From top Jordan Peterson: Anthony Sheridan
The clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is a brilliant wordsmith. Not only can he talk non-stop about issues close to his heart but he also possesses a powerful array of academic ideas and concepts which he employs to great effect during debates.
Unfortunately, Peterson does not use his extraordinary talents in a positive manner. Instead, he combines his academic abilities with his word power to create a storm of mostly incoherent but impressively sounding arguments that are primarily focused on deflecting challenges to his often bizarre opinions.
Many of his answers begin with the common cop-out strategy of: Well, it all depends on what you mean by…???…followed by a long bout of academic rambling invariably laced with the names of his favourite writers and philosophers such as Nietzsche, Jung or Dostoevsky.
We witnessed a good example of his modus operandi during a debate with British writer, lecturer and atheist, Susan Blackmore in 2018. The title of the debate was – Do we need God to make sense of life?
Accepting that he lived his life as though god exists Peterson said:
“It’s how you act, not what you say about what you think you think. What do you know about what you think? Seriously, I mean we wouldn’t need psychology, anthropology, sociology, the humanities if our thoughts were transparent to us [3:36].”
This may be true of many people but Peterson is a clinical psychologist, his job is primarily about thinking, coming to conclusion on information gathered and advising patients. Since becoming a global phenomenon he has done little else but tell the world about what he thinks in his books and lectures.
So, clearly, he knows very well what he thinks, about a whole range of topics, and is not in the least bit shy about expressing those views. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the bizarre opinion expressed above is nothing more than puerile bluster – In a word, Peterson is a bluffer.
This is particularly so when it comes to religion. It is clear that he believes in Christianity but is, for some reason, unwilling to openly declare that fact. It could be that he doesn’t want to attract ridicule from his academic peers or perhaps he fears he might be asked to prove the existence of a supernatural entity for which no evidence has ever been produced.
When asked did he believe in God, instead of speaking plain English, he reverted to type:
“Well, I don’t know what people mean when they say ‘believe’. What do they mean by ‘belief’ and what do they mean by ‘god’ and what makes you think that the question I’m answering is the same question you’re asking? This is not something you can say yes or no to in a straight forward manner. To answer the question requires books and lectures [2:20].”
The presenter, to his credit, managed to keep a straight face – I laughed out loud.
But, while entertaining, Peterson can also be a bit of a bully in debate. For example, in the same programme, Blackmore made the mistake of choosing the wrong word when making a point. She was explaining that the gratitude she felt for the wonders of nature did not come from religion [30:50]
Peterson, immediately realised that her choice of the word ‘gratitude’ gave him a lever with which to put her down. asking:
“Where do you think it [gratitude] comes from?”
Blackmore:
“I think it comes from a recognition from observing the inner consequences of different ways of confronting the world.”
At this point Blackmore should have realised she was using the wrong word, that she was entrapping herself. She could, for example, have substituted ‘gratitude’ with a more suitable word such as ‘appreciate’.
She continued:
“When I woke this morning I felt a gratitude for the universe. It’s not really god, it’s not the creator.”
Peterson sprung the trap:
“Why feel gratitude towards it?”
Blackmore:
“I don’t know but I…”
BOOM…when someone debating with a person like Peterson uses the fatal words…I don’t know…they’re finished – game over.
With a smirk of victory, he cut her off, patronisingly intoning – ‘That’s fine’, sounding like a tolerant mother forgiving a child for making a silly mistake [32:51].
During the debate Peterson accused the atheist Richard Dawkins of operating behind several walls [of denial] protecting him from having to deal with the [so called] truths of Christianity.
“You can’t do that, he thundered. You don’t understand what you’re talking about.”
Probably the best example in history of the pot calling the kettle black.
Anthony Sheridan is a freelance journalist and blogs at Back Garden Philosophy
Getty
Mr. Petersen confronted students and staff on a Canadian campus who were insisting on new terminology for referring to people. Videos of his confrontations made him a public intellectual in North America and other parts of the English-speaking world. He has made many people realise that those who control language also control how people think and debate. He follows in the footsteps of George Orwell, who in the 1940s wrote a pioneering essay entitled Politics and the English Language.
