I thought you were familiar enough with JP to know when I'm misrepresenting him? It's in his book. Read it, don't read it, just drop the claim to expertise. — Kenosha Kid

I didn't claim to be an expert on Peterson, I just said I'm very familiar.

I just did. Are you claiming he didn't say: — Kenosha Kid

I don't know the context, who are "these" suburban housewives, I imagine he's talking about a small number of people, perhaps even as small as 3-4, who he actually listened to. Not the entire demographic of suburban housewives across America. I don't know what they actually said, thus, cannot judge it. You can't give me a quote taken out of context, with ambiguous meaning, and demand I accept it as foolproof evidence. This quote seems to be from here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

The same article which states your same misinterpretation of what enforced monogamy is, right?. Great article for demonstrating how bad Peterson is, too bad it's full of crap and written with malicious intent.

You said you could justify your comments about JP being sexist and what do you give me? Misinterpretations, a quote about the reliability of a rape accusation and an out of context quote that means shit all.

The point is that you're exhibiting a pattern of behaviour at losing your shit when a prejudiced person is called out on their prejudice then having to back down when you can't justify yourself. — Kenosha Kid

As I said, nobody forced me to apologise and I did not "have" to back down. Just like you can be totally wrong here and not back down, never apologise, it's always an option, actually, it's what most people do.

I don't know the context, who are "these" suburban housewives, — Judaka

Peterson is commenting on the book "The Feminine Mystique" by Betty Friedman.

I knew this but I really need the context on why Peterson made the various claims about "these housewives". Do you know anything about that?

I assume Paterson's comments refer to the contents of the book - "The Feminine Mystique" - presumably containing accounts of comfortably bored suburban housewives. I haven't read it.

Maybe you should ask Kenosha Kid, who, I agree, takes things out of context and puts his own spin on them:

As for the idea of equality between women and men, JP is not on board:

"it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake." — Kenosha Kid

I don't know the context, who are "these" suburban housewives, I imagine he's talking about a small number of people, perhaps even as small as 3-4, who he actually listened to. — Judaka

He was talking about a survey of university-educated women in the '50s, most of whom espoused that sentiment. JP believes, as counterpunch clearly believes, that these women had no right to complain: men say it is good enough for them, therefore they should too. That is oppression.

This quote seems to be from here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

The same article which states your same misinterpretation of what enforced monogamy is, right? — Judaka

I don't have access to that article. But JP has no qualms with restating his belief that female fertility should be put to use in assuaging male aggression here:

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

The idea that female reproduction should be *for* men, to allow them to avoid responsibility for their actions, is an example of objectification of women.

Deciding my sources and dismissing them out of hand is not something I recognise as legitimate argumentation. Why do you?

You said you could justify your comments about JP being sexist and what do you give me? Misinterpretations, a quote about the reliability of a rape accusation and an out of context quote that means shit all. — Judaka

By his own admission, JP's response to his reaction was immediate, and amounts to gaslighting his own patient. I do not just think he is sexist; he should not have been practising psychology. Dismissing rape victims' claims immediately and out of hand has been a huge problem (not for you, obviously) for a long time.

As I said, I don't expect you to see sexism in any of this. If you are, as you say, familiar with JP's arguments, you'll already have come across his sexism and not observed it. But oppression, objectification, gaslighting, and disbelieving women out of hand are uncontroversially sexist behaviours. You asked me if I can defend my terminology: yes, much better than you, apparently. Can I therefore get you to observe and agree with it? Much harder ask. If we could do that, the world would be a much nicer place.

This might be a blow to your ego, but it's not incumbant upon me to defend my terminology to your standard, especially as your standard might be dual. It is incumbent upon me to defend it to reasonable standards and my own, and by any conventional, uncontroversial standard and my own, JP is evidently overtly sexist, i.e. a non-sexist person could not have said the things he said and meant them. I have no interest in trying to convince a person who believes that women should be satisfied with domestic servitude and no autonomy that they're wrong.

