Current Events > Jordan Peterson on JRE right now!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Come join the party!
---

Is he going to admit that he's a theist without 10 minutes of post modernist sophistry and word salad?
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Is he going to admit that he's a theist without 10 minutes of post modernist sophistry and word salad?

When did you start up the Spanish Inquisition again?
---

Why is that snake oil salesman still given attention
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Is he going to admit that he's a theist without 10 minutes of post modernist sophistry and word salad?

He openly admits he's a theist, he also makes sure to note that his idea of god and belief may be different than yours. But apparently some people are resistant to critical thought so they attack him for that, which is weird to me.
---

LethalAffinity posted...

Why is that snake oil salesman still given attention

Because he's the real deal, no matter how many troll remarks you make about him.
---

Clean yer room buckos
---

I fudging love Rogan's podcast
---

pogo_rabid posted...

I fudging love Rogan's podcast

Right? Can't believe how long it took me to find out about it. It's the greatest interview medium of all time.
---

is this an ironic topic nickelbro?

met him last Thursday! Here's a pic with my wife and Jordan

https://imgur.com/a/PoaIQsg

Nice guy from the few seconds I had to shake his hand and talk

will watch this later tonight

Omg Romes I'm super jelly
---

Romes187 posted...

met him last Thursday! Here's a pic with my wife and Jordan

https://imgur.com/a/PoaIQsg

Nice guy from the few seconds I had to shake his hand and talk

Same, met him a few hours before his lecture in Austin. Very cordial guy. Like him better with the beard

why do people tie him to any political party? he's just a clinical psychologist.
---

I agree on the beard point

he was sunburned too

can't handle san diego lmao

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Omg Romes I'm super jelly

Would def recommend seeing him...i think he added 20 stops to his tour now

Pancake posted...

why do people tie him to any political party? he's just a clinical psychologist.

Because he doesn't talk about his clinical psychology as a public figure. As a public figure, he is clearly a political figure, and sometimes shitty philosopher.
---

_RETS_ posted...

is this an ironic topic nickelbro?

No

COVxy posted...

Pancake posted...

why do people tie him to any political party? he's just a clinical psychologist.

Because he doesn't talk about his clinical psychology as a public figure. As a public figure, he is clearly a political figure, and sometimes shitty philosopher.

That doesn't explain why he'd get tied to a specific political party, especially since there are no political parties that match the ideas he espouses. And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.
---

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".
---

is he going to talk about how free speech is being eroded because he can't be mean to trans people while simultaneously and obliviously saying people should be nicer to the alt-right?
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.
---

lilORANG posted...

is he going to talk about how free speech is being eroded because he can't be mean to trans people while simultaneously and obliviously saying people should be nicer to the alt-right?

Yup, that's what he says.
---

i dont get why he's on jre so often
---

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.

you are really wasting your time with COVxy. His gimmick is to obfuscate every discussion and to twist what people say and why they say it. You're better off just ignoring his commentary.
---

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.

My issue is not him talking about whatever his philosophy is re:anything. You can literally say anything and it'll be just as valid as anything else, given some assumptions.

My issue is his discussing of Jung as it relates to psychology, which I want to remind you is an empirical science.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.

you are really wasting your time with COVxy. His gimmick is to obfuscate every discussion and to twist what people say and why they say it. You're better off just ignoring his commentary.

I know, that post was for the benefit of others reading it. I know all about COVxys disengenuous ways.
---

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.

you are really wasting your time with COVxy. His gimmick is to obfuscate every discussion and to twist what people say and why they say it. You're better off just ignoring his commentary.

I know, that post was for the benefit of others reading it. I know all about COVxys disengenuous ways.

if COVxy bothered to put his money where his mouth is and publish an actual refutation of anything JP has published or says at his talks, he'd be rich right now.

but he knows he doesn't stand a chance in a real debate or in published research which is why he just spends hours on end bashing JP on gamefaqs
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

And idk why you think you're qualified to determine if someone's philosophy is shitty, but you're clearly not.

I was referring to his heavy reliance of Jung when talking about "psychology".

You consider any mention of Jung to be "heavily relying on" because your incredibly insufficient understanding of philosophy has led you to believe that any amount of Jung is too much. Peterson has repeatedly said that he takes bits and pieces from people, obviously a far more intelligent method than yours which suggests that if you utilize anything someone has said, that means you agree with everything that person has ever said.

My issue is not him talking about whatever his philosophy is re:anything. You can literally say anything and it'll be just as valid as anything else, given some assumptions.

My issue is his discussing of Jung as it relates to psychology, which I want to remind you is an empirical science.

Your issue is clearly you misunderstanding what he's saying then, which isn't surprising since you're incapable of listening to him objectively. When you're constantly trying to find something wrong with him, you're obviously going to come up with invalid criticisms to match your predisposed beliefs. Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.
---

nicklebro posted...

Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.

I remind you again, psychology is an empirical science.
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.

I remind you again, psychology is an empirical science.

And?
---

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.

I remind you again, psychology is an empirical science.

And?

Show me some great Jungian experiments.
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Despite what you may have read on Wikipedia, Jung actually wasn't wrong every time he opened his mouth.

I remind you again, psychology is an empirical science.

And?

Show me some great Jungian experiments.

I can't, what's your point? Why do you always feel the need to manufacture arguments to refute rather than pointing to something he's actually said and refute that?

Show me where Peterson said that he's relying on jungian experiments. If you can't then your argument is irrelevant.
---

COVxy is quite good at moving the goal posts to be honest

been a while since i've seen someone so skilled at dragging people into the swamp
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy is quite good at moving the goal posts to be honest

been a while since i've seen someone so skilled at dragging people into the swamp

It's his one and only trick tho, which is why it's so easy to expose him.
---

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy is quite good at moving the goal posts to be honest

been a while since i've seen someone so skilled at dragging people into the swamp

It's his one and only trick tho, which is why it's so easy to expose him.

he's a smart guy, he just happens to be dishonest because he is already committed to the far left regardless of what evidence or reasoning anyone provides
---

nicklebro posted...

I can't, what's your point? Why do you always feel the need to manufacture arguments to refute rather than pointing to something he's actually said and refute that?

Show me where Peterson said that he's relying on jungian experiments. If you can't then your argument is irrelevant.

The point is that Jungian "psychology" isn't evidence based, and therefore isn't actually representative of psychology. If you think this is untrue, then show me some experiments that support Jungian psychological views.
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

I can't, what's your point? Why do you always feel the need to manufacture arguments to refute rather than pointing to something he's actually said and refute that?

Show me where Peterson said that he's relying on jungian experiments. If you can't then your argument is irrelevant.

The point is that Jungian "psychology" isn't evidence based, and therefore isn't actually representative of psychology. If you think this is untrue, then show me some experiments that support Jungian psychological views.

So you can't connect this strawman to anything Peterson has actually said? Well I guess your argument has been refuted yet again. Until you bring up Peterson's actual words, there's no reason to humor you any further.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

COVxy is quite good at moving the goal posts to be honest

been a while since i've seen someone so skilled at dragging people into the swamp

It's his one and only trick tho, which is why it's so easy to expose him.

he's a smart guy, he just happens to be dishonest because he is already committed to the far left regardless of what evidence or reasoning anyone provides

He's smart, just not as smart as he thinks he is, which is why it's so easy to recognize his flaws.
---

I'm in the middle of a book by Jung

some trippy stuff...its fun and interesting. But he's going after shit that you can't get to with experimentation...there's no way.

nicklebro posted...

So you can't connect this strawman to anything Peterson has actually said? Well I guess your argument has been refuted yet again. Until you bring up Peterson's actual words, there's no reason to humor you any further.

Neither of us have mentioned anything he has specifically said, if anyone is moving the goal posts here, it is you. In fact, the only thing I claimed was that his reliance on referring to Jungian psychology in reference to psychology was what annoyed me because it misrepresents psychology which is an empirical discipline.

Recounting, you then said that not everything Jung has said was wrong. And I called you out on that asking for empirical support of Jungian ideas.

I don't see how I have moved any goal posts, rather than you have evaded and moved them simultaneously.

His references to archetypes, of course, are entirely unfounded within personality psych.
---

Hey COVxy when are you going to get back to your lab work? You've been spending so many hours on CE lately, surely your lab must be collapsing into a bread line by now.

Why not work and in your spare time publish a refutation of Jordan Peterson so you can snag some of his sweet sweet Patreon money?
---

COVxy posted...

Recounting, you then said that not everything Jung has said was wrong. And I called you out on that asking for empirical support of Jungian ideas.

I don't see how I have moved any goal posts

Lol I had to quite this specific oart because of how ironic it is. That's literally an example of you moving the goal posts. I said Jung wasn't wrong every time he spoke, and your way if Calling me out on that was to move the goalposts from Jung always being wrong to whether there are any Jungian experiments. Those two things are not related at all.

And match that with your inability to relate it to something Peterson has actually said and I've exposed you as merely rewording the same old argument you keep trying to make and I keep refuting.

See there incorrect ways of utilizing Jung, but there are correct ways as well, you're refusing to post anything Peterson has actually said because you know he's in the latter category.

And really Peterson doesn't utize Jung all that often anyways, so really even if we pretend you aren't terribly wrong it wouldn't matter anyways. The vast majority of what Peterson has said has nothing to do with Jung, so your argument isinsufficient on top of being completely incorrect.
---

i like how it's like the same band of 5 guys just jerking each other off for the same group of people

now peterson needs to start his own podcast so we can really get this podcastception going
---

nicklebro posted...

Lol I had to quite this specific oart because of how ironic it is. That's literally an example of you moving the goal posts. I said Jung wasn't wrong every time he spoke, and your way if Calling me out on that was to move the goalposts from Jung always being wrong to whether there are any Jungian experiments. Those two things are not related at all.

Jung being right in any respect is Jung having experimental evidence, in the scope of an empirical discipline, such as psychology. No goal post was moved.

nicklebro posted...

See there incorrect ways of utilizing Jung, but there are correct ways as well

No there aren't, not if we are talking about psychology, an empirical discipline, otherwise you would need to show me empirical evidence of support for Jung's ideas!
---

@COVxy - just out of curiosity have you read any of Jung's works? which ones and thoughts on it?

I ask because I'm getting through some of his stuff and its pretty thick

Romes187 posted...

@COVxy - just out of curiosity have you read any of Jung's works? which ones and thoughts on it?

I read through some...or most of Synchronicity in high school. From what I remember it was just a weird metaphysical theory about coincidence.

Didn't encounter any of his work in my later education of psychology, with the exception of history of psychology.
---

I'm getting through Man and His Symbols

lot of dream stuff which is p interesting

lilORANG posted...

is he going to talk about how free speech is being eroded because he can't be mean to trans people while simultaneously and obliviously saying people should be nicer to the alt-right?

He has never advocated being mean to trans people. He is not anti-trans. Trans people were just the specific topic of the bill he took issue with. He has said time and time again be objects to discrimination of trans people and will/has addressed individual students of his the way they requested to be addressed.

His issue is being compelled to do it by law, or to have any speech legislated for or against. The trans component was beside the issue.

You, like many, may of his critics, especially here, either wildly misunderstood his viewpoint or were misled by someone else's mischaracterization of his view points.

If he was as objectionable as everyone seems to think, people wouldn't have to straw man and Cathy Newman his arguments all the time, but they do anyway.

Never in my life have I ever seen so many people defending psychodynamic theory. This is the issue with Peterson.

Like, people who would have otherwise said "psychology is a pseudoscience" no more than a couple of years ago are now flocking to an old form of psychology that was indeed pseudoscience.
---