She refused to use people’s preferred pronouns and sold a lot of books to immature men on the back of it.
“Unfortunately, Peterson does not use his extraordinary talents in a positive manner.”
Really? Why is it so many people have thanked him personally for his advice via his self help books?
Even before that he put all of his lectures on youtube for free – something you wont find an Irish university doing because €€€€.
You want to pick apart his performance in a single debate go ahead. But you didnt, you’ve smeared the man generally.
Mr. Sheridan you have just lost your credibility. You might as well tell me Ronaldo is a hack and a fraud because of one game he played where he didn’t do great.
She isn’t a university lecturer so she’s free to put her lectures online.
Lol no. You can go onto his youtube channel and watch his Harvard lectures from 8 years ago where he was employed as an Assistant Professor (Psychology Dept) & later as Associate Professor.
Ummm.
“Asociate Professor” and “Assistant Professor” are the two lowest steps in the academic ratrace in Harvard, and AFAIK in the US generally – something like a temporary lecturer in Ireland. Here’s the bumff for Harvard:
https://academic-appointments.fas.harvard.edu/descriptions-assistant-professor-associate-professor-convertible-instructor
Now I appreciate that Harvard is a prestigious place, but they never gave him a permanent job. Sure, he finally got a permanent post as a lecturer in Toronto university, which they call professor but is the equivalent of our tenured lecturer.
So you might revise your opinion of his expertise in the light of this knowledge.
Meh, he’s a poor man’s David Langwallner .
Now there’s a man who writes like he’s being paid by the hour.
You can bet he’s had his Roget’s Thesaurus for breakfast.
Wahaay !
Ah that’s super stuff TenPull Terry/Charger Salmons/Admiral Nelson etc etc
Wonderful words of wisdom
Marvelous
A JBP fan here, here’s my 2 cents point by point…
1.
“does not use..his talents in a positive manner”
Disagree. If you read 12 Rules you would clearly see it’s an overwhelmingly positive book. Also, his lectures on the Old Testament are really insightful.
2.
“bizarre opinions”
Disagree. His story of the “lobster hierarchy” is always taken out of context, for example. It’s not bizarre, he is simply directly quoting a scientific paper.
3.
meaning of words/names, eg God.
Many people of different meanings of “God”, is it not important to be precise?
4.
“bluffer”
I think Anthony is just being lazy here. Peterson has debated with the best of them.
5.
“bully”
This is true, get’s a bit shouty sometimes.
6.
“vs Dawkins”
One, and there’s a few, of his gripes with atheists is that he believes that there are fundamental human stories in the Bible entirely separate from anything religious. #1 on that list is Cain and Able. His point is there is core wisdom in the Old Testament that shouldn’t be dismissed because it’s a religious text.
(I’m into ghosts or gods or anything, btw)
Well said Ferg and Curmudgeon above too.
I’ve read and watched a good bit of Petersons stuff and I agree with some of what he says and others I don’t. I very much enjoyed some of his pre-fame lectures and snippets.
Not all of it is controversial.
This snippet about the whites of our eyes was very interesting for example.
https://youtu.be/VFdKZL1lUaM
That said, I do think lately he’s gone a bit off the rails a bit though. And how anyone could listen to him and Joe Rogan for 3 hours is beyond me. ;-)
It’s a weird time for a lot of people and I can imagine the sheer ridiculousness of living in Canada at the moment would be enough to drive anyone a bit barmy.
Petersen hates women. He’s basically the thinking man’s Kevin Myers, with a bit of Brendan O’Connor, John Waters, and Joe Rogan thrown in. He’s an Oprah for incels.
Absolute bullpoo. Apart from taking care of his wife and daughter he also famously helped Lindsay Shepherd from an unbelievable attack from her own college.
Now perhaps I’m wrong and since we have more than enough footage of him in the public eye for the last 10 years please post some of him “hating women”.
curmudgeon, do you know if he is involved in the UN’s Agenda 2030 hoo ha?
Mate I have literally no idea what ho-haa you are referring too.
