Dr. Peterson

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

A critique? Well, this one, written by a different layperson than I, does a pretty good job of laying out what's wrong with Peterson's ideologies. It's simple, with a few grammatical errors, but it works.

It's particularly interesting how he thinks feminism has taken over the western world - to his dismay - when just last year Trump was elected POTUS.

Feminism is just waking up again.

Now I want to read some Foucault and figure out what he and Chomsky both have such an issue with - maybe I should take a course before Peterson makes such courses obsolete. At least Chomsky is not out there lobbying to do away with courses that teach post modernism.

Chomsky is certainly not turning to Monsanto to grow an antidiversity ideology.

Jordan Peterson - RationalWiki
 
Last edited:
Feminism ... a despised thing by the powers that do not accept MOG ... until wrestling with Ide in the dark ... Jacobean myth ... or just a wagging tale ...

Always recall that command: respect the mother & father ... don't worship them they failed at intelligence and wisdom for an instant too ... when the seminal state of information spread escapes control ... thus the plant ... vegetating for a bit? Sprouts later as we Ide ... homunculus ... lodged between the ears in that sleepy vale ...?

Tis a dark's pot as a cracked kettle of ithchii ... fishing as Jae Zus .. if you could see the troll duck! May only appear fetching ... darkly knot as a mark in the Mayan Strings ... blind weaving?

Pan Ties? Perhaps but having some clues before entering there ... might assist mental release without implications ... a sign from love-God .. relaxation theory after the stress of real life? In virtue tis depressing ... the pits until you get over being in nuit ... that's night or a dark time ... Passover?

When the reaper comes by for a break ... where due thoughts go ... and why night sweats ... heart floss ? Time floes ... like an enchanted whine ... unchained sync in?

None saw the po' ET fall that's just like the"M" ... Millennials mindless Ness? That which is unseen due to abstract nature ... tis black as the hubs of EL's Ide ... primal swamping of the sol ... psychic boggins ... all in the bag called Dural ... the contents being numbed by what isn't seen ... brae in b' luster ... lush is ... or that precious image ...

Aw hole host fights it ... paradigm etic? Atti cuss ...
 
Last edited:
From your Jordan Peterson - RationalWiki

There appears to be a fairly accurate statement to start it off ...
Jordan Bernt Peterson (1962–) is a clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. He is the author or coauthor of more than 90 peer-reviewed articles[note 1] on clinical psychology, social psychology and personality theory.

and the rest is garbage trigger words ....
But let us look at this ...
  • Peterson rose to popularity largely due to his public opposition to the Canadian government's Bill C-16,[note 5][68][69][70] which sparked a controversy that earned him significant media coverage.

Here is Jordan's response around that controversy ...

If you are willing to listen to it in it's entirety and comment after that ...
I look forward to discussing it further.


Don't let this trigger you ...
  • "I have some very radical suggestions which I am not putting forth lightly. I think that is time for public school students and their parents to actively rebel against the indoctrination that is being offered in the guise of education. "
He goes on ...
  • "Before such a recommendation can be reasonably offered or considered by it's recipients some careful review of recent events is in order."
  • "Please bear with me while I walk through that process."
  • "It is important to get these things right and not to rush."
 
I'm going to a panel discussion tonight at Convocation Hall at the University of Toronto. Jordan Peterson is one of the speakers. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

Thanks for the heads up ...

  • Is there Meaning to Life? Join us as we hear a provocative discussion between three scholars as they offer their insights into this timeless question. (Part of the ongoing Religion and Society Series — previously featuring speakers such as Dr. Lawrence Krauss, Dr. Alister McGrath, and Dr. Michael Shermer).
  • On Friday, January 26th at 7:30pm, at Convocation Hall we welcome philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig, psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson, and philosopher and author Dr. Rebecca Newberger Goldstein for what will be an exciting two hours of dialogue moderated by journalist Karen Stiller.

If you are unable to attend in person, you can watch it live or after the fact here: youtube.com/watch?v=pDDQOCXBrAw
 
na·ive
nīˈēv/
adjective
adjective: naive; comparative adjective: naiver; superlative adjective: naivest; adjective: naïve; comparative adjective: naïver; superlative adjective: naïvest
  1. (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
    "the rather naive young man had been totally misled"
    • (of a person) natural and unaffected; innocent.
      "Andy had a sweet, naive look when he smiled"
      synonyms: innocent, unsophisticated, artless, ingenuous, inexperienced, guileless, unworldly, trusting; More
      gullible, credulous, immature, callow, raw, green, wide-eyed;
      informalwet behind the ears, born yesterday
      "don't be fooled by his naive manner of speaking"
      antonyms: worldly
    • of or denoting art produced in a straightforward style that deliberately rejects sophisticated artistic techniques and has a bold directness resembling a child's work, typically in bright colors with little or no perspective.
With the suffix 'ete' a franc term for being ... can you conjure up a personality lacking experience? There it bee's at it goes ... and those stuck in presence didn't see it coming ... and thus it isn't (an incarnate attribute as attached to the aforesaid word)!
 
na·ive
nīˈēv/
adjective
adjective: naive; comparative adjective: naiver; superlative adjective: naivest; adjective: naïve; comparative adjective: naïver; superlative adjective: naïvest
  1. (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
    "the rather naive young man had been totally misled"
    • (of a person) natural and unaffected; innocent.
      "Andy had a sweet, naive look when he smiled"
      synonyms: innocent, unsophisticated, artless, ingenuous, inexperienced, guileless, unworldly, trusting; More
      gullible, credulous, immature, callow, raw, green, wide-eyed;
      informalwet behind the ears, born yesterday
      "don't be fooled by his naive manner of speaking"
      antonyms: worldly
    • of or denoting art produced in a straightforward style that deliberately rejects sophisticated artistic techniques and has a bold directness resembling a child's work, typically in bright colors with little or no perspective.
With the suffix 'ete' a franc term for being ... can you conjure up a personality lacking experience? There it bee's at it goes ... and those stuck in presence didn't see it coming ... and thus it isn't (an incarnate attribute as attached to the aforesaid word)!
I will watch the presentation later. I'm also interested in what the other speakers have to say. I've heard all of Peterson's main talking points, so far. Though he does seem to think that he's the top expert on everything under the sun - and his avid followers seem to think that of him. He's a psychologist.

Before I examine what he has to say and critically think about the merit of his arguments - I do have to wonder why he took his anti diversity initiative to Monsanto. What's his MO? Anyone else wondering that before giving his arguments consideration? I mean, it's one of the biggest, wealthiest corporations in the world - with a monopoly on what we all need - food. Anybody else get a pernicious vibe from that? Or should we just not care and listen to his points regardless?

In my opinion - naïveté has something to do with it. Along the lines of the article title "Is Jordan Peterson a stupid man's smart person?" - what he says sounds right - if you don't know what he's talking about. I don't know about everything he's talking about and if I don't have an automatic fact checker - it sounds smart. And if he gets around to making a point people 'want' to hear, he's won their support. So...he plants the seed of his anti-diversity idea at Monsanto. To rural farmers who are probably among the most naive about the academic environment he comes from and to the sources he argues from. I wouldn't say they are stupid. Farmers are vital. But, someone recently said to me that all of us "white" Canadians are only a couple of generations or three away from the farm. Baby boomers are about 2 generations removed. It's not a big leap to trigger racist, patriarchal sentiment there. That was the strategy with Trump - it's the strategy of politicians - to win over the heartland folks - even if it's bulls**t. And even more than the threat from Monsanto - as long as it puts bread on their table - they feel threatened by diversity, by changing of their traditional ways, by foreigners. I think that is why Peterson took his argument there. And I am suspicious of that action all by itself. Rather than encouraging embracing diversity, he's giving them permission to stay stuck in prejudice.
 
Last edited:
I will watch the presentation later. I'm also interested in what the other speakers have to say.
I watched it live ... well worth the time.
I've heard all of Peterson's main talking points, so far. (Though he does seem to think that he's the top expert on everything under the sun - and his avid followers seem to think that of him.) He's a psychologist.
Amazing ... 40 years of his work ... covered in three days. I agree he is a psychologist.
Before I examine what he has to say and critically think about the merit of his arguments - I do have to wonder why he took his anti diversity initiative to Monsanto. What's his MO? Anyone else wondering that before giving his arguments consideration? I mean, it's one of the biggest, wealthiest corporations in the world - with a monopoly on what we all need - food. Anybody else get a pernicious vibe from that? Or should we just not care and listen to his points regardless?
Try this link:
Jordan B Peterson on Twitter

In my opinion - naïveté has something to do with it. Along the lines of the article title "Is Jordan Peterson a stupid man's smart person?"...written by Tabatha Southey
About that Author
(from her book reviewers)
  • She is smart, funny and very beautiful.
  • She has the prettiest eyes.
  • She describes her hair as iconic. - That's how men think of her breasts.
  • She is also a gifted writer.
  • She has a lovely laugh and has been nominated for ten National Magazine Awards.
  • She is also an excellent cook, terrific in bed and weary of self-deprecating chick writers.
  • Tabatha Southey is possessed of the wisdom of the ages.
  • She understands the psychological struggles of shadowy Russian pee traffickers.
  • She recognizes the PR benefits of puppy-throwing.
  • She has deeply considered the moral quandaries presented by sea-slug penises.
  • She even knows her own bra size (really, please stop asking).
  • Southey has covered the most pressing topics of our times, from the struggles of having an unusually handsome prime minister to the impending dystopic future faced by the Trump United States and Casino Resort.
As for the rest of "your post" ... mindless meandering?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will watch the presentation later. I'm also interested in what the other speakers have to say.
I watched it live ... well worth the time.
I've heard all of Peterson's main talking points, so far. (Though he does seem to think that he's the top expert on everything under the sun - and his avid followers seem to think that of him.) He's a psychologist.
Amazing ... 40 years of his work ... covered in three days. I agree he is a psychologist.
Before I examine what he has to say and critically think about the merit of his arguments - I do have to wonder why he took his anti diversity initiative to Monsanto. What's his MO? Anyone else wondering that before giving his arguments consideration? I mean, it's one of the biggest, wealthiest corporations in the world - with a monopoly on what we all need - food. Anybody else get a pernicious vibe from that? Or should we just not care and listen to his points regardless?
Try this link:
Jordan B Peterson on Twitter

In my opinion - naïveté has something to do with it. Along the lines of the article title "Is Jordan Peterson a stupid man's smart person?"...written by Tabatha Southey
About that Author
(from her book reviewers)
  • She is smart, funny and very beautiful.
  • She has the prettiest eyes.
  • She describes her hair as iconic. - That's how men think of her breasts.
  • She is also a gifted writer.
  • She has a lovely laugh and has been nominated for ten National Magazine Awards.
  • She is also an excellent cook, terrific in bed and weary of self-deprecating chick writers.
  • Tabatha Southey is possessed of the wisdom of the ages.
  • She understands the psychological struggles of shadowy Russian pee traffickers.
  • She recognizes the PR benefits of puppy-throwing.
  • She has deeply considered the moral quandaries presented by sea-slug penises.
  • She even knows her own bra size (really, please stop asking).
  • Southey has covered the most pressing topics of our times, from the struggles of having an unusually handsome prime minister to the impending dystopic future faced by the Trump United States and Casino Resort.
As for the rest of "your post" ... mindless meandering?
Are some of these "book reviewers" twitter trolls and/ or alt-right and/ or Peterson devotees, by chance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jae
I will watch the presentation later. I'm also interested in what the other speakers have to say.
I watched it live ... well worth the time.
I've heard all of Peterson's main talking points, so far. (Though he does seem to think that he's the top expert on everything under the sun - and his avid followers seem to think that of him.) He's a psychologist.
Amazing ... 40 years of his work ... covered in three days. I agree he is a psychologist.
Before I examine what he has to say and critically think about the merit of his arguments - I do have to wonder why he took his anti diversity initiative to Monsanto. What's his MO? Anyone else wondering that before giving his arguments consideration? I mean, it's one of the biggest, wealthiest corporations in the world - with a monopoly on what we all need - food. Anybody else get a pernicious vibe from that? Or should we just not care and listen to his points regardless?
Try this link:
Jordan B Peterson on Twitter

In my opinion - naïveté has something to do with it. Along the lines of the article title "Is Jordan Peterson a stupid man's smart person?"...written by Tabatha Southey
About that Author
(from her book reviewers)
  • She is smart, funny and very beautiful.
  • She has the prettiest eyes.
  • She describes her hair as iconic. - That's how men think of her breasts.
  • She is also a gifted writer.
  • She has a lovely laugh and has been nominated for ten National Magazine Awards.
  • She is also an excellent cook, terrific in bed and weary of self-deprecating chick writers.
  • Tabatha Southey is possessed of the wisdom of the ages.
  • She understands the psychological struggles of shadowy Russian pee traffickers.
  • She recognizes the PR benefits of puppy-throwing.
  • She has deeply considered the moral quandaries presented by sea-slug penises.
  • She even knows her own bra size (really, please stop asking).
  • Southey has covered the most pressing topics of our times, from the struggles of having an unusually handsome prime minister to the impending dystopic future faced by the Trump United States and Casino Resort.
As for the rest of "your post" ... mindless meandering?

Nope. Not mindless meandering. I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask, and examine critically, why he was talking at a Monsanto farmers convention.

Speaking of meandering...taking the long view...How do you leap from "money is the root of all evil", to Alex Jones, to Peterson, to being okay with him partnering with Monsanto to push an agenda? You are unique, indeed.
 
Last edited:
As monk said, it was indeed well worth the time. I enjoyed being there for it. Three speakers who approached the issue of the meaning of life from three very different perspectives.

Usually when I attend something like this I walk away with one quote stuck in my head to ruminate on in the days to come. Tonight's was indeed from Peterson: "being is suffering tinged with malevolence." Not a happy thought, but one that did stick with me and needs further thought.
 
Oh, I looked at that twitter link. Mostly empty praise and trust for whatever the man does...some skepticism about Monsanto. I don't think anyone suggested that he's counting on reviving the not too long buried bigotry of white rural folks to spread an anti diversity agenda. That's why I think he did it. That's what Trump did...and that's what authoritarians like to do...appeal to xenophobia... he wouldn't call it bigotry, or a pernicious (or malevolent) power play. He'd probably say "even lobsters have a hierarchy".
 
Last edited:
I'm half way through the second speaker, Dr. Newberger Goldstein, and find her interesting. Dr. Craig was interesting, too. He has a more charismatic speaking personality than Goldstein - yet, she has interesting points to make, too. However, I am feeling sleepy, it's 1 a.m., so I am going to pause until tomorrow so I can concentrate. (Just wanted monk to know I am watching the presentation. I was not in a place where I would be able to hear it, when it was live. I was at work during the first 1/2 hr anyway.)
 
If that's his take, "Life is suffering tinged with malevolence"...it sounds like a good reason to be cautious of his motives. He sounds like the Marquis de Sade.
Kimmio - I didn't say that was "his take." It was a 2 hour program. He said a great deal more than that. I said that I try to take one quote away from events like this to ruminate on. That was what I chose. Please don't put words in my mouth, as if I said that was all he had to say or was the summary of everything he said. That's not fair to either him or me.

As for Dr. Newberger Goldstein, she seemed nervous (acknowledged her discomfort right off the top actually) but was making some good points until close to the end when Dr. Craig left her virtually speechless and fumbling on the Euthypro Dilemma. She didn't seem to know how to respond to him.

Dr. Peterson was engaging. Certainly not the monster some people make him out to be. I understand it might be his style but I thought he tried to be a bit too "folksy" by leaving the lectern and walking around the stage. He kind of reminded me of a TV preacher that way. Plus he had his notes in the lectern and he kept going back to glance at them, but when he was away from his notes he did appear (every now and then) to lose his focus a bit. (That's also a danger for preachers who spend lots of time out of the pulpit away from their notes or who preach without notes, as much as that's the "in" thing for a lot of preachers now.)

I'll concede that it's possibly because I was most in sympathy with his perspective (essentially a defence of theism and the idea that theism is the only way to provide objective morality and true meaning to existence) but I thought Dr. Craig was the most eloquent of the three speakers.

It intrigued me that in what was supposed to be the three way discussion, it seemed primarily a discussion between Dr. Craig and Dr. Newberger Goldstein, with Dr. Peterson sitting rather quietly.

One note - I was sitting in the balcony in a section that seemed to have a lot of fans of Dr. Peterson - young enough that I suspect they might be his students. They are a rather fanatical-seeming bunch, certainly quite devoted to Peterson. You could tell by the polite applause (or sometimes no applause) they gave to the other two speakers but the rabid loud applause Peterson got from them - leaning forward, hands pounding together, sometimes "yeah, yeah" under their breath.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the human psyche!

If is something much larger than isolated singularities can gather from (at least alone) as some socialization is required.

Socialization in capitalism, communism and national socialism appears to be an attribute that raises some xenon in the diaphragm muscles and thus phrenic response ... as omi Gah, or Erica, or Halle a Loo yah ... that caved in sensation when pan 'd out as flat bread or escrowed as something else ...

Then in monoculture ... anything else has to go ... that individual mind set of a sole that is intent on avarice?

As this is compound as Sophists ... I cannot speak straight out about it to support pounding out evolving diversities to replace singularities of corrupt powers that go against divine diversity ... God's darker side likes it ... even thou strong men as noble brutes de*nigrate Ide ... wile neigh Gar is a Shadow in the mental pool that some miss!

Those Gars have teeth like Muskies! Creatures of the deep ... adept as appearing as nothing at the bottom ...

Sort of like basal psychology ... as many experts believe the psyche is non existent until faced like the little-big man theory ... and OBI .. when thinking goes ad rift ... a ripper loose in de state of mind called heaven ... open de windows .. it is not a pleasant smell what comes from the pews of success against the next person ... eschatological point of differing nature from the collective sense!

When descending to the darkness of the human core .. it is really brutal as we are afraid to give up the anima portion as a power one step below that sinking feeling ... autistic ally approaching ... autonomy? Thus the don't know part ... the state we appear to be stuck in by some overwhelming confining powers ... to escape life is fearful? What if there's nothing? Oh yes the stern people say that God is nothing ... and thus that experience at the crisis point of relating to an alternate personality you get intimate with in fractal terms ... it won't last due to the fickle nature of god as everything ... and then at appoint there's nothing ...

My grandfather spoke of that sensation ... about when all intelligence goes on an ironic holiday ... ah ole in the mettle? Some traditions say middle or mid-St. as the essence is buried inside the bode ... but we can't bide with that concept! Too timely for the particular temple lobe ... tis timeless as the shadow of Ness ... a kind of niveau state ... levelings as the water flows ... depends on your thirst for a place to put something alternate than nothing ... salient 's tuff ... but don't stop the cull ...

We'll find substitution in d'jinns ... even if it kills us ...
 
Kimmio - I didn't say that was "his take." It was a 2 hour program. He said a great deal more than that. I said that I try to take one quote away from events like this to ruminate on. That was what I chose. Please don't put words in my mouth, as if I said that was all he had to say or was the summary of everything he said. That's not fair to either him or me.

As for Dr. Newberger Goldstein, she seemed nervous (acknowledged her discomfort right off the top actually) but was making some good points until close to the end when Dr. Craig left her virtually speechless and fumbling on the Euthypro Dilemma. She didn't seem to know how to respond to him.

Dr. Peterson was engaging. Certainly not the monster some people make him out to be. I understand it might be his style but I thought he tried to be a bit too "folksy" by leaving the lectern and walking around the stage. He kind of reminded me of a TV preacher that way. Plus he had his notes in the lectern and he kept going back to glance at them, but when he was away from his notes he did appear (every now and then) to lose his focus a bit. (That's also a danger for preachers who spend lots of time out of the pulpit away from their notes or who preach without notes, as much as that's the "in" thing for a lot of preachers now.)

I'll concede that it's possibly because I was most in sympathy with his perspective (essentially a defence of theism and the idea that theism is the only way to provide objective morality and true meaning to existence) but I thought Dr. Craig was the most eloquent of the three speakers.

It intrigued me that in what was supposed to be the three way discussion, it seemed primarily a discussion between Dr. Craig and Dr. Newberger Goldstein, with Dr. Peterson sitting rather quietly.

One note - I was sitting in the balcony is a section that seemed to have a lot of fans of Dr. Peterson - young enough that I suspect they might be his students. They are a rather fanatical-seeming bunch, certainly quite devoted to Peterson. You could tell by the polite applause (or sometimes no applause) they gave to the other two speakers but the rabid loud applause Peterson got - leaning forward, hands pounding together, sometimes "yeah, yeah" under their breath.

Words in the mouth but sect rule ... isn't that what stern cults are about? Religiously speaking from a prepared text ... and we don't know who cooked it up ! Well almost don't know as a closeted ideal ... as few do a deep etude on the roots ... its passed on ... hysterically ... joies of Passover under the rafters ... a lode of satyrs ... mortified as androgynous morphs .. some flex required ... thus the flo' ve intelligence ... in a instant of critical unawareness of passing information of seminal spirit.

After the elicitation the relaxation syndrome ... assists getting rid of ankh ... if you allow it to spread to bode, sole and spirit of psyche ... chez out there ... an alternate nothing as denied in critical Fitz ... once called cathexis ... a mortal place for Muse in ...


Go for the ad libre ... cantos?
 
Back
Top