You are the most uncharitable, unreliable narrator, I have come across and I am in the middle of telling you as such. If you think that characterising peoples views in the worst possible way constitutes evidence, then we've found the problem and there's not much else to say. Hysterical and ridiculous, do you actually have more than you're giving me or is this it? Not impressed, this is worse than I imagined.

That article is the source for most of your argument, I don't care if you just read someone else reporting on the article instead, that's where two of your examples came from. The misunderstanding of enforced monogamy as an anthropological term which talks only of an already existing mainly social and cultural enforcement, as some kind of absurd incel idea where we take women and force them to be partnered with men. You were totally wrong about your statements, demonstrably wrong and what is the response? Did you back down, apologise, admit you're wrong - as I did? Nope, you're actually defending yourself! Do you expect me to think you'll back down on anything when you can't even back down on this one issue?

JP is evidently overtly sexist, i.e. a non-sexist person could not have said the things he said and meant them. — Kenosha Kid

How he meant them? What a horrible joke, you mean the hysterical performance of how you interpreted quotes with no context and a clear misunderstanding of what he meant by enforced monogamy? Okay, buddy. The reason I made it clear that nobody forced me to apologise is that I'm not going to have that be the measurement for who is right and who is wrong. You won't admit any weakness, even though, if you admitted you were at least wrong about enforced monogamy, I would not use it to discredit everything else, you just can't do it.

There's reasonable doubt in all of your examples, you did not isolate sexist motivations or meanings, you just asserted them. There is no pattern because you gave only three examples, one of them is just wildly wrong, the others, I can't really say but innocent until proven guilty, is how it works when dealing with such powerful condemnations. Insulting me doesn't help overcome that problem, if he's so bad, then you should be able to easily give me multiple, non-contentious examples. If I asked you for dirt on Trump, you'd be giving me non-contentious, unambiguous racism and sexism and it'd look obvious that you were right. You wouldn't need to all this conjecture in that case.

How he meant them? What a horrible joke, you mean the hysterical performance of how you interpreted quotes with no context and a clear misunderstanding of what he meant by enforced monogamy? — Judaka

I hope that in the sober light of day you reread your post with the word "hysterical" in mind, both in terms of how often you use it, and in terms of the pitch of your post.

I understand exactly his argument for enforced monogamy and misrepresent nothing. That you are okay with his arguments just tells me what kind of person you are. You can scream about it til you're blue in the face; I'm quite satisfied with my conclusions and utterly dissatisfied with yours, and the fevered tone of your posts isn't helping. I will continue to call him what he is, til you vent a spleen if necessary.

Reusing my criticisms of you again? Okay, these three pieces of evidence are what you're sticking with, lmao.

His view of relationships is in terms of utility *for* men, such as his bizarre notions of enforced monogamy to make teenaged boys less likely to shoot up their own school. Don't fancy that socially awkward, aggressive, racist guy in your class? Tough shit, JP says women should arrange themselves to benefit men so that men don't have to control themselves. — Kenosha Kid

Yep, he is saying women should be forced to date socially awkward, aggressive and racist dudes against their will. Peterson, says women should arrange themselves to benefit men so that men don't have to control themselves.

Oh, calling that hysterical is way out of line, my apologies, highly reasonable.

This is you when you're trying: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9506/cosmology-and-determinism

And here's you when you're talking about politics.

Here you're claiming to be very familiar with JP's words so no such out. It is reasonable to assume that you're familiar with the kind of stuff I've mentioned and you defend his patriarchal, non-egalitarian, rape-dismissive, incel-esque views as perfectly fine and not deserving of the label 'sexist'. — Kenosha Kid

He was talking about a survey of university-educated women in the '50s, most of whom espoused that sentiment. JP believes, as counterpunch clearly believes, that these women had no right to complain: men say it is good enough for them, therefore they should too. That is oppression. — Kenosha Kid

Just three pieces of shoddy evidence, you write with such anger and indignation but where's the evidence? When I say it's not good enough, you say that just shows how lousy my character is. Whatever, I did not actually expect that your argument for Peterson's sexism would be this weak but I should have, considering what else I've seen from you. But I'll stop here, we're going in circles, each understands where the other stands.