Yes, he says that women belong in the home. Why do you think that Petersen is worshipped by guys who would prefer if women returned to the 1950s. Why do you think that when Petersen does his tours his audience is 95 per cent male? He’s essentially a quack, peddling ‘how to get laid’ strategies to men who are nervous daters. Petersen’s bizarre relationship with his daughter, his drug-addiction ‘rehab’ in Russia, his best-mates routine with Guy Ritchie and Joe Rogan – it’d all be just a laugh if it were not the fact that the basement brigade idolise him. He’s essentially a charlatan who’s made a lot of money out of male virgins.
Post proof of your claim, not conjecture or para phrasing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLWgVpmo1e0
That’s a rather dismissive post regarding the male sex, Sara, and no better than Petersen’s comments on women.
However I do agree with you in general on Petersen.
When he first came to my notice, I watched a couple of his videos, and I wasn’t impressed.
He’s a rightwing nutjob with a certain presence, but his arguments tend to boil down to very little.
If it wasn’t for the current climate (I’m talking about the climate that brought Trump to power and which hasn’t gone away unfortunately), he would be a complete nobody. He can speak well – there is a famous scene where he puts down an English female interviewer who wasn’t up to her job. His fame is based on scenes like that one. But he depends on being given a platform, speaking forcefully, and encouraging the less educated, less intellectually endowed males in society to think that there is a conspiracy against them.
Now he’s not wrong regarding there being a conspiracy against working class males – it’s called capitalism and indeed the conspiracy affects most of society in a negative way – but he encourages them in the belief that the likes of Trump is their redeemer who will lead them into the promised land, which is of course horseshít.
Ridiculous comment Sara, you’ve obviously never listened to him.
I have listened to him unfortunately. This video of Petersen being interviewed by his ‘steak-diet quackery’ daughter might enlighten you – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLWgVpmo1e0
At what point in that interview does it become clear to you that he hates women?
I’m taking from it that you haven’t listened to the video, the part where he says that women instinctively want to work in the home?
it’s 56 mins long, where in it does he say that? You know, for context.
Everyone instinctively wants to work in the home, it seems. I know plenty of fellas who want to maintain their WFH status indefinitely.
Lol @ Lilly
That’s if they even want to work at all.
It’s pretty clear from the times of posting that most of the “men” on this couldn’t hold a job even if one was offered to them. Particularly that Tinhat Tosser.
But why does that mean he hates women? I’m a woman & I much prefer being at home. Not every woman does, but it hardly means he hates women, just because he dares to address the specific tendencies that males & females have.
He says that the natural instinct of women is to stay at home. Really? I think most women would say that over history women have been told, or forced, to stay at home.
Sara missing the point and taking offense, what a shocker.
Saying that facts prove that men and women gravitate towards different things isn’t sexist, it’s just uncomfortable for some to hear. It isn’t saying that women shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they want, it just points out that most of them don’t tend to gravitate towards things men typically do.
It’s a bit like village idiot Coveney droning on about a culture of masculinity and lack of diversity in the Irish defence forces as being just as important to change as the lack of planes and ships.
Listen lame brain – armies are killing machines fuelled by testosterone. Front-line soldiers are trained to carry weapons and backpacks the size of Peter Stringer for long distances at the end of which they could well have to stab someone in the throat after some fisticuffs on the cobbles.
By all means put the fairer sex in support roles but stop blathering on about equality amongst squaddies.
It’s like female tennis players asking for the same prize money as the men but only wanting to play three sets because they’d be shagged out in the fourth.
Sheesh.
It seems like it’s very uncomfortable for some less well endowed chaps to be around women who are better than chaps at things that chaps usually do. Silly fool
I’m not sure the first thought when a soldier is engaging with the enemy in a fight to the death is to look at the other feller’s mickey.
Maybe in your world it is.
When you tag team with some kid in Japan engaged in Mortal Kombat ( ” got your back bro – you take the ridge with mortar fire and I’ll go and kill three hundred gooks without reloading ” ) and yer mam’s shouting up the stairs that your tea is ready.
I bet you go to bed in your Crash Bandicoot jim-jams thinking ” you know what, this blood and guts malarkey is not as difficult as they make out. ”
Sweet dreams sweet pea.
You’d have to have a mickey in order for others to be able to peer at it.
