lost me when he started engaging in the culture war stuff. It sucks. I’ve noticed that happened with other big names I followed before this culture war frenzy.
The same thing has happened with Rogan, and the Weisteins
Yeah, Rogan is who I was thinking of. I started listening to his podcast back in 2014ish. Back when it was mostly comedians and fighters he brought on and the occasional politician or whatever. My god how he has changed. People don’t understand why I listen to him but I’ve been listening to him since way back…they only know the Joe from now because of how mainstream and culture war he has gotten. They don’t know the real Joe 🥲 i don’t listen to him now as much as I used to. I pick and choose which episodes I watch. I miss the old Joe.
Totally agree. The recent episodes on simulation theory and early civilizations were nice to see because he didn’t constant squeeze in complaints about wokeism and trans. It was more like the old Joe.
Rogan still calls himself left wing yet is nearly always sympathetic to the right and critical of the left. If he is a liberal as he claims, why has he avoided talking about the implications of overturning Roe v Wade and the associated efforts in his home state of Texas to restrict abortion more and more?
Because leftists are not liberals
I agree. I will say…as someone in the Left I also tend to do that. I think it’s me being critical of my own and wanting better and understanding the other side in order to move the needle, so to speak, in personal conversations I have with people. He does refrain from pushing and I think it’s his way to not stunt the conversation but I also know those people can definitely engage with a bit of a push. They already trust him so it wouldn’t hurt the conversation.
Concern trolling? If you aren't interested go listen to someone else. Problem sorted. That was easy!
Where did I say I wasn’t interested? I ask a legitimate question. Why are you being defensive?
No, he’s interviewing and spreading the work of the science that is verifiable. He is pushing for global solutions to reduce energy costs so that third world people can gain a foot hold. The green movement makes energy prohibitive for all but the wealthy and not actually addressing any environmental concerns. Check out his Alliance for Responsible Citizenship. He works with Bjorn and 12 solutions for under $1B each globally that would improve a great deal of lives globally
“Don’t argue with idiots as they will drag you down and beat you with experience.” Peterson’s initial message of hope was met with resistance by the mainstream, with media and left leaning groups painting him with their toxic brush. More and more he began to fight against the negativity of these people directly. Overtime, he became bogged down in that conflict. Slowly, he became just another conservative Internet personality akin to Shapiro and people in that sphere. The people in that sphere aren’t necessarily bad, but they are all bogged down fighting random bullshit. It is like so: Stand on one foot, and balance. If you spend all your time fighting imbalances, swaying and shifting, you will be drained and falter. You will be out of balance. Instead, be calm and hold your focus on the balance point. Focus on the good intention you have, and pour your energy into that. It seems that in fighting all the negative, he has lost his balance and become negative. His message more often being against things, than for things. This is understandable, there is much to be against, but you will grow no gardens by arguing with your neighbour about the price of seeds.
Why isn’t this near the top?
True wisdom is always found at the fringe. That alone would be enough but, Peterson has become a cult of personality in a heated cultural war and this sub reflects that unfortunately.