When I say it's not good enough, you say that just shows how lousy my character is. — Judaka

Actually, yes. I think any decent person would question the morality a guy who says that women in the 50s should just get a hobby and stop whining.

But that's not the real point. Your arrogant and quite stupid assertion is that evidence to justify *my* conclusion has to meet your standard, which, given the above, is a standard that rejects damning evidence. But you're quite wrong about that. It's sufficient to satisfy myself, not some random right-winger with a history of standing by racists til a mod smacks him down. I'm surprised you can't get your head around this. Seems a perfectly simple point.

We don't rate him.

Jordan Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual and a waste of time. Look no further than the fact that he sells millions of books and garners lots of attention. Basic charlatanism. Why people choose Peterson as "their guy" is beyond me, but to each his own.

This article sums it all up rather nicely: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

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. 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.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. 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. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.) —

Or here:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/a-messiah-cum-surrogate-dad-for-gormless-dimwits-on-jordan-b-petersons-12-rules-for-life/

A Messiah-cum-Surrogate-Dad for Gormless Dimwits: On Jordan B. Peterson’s “12 Rules for Life”

Generally, I think Peterson is viewed favourably by philosophers, and unfavourably by left wing ideologues. The left hate him because he's not down with their post modernist, politically correct crusade to subjectivize and undermine what one might term the natural order. Rather, Peterson seeks to identify the evolutionary and cultural mechanisms of the natural order and translate them into social and political life. As a philosopher, I think that's a reasonable approach - relative to a left wing crusade to nowhere.

Peterson follows a long tradition of psychological and psychiatric support and defence of the status quo in its most authoritarian and controlling aspects. @Kenosha Kid has given chapter and verse on that, and I will simply locate his position in the context of the history of the discipline as the inheritor of the general line that complaint about social inequality is madness. The fascist left notoriously uses mental institutions as political prisons, but the 'democratic' version is no better.

I hope that in the sober light of day you reread your post with the word "hysterical" in mind, both in terms of how often you use it, and in terms of the pitch of your post. — Kenosha Kid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria

Yes, you read aright, the cure of last resort for hysteria was hysterectomy.

What had been drapetomania became depression. ... Modern man runs away from a life that seems to him a kind of slavery.
Thomas Szasz, "The Sane Slave: Social Control and Legal Psychiatry," American Criminal Law Review, vol. 10 (1971), p. 346 — wiki

I could go on, but I already have elsewhere, and simply wanted to put this discussion in the context of the political history of psychology and psychiatry. Madness is necessarily social, and necessarily delegitimising.

Madness is necessarily social, and necessarily delegitimising. — unenlightened

Yeah right. Because the 34 murders, including 8 children and 266+ of suicides in just one year* directly linked with schizophrenia, even with a strong psychiatric profession, were just them expressing their legitimate difference of opinion about who was and was not a demon/devil/whatever. How repressive of us to try and convince them otherwise.

* Royal College of Psychiatrists, and National Schizophrenia Fellowship figures concurrent in two separate reports.

:rofl:

Or maybe you're just a right-wing nut job? Hmm...

Peterson came to public attention because he refused to use politically correct gender pronouns; and I think that is key to understanding who he is, and why he's so popular. He refused to be bullied by political correctness extremists.

Remember the Cathy Newman interview on Channel 4. I have no wish to demonise Cathy Newman, but in typical news media style, it was a gotcha interview, wherein Peterson was bombarded with gotcha questions, and he refused to be intimidated and answered those questions. I think they got into it over the supposed gender pay gap.

