He does a few things that annoy me more than that.
- He has his own definitions of truth and God, for example.
This can be the same, but does not make it explicit, unless his interlocutor forces him.
That definition is closer to nihilism than to atheism. (Imagine if you say ‘ I do not believe that there are gods, I am an atheist ‘ and that the other one says ‘ Ha, you are not an atheist at all, because you have not killed anyone because it came out ‘. That’s what Peterson does.
(e.g.: Has Jesus risen from the dead? Peterson then talks 10 minutes without giving an answer. Response from Sam Harris: ‘ Almost certainly not. What is wrong with that answer? ‘ to Peterson
In short, he is a debatswezel.
For interesting debates with him:
Comment from Matt Dillahunty on this conversation:
And the talks with Sam Harris:
Analysis of the first interview between Harrisen Peterson:
P.s. I’m not necessarily a Sam Harris fan, but he knows well to appoint the problems with Peterson.
I find him a very bright thinker.He claims little with which I disagree. But apart from that, I enjoy how his brain works and his great degree of integrity. I never have the idea that I am dealing with some pseudo-politician, who is only trying to promote an idea. He always seems sincere to say what he thinks. In terms of level, he is similar to Sam Harris and the US denied Christopher Hitchens.
When I didn’t know him yet, I thought he was a kind of wrong, right-wing propagandist.That showed total nonsense. But maybe you are that nowadays automatically if your culture regards Marxism as an idiotic direction and does not believe that pretty much everything and everyone has to be declared a suppressed group in order to eventually get a better world.
What an interesting question.This is a question that I also ask myself. Dr. Peterson is undoubtedly an experienced and highly educated academician, but when people earn huge amounts by their public action, I usually turn into hyper-skeptical mode. There is the danger that their actions are too much driven by monetary gain.
To answer the first part of your question, it seems sensible to me to define the notion of “intellectuals”.Is it about “intellectuals” within the Anglo-Saxonic world alone? It is my impression that Dr. Peterson focuses mainly on that part of the world. “Intellectuals”-and especially in the humanities-are traditionally called “links” (if we can still use that term). However, what we see nowadays is that there is a mentality of the creation where each marginal club wishes to have a label pinned down, after which they-no matter how insignificant-believe the right to have a special, tailor-made treatment, and Criticism is immediately critiqued under the heading fascism, this-foob, that-Foob… Which leaves no room for open debate and common sense. This is a mentality Waa R Dr. Peterson apparently hard against enters and with reason.
I myself, as a member of the last no-nonsense generation, are more inclined to give him some equal.If there is any truth in the “snowflake” phenomenon, with a world in which children are indoctrinated by people with a scary worldview based on guaranteed “rights”, I see the future bleak. The world and life is a big murder pit, without safe spaces, and we do not have fun with children, by mirroring a world in which they think they are entitled to everything and deserve nothing.
He is a good psychologist.In his own field he is good, he does good research, he knows what he is about.
However, he is more famous because he yanked a law that was proposed utterly from his relationship (the result you see back in an answer and a comment on an answer to this question).
The law stated that one should no longer be discriminated against on the basis of gender.That’s another thing than sex: Sex is your body, gender is what your brain says you are. In most people, these two things run synchronously, with a very small number of people walking these two things apart.
When it runs completely apart, you talk about transgender people: those are completely opposite than the gender that was established at birth.
If it runs a bit apart, you talk about non-binary people.They fall in between, or feel the one again and then the other, or feel completely non-masculine OR feminine, and all sorts of variations on them.
Transgender and non-binary people are an easy target group for dislike.People remember their biology lessons (people consist of men and women) and think that is the ultimate thing that can be learned. They find the idea that you have a gender other than your sex indicates uncomfortable and simply do not believe that it can, even though there are people who say that is what happens to them.
Peterson has completely torn that law.He made sure that you can end up in jail if you mention transgender and non-binary people by the wrong pronoun, and that it shouldn’t be allowed for the government to prescribe how to call people. That is not what the law said, but that is what he made of it, and anyone who dislikes this whole subject has seized that with eager to get an even greater dislike.
The problem with Peterson is that, as soon as he is outside his own discipline, he has no idea what he is about.He has not eaten any cheese from all the research done to transgender and non-binary people, and happily ignores all things that prove that he has it wrong. Also about other subjects where he is exhaust, to the great pleasure of people who cannot resist change, ie often has no real envy, he chooses arguments that endorse what he thinks (and what his target group thinks), ignores all the arguments and Investigations that claim the contrary.
I always find it very funny when Peterson followers say “facts don’t care about your feelings,” (facts give nothing to your sentiments), a winged statement from another “hero” from the same angle, Ben Shapiro.
Here is an article that perfectly explains that Shapiro likes to say that “facts don’t care about your feelings” but that he himself does not like it, something that his followers have no problem with at all.
Peterson is a suit from the same sheet.Unfortunately, it all sounds great, and it sounds like “common sense” and “finally someone who once says what it stands for instead of all that politically-correct gewauwel.” But it only works for people who cannot resist change, and who think that their high school biology is sufficient to answer all the questions.
Well I don’t think Jordan B. Peterson can generally not be hated by (real) intellectuals.
Peterson is a professor and physician himself, so if you hate him as a professional, then this tells more about your belief in your own diploma and your own acquired titles.It is now true that Jordan criticizes ‘ postmodernism, transgender issues, feminism, etc ‘. “What do you want to say” that you have enough reason to want to sweep him off the map if you have made almost a career of these terms.
Jordan B. Peterson’s work is especially philosophical: that you are looking for happiness or, a hold in life.
I think it is good (as one of the ‘ young men ‘) that his work exists, I have my own problems in life, if it were not for him then I would have suffered further, guilty and blind.
I find him tegek.He helped me out of MN burnout from which I am still recovering. I say nothing more weakly. I try to say the truth I listen more to what others have to say I try not to cherish any resentment. I was almost tempted to appeal to the more negative reactions/answers but realise that I and only I have to feel good about what Peterson has to say. I do not want anyone to impose my ideas.
For me, Peterson is someone who has let my whole world collapse and at the same time gave me the tools to rebuild that world neatly.
Interesting question.I don’t know why others are against him.
But I think that he is very chaotic in his speech, he jumps from the heel on the branch and the content of his speaking is often a little too much focused on unsensible details, I often have moments of ‘ no crap, Sherlock ‘.He tells a lot, but in the end you have only learned a few small thingies. His way of speaking is long-winded and unordered. He also talks a bit like an innocent, stuttering/mumbling toddler, so from: ‘ Take this knowledge of me, I am sweet and innocent ‘. But that reason will be between my ears, haha.
I have nothing against him.I have bought his book but have not read it yet.
- The reason why people hate him is because of the controversial positions he often raises and does not embarrassed himself.
His extreme fans are also not a good representation of him.
In my opinion, J B Peterson has good knowledge and experience of psychiatry, he has worked in it, but he also makes statements outside his field of expertise where in my opinion he is sometimes incorrect. So he is certainly not perfect.Even in a psychological statement, I have sometimes caught him on an error, but it is mainly his statements in the economic and demographic sphere, which I know are mistakes.
He has also made statements in politics, some I can understand, others I disagree with.
His videos on Youtube are sometimes more ‘ feel good ‘ than it really always contributes to knowledge about psychology, but that’s what you see more.There is also some economic gain, so it is not bad in the economic sphere, but it is not, rather a good entrepreneur I think.
I think his strength is in making symbolism and symbolic signs understandable.If he had not gone into psychiatry, work in heritage had also been good with him.
What I notice about watching several interviews is that he is actually not as politically right as some people depict him.He is more moderate than you would think at first glance, only he has the property to give answers that are socially acceptable to the interviewer, so also interviewers who are known as political right.
I think the little you can argue about him is that he is an intelligent man, but not always entirely open about his own vision.That sounds contradictory, because the man has become known because he gave an opinion. What Peterson might well have learned is this: “you don’t bite the hand that feeds You.“