Gabor Maté's thoughts on Jordan Peterson

[user104658]

---

[Crimson Dynamo]

Someone is pissed that Jordan is selling more books and getting more TV gigs....

https://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/emoticons/craphead.gif

[Oliver_W]

I kind of think JP is simultaneously highly intelligent, and a stupid person's idea of an intellectual :joker:

As TS said, seasonings of salt should be applied when listening to him, but when he's in his lane he can be spot on.

I think his reputation and profile was greatly helped by that Cathy Newman interview, where she (willingly?) misinterpreted everything he said which made her seem either spiteful or comparatively dumb. I think anyway - I only actually saw it when it was first broadcast, I haven't rewatched it or watched some youtubing goon analyse it lol.

[user104658]

Someone is pissed that Jordan is selling more books and getting more TV gigs....

https://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/emoticons/craphead.gif

I highly doubt that and interestingly, I considered pondering in my OP whether or not Jordan Peterson's tendency to dabble in the outrage instead of just sticking to better-considered science and academic rigor is because he is aware that it sells, and generates more book sales and TV gigs.

Sometimes he seems to have genuinely gone off-piste in his frustration, sometimes it feels unquestionably staged, and that tends to depend on the platform. When he's on an outrage-bait podcast or similar a lot more of the gradiose fist-pounding starts coming out. Treats for a less educated audience? When he debates other academics he's much more measured and generally quite well prepared with facts and figures so I'm guessing he's just aware that certain audiences don't need them, in fact don't like them, and are just a choir looking for some preaching.

[Crimson Dynamo]

JP's popularity is partly because he is both intellectual and vulnerable

Also he is a major kick-back figure to the wokery, nacissistic compassion, faux outrage on behalf of others movement and does not pretend to accept the delusion that a man can be a woman etc

plus he is on Joe R0ogan a lot and dat helps

[Nicky91]

JP's popularity is partly because he is both intellectual and vulnerable

Also he is a major kick-back figure to the wokery, nacissistic compassion, faux outrage on behalf of others movement and does not pretend to accept the delusion that a man can be a woman etc

plus he is on Joe R0ogan a lot and dat helps

Peterson is nothing more than a loser troll and nazi scum

[Crimson Dynamo]

Peterson is nothing more than a loser troll and nazi scum

https://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/emoticons/megaanguish.png

[The Slim Reaper]

1610598948296871937

[arista]

"Jordan's Unsubstantiated Opinion."


Look TS
he went through a bad patch
but he is back on form.



Ignore Slim
he only finds dirt

[Niamh.]

I haven't watched the video but I agree with the quotes in the OP about him. No doubt he's an interesting man and an intelligent one but I can never fully get behind him either or say I'm a fan of his

[arista]

aMcjxSThD54


This one boosted him.


Poor lass from Ch4News at 23mins or so
forgets what she is saying.

[Niamh.]

1610598948296871937

He's got some questionable views on why men are violent as well and who should "fix" that. Seems like a very irresponsible opinion to send out there to women and seems like victim blaming/Incel type thinking

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.


“‘Half the men fail,’ he says, meaning they don’t procreate. ‘And no one cares about the men who fail.’

“I laugh, because it is absurd.

“‘You’re laughing about them,’ he says, giving me a disappointed look. ‘That’s because you’re female.’”

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy

[user104658]

1610598948296871937

In this specific clip I don't think he's actually talking about literal god or hell... but I've seen a few recent similar clips of him where his speech style gets borderline dictatorial.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/K4kQp7KCI8Mz6/giphy.gif
Salesmen of Pennsylvania!

Then also clips where he's in interviews getting himself tearful and upset over some of the questions being asked. I think what LT describes as his "vulnerability". I would counter that he's been completely derailed by infamy and is currently an absolute mess of contradictions. A ranting ball of internal contradictions. It must be incredibly stressful and it's starting to burst out at the seams.

[The Slim Reaper]

He's got some questionable views on why men are violent as well and who should "fix" that. Seems like a very irresponsible opinion to send out there to women and seems like victim blaming/Incel type thinking

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.


“‘Half the men fail,’ he says, meaning they don’t procreate. ‘And no one cares about the men who fail.’

“I laugh, because it is absurd.

“‘You’re laughing about them,’ he says, giving me a disappointed look. ‘That’s because you’re female.’”

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy

That's what makes him so dangerous - he has demonstrably written books that have helped unhealthy young men develop a healthier attitude towards life and existence, but on the other side of that he is a thought leader for the incel community with his nonsense about women/forced monogamy etc.

[user104658]

He's got some questionable views on why men are violent as well and who should "fix" that. Seems like a very irresponsible opinion to send out there to women and seems like victim blaming/Incel type thinking

“Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married. ‘The cure for that is monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges,’ [he says.] Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise, women will only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.