Then, far lefty keyboard warriors like Kenosha Kid - take those examples out of context and claim this typifies Peterson's message, but it doesn't. This quote:

"...it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake."

....is so endlessly reproduced out of context by craven left wing bullies citing other craven left wing bullies, the original context doesn't appear in a google search.

Forced monogamy is not something Peterson advocates as government policy. Rather he identifies it as the response of nature and civilisation to the monopolization of sexual opportunity by alpha males, and a violent competition for hierarchy. It's nothing that Claude Levi Strauss hasn't said in discussing the kinship relations of hunter gather societies. This is from Peterson himself:

"My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure as (let’s say) hinted at in Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.

It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name)."

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

The problem with politically correct lefty keyboard warriors; apart from their overwhelming ignorance, is their overwhelming ignorance of the implications for society - of their supposed moral goods.

The problem with politically correct lefty keyboard warriors; apart from their overwhelming ignorance — counterpunch

This is such a fascinating approach. Are you at all aware of alternative (equally scientific) positions to the ones you espouse, or do you genuinely live in a world where the (first?) scientist you read on a subject must automatically be right and everyone who disagrees is ideologically deluded. I don't know if it's just a really good act, but if so, well done. You really do come across as actually believing this bizarre world-view.

That's a very shallow cover for an ad hominem attack. I have read some evolutionary psychology - but not particularly with regard to gender or male female relationships. My concern was political theory - hierarchy and social morality, evident among chimpanzees - from Jane Goodall, into human society through structuralists like Levi Strauss, unto political theorists like Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, John Rawl's and so on.

I haven't read everything, but I have read extensively. It's always open to you to cite your hypothetical:

alternative (equally scientific) positions — Isaac

or, drop the act and just call me names!

The problem with politically correct lefty keyboard warriors; apart from their overwhelming ignorance, is their overwhelming ignorance of the implications for society - of their supposed moral goods. — counterpunch

Unexpected conclusion. It's pretty clear you started that whingefest with me misrepresenting JP entirely. Then it ended with me apparently representing him correctly and just being wrong for disagreeing. If you'd written any more, you might have ended up reprimanding me for not being sufficiently opposed to his misogynistic bullshit, who knows.

it ended with me apparently representing him correctly and just being wrong for disagreeing. — Kenosha Kid

Is that what you got from that? No. I should clarify. I'm saying that left wing politically correct positions are adopted for the purposes of causing disruption; and if you think they're moral goods - you're ignorant and delusional, and engaged in some kind of proselytizing post rationalisation.

That's a very shallow cover for an ad hominem attack. — counterpunch

It wasn't covered at all.

I haven't read everything, but I have read extensively. It's always open to you to cite your hypothetical:

alternative (equally scientific) positions — counterpunch

So the former then. You really don't think there's even so much as an active debate among scientists about the positions you espouse as 'scientific'.

You really don't think there's even so much as an active debate among scientists about the positions you espouse as 'scientific'. — Isaac

Could you be more specific? There are debates, about all sorts of things, but increasingly, the social sciences are being politicised by the left. The degree to which 'the humanities' are politicised was demonstrated by the Lindsay Sheppard affair - in which a faculty panel destroyed a teaching assistant for showing a lecture by Peterson.

Fortunately, she recorded the inquisition to which she was subjected - and one has to wonder, in that kind of stultifying atmosphere, what real science is possible? Just as the left have no respect for freedom of speech, they have no respect for freedom of thought, or conscience, or scientific objectivity. So please, be specific.

I'm saying that left wing politically correct positions are adopted for the purposes of causing disruption — counterpunch

Ah. Yeah, I didn't get that at all from what you smoked, I mean wrote.

Yeah right. Because the 34 murders, including 8 children and 266+ of suicides in just one year* directly linked with schizophrenia, even with a strong psychiatric profession, were just them expressing their legitimate difference of opinion about who was and was not a demon/devil/whatever. How repressive of us to try and convince them otherwise. — Isaac

I'm not sure what your actual disagreement is. Is the argument that if I am critical of psychiatry, I must be in favour of murder and suicide? Cool! Really strong demonstration of the authoritarian response. I criticise psychiatry, I must be insane! Nice one Cyril! It used to be called "lack of insight|" but it probably has other names these days.

Is the argument that if I am critical of psychiatry, I must be in favour of murder and suicide? — unenlightened

Yes, that's basically it. If you see madness as

necessarily social, and necessarily delegitimising. — unenlightened

...then you get an increase in murder and suicide.

If, however, you see some mental health diagnoses as a cover-up for a society's poor treatment of its citizens... then, you'd have a valid point to discuss.

Peterson came to public attention because he refused to use politically correct gender pronouns; and I think that is key to understanding who he is, and why he's so popular. — counterpunch

Exactly. He's great at exploiting "outrage" manufactured by the media (mainly conservative media, in this case: Fox News, Breitbart, NY Post, talk radio, etc). Gives the right an "intellectual," like other talking-heads but with the distinction of being professorial, more nuanced (by his followers' standards), and with the extra credit of being from the very fields which those of a conservative political persuasion have come to largely dismiss or reject: academia and science (in this case, psychology).

Pretty easy to figure out, if one takes 30 seconds to step outside their media-created prejudices.

Exactly. He's great at exploiting "outrage" manufactured by the media — Xtrix

I agree.

mainly conservative media — Xtrix

I disagree. It's lefty media who are outraged by him. See Cathy Newman.

Gives the right an "intellectual" — Xtrix

I disagree again. I don't believe Peterson set out to be a spokesman for the right. I think he set out to be a psychologist - and got drawn into the left's culture war. It's because the left's positions are scientifically incoherent, that Peterson is cast as right wing. Sure, he plays the game for his own benefit, and he makes a lot of money.

conservative political persuasion have come to largely dismiss or reject: academia and science — Xtrix

Again, no - I don't think so. Since the sixties there's been a "hippy vibe" - for want of a better term, in science and academia, pitched against the establishment viewpoint. The left wing used this as a platform to launch a culture war; a movement that has philosophically rejected the scientific fundamentals. Peterson's psychology is grounded in science, and draws conclusions without deference to the hippy vibe. He's beloved of the right because he's a good scientist - whereas, the left are not.

Is the argument that if I am critical of psychiatry, I must be in favour of murder and suicide?
— unenlightened

Yes, that's basically it. If you see madness as

necessarily social, and necessarily delegitimising.
— unenlightened

...then you get an increase in murder and suicide. — Isaac

If you were interested, you might wonder what I mean by 'social' and 'delegitimising'. But as it is, I am suitably flattered that you consider my views as so very puissant.

mainly conservative media
— Xtrix

I disagree. It's lefty media who are outraged by him. See Cathy Newman. — counterpunch

This is predictable. Try to get beyond this thinking of "left" and "right." That's reducing things to the level of sports teams.

The right are programmed to be outraged by things like gender pronouns, unisex bathrooms, and whatever else is played up by their media. The same boring narratives: liberals are against free speech, especially in universities, political correctness is destroying the country, etc. That's just as much manufactured as the left. Jordan Peterson sees these manufactured controversies, and rather than analyzing them rationally, decides to exploit it to sell books and garner attention. Which clearly works, given that you and others are forcing it upon the rest of us, as if he's serious enough to be worthwhile. I'm not wasting another word on this man.

This is predictable. Try to get beyond this thinking of "left" and "right." That's reducing things to the level of sports teams. — Xtrix

A polarised political landscape is not my doing, nor subject to my choice. I disagree with the PC line for whatever reason - statistics, developmental psychology, and I'm automatically branded a right wing hate monster. I'm not, but nor am I a craven, left wing, white guilt ridden sap - willing to have my opinions dictated to me. I think Peterson is much the same; only better at exploiting it.