The Irish Times publishing pieces about “Cultural Marxism” (an anti-Semitic trope) following JBP waffling about it on the Joe Rogan podcast is an indication of how dangerous this man is.
Peterson, dangerous? Lol. Did reddit tell you ‘cultural marxism’ was antisemitic? I’d like to hear what convoluted reasoning let to that conclusion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html
Yeah, not reading the NYTimes option on anything. They haven’t printed anything truthful in over a decade.
Their Cooking app is very good.
Don’t you eat, you creep?
I don’t think the NYT has an ‘only meat’ section ;)
It has an “only goons” section for the likes of Oro and poor ould divil Mad..
JBP is very dangerous to the SJW’s take over. However it hasn’t worked. Identity politics is now state policy, the public sector & govt is now actively promoting gender discrimination (biased against male) as well as racial discrimination (Garda latest recruitment campaign).
The guy who wrote this is the true bluffer.
I agree with him that most of us have been sold a pup in that we have jobs rather than glittering careers – as per video below – although it could have been directed at the population in general, not just young women.
He is inclined to hector, especially when talking to women, but I find him interesting nonetheless. He means well. I enjoy his intensity, but wouldn’t want to be around it 24/7.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4a8T45GiQ
No if he wont let someone away with blatant lies/falsehoods/waffle he is simply treating them as he would treat a man that does the same. You don’t get to lie to people and expect not to be called out just because you pull the woman card.
Exactly the same as William Cambell on the Here’s How podcast, and they level the same accusations at him.
Who said anything about people lying. In general conversation, his attitude towards women is confrontational, hectoring unlike when he’s speaking to men. Nobody is pulling the ‘woman card’. Pfft.
He isn’t having general conditions with them he’s there to debate not chit chat. And yes you are using the woman card, by saying he’s treating them badly. No, he’s simply not letting them away with as saying things that are untrue and he’s got the academic research to back up his points.
I’m not talking about debate scenarios. He does plenty of interviews to promote his shows. There’s a noticeable difference in his mien on these, depending on whether his host is a man or a woman.
I don’t think anyone who rises through the algorithms is there accidentally. He was involved with UN think tanks before his rise.
‘The Pareto principle!’ – yes, but that’s 80/20 not 99.999/0.001
‘Tidy your room!’ – because you’re going to be spending a lot of time in it bucko.
I wouldn’t disagree that starting with yourself is the best course of action, but then what? He gives scant thought to that. He doesn’t address international finances role in the rise of neo-marxism as a splitting agent.
His whole disappearing ‘redeemer’ arc is highly suspect, he’s very late to the anti tyranny call also. Essentially he’s a gatekeeper, to keep people occupied and arguing with the admittedly batpoop crazy woke types.
I don’t think he’s a Christian, the whole Carl Jung ‘shadow that reaches down to hell’ spiel would be at odds with that but who knows.
I’ve definitely heard him mention God and his the importance of his faith.
He does mention God. There’s something really creepy about the way he looks at his daughter, reminds me of Trump and Ivanka. Petersen’s daughter is milking him for all he’s got. Odd family.
That’s odd, alright – it’s usually the mother/female who lactates.
However, when you’re ignorantly and blissfully unaware of the most fundamental fact of life, that is, God exists – and you exist because he created you – then, all sorts of evil, chaos and disorder fill that void.
Enter Sara.
Well that’s quite a leap isn’t it Sara?
You’ve gone from “I don’t like what his thoughts and words are” to “I think he sexually desires his own daughter”.
Never heard of him.
As soon as I saw that our own Clampers was an afficionado that was all I needed to know
Spoken like a true silly Billy…. I don’t like x because that guy I don’t like likes x
Hah! :)
Is it just his position on trans people that attracts you or do you also dig the whole talking down to women shtick?
You should debate him yourself Anthony.
The winner gets to decide if God exists.
it doesn’t really matter in the end
The truth always matters.
Anto won’t even debate us in the comments. BS should get rid of writers who dump their screed but deem themselves above arguing their points with the readers.
Why? Maybe ‘Anto’ has a life and doesn’t want to debate with anonymous strangers on the internet. His opinion piece is as valid as your response – I’m sure you can submit ‘screed’ to BS if you want to; whether it’s published is something else altogether.