“‘Half the men fail,’ he says, meaning they don’t procreate. ‘And no one cares about the men who fail.’

“I laugh, because it is absurd.

“‘You’re laughing about them,’ he says, giving me a disappointed look. ‘That’s because you’re female.’”

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy

That's straight out of the incel/redpill playbook, the most concerning part of that really is that it's not his own conclusions ... it's a repetition of that mindset that he's deliberately playing into. It's the same rhetoric leveraged by Andrew Tate.

It's a sad self-fulfilling prophecy that's actively creating a generation of young men who are unsuitable for meaningful, genuine relationships... who are then angry about that... making them even less likely to find any sort of happiness.

[The Slim Reaper]

In this specific clip I don't think he's actually talking about literal god or hell... but I've seen a few recent similar clips of him where his speech style gets borderline dictatorial.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/K4kQp7KCI8Mz6/giphy.gif
Salesmen of Pennsylvania!

Then also clips where he's in interviews getting himself tearful and upset over some of the questions being asked. I think what LT describes as his "vulnerability". I would counter that he's been completely derailed by infamy and is currently an absolute mess of contradictions. A ranting ball of internal contradictions. It must be incredibly stressful and it's starting to burst out at the seams.

He has always played in religious margins.. Specifically around his interpretation of Jungian philosophy. I think he is being literal in this clip, but he always leaves himself enough wiggle room that if he was challenged on how literal he was being, he would be able to squeak (literally) away.

[Niamh.]

That's what makes him so dangerous - he has demonstrably written books that have helped unhealthy young men develop a healthier attitude towards life and existence, but on the other side of that he is a thought leader for the incel community with his nonsense about women/forced monogamy etc.

That's straight out of the incel/redpill playbook, the most concerning part of that really is that it's not his own conclusions ... it's a repetition of that mindset that he's deliberately playing into. It's the same rhetoric leveraged by Andrew Tate.

It's a sad self-fulfilling prophecy that's actively creating a generation of young men who are unsuitable for meaningful, genuine relationships... who are then angry about that... making them even less likely to find any sort of happiness.

That whole "culture" is absolutely terrifying to me. The attitudes of the likes of the Andrew Tates of the world (and they're springing up everywhere) is so scary as a woman. The way we're spoken about like we're an inferior species to men and must be owned or controlled. It feels so dehumanising. Does Jordan Peterson really think about us in the way the Andrew Tates do? I don't know, he doesn't seem to be an actual sex offender/human traffic endorser but his egging these guys on with some of the statements he makes certainly doesn't help society

[Oliver_W]

Not to turn into a Contra shill :joker: but

4LqZdkkBDas

Like she and some of her commenters say, and some people here, he has (had?) genuine value in getting disaffected young men into better habits and improving their lives; with the side-effect of having a "down the rabbit hole" effect when it comes to some of his other views.

[MTVN]

So his three problems with Peterson are that he's apparently full of rage, he believes in repression of children, and that he's a Christian.

As for rage, most of what Peterson teaches and argues for is aimed at controlling rage not embracing it. I don't get this idea he's some sort of incel icon because all the problems with incels is the stuff he warns against - taking no accountability, always blaming others, never trying to better yourself, having toxic friendships etc. He tries to get people to lead their lives in a way whereby they don't succumb to rage or despair

Repression, well I don't know about that. Child psychology might not be his forte

On the final point, I think Peterson has talked about the killing done in Christianity's name before but yeah if you're anti-religious you probably won't like the fact that Christianity does influence him quite a lot

[Niamh.]

So his three problems with Peterson are that he's apparently full of rage, he believes in repression of children, and that he's a Christian.

As for rage, most of what Peterson teaches and argues for is aimed at controlling rage not embracing it. I don't get this idea he's some sort of incel icon because all the problems with incels is the stuff he warns against - taking no accountability, always blaming others, never trying to better yourself, having toxic friendships etc. He tries to get people to lead their lives in a way whereby they don't succumb to rage or despair

Repression, well I don't know about that. Child psychology might not be his forte

On the final point, I think Peterson has talked about the killing done in Christianity's name before but yeah if you're anti-religious you probably won't like the fact that Christianity does influence him quite a lot

I think that's what people are saying though that yes he's done good things for men on the one hand but he's also on the other made very questionable/could be interpreted as pretty incel like (and pushing responsibility for violent men on to women) statements too

[user104658]

Not to turn into a Contra shill :joker: but

4LqZdkkBDas

Like she and some of her commenters say, and some people here, he has (had?) genuine value in getting disaffected young men into better habits and improving their lives; with the side-effect of having a "down the rabbit hole" effect when it comes to some of his other views.

It's ultimately a bad path from the beginning as all of it promotes the idea of self-improvement for "social worthiness" rather than self improvement for self. Once you spark that idea it only goes one way - into the concept of "value", and the idea of "high value women" who are earned like prizes for increasing ones own social worthiness.

