/lit/ - Literature

>>11310977
dude carl jung, also lobster neurology lmao

>>11310977
I don't mind him at all but c'mon this is a literature board.

>>11310977
I did enjoy watching his Lion King video's. Don't care much for his other stuff.

>>11310977
Why would you listen to hours upon hours of some guy you hate?

yeah idk about that but...
if you just focus on maps of meaning core themes and excerpts he has some pretty interesting things to say, albeit unoriginal or at least derivative. His stances on meme topics make more sense if you understand his actual beliefs, which by the way, are not much more than the 'truth is subjectivity' and death of god kind of christian existential themes present in respected philosophers. These existential writers share many of the same worries, namely that there is nothing unreasonable about nihilism. In fact it is reason that leads directly to nihilism. Not puerile cum brain melancholy, but cultural value erosion and atrophy.

Why don't you read Jung, Dosto, and Nietzsche instead?

I'm a huge Jung fan. Read ALL of his bibliography in the last 10 years. Pretty much all of nietzsche's too. And I haven't learned a single thing from watching a few peterson lectures. Pure rehash. Why would you want to hear someone distort primary sources instead of reading them yourself?

He's alright. Watch his maps of meaning videos and you've exhausted everything he has to tell you. Then move on to read about his sources (Jung, Neitzche, Frye) instead of relying on his interpretations.

I watched all of maps of memeing and I'm so tired of his shit, I agree with an anon here, Peterson just repeats Campbell, then he mentions some psychology stats and goes off-topic for the 100th time.

>>11310986
dude lmao look at me dismiss this guys all ideas and appear above them by posting this childish comment lmaoo

you are not intelligent

>>11311014
>Why don't you read Jung, Dosto, and Nietzsche instead?
Because /lit/ told me to start with the Greeks, I can't read them until I'm done.

>>11311032
dude reading mythology from a psychoanalytic pov lmao

>>11311011
this

but he has a pragmatic definition of truth

>>11311014
>>11311032

Jung and Pooperson are literally basedboys to afraid of taking Nietzsche seriously so they retreat into the safety of archaic value systems, I can't take such a lame cop out seriously

>>11310992
*snap*

Yep... this one's going
IN THE FRIENDZONE

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FUCK YOU VERONICA GAMERS RISE UP

>>11311041

>>11311048
>>11311050
Absolute fucking brainlets. You don't deserve philosophy.

>>11311056
>Jordan Peterson SCHOOLS Dumb Feminist Compilation IV
>dude clean ur room b responsible
>jung
>philosophy

You liked him from the first minute you heard about him, probably in the meme interview.

The average person is indeed mediocre.

>>11311069
You don't deserve greentext either, faggot

>>11311069
>because people make sensationalist titles to jordan peterson videos for more views jordan petersons world view and philosophy is invalid

>>11311050
>Neet-she

Wew

>>11311133
>jordan petersons
>philosophy

>>11311133
yeah, there's something off with his worldview if it attracts so many retarded supporters, honestly m8.

I dont support leftist cunt like him

>>11311069
we are at such an extremely low state of civilization that 'clearn ur room b responsible' is basically the most profound thing being offered in mainstream discourse

try watching a couple hours of scientology videos

>>11311201
i know this is bait but

what makes you think they're supporters and not just opportunists trying to make money?
since when was the legitimacy of your ideas based on what kind of people your supporters are? by that logic, you could discredit anyone's ideas.

>>11311008
it's called learning

>>11310986
>he doesn't follow animal hierarchy by murdering people, their kids and taking their wives as your's

>>11310977
dude wipe your ass become a drone lmao

Less than 1 in 10 posters in this thread has actually read Jordan Peterson or watched/listened to enough of his content to form a meaningful opinion about the man.

>>11310977
Just read Jung himself.

>>11311387
seriously, stop taking this boards opinions so seriously. The hivemind here pretty much confirms anything he says about a collective conciousness and ideas having people, or something along those lines.

>>11310977
Nietzsche is an evolutionary Christian, right? Faucult is Derrida, right?

Any room-cleaner / penis-washer care to break down this Peterson take-down piece?
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

>>11310977
>totally, blatantly obvious bait thread
>people still post in it

Wow how many fucking morons are on this board these days?

>>11311503
I don't really have the time for the entire article, but I can go through the introduction, and another anon can pick up if they want.

>If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method.
This first assertion is obviously attempting to imply that he has nothing valuable to say. The main problem is that he is one of (I heard no. 1 at one point, but I am not confident enough to claim that definitely) the most cited clinical psychologists of all time. That is to say, he is objectively one of the top performers and contributers in his field, and has THE MOST to say of anyone within the domain. This reporter is incredibly arrogant, and is not even addressing him fairly.

>First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.”
This is an overly simply claim to make. Broken down, their argument here is essentially "because people readily agree with his logic, it is in no way profound, and therefore in no way productive". You should be able to see how pathetic this is.

>Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly.
This is literally the equivalent of someone posting a brainlet image instead of addressing an argument here. "He talks a lot and is not very smart". It's not especially powerful tbqh.

>Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work.
This point is actually funny. They are critizing him for using technical terms that they do not understand. They are critizing him for having a better vocabulary. If you are going to admit that he has any level of expertise in these various fields (I am not arguing that, only saying that they are arguing it) then should he not be able to comment on them? I get that they are trying to say something along the lines of "he knows the language, but not the field itself", but really? You are not critizing him for not knowing the field; you are critizing him for using language you don't understand.

>Construct elaborate theories with many parts.
You mean like doing legitimate and sophisticated work? Like HAVING something to say?

>Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense.
I get the point here, but I think he was probably trying to point out the most important parts of the work, like a highlighter. I don't see the problem per se.
(1/2)

>>11311011
>that Soren quote
Why did they write so convoluted at that time bros? Or is it the translation? Or is it Soren pulling one of his Hegel ruses again?

>>11312161
>Never say anything too specific,
Not overgeneralizating is a rule that should be learned in your first rhetoric class, not something to be ashamed of.

>and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite.
I've never seen him do this. He is usually quite precise in his speech (I think that is one of the twelve rules, yeah? I haven't read the book, though) but if somebody wants to bring up an actual case where he claimed two opposite arguments I would love to see it.

>Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth.
Nothing wrong with being passionate about the subject matter, either. These people are discovering principals of effective communication at this point and thinking he has cynically taken advantage of them in order to exploit people.

>Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct.
I've seen him disagree with people before, so I am not sure why this is even one of their points. Like "no one can ever disagree with him from his perspective", but it simply is not true.

>Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible.
He is usually the one being interviewed, so he should be doing most of the talking. Even with that, though, you should all recall from that channel four debate he let her speak quite exstensively, and listened quite attentively. This point is not specific enough to be adequately disected, and it is to the shame of the author.

>Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)
Really? No one has ever been vague, adamant about their message, and not recieved media attention? It is not really a garuntee in the most generous sense of the term. The point in parentheses is stupid, too.
(2/2)

>>11311228
>since when was the legitimacy of your ideas based on what kind of people your supporters are?
It isn't an infallible rule but it's usually pretty accurate. I agree with that anon

>>11311503
>Any room-cleaner / penis-washer care to break down this Peterson take-down piece?

Yeah simple. Just look at the basedboy who wrote it.

>>11311628
it is summer these are all high school students with midding iq’s and low attention span, high time preference. Quality has bottomed out since late May and will probably remain in this deep pelagic zone of incessant self-injurious compounding reddit-plus mediocrity until they go back to school in the fall. But, each cycle of the summerfags kills off more oldfags and vigorous contributors so the board will never return to the feeble levels of performance we salvaged in 2018 and late 2017. Not sad, not worth lamenting, just fascinating how crowds, lack of discrimination, and laxity allow institutes and subcultures to rot from the inside

>>11311050
>to
I don't care about the argument enough to refute you, so I'm just going to criticize your spelling.

>>11311050
t. has never read jung

>>11310977
>savior of western civilization
That's literally a meme right there.

I don't think Peterson is bad, just not that great as people make him out to be. Chances are, if he didn't end up in one of those shitty SJW cringe compilations, he would be a nobody and maybe 10 people would actually watch his lectures in their free time.

The only reason he got big is because he got attacked by bunch of retarded faggots and that's it. When you compare literally anyone to those people, everyone will like geniuses.

Though I will say, given his average audience, listening to him is still more beneficial than listening to some retarded britfags like Milo or PJW or someone like Lauren Southern and similar Youtubers.

>>11310977

Dude Nietzsche as understood by a conservative Catholic and extremem common sense things told through parables lmao

>>11311074
This is some next level projection

>>11312161
>>11312204
Well, as you yourself said this is an incomplete analysis, and it has all the worth of one, nilch.
He provides many examples from Peterson's writing later on and brings up stories of his public interactions in media.

>he is one of the most cited clinical psychologists of all time.
"he has been cited more than 10,000 times in academic publications and is one of the 70 most cited researchers in his subfield."
sure, he's up there. Virtually no one contests his work as a psychologist. The problem is the "life guru", "prophet of the times" side of his shtick.
>"because people readily agree with his logic, it is in no way profound, and therefore in no way productive".
A fallacy. You're trying to misdirect. The author didn't make any claim about readership comprehension, he said the content is objectively simple.
>This is literally the equivalent of someone posting a brainlet image
no, it's a legitimate argument. Use of obfuscating language is a real thing. You can cram words into a text without adding meaning.
>This point is actually funny. They are criticizing him for using technical terms that they do not understand.
One way to obfuscate your message is using a bunch of loosy-goosey interdisciplinary jargon. Casually dropping words like "psychosomatic", "neurolinguistic", or, god forbid, the quantum-somethings.
>You mean like doing legitimate and sophisticated work? Like HAVING something to say?
Einstein says sophistication lies in simplicity. "if you can't explain it to a 5 year old..."
>but I think he was probably trying to point out the most important parts of the work
No dude. His diagrams as HILARIOUS. there's some in the article.
>Not overgeneralizating is a rule that should be learned in your first rhetoric class
So it IS rhetoric. You concede he's trying to CONVINCE, not to arrive at some actual truth.
>Nothing wrong with being passionate about the subject matter
No, but it sure does help drive engagement in the audience.
>I've seen him disagree with people before,
Assuming you mean he "agree to disagree". Links, because everything I've seen is him deflecting and dodging criticisms like a fucking ninja

Peterson is alright until he starts talking about postmodernism.

>>11312222
>my secret club

megalomaniac

>>11312880
lol. this is utter fedora material

>>11312340
I might read the whole thing eventually. I agree with him on a lot of things so I find myself generally on his side, but I am not really particularly interested in the whole issue surrounding him, and thus articles like this don't really have a high priority for me. Anyway, I want to address some of your actual rebuttals, and not spend a lot of time on your asinine intro/critique of my comments worth.

>"he has been cited more than 10,000 times in academic publications and is one of the 70 most cited researchers in his subfield."
sure, he's up there. Virtually no one contests his work as a psychologist.
Not true. The piece referenced claimed their problem with him was that he had "nothing to say", buy clearly what he has is of great academic value. That was my point.

>The problem is the "life guru", "prophet of the times" side of his shtick.
I'm not sure exactly what you think a clinical psychologist does, but they help people that don't know how to live. This is why 12rules is at such a basic level: he has met people that cannot function on their own at that capacity, and he has said he wrote it because he did not believe there was any sympathy for these people on the bottom, especially if they were men.

>A fallacy. You're trying to misdirect.
Don't ascripe motives to me. If I made a mistake, then it is a mistake, and I am happy for you to point it out. That being said, I argue for the pursuit of truth, and I in no way intend to mislead from that. I will debate you, buy if you are going to argue in bad faith it isn't going to go anywhere.

>The author didn't make any claim about readership comprehension, he said the content is objectively simple.
The implication was that because it was simple it was this neither profound nor valuable. At least that is what I got out of it, but again if you think I made a mistake feel free to point out how you read it.

>no, it's a legitimate argument. Use of obfuscating language is a real thing. You can cram words into a text without adding meaning.
Calling somebody out on this without providing an example right away is the equivalent of the meme. There might be an example in the text, but even then this claim should not have bee made without something like a "such as x" directly following it. Beyond it being a rather poor argument, it is especially poorly constructed, so as to seem as if it is dishonest, even if it is not.

>>11312186
not at all convoluted.

"if x, y, z, what would life be but despair?"

x, y, and z being typical nihilism. iirc the quote goes on for a good while longer than in the pic

>>11312340
>One way to obfuscate your message is using a bunch of loosy-goosey interdisciplinary jargon. Casually dropping words like "psychosomatic", "neurolinguistic", or, god forbid, the quantum-somethings.
Right, I totally agree with that. But that does not address my point, which was a critique not of what they could have imied, but of their literal message on the subject. That is that people cannot understand the jargon, but they had no regard for if he was using it properly. I would also have a problem if he talked using words he did not understand, but if he chooses these words based on the best fit for what it is he is saying, there is no problem beyond the author's reading comprehension.

>Einstein says sophistication lies in simplicity. "if you can't explain it to a 5 year old..."
"Ellaborate theories" is a description of their sophistication, not of the confusing nature in which he explains them. Either this is a complement to him, saying he does good work, or the author is illiterate.

>No dude. His diagrams as HILARIOUS. there's some in the article.
Admittedly the only diagrams of his I have seen are some from Maps of Meaning, and they looked well thought-out. I will check out the ones given in the article, though. That being said, I don't see why diagrams would start a sensationalist movement like the article claims.

>So it IS rhetoric. You concede he's trying to CONVINCE, not to arrive at some actual truth.
Have you ever taken a rhetoric class? They teach you how to write and formulate arguments, not swim in sophistry. No, I don't concede that, but I will concede that there is rhetoric in what he says, because such is the nature of debate.

>No, but it sure does help drive engagement in the audience.
Right. I see no disagreement. He is a compelling speaker and there is nothing wrong with that, yeah? Or is there an argument I am missing here?

>Assuming you mean he "agree to disagree". Links, because everything I've seen is him deflecting and dodging criticisms like a fucking ninja
I don't have a link but the best I can think of off the top of my head is his debates with Sam Harris, where they both walked away with virtually no agreement. Later he would explain his position and all when talking about it, but he never tried to convince people that Harris was actually agreeing with him or any nonsense like that.

>>11313105
>what you think a clinical psychologist does
A clinical psychologist diagnoses one (1) patient and works with them on their particular problems, employing techniques suitable to them, specifically. This messianic need of Jordan's to cure all of western civilization is... just embarrassing.
That's why when he ~implied~ Peterson has nothing to say, it's fair: He's over-reaching by a very large margin.

The other points, which you picked out separately in your original response, and to which I replied separately as well really should be addressed as a whole unit.
The author is presenting a method. How to appear deep. He's employing a lot of generalizations here, and not addressing Peterson directly. Reading this method as a whole, I felt it made a lot of sense, and the examples he provides later really bring it home.
> There might be an example in the text, but even then this claim should not have bee made without something like a "such as x" directly following it.
Don't tell people how they should write their articles. That's not even critique, that's just petulance.
>>11313148
>but if he chooses these words based on the best fit for what it is he is saying, there is no problem beyond the author's reading comprehension.
Read the article again:
>so that NO ONE person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work.
Having deep knowledge of multiple distinct fields ≠ reading comprehension.
>"Ellaborate theories" is a description of their sophistication
From the tone it's easy to discern he means "overly complicated". IMO, at least.
>such is the nature of debate.
That's the thing. He presents himself as a teacher. as the one who knows things which "have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” (his literal fucking words). But his language reveals he is essentially tricking the unwitting people with clever rhetoric, or charming them, while giving himself plausible deniability against the ones who might call him on his bullshit.
> He is a compelling speaker and there is nothing wrong with that, yeah?
It builds onto the mounting evidence that he is riding this unexpected popularity wave to really rake it in.
> Sam Harris
There's very little ideological difference between them to being with.

>>11310977
I agree, anon. The world has a way of bringing forth the men that are needed, when they are needed the most.
Naturally, not everyone will agree.
But
Fuck 'em.

>>11313229
I disagree with your first point. I think he is trying to help as many people individually as he can, and not "cure all of western civilization", but rather he thinks a large part of it is in danger and he is trying to do his part in the discord. Honest to God I don't see a problem with this at all, and I have not seen him step out of line with this.

Your second point (that it needs to be taken as a whole) is fair. I had picked it apart because he point that the author made was intended directly at him, and I did either (generally) not see the problem or not see the actual fualt of which he was accused. Additionally to that, my main complaint about them lumping all of this together, is that their method of sensationalism would not work. You cannot start a movement that easily, so the introduction really was not well thought-out.

>Don't tell people how they should write their articles. That's not even critique, that's just petulance.
I'm saying it's an extremely poor way to write an argument, because it is. What if I write an article about you, and within the first hundred words I accuse you of running naked through every major city, but it takes me pages until I finally actually give a reference for the incident, or never give it at all? I claim like this needed something to back it, otherwise it is a dishonest way to write.

>but if he chooses these words based on the best fit for what it is he is saying, there is no problem beyond the author's reading comprehension.
>Read the article again:
Their claim was that he uses complicated jargon. My rebuttal is that it should not matter, it should only matter if it is the proper use, which is not addressed.

>Having deep knowledge of multiple distinct fields ≠ reading comprehension.
That's fair, but the author called themselves out for critizing someone they do not even understand, so I don't have much repsect left.

>From the tone it's easy to discern he means "overly complicated". IMO, at least.
It is easy, yes, but they are (presumably) a professional, so you would think they could write precisely.

I simply disagree about the rhetoric thing. My point was that there is rhetoric in every debate, I don't believe he is especially manipulative.

I don't see a problem with "taking in the wave", either; if people wanted to hear what I had to say I would keep speaking.

>There's very little ideological difference between them to being with.
Irrelevant. You asked for a disagreement in which he did not try to make it out like they actually agreed with him.

>>11312887
I will say one of the more offputting elements of Peterson's persona is his insistence on using what I'm sure he perceives to be archetypal language even though he's perfectly capable of articulating his points in the vernacular.

That pic is just a quotation from 12 Rules that he promoted on twitter, though.

>>11313474
>That pic is just a quotation from 12 Rules that he promoted on twitter, though.
lol it doesn't make it any less embarassing that he first wrote it in his book

>>11313433
> I think he is trying to help as many people individually as he can
To help people individually you need individualized care. People's problems are unique. Do you really not see his (borderline) messiah complex?
>that their method of sensationalism would not work.
you're right, it's actually too much work. In this day and age of complete despair and alienation its even easier to start a movement.
> poor way to write an argument, because it is.
Have you read the whole thing at this point? It was a very fluid experience for me, the examples didn't feel delayed or anything like that.
> it should only matter if it is the proper use
Do you actually believe Peterson has any intimate knowledge of neurology, anthropology, economics or anything beyond psychology? I don't. However it doesn't take intimate knowledge to place jargon in a sentence in a believable way.
>so you would think they could write precisely.
Again, kinda petulant. You don't like this guy, I get it.
>there is rhetoric in every debate
My point is that if he were a teacher, he wouldn't be debating so much, but rather lecturing, and the language of a lecture should consist mostly of declarative statements, not of rhetorical devices.
>I don't see a problem with "taking in the wave", either; if people wanted to hear what I had to say I would keep speaking.
Sure. The "marketplace of ideas" defines what has merit, no?

>>11313491
Maybe not but it would be a mis-characterization to frame Peterson as an abject narcissist who went around spouting lofty-sounding maxims just to hear himself talk, and I think that's worth pointing out.
His language may be overblown, but any quote taken completely out of context tends to sound more stupid than it really is.

>>11313500
>Do you really not see his (borderline) messiah complex?
That someone ends up effecting improvement or help in a huge number of people doesn't necessarily give them a complex. I've never seen Peterson say that he is deserving or entitled of his sudden social stardom.

>>11313502
then put it in context and make it sound less dumb

>>11313519
I can't post the entirety of 12 Rules to contextualize one sentence, anon.
And even in that context, the sentence may remain frivolous, but it is exaggerated in its frivolity by being divorced from that context.

>>11313506
>In fact, Peterson is quite open in insisting that he has achieved revelations beyond the comprehension of ordinary persons. The book’s epigraph is comically grandiose (“I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” — Matthew 13:35) and Peterson even includes in the book a letter to his father in which he tries to convey the gravity of his discovery:

>I don’t know, Dad, but I think I have discovered something that no one else has any idea about, and I’m not sure I can do it justice. Its scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensibly in writing….

>>11313526
jesus what a bunch of bullshit, there is simply no way that the whole book is context for that pathetic sentence. the problem is that there is no context in the world that will make that sentence look good and the easy way out of that conundrum is saying "well go read 300 pages of jbp's rambling" cause you know I'm not gonna do that.

>>11313531
>and I’m not sure I can do it justice. Its scope is so broad that I can see only parts of it clearly at one time, and it is exceedingly difficult to set down comprehensibly in writing…
This isn't the language of a narcissist you moron. Peterson may be totally off-base about his having discovered something "that no one else has any idea about" and calling him out for that is appropriate, but that's not the same thing as believing oneself to be Messianic. Rampant hyperbole doesn't accomplish anything, and makes you guilty of just what Peterson's done here ironically enough.

>>11313553
I haven't suggested that you read 12 Rules. The idea that the book can't possibly contain context for that sentence throughout its entirety is arbitrary, you admit yourself you haven't read it so how exactly are you making that judgement?

>>11313500
>To help people individually you need individualized care.
To some capacity, but there are some things, some advice you can give in bulk. I believe that is why he wrote 12 Rules, so that these people could have some help. As far as the Messiah complex issue, I think it has been painted that way far more than it actually is. I have been following him since before he got famous, even with the C-16 stuff, and from then until now it still looks like he is honestly trying to help, and has been demonized by many writers of pieces like that mentioned. I think he believes it is everyone's responsibility to preserve the culture, and he is doing all he can. Call that a Messiah complex if you want but I don't think it is necassarily a bad thing.

>you're right, it's actually too much work. In this day and age of complete despair and alienation its even easier to start a movement.
What I was saying is that the methods of the cheap sensationalist movement they ascripe to Dr. Peterson would not work. Try speaking vaguely and passionately, using a lot of jargon and pretend everyone agrees with you as an experiment. It wont make you popular. Their entire article is based on this premise, and it is entirely asinine.

>Do you actually believe Peterson has any intimate knowledge of neurology, anthropology, economics or anything beyond psychology? I don't. However it doesn't take intimate knowledge to place jargon in a sentence in a believable way.
It does not matter what either of us thinks. It would have mattered what the author thought if their point was that he was inaccurate in his speak, but instead their claim was that his speech is complex. My point was that this is not negative in any way. You know who else uses complex language? Shakespeare. To answer your question, though, practicing psychology requires a functional knowledge in sociology, biology, anthropology, neurology, and even some philosophy, of which I do believe he has the credentials he claims, which is that functioning knowledge. As far as economics, I don't think that is a stretch.

>Again, kinda petulant. You don't like this guy, I get it.
I don't know who it is and I don't care tbqh. My point was that it is poorly written, which leaves the rest of the piece in question. This sort of thing is why people label them "hit pieces" all the time. They are rushed garbage.

>My point is that if he were a teacher, he wouldn't be debating so much, but rather lecturing, and the language of a lecture should consist mostly of declarative statements, not of rhetorical devices.
Forgive me, I think I understand now. I think it is fairly clear he does both teaching and debating, though. I don't see why the two things cannot both be true of an individual; I have taught people things and debated with others. I think most people have. As an academic these two things are the bulk of his career, too.

>Sure. The "marketplace of ideas" defines what has merit, no?
Agreed.

>>11310977
lol. you're a perfect example of his retarded fanatic cult-like following

>>11310977

>>11313570
>I haven't suggested that you read 12 Rules.
not explicitly, but we're not children, it was clear from the
>I can't post the entirety of 12 Rules to contextualize one sentence, anon.
part

the rest is deflection from the basic question I asked: what is the context for the sentence?

>>11312340
>"he has been cited more than 10,000 times in academic publications and is one of the 70 most cited researchers in his subfield."
>sure, he's up there. Virtually no one contests his work as a psychologist. The problem is the "life guru", "prophet of the times" side of his shtick.

Such a stupid argument. It's like a consensus here on /lit/ that humanities degrees don't mean shit, and yet because he doesn't have specific degrees in philosophy or history or whatever, he can't put forth arguments about living a meaningful life? I mean isn't psychology blatantly relevant to this pursuit?

>Einstein says sophistication lies in simplicity. "if you can't explain it to a 5 year old..."

Einstein doesn't speak the gospel, it's a dumb overrated quote. Most subjects cannot be condensed to the level of children without losing essential knowledge.

>>11313577
>practicing psychology requires a functional knowledge in sociology, biology, anthropology, neurology, and even some philosophy, of which I do believe he has the credentials he claims, which is that functioning knowledge. As far as economics, I don't think that is a stretch.
psychology, the vitruvian man of science
for fuck's sake

>>11313591
>not explicitly, but we're not children, it was clear from the
>>I can't post the entirety of 12 Rules to contextualize one sentence, anon.
>part
You're projecting your position onto me. I'm not trying to make you read anything. I haven't read 12 Rules myself and have no interest in doing so, my interest in Peterson's work ends at about the level of Jungian psychoanalysis and my defense of him ends at the level of basic logic.
I can't post the entirety of 12 Rules to provide you with context, which would be necessary for me to do because I myself don't know exactly where the context lies within the text. But it is still arbitrary to assume the context doesn't exist at any given point in the text so I'd logically have to give you the entire text to find it and that's not a possibility.
If I had clear quotations I'd post them to strengthen my defense, but I don't. There's no agenda behind that. Stop viewing everything as a backhanded argument.

>>11313599
I never said you needed to master them. Virtually any practice requires significant knowledge of others, though. In fact, I would challenge you to come up with one that does not.

>>11313597
>Einstein doesn't speak the gospel, it's a dumb overrated quote. Most subjects cannot be condensed to the level of children without losing essential knowledge.
fucking thank you, Einstein was a genius physicist and mathematician, his expertise ends there. Might as well cite Stephen Hawking's rules for training ferrets.

>>11313618
This. This idea goes all the way back to fucking Aristotle, to properly understand any science you need context from other sciences including those of completely different effects.

>>11313618
>In fact, I would challenge you to come up with one that does not.
considering the fact that practitioners of all those other sciences regularly shit on jbp when he starts spouting bullshit about their fields of study, I'm forced to answer - psychology

>>11313628
>considering the fact that practitioners of all those other sciences regularly shit on jbp when he starts spouting bullshit about their fields of study
Post an example.

>>11313614
to summarize, you don't know what the context is but you're sure one exists

>>11313636
www.google.com

>>11313561
Again, the article The article works best as a whole unit. That is only one citation.

>>11313577
> it still looks like he is honestly trying to help
and sell some books, his weird web-therapy, college appearances, etc. And believe me, I wouldn't attack him for leaning into these commercial opportunities if I didn't think he was tailoring his content to maximize engagement from the angry, dejected male demographic of today.
>Try speaking vaguely and passionately, using a lot of jargon and pretend everyone agrees with you as an experiment. It wont make you popular.
Are we living in separate dimensions connected only by this image board? Have you heard of that one donald guy?
>It does not matter what either of us thinks.
So our (as in, the people having this discussion) opinions don't matter. ok.
> I don't think that is a stretch.
And you believe him, while I don't. Ok.
>I think it is fairly clear he does both teaching and debating, though.
no no no. I knew you were going to go there. Yes, he is a lecturer. I've seen his lectures. I'm saying he uses rhetoric when he should be simply explain the truths he has discovered.
>Agreed.
I don't know if you're just doubling down on my sarcasm, but I was being sarcastic.

>>11313597
> humanities degrees don't mean shit
And I'm even inclined to agree. It's not the blanket argument that he is technically unqualified to be talking about those things, its that when he does he reveals just how unqualified he is.

> Most subjects cannot be condensed to the level of children without losing essential knowledge.
On the spectrum from absolute simplicity to incomprehensible complexity, I think the truth lies much closer to the former.

>>11313638
There's no reason to assume one doesn't exist. Apply this equally to any given quote from any given thing, nobody that isn't retarded takes a quote from, say, Plato and says THAT'S DUMB AND THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY TO EXPLAIN IT THAT MAKES IT NOT DUMB. Even the most ridiculous quotes of the Bible or of theoretical physicians can be afforded potential context that clarify the quote, even if they're still stupid within context.
Afford Peterson the same basic treatment you'd give any other author.

>>11313651
>if I didn't think he was tailoring his content to maximize engagement from the angry, dejected male demographic of today.
There isn't an equivalent problem within the female demographic for him to engage with, though. This is like saying "why isn't the doctor treating that healthy asian kid's cancer? It must be because he wants money from cancer-ridden white people!"

>>11313661
so, still no context...
carry on

>>11313671
>There isn't an equivalent problem within the female demographic for him to engage with, though.
Look at how submerged you are in identity politics. There are only "male problems" and "female problems" and black and white, etc etc.
When this illiterate pewdiepie generation starts electing actual, literal, non-crypo fascists, maybe we'll have problems that are common to us all? Do you think?
When the water levels really start going up, then, maybe, we're gonna have "human problems", huh? Maybe?

>>11313661
>>11313691
by the way, you made me find the book, download it, and search for "broken truths"
the context is even worse, he writes down some "deep" questions for himself to answer

>>11313651
>and sell some books, his weird web-therapy, college appearances, etc. And believe me, I wouldn't attack him for leaning into these commercial opportunities if I didn't think he was tailoring his content to maximize engagement from the angry, dejected male demographic of today.
Okay. I don't really see an argument here, though, so I guess we just agree to disagree on this point.

>Are we living in separate dimensions connected only by this image board? Have you heard of that one donald guy?
Maybe. I live in a dimension where President Trump did these things, plus a lot of other stuff, or perhaps got lucky. I live in a dimension full of a lot of passionate, vague people that won't become sensationalized because of it. My point is not that this is not a component, my point is that this is not a formula.

>So our (as in, the people having this discussion) opinions don't matter. ok.
If you want to get cynical, then nobody cares what people on 4chan think. Otherwise my point was that, as stated, the author does not address the accuracy of his claims, and you saying they are inaccurate in no way makes their point stronger.

>And you believe him, while I don't. Ok.
Agree to disagree again then, no?

>no no no. I knew you were going to go there. Yes, he is a lecturer. I've seen his lectures. I'm saying he uses rhetoric when he should be simply explain the truths he has discovered.
Ok. The reason he argues instead of teaching is because people disagree with what he says. If you taught a history class and a student began disagreeing with you, and you honestly wanted to convince them of the truth, it would turn into an argument at some capacity as well.

>I don't know if you're just doubling down on my sarcasm, but I was being sarcastic.
Maybe forgive me for not being cynical enough, but I believe people should be trusted with their own choices, and can choose to value whatever they want.

>>11313696
So we're going to pretend there isn't, for example, a growing suicide rate among men? Of course there are issues that only affect certain demographics, that's objectively certifiable. That isn't to suggest these issues pit demographics against each other, that's a falsification of the Alt-Right and far leftists alike and precisely the kind of junk fallacious criticisms leveled at Peterson himself.

It's pathetic that you try to supplant immediate problems that don't fit your narratives with whataboutism concerning natural processes that we're in no shape to begin addressing, you'd rather virtue signal about muh climate than tackle reality.

>>11313735
>So we're going to pretend there isn't, for example, a growing suicide rate among men?
could one of the factors be the differences in the ways men and women commit suicide, where guns don't afford both the time to reflect (and think "Oh shit this is fucking dumb") or a chance of failing (as in, being found and having your stomach pumped or not drinking enough pills or drinking pills that aren't good for killing yourself etc)

>>11313715
> I don't really see an argument here
"tailoring" his content. adulterating. lying. deceiving.

>Trump did these things, plus a lot of other stuff, or perhaps got lucky. I live in a dimension full of a lot of passionate, vague people that won't become sensationalized because of it. My point is not that this is not a component, my point is that this is not a formula.
This is kinda vague. You'd say its a small component, I say its a huge component. tomato tomato?

> If you taught a history class and a student began disagreeing with you
Nope. no one interrupting. We're talking about the way Peterson communicates in his writing. The way he 'debates' completely unprompted, because if he just said what he meant, it would be evident it's not all that special.

> but I believe people should be trusted with their own choices and can choose to value whatever they want.
Sure. And Rome can be burnt with whatever fuel is at hand, and Nero can play whichever song he chooses.

>>11313735
Suicide isn't an issue in and of itself. It's the symptom of an issue.
The issue, to be bold, is that the wealthy elites left us behind in the 1970's and we're still here hanging on for dear life to the shreds of the republics we were supposed to live in.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wages+productivity&t=ffsb&atb=v84-4&iax=images&ia=images

>>11312207
thank you for your worthless unsubstantiated opinion

>muh postmodernism
does he not recognize that his philosophy itself could be considered postmodern because it is a different take on modernist ideas?

/lit/ is too narcissistic to admit jbp has a point

>>11313813
wow another "astute" comment pointing out how his use of the term "postmodernism" isn't 100% accurate.

check and mate

>>11313818
spell out his point with in a reasonable amount of words, no jargon, no anecdotes, or link to where he does this.

>>11313826
ok? just because other people have said what i've said doesn't render my post irrelevant. Personally, I don't think enough people point out how inaccurate the usage of the term is, and frankly I only see more people using the word as part of the insult / bogeyman lexicon so maybe that awareness should try to be increased

>>11313833
just look at how lazy and entitled you are, you expect someone else to do the work for you instead of finding out for yourself. and no doubt you'd just snidely dismiss them and call me a brainlet.

>>11313846
No. you're lazy. If you claim peniswash has a point, prove it. I've read him, I've watched the lectures, and I've probably typed the most words in this fucking thread.

>>11313858
Since you're that familiar with his ideas I don't think it's necessary. I'm sure you can address them without me trying to paraphrase them here which might lead to inaccuracies.

>>11313873
JP doesn't have anything of value or meaning to add to the conversation on anything at all. The few assertions containing meaningful content he makes at all are all either wrong or truism.
The reason brainlets love him is because he gives the appearance of lending intellectually bankrupt tradcon ideology the veneer of intellectual legitimacy and substance that it in actuality lacks.
He makes Zizek look like an intellectual titan by comparison, something I never thought I would say about anyone.

>>11311387
/Thread

Anything that can be said can be said clearly.
Whatever we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

I don't have time to listen to some old guy digress a million times a minute and complain about young people these days.

>>11311387
this

>>11313909
Lol

>>11310977
>a

>>11311025
Haha pretty accurate! Although I´m still a big fan of his lectures. Especially the personality lectures

>>11311358
>He hasn't evolved past Muslims and apes

>>11313116
Didnt he believe that life is despair though?

>>11313531
What a monumental faglord. How on earth does a reader succumb so easily to that type of authority? I hate it whenever i come across it even on normal (i.e. not a joke) writers

>>11313614
>You're projecting
When will redditors stop abusing that word?