I din't know Jordan Peterson this seed pushed me to go learn something.

I watched part of his Youtube video about white privilege. His method of argumentation is to create straw men and then demolish them.

It's pretty easy to have the winning side in an argument when you also define the losing side. But it's totally dishonest.

So..."Why Can't I Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?"... Because his kind of intellectual trickery makes me stop listening.

"His method of argumentation is to create straw men and then demolish them"

I disagree that such is Dr. Peterson's go to method.  He almost always backs his observations with concrete and specific examples and directs his arguments accordingly, careful (most often) not to over-generalize. But nobody is perfect and I feel he slips at times as well.

But the straw-man method was certainly the method employed by miss Newman in this now infamous interview wouldn't you agree?  That was most certainly dishonest, and in this case emotional trickery, nothing intellectual about it at all.  Did you actually read the linked article and listen to the interview?  If so, what did you think?

But the straw-man method was certainly the method employed by miss Newman in this now infamous interview wouldn't you agree?

No. She wasn't using straw men. She was using false reformulation. A different logical fallacy, but a logical fallacy all the same.

Her methods were dishonest, for sure. But that doesn't mean that her victim is honest. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No. She wasn't using straw men. She was using false reformulation.  A different logical fallacy, but a logical fallacy all the same.

Good point, although I was thinking in terms of the caricature she was attempting to build of Peterson so as to paint him as a bigot, or as a champion of bigots, clearly to be loathed.  The false reformulation of nearly everything he said was simply the building of the straw-man a few straws at a time.  A very dishonest tactic indeed and one I encountered many times in my adventures at Newsvine.

        "B ut that doesn't mean that her victim is honest. Two wrongs don't make a right ."

Indeed.  "Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lie", number 8 of Dr. Peterson's 12 Rules for Life.    

It's pretty easy to have the winning side in an argument when you also define the losing side. But it's totally dishonest

It's like you are doing a Cathy Newman impression for us...

I listened to the interview and felt that she was twisting his meaning many times. She finishes his thoughts for him and sticks words into his mouth and while she was doing that, she throws more into the mix before he can finish his thoughts. Not that I agreed with everything that he said, but much of what he said, was rational, even if I don't agree 100%. 

Poor journalism indeed.  

Jordan Peterson is an extremely controversial figure at this point.  I think the interviewer wanted to be prepared for a confrontation and he basically just parried her off. 

She did become repetitive and leading, but I dont she was at first. Peterson gives partial answers and with holds part of his information in order to make himself seem superior to the questioner. 

Jordan Peterson looks like he would be a barrel of fun during a night out with the boys. 

Not. 

Peterson gives partial answers and with holds part of his information in order to make himself seem superior to the questioner.

How so?  He answered every question she asked, even the loaded ones, when she let him finish.  His lectures on these sorts of issues are of course hours long, I don't think they would have had time for more elaborate answers with citations in this interview.  Funny that you felt HIS succinct answers to HER questions were designed to make himself seem superior, when it is clear that her questions were designed to make her position appear morally superior to the caricature she wished to paint of him.  At one point she even summarizes, "If I was a young woman watching that, I would go, well, I might as well go play with my Cindy dolls and give up trying to go school, because I’m not going to get the top job I want, because there’s someone sitting there saying, it’s not possible, it’s going to make you miserable." even after he explained exactly how and why he never said any of that.  At one point when he expressed his discomfort with her way of interviewing (truth seeking), she says, "Well, I'm very glad I put you on the spot".  Now who exactly is trying to portray an air of superiority in that interview?

I have to agree with Freewill here. I as a woman, listen to the audio and read the transcript and before he could explain himself fully, she would throw in another factor. I would have rather let him explain himself and then have her ask him question specific to his answers and previous comments. 

I might not agree with everything he was saying, but I also feel that she was trying to dominate the discussion, which is not a good mark of an interviewer. 

I would even say, that Howard Stern does a better job. I enjoy listening to him do interviews since he waits till his guest finishes his comments before going in for the more in depth question. That says a lot about how poorly this interview went.

Start this video at about 2:10 and watch it through Jordan Peterson's comments about women's makeup, and then tell me what you think.

He makes the argument that we do not know whether or not men and women can work together in a work or business environment  because women wear makeup and (sometimes) high heels.

I think this exposes one of the flaws in Peterson.  He has an explanation for why women might wear makeup at work, but he acts like it is the only or predominant explanation, when in fact one could easily argue another or more than one other explanation.  

but he acts like it is the only or predominant explanation, when in fact one could easily argue another or more than one other explanation

Indeed I have noticed this at times in Peterson's explanations, although he quite often qualifies such explanations as merely his observations either in his decades of clinical practice or at social gatherings in a more general sense. 

Interesting to note that what you wrote is precisely HIS criticism of those who assign societal privileges to a single explanation like "white privilege". 

Peterson says, with all sincerity, that we cannot know whether men and women can work together because women wear makeup and high heels at work, and makeup and high heels are signals of sexual attraction. He implies that IS the reason women wear makeup.

You don't have to be an Einstein though, and I am not, to understand that women themselves think they look better with makeup on. Not necessarily to be sexy, but to hide age wear and tear on their faces, and to brighten their projection to the world. Maybe 3000 years ago when cosmetics were invented the purpose was solely to inspire sexual attraction, but time has formed other purposes for cosmetics, perhaps particularly in a business situation. Peterson advises people, including women, to be assertive in competing for business success. It is simple to comprehend that the wearing of makeup by women at work could qualify as such self-assertion. 

Interesting that he feels that women are somehow at fault for why there are problems at the workplace because they are trying to sexualize themselves, yet he does not acknowledge that men suits are designed to make them powerful (they make shoulders wider, waists smaller), share cigars ( phallic) and ties (phallic again). You could argue that both men and women dress to succeed by using their own different aspects of their sexuality. 

This has been more clearly demonstrated in experiments with both men and women and who gets hired with the same qualifications. It is almost always the most imposing male and the prettiest looking women. The very act of a firm handshake doesn't just open or seal a deal, but tells you who is in charge. These are the essence of our humanity and sexuality that can't be denied. But I don't think that is the reason for why we have problems in the workplace ( although a lot less than when I started out) but rather that we are truly now beginning to compete equally with each other, and that is a threat to thousands of years of social order. 

You could argue that both men and women dress to succeed by using their own different aspects of their sexuality.

Good point. 

Having dealt in the "Man's World" for many years during my lifetime, I learned early that a firm handshake will let men know that you are no pushover, you can stand with the best of them and are not afraid to deal with the big guys. They will also trust you more and have more respect for you than if they think you are simply a lot of 'fluff'.  

Yeah, I had guys who tried to come to me at times, but, they quickly found out that I was there strictly for business and made sure they did not cross the line. There are times when body language talks louder than words. 

The journalist did a bad job. Certainly.

That said, Peterson is a very not-nice person, an intellectualized MAGA preacher with a Canadian accent.

That said, Peterson is a very not-nice person, an intellectualized MAGA preacher with a Canadian accent.

First, please explain or provide examples detailing why you think he isn't a nice person.  Please be specific as I have seen nothing that would lead me to that conclusion.

Second, you do understand that Dr. Peterson's use of Biblical and other ancient myths and stories (and some modern stories too) are to high-light the evolution of archetypes across thousands of years and across multiple cultures, and how they shaped human civilizations, and culminated in forming the basis of Western Culture.  It is Peterson's way of explaining Jungian analytical psychology and the concepts of archetypal phenomena in a manner that those who do not study such matters in detail can understand.  It has nothing to do with his faith in the Biblical stories or any specific religion, and certainly could not be mistaken for "preaching" in a religious sense.  Perhaps you should listen more closely to Dr. Peterson's body of work before arriving at such dismissive conclusions?

Lastly, making fun of his Canadian accent is just plain mean, eh?  Perhaps if he called you a "hoser", I'd stipulate.  (-:

First, who are you to give orders?

Second, he didn't quote the Bible at all in the video I watched.

Third, I did not make fun of his accent.

who are you to give orders?

Huh?  Where the hell did I give anyone any orders?  All I did was ask about the basis for your opinion. 

he didn't quote the Bible at all in the video I watched

OK... so why the characterization of him as a "MAGA preacher"?  I've heard others accuse him of "proselytizing" or "preaching" because of his use of Biblical stories to explain the evolution and importance of archetypes throughout human history and civilization, so your use of that word simply got me thinking in that direction.

I did not make fun of his accent.

 Jeez, relax man, I know that.  I was simply trying to lighten up the convo a bit.  Note the little smiley face at the end of that paragraph?

Well-to-do White man debunks White privilege....

Yeah, I have a few issues with what he is saying here, Bob. He also gets some things right, like our academic standards for coming to conclusions. But I disagree with his conclusion about White Privilege, but he can make them sound right, because our academic world is more interested in being PC, without doing the proper analysis. 

Dr. Peterson's use of Biblical and other ancient myths and stories (and some modern stories too) are to high-light the evolution of archetypes

There is a big difference between someone explaining unpleasant history such as slave owners practice of pairing up male and female slaves who seemed exceptionally strong or robust, which is a sad reality of our history, and glorifying such behavior by touting what some might see as the benefits, pointing to black NBA players or other sports figures as their proof. There's a big difference between relating the history of Joseph Mengele and his human experiments and seeming worship his forays into trying to rid the world of certain deformities or genetic abnormalities, but using barbaric methods to do so. The same goes for much of Dr. Petersons use of Biblical and other ancient myths and stories which are used to seemingly support or at least legitimize some of the horrible racism and behaviors that have been used by ancient cultures and into modernity.

So I take it this video snippet is the basis for your opinion the Dr. Peterson is not nice and/or that he is on the Make America Great Again [yes I finally figured out what you meant (-:] tour alongside the likes of Trump?  I'm sorry for assuming, but honestly it is difficult to tell because you still are not being very specific.  The rest of that lecture is HERE if you care to listen to it, as it adds a bit of conceptual analysis leading up to his views on white privilege. I always find it better to consider another's opinion in the full context in which it was delivered.  

And that is all this video is, it is a view that apparently differs from yours. He does not really "debunk" anything.  It does not mean that Dr. Peterson is not nice, nor does it mean that he is onboard with Trump's MAGA rhetoric.  He simply points out that there are many more relevant factors involved in what people interpret to be "privilege" than race, and they are most certainly cross-cultural.  So his point is why focus on and play up just the racial component when there is no rational, scientific or methodological reason at this point in time to do so?  It is counter-productive in terms of advancing inclusion and harmony in a given modern society made up of people of many different races and ethnicities.  

Please listen to his answers in the Q&A session at the end of the full video.  I think you will find he is no fan of Trump, and opines on the unfortunate reasons why he thinks Trump was elected.

Eleven minutes isn't a "snippet".

White privilege is real. It is a cancer.

Peterson is obviously intelligent. Employing that intelligence to deny the reality of White privilege is... morally reprehensible.

Here is a video that might interest you. An apparent atheist critiques Jordan Peterson and his use of the Bible. 

He points out flaws in Peterson that should be obvious to everyone, but probably aren't. 

White privilege is real. It is a cancer.

Excellent! Then prove it with actual scientific analysis.  In this video and other lectures Peterson has stepped through many scenarios where perceived privilege, thought to be "white privilege" by some, actually has nothing at all to do with race.  Factors such as wealth, location, education, intelligence, position in a state or corporate hierarchy, and other psychological factors/traits have much more bearing on the perception