And of course it's all absolute BS so you end up with a bunch of already-angry 20-something year old lads, pumped up at the gym and half of them chock full of steroids, expecting to now be worthy but finding themselves enraged because all of it was snake oil to begin with. And the blame never goes where it belongs - to the peddlers of said snake oil - it goes squarely on the women.

[user104658]

So his three problems with Peterson are that he's apparently full of rage, he believes in repression of children, and that he's a Christian.

As for rage, most of what Peterson teaches and argues for is aimed at controlling rage not embracing it. I don't get this idea he's some sort of incel icon because all the problems with incels is the stuff he warns against - taking no accountability, always blaming others, never trying to better yourself, having toxic friendships etc. He tries to get people to lead their lives in a way whereby they don't succumb to rage or despair

Repression, well I don't know about that. Child psychology might not be his forte

On the final point, I think Peterson has talked about the killing done in Christianity's name before but yeah if you're anti-religious you probably won't like the fact that Christianity does influence him quite a lot

He's a redpill icon more than an incel icon, these concepts are similar but not identical; Redpill is all about the idea of "acceptance of reality" and control of that reality. The inherent problem is that it's a warped reality. You can see that in your description of what he's doing - "controlling rage rather than embracing it". Controlling rage is a form of embracing rage, it rests on the premise that the rage was inevitable and that the answer is to harness it... which is a completely unhealthy starting point, and doomed to failure from the outset. He can't even harness his own rage.

[MTVN]

I think that's what people are saying though that yes he's done good things for men on the one hand but he's also on the other made very questionable/could be interpreted as pretty incel like (and pushing responsibility for violent men on to women)

I think he's possibly become a bit more extreme since being elevated to this celebrity status, I think the principles in 12 Rules for Life are pretty good though

He's a redpill icon more than an incel icon, these concepts are similar but not identical; Redpill is all about the idea of "acceptance of reality" and control of that reality. The inherent problem is that it's a warped reality. You can see that in your description of what he's doing - "controlling rage rather than embracing it". Controlling rage is a form of embracing rage, it rests on the premise that the rage was inevitable and that the answer is to harness it... which is a completely unhealthy starting point, and doomed to failure from the outset. He can't even harness his own rage.

I thought when I was writing that that I was wording it badly. I didn't mean to 'control rage' as if it's some sort of inevitably, I meant more to take control of the other parts of your life to avoid rage entering it.

I certainly don't think treating rage as something to harness is healthy, that's very Sith like :skull:

[Swan]

That whole "culture" is absolutely terrifying to me. The attitudes of the likes of the Andrew Tates of the world (and they're springing up everywhere) is so scary as a woman. The way we're spoken about like we're an inferior species to men and must be owned or controlled. It feels so dehumanising. Does Jordan Peterson really think about us in the way the Andrew Tates do? I don't know, he doesn't seem to be an actual sex offender/human traffic endorser but his egging these guys on with some of the statements he makes certainly doesn't help society

After watching quite a bit recently on Andrew Tate (since his new found fame) and having followed Jordan Peterson for a while now, i wouldn't lump them in the same category at all. Peterson does speak for struggling young men, but his approach is nothing like Tate's.

Tate plays a character, Joe Rogan put it quite well recently, he said Tate is like a wrestling bad guy/a heel. He plays up to it. I see Tate as someone who pretends he wants the best for young men (top G's, ugh) but really it's just about profit and making money. His Hustler University rubbish, is just a big con. Peterson on the other hand genuinely cares. Thing is with Peterson is his emotions always sit just below the surface. He can sometimes come across erratic. But he's passionate, and caring imo. Tate spouts hate, and it's all just a game to him. He's phoney, and a dick. Peterson is much more complex, his intentions are good though, imo anyway.

[user104658]

I certainly don't think treating rage as something to harness is healthy, that's very Sith like :skull:

I've seen interviews where this is literally what he's describing... sith-style harnessing of "monstrosity" to use as a source of personal power :laugh:. It's true though that these are his more recent things, he found a lot of fame (and likely a lot of money) leaning into the parts of it that resonate with that community.

https://media.tenor.com/-bzscvIUYhgAAAAd/family-guy-palpatine.gif

[Niamh.]

After watching quite a bit recently on Andrew Tate (since his new found fame) and having followed Jordan Peterson for a while now, i wouldn't lump them in the same category at all. Peterson does speak for struggling young men, but his approach is nothing like Tate's.

Tate plays a character, Joe Rogan put it quite well recently, he said Tate is like a wrestling bad guy/a heel. He plays up to it. I see Tate as someone who pretends he wants the best for young men (top G's, ugh) but really it's just about profit and making money. His Hustler University rubbish, is just a big con. Peterson on the other hand genuinely cares. Thing is with Peterson is his emotions always sit just below the surface. He can sometimes come across erratic. But he's passionate, and caring imo. Tate spouts hate, and it's all just a game to him. He's phoney, and a dick. Peterson is much more complex, his intentions are good though, imo anyway.

I don't really think they are the same but I think some of what JP says may encourage the Andrew tates of the world.

Just in regards to your comments about Joe Rogan calling him a wrestling baddie or whatever. I like Joe but I think it's very minimising of him to make a statement like that considering the things AT says, advising on how to traffic girls/women and now having been arrested for apparently doing that in Romania? Come on!

[user104658]

After watching quite a bit recently on Andrew Tate (since his new found fame) and having followed Jordan Peterson for a while now, i wouldn't lump them in the same category at all. Peterson does speak for struggling young men, but his approach is nothing like Tate's.

Tate plays a character, Joe Rogan put it quite well recently, he said Tate is like a wrestling bad guy/a heel. He plays up to it. I see Tate as someone who pretends he wants the best for young men (top G's, ugh) but really it's just about profit and making money. His Hustler University rubbish, is just a big con. Peterson on the other hand genuinely cares. Thing is with Peterson is his emotions always sit just below the surface. He can sometimes come across erratic. But he's passionate, and caring imo. Tate spouts hate, and it's all just a game to him. He's phoney, and a dick. Peterson is much more complex, his intentions are good though, imo anyway.

Tate is "Jordan Peterson For Dummies" - some of what he says is practically verbatim to things Peterson has said previously.

[user104658]

I don't really think they are the same but I think some of what JP says may encourage the Andrew tates of the world.

Just in regards to your comments about Joe Rogan calling him a wrestling baddie or whatever. I like Joe but I think it's very minimising of him to make a statement like that considering the things AT says, advising on how to traffic girls/women and now having been arrested for apparently doing that in Romania? Come on!

Andrew Tate HIMSELF described word-for-word on his own website at one point ... the act of coercive sex trafficking. That he'd date girls who weren't involved in the sex industry, wait for them to fall for him, and then "go into business together" selling sex content before moving on to the next. It seems like he genuinely believed this was not trafficking, because he shared the profits with the women involved. That it essentially had to be slavery to be trafficking. I'm hopeful (although... not very hopeful...) that he's going to find out that "paying them well" doesn't make it "not trafficking".

[Niamh.]

Andrew Tate HIMSELF described word-for-word on his own website at one point ... the act of coercive sex trafficking. That he'd date girls who weren't involved in the sex industry, wait for them to fall for him, and then "go into business together" selling sex content before moving on to the next. It seems like he genuinely believed this was not trafficking, because he shared the profits with the women involved. That it essentially had to be slavery to be trafficking. I'm hopeful (although... not very hopeful...) that he's going to find out that "paying them well" doesn't make it "not trafficking".

It's trafficking with a side of pimping.....

[Swan]

I don't really think they are the same but I think some of what JP says may encourage the Andrew tates of the world.

Just in regards to your comments about Joe Rogan calling him a wrestling baddie or whatever. I like Joe but I think it's very minimising of him to make a statement like that considering the things AT says, advising on how to traffic girls/women and now having been arrested for apparently doing that in Romania? Come on!

Well yeah, Joe was saying that if true, it's awful, and he was mocking some of the things Tate has said. Calling him out for some of the vile comments he makes towards women. And like Joe said, if this is true, then Tate is a piece of sh!t basically. But essentially Tate is/was playing a character.

Tate is "Jordan Peterson For Dummies" - some of what he says is practically verbatim to things Peterson has said previously.

Hmm, i dunno. Have you heard some of the revolting stuff Tate has said? Like women are property, and that he would happily cheat on "the love of his life" because "that's what men do" and that women should just "like it or lump it". He's always been sh!tting about saying if he had sons, that he wouldn't give them a thing, that they wouldn't be allowed to show emotion, how hard he'd be on them. Yet if he had a girl, he would treat her like a princess. The man is a joke.

Tate probably only echos some of what Peterson has said because he wants to seem caring towards struggling young men. And Peterson is right to argue that women do need men, just the same way men need women. And that the respect should be mutual. Tate on the other hand......

[Oliver_W]

And of course it's all absolute BS so you end up with a bunch of already-angry 20-something year old lads, pumped up at the gym and half of them chock full of steroids, expecting to now be worthy but finding themselves enraged because all of it was snake oil to begin with. And the blame never goes where it belongs - to the peddlers of said snake oil - it goes squarely on the women.

If they tidy their room and pet cats when they see them, it'll all fall into place :nono:

I've not read his book, nor heard him speak (outside of contextless clips) in years, but I think (hope!) both of those "rules" are shorthand for bigger concepts, not entirely literal? In the same way that people who say "don't smile until Christmas" don't literally mean keep a straight face for three months, and nothing else :joker: