Current Events > So I have listened to some Jordan Peterson lately. Question.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm on the left politically, but I don't find him as appalling as many seem to feel about him. He generally speaks his truth and the problem might be that some on the right just believes that's the whole truth. I really liked his podcast with Stephen Fry especially, since that is a person I really admire.

I'm between moderate left and far left (basically want the labour party in my country to be more aware of the rising wage gap. Left wing politicians who gets paid high amounts is also a problem to me) and I'm atheist (not much in common with JP as a person). I find it fascinating to listen to Jordan when he talks about the myths of old and how they may or may not have influences over us today, and i find him talking about psychology to also be very interesting.

He loses me more often than not when he talks about politics. Sometimes I just disagree, even though I have a hard time explaining why, other times i feel he starts off with an unfair premise, even though he often complains about the left for doing that.

So that's my thoughts on JP, let's talk about my question:

He often says that he has witnessed for decades that Academia is going downhill and woke culture has ruined social studies etc. even started saying that in some math classes you can get in trouble for saying 2+2=4 (or something along those lines) It might be true somewhere, but i truly don't believe this to be wide spread, so he uses extreme examples from the left, but more often than not, not from the right - enough about that.
And he more often uses the phrase "Well, the markets will take care of that"

If this has been happening for decades and it's a continually growing problem. Why doesn't the markets fix it?

I mean. At some point, if he is right, there will be none who wants to hire someone from x studies at x university - the word will get around at none will apply to those studies, because there's no future in it, right? Unless the markets thinks that those "crazy post modern marxists" are more qualified than non-educated workers? Or they JUST get hired by the government, which again will make markets stronger in the long run.

I question how he can upheld markets as high as he does, yet not see that is also what is part of the structure he so hates.

And it's not just a question about him, but to people who hold the same thoughts: If academia creates people who are bad for markets, won't the problem sort itself out? Play markets against "woke" and win?

For the record: I think the far left in the US is worrisome and most people on the center right make more sense to me than far left. Far right is crazier, though


---

His position on academia going downhill doesn't really matter since he's been laughed out of his peer scientific groups for his own 'academia' with stupid shit like 'peoples brains dissolve and reform Into beta brains after losing a fight, just like lobsters!!! Because serotonin is a chemical used in both human and lobster brains!!!'

---

he's a grifter who got in on the game early enough to be pretty successful and you're an easy mark

---

He sounds like Kermit the Frog

---

Academia being too liberal has been a bullshit concern for centuries

---

Whose alt is TC?

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Whose alt is TC?

No alt. It's not my first account, though. I created Betterdayz many years ago and Alkeez a few years ago. I don't have the time to use alts. If you spend your life on gamefaqs, you might have them tagged as something?

---

Chrknu posted...

And it's not just a question about him, but to people who hold the same thoughts: If academia creates people who are bad for markets, won't the problem sort itself out? Play markets against "woke" and win?

The issue with this is mostly that the "market" tends to benefit the "woke" instead of against.

The problem is, when a market changes it mind to appease the "liberal mainstream" its because that's what most people want, its not bowing down to a loud minority insisting that they be served.

But conservatives don't like it when things make a change to appeal to people who aren't them.

Shockingly, cultural values affect the market. The right doesn't want to believe they've lost the widest status as majority, and keeps pushing that they haven't, but it's a lie for fools to chew on.

---

I don't really agree with his point that "self-authoring" is possible

---

He doesnt really present anything new. Thats my issues. Its all a rehash off established positions with some pseudo psychology / self-help goop thrown in there. I dont dislike him though. I find watching him quite therapeutic even when I dont necessarily agree with him. I guess hes proof if ever any were needed that charisma and personality are just as (if not more) important than the content of what you are actually saying.

Writhingmass08 posted...

He sounds like Kermit the Frog

The first time I heard him, I thought he sounded like Bob Odenkirk.

Proto_Spark posted...

The issue with this is mostly that the "market" tends to benefit the "woke" instead of against.

The problem is, when a market changes it mind to appease the "liberal mainstream" its because that's what most people want, its not bowing down to a loud minority insisting that they be served.

But conservatives don't like it when things make a change to appeal to people who aren't them.

Yeah. You explain what is happening, why the market goes that way and why conservatives don't like it, but not why people who consistently say "The markets will fix it", don't seem to jump to that conclusion when talking about what they think is the wrong type of education.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I agree with you. I work as a electrical teacher (badly translated, probably) and there are a lot of troubled youths who doesn't work well in a classroom and would have had great benefits from having their training in an electrician company, would they would have a lot more practical work with a lot one on one teachings.
The problem is that very few companies are interested in taking them in before they graduate from two years of what would probably considered something along the lines of a trade school in the US.
I also agree with the rest and I think free markets can be truly amazing in a lot of things, but also will create problems. I believe in "guided free markets" (oxymoron I guess, but like acknowledge the value of markets, but regulate when the costs are higher than the benefits. Child labour, slavery, probably climate change, etc.)

---

JP's biggest blindspots:
Religious Truth
Climate Change
Free Market Idealism (to a degree)

That said he might argue the university problem isn't solved by the markets because the value a university offers is harder to measure and also takes a longer time to accurately assess.

I'd be interested to see more instances of him defending free market, because idk that he likes it as much as he just dislikes big government. Which I can mostly agree with.

Capitalism is good for generating capital, but anytime the generation of capital is not tied to value, or worse yet is tied to harm, capitalism is a horrible nightmare.

See the perverse mechanisms behind social media for examples.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I don't really agree with his point that "self-authoring" is possible

Interesting. Why not?

---

Chrknu posted...

I'm between moderate left and far left

Chrknu posted...

For the record: I think the far left in the US is worrisome and most people on the center right make more sense to me than far left. Far right is crazier, though

This doesnt even begin to make sense

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I don't really agree with his point that "self-authoring" is possible

I haven't really looked into it, but I kinda thought it didn't sound wrong. It's a lot of similar thoughts in my training as a teacher. Get the youths to have a plan for the future, so that they have something to work towards. And as a teacher there's little worth in my saying "become x". It's a lot more effective to make someone think about what they want to become and what steps that are necessary to get there.

Feline posted...

He doesnt really present anything new. Thats my issues. Its all a rehash off established positions with some pseudo psychology / self-help goop thrown in there. I dont dislike him though. I find watching him quite therapeutic even when I dont necessarily agree with him. I guess hes proof if ever any were needed that charisma and personality are just as (if not more) important than the content of what you are actually saying.

Presentation and charisma will always be worth a lot. I think it was Richard Dawkins that talked about that scientists struggled for decades with the idea that THEY should be the ones who should lower their expectations of what the average person can understand about science, and not demand that people should educate themselves enough so that the words of scientists makes more sense.
And in my studies I come across a lot of the same ideas that he presents, though he sometimes present them as they aren't still in discussions about what's "right". My biggest gripe with JP is that he often uses slide of hands to make the free market values seem better and the regulations seem worse. (Like using extreme examples from academia, but not attack right wing extremist ideas that gets a lot of traction in the same fashion)

---

Gwynevere posted...

This doesnt even begin to make sense

I find it difficult to explain, as in my country, the far left is a lot more focused on income inequality and making the system seem fair in that way (politicians salary, tax evasions, crew industries etc). They of course have some words and phrases that make the center right go in attack mode, but they aren't really there that often.
And with that being said, even our right party is more leftwing than the Democratic Party in the US, so the confusion is probably with how I think of politics in my country and how to convey my thoughts to an US audience. For now I vote far left, but I believe that if they get too much power they might try to expand their politics to "everyone should be equally paid, the workers should own the company etc", which I then will jump back to center left.

For everyone:
What is the most extremist thoughts you have heard from a politician in power in the Democratic Party? What about a president?
What is the most extremist thoughts you have heard from a politician in power in the Republican Party? What about a president?

---

Dude why listen to a guy who has never given good dick to good pussy. He lacks the ability to let go an truly enjoy himself. I find in him a complete and utter lack of impulsivity. Dude hasn't had a truly good time since babyhood.

---

ShyOx posted...

Dude why listen to a guy who has never given good dick to good pussy. He lacks the ability to let go an truly enjoy himself. I find in him a complete and utter lack of impulsivity. Dude hasn't had a truly good time since babyhood.

I noticed early on that he was someone who got a lot of attention. Hated on the left, loved on the right. Got a lot of unfair criticism from the left, got a lot of unfounded praise from the right. I found it fascinating. I thought he was an interesting guy to listen to when he talked about myths and religions on JRE, but didn't care to look him up back then. It was more when he started getting started talked about "everywhere" and he started showing up on other peoples podcasts that I started listening. A little while ago I found his podcast with Stephen Fry and decided to give him a chance.

---

joe40001 posted...

Interesting. Why not?

Maybe it's just pessimistic me. I guess my view is just that there is more that goes into what we become in life than a conscious decision to do that thing. Idk.

Honestly though I haven't watched a Peterson video in ages until just now to refresh my memory. It's just hard for me to imagine that it's possible to have that much control over my life. I agree there are definitely people who can envision a plan and carry it out through sheer strength of will... But idk it just doesn't seem like something that works for everyone.
Chrknu posted...

I haven't really looked into it, but I kinda thought it didn't sound wrong. It's a lot of similar thoughts in my training as a teacher. Get the youths to have a plan for the future, so that they have something to work towards. And as a teacher there's little worth in my saying "become x". It's a lot more effective to make someone think about what they want to become and what steps that are necessary to get there.

Like, I agree with the "make a plan" part, but what if life gets in the way or the plan is too much?

I just don't think, for example, 19 year old me could realistically have planned and succeeded at becoming a diplomat. Maybe my issue is that the plan can be so removed from reality and there is nothing to reign the person in, then they get dissapointed when it falls apart.

I guess it just assumes that everyone can be a winner.

---

He gets certain posters here frothing at the mouth like no other lol, just a warning they will jump all over you as soon as they see this topic

---

I could say a lot about it but what I've noticed is that he can be very compelling and logical about certain topics and then say some outlandish shit about others with the same certainty, often defending the status quo and trashing anyone he finds annoying and calling them some grave threat. it's bad

---

Like, I agree with the "make a plan" part, but what if life gets in the way or the plan is too much?

I just don't think, for example, 19 year old me could realistically have planned and succeeded at becoming a diplomat. Maybe my issue is that the plan can be so removed from reality and there is nothing to reign the person in, then they get dissapointed when it falls apart.

I guess it just assumes that everyone can be a winner.

I think the point is that if you have a goal and think about what you have to do to reach it, and think about the pitfalls and obstacles, you are much more likely to not just spend more time and energy on that path, but you are also more observant to what might stray you off it.

It's not like your goals can't change over time, but learning how to set goals and staying a little more focused than you otherwise would, seems like a good idea to me.

We have a lot of youths that just hates school and chose electrical studies because they want a more practical way of learning. Problem is that it's way more theoretical than they thought and they act out.

Last week i introduced a project where each study group would make a "front page" of something they imagine they might work as when they finish school. Not only is it a chance for them to visualize the future a little, but also know that there is a lot more fields out there than just an electricians.

Who knows if it will have an affect at all, but the older teachers actually thought it was a great idea!

---

He's a great man, and he's helped a lot of people. A lot of his points are taken out of context to discredit him. Luckily, for every detractor there are probably 3 or 4 more who are discovering him and really delving into his content! :)

---

i forgot jordan peterson was a thing.

---

pauIie posted...

i forgot jordan peterson was a thing.

I'd like to, but these manchildren keep bringing him back up again.

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Maybe it's just pessimistic me. I guess my view is just that there is more that goes into what we become in life than a conscious decision to do that thing. Idk.

Honestly though I haven't watched a Peterson video in ages until just now to refresh my memory. It's just hard for me to imagine that it's possible to have that much control over my life. I agree there are definitely people who can envision a plan and carry it out through sheer strength of will... But idk it just doesn't seem like something that works for everyone.

I think the idea is you make a plan so you know what you are working towards, but you can definitely change your plan.

It's been shown that people who keep their goals in their mind tend to succeed more often than those who don't.

But goals and circumstances do change, and that's ok.

---

Chrknu posted...

If this has been happening for decades and it's a continually growing problem. Why doesn't the markets fix it?

how would the market fix it?

a lot of liberal arts majors end up working regular office jobs and all sorts of career paths

you definitely see a lot less dudes going into liberal arts majors, and a big movement of people looking at trades and stem majors, but there will probably never be a shortage of young people going into psych and philosophy majors

Don't let people like Jordan Peterson grift you.

---

Chrknu posted...

He often says that he has witnessed for decades that Academia is going downhill and woke culture has ruined social studies etc. even started saying that in some math classes you can get in trouble for saying 2+2=4 (or something along those lines) It might be true somewhere, but i truly don't believe this to be wide spread, so he uses extreme examples from the left, but more often than not, not from the right - enough about that.
And he more often uses the phrase "Well, the markets will take care of that"

If this has been happening for decades and it's a continually growing problem. Why doesn't the markets fix it?

...because the university system is funded by the government, alternatives tend to be blocked by the established structure (because they don't get access to those same resources), and college is seen as an essential so even if the quality is going down, people still need it. It's like asking, "Why haven't the markets provided an alternative to the police?"

Otherwise colleges have generally always been heavily left-leaning, largely by design because the people in the position to make those decisions come up through the tenure track and then decide who gets tenure. So my little cousin's history professor who had to take "some personal days" after GWB won re-election and who claims whites invented slavery (which is completely untrue) wound up getting tenure, while her more conservative peers did not. It's particularly glaring in the cases of people who have purely academic backgrounds with no real-world experience get picked over people who have demonstrated real-world experience, which is something I noticed when I was going to college. None of these are new issues, basically.

Proto_Spark posted...

The issue with this is mostly that the "market" tends to benefit the "woke" instead of against.

The problem is, when a market changes it mind to appease the "liberal mainstream" its because that's what most people want, its not bowing down to a loud minority insisting that they be served.

But conservatives don't like it when things make a change to appeal to people who aren't them.

Generally speaking, no. It's usually vocal minorities rather than majorities driving change. Most people don't really have a strong opinion. However, more importantly, at the university level it's really more the establishment picking its own priorities.

joe40001 posted...

That said he might argue the university problem isn't solved by the markets because the value a university offers is harder to measure and also takes a longer time to accurately assess.

That's certainly another issue, although I think the direct benefits should be easy to quantify. And it's true that colleges haven't really been providing the value people have come to expect, partly because the standards were lowered so everybody could play. A lot of issues always existed, but they've been exacerbated over time and most colleges -- which have always struggled to stay relevant to the real world (excluding places like MIT which teach very technical subjects) -- haven't bothered to adjust.

Your average professor is an academic taught by academics taught by academics taught by academics, none of whom have real world experience. I had a few professors who got basic information just completely wrong because they never actually worked in that field are were teaching based on knowledge that might have been relevant fifty years ago. Meanwhile the great professors -- the ones who knew what they were talking about and were great at teaching it -- were always stuck as adjuncts because tenure was handed out to the professors who never held a job outside the academic system.


---

ultimate reaver posted...

he's a grifter who got in on the game early enough to be pretty successful and you're an easy mark

/thread

Zeus posted...

Your average professor is an academic taught by academics taught by academics taught by academics, none of whom have real world experience. I had a few professors who got basic information just completely wrong because they never actually worked in that field

Professors are the people who work at the forefront of their respective fields.

---

Yes hes a grifter. Many of his rules for life arent bad advice, and they arent even new. But he doesnt follow his own advice. He always thinks he knows more than whoever hes talking to. And he clings fast to his conservative Christian ideology and it informs everything he believes.

So hes breaking his own rules: (1) Assume the person youre talking to knows something you dont, and (2) Abandon ideology (or however he phrases it)

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Professors are the people who work at the forefront of their respective fields.

They're not, though. In most fields they're far behind people actually working within the marketplace, who they use for their case studies. A mid-level professional in most fields will trump a seasoned professor, because they have the practical application. The only fields where they're the foremost experts tend to be ones without a practical application.

And even worse, many professors fill in to teach courses outside their area of expertise simply because they're in the same department.

---

Zeus posted...

They're not, though. In most fields they're far behind people actually working within the marketplace, who they use for their case studies. A mid-level professional in most fields will trump a seasoned professor, because they have the practical application. The only fields where they're the foremost experts tend to be ones without a practical application.

And even worse, many professors fill in to teach courses outside their area of expertise simply because they're in the same department.

I don't think you know very much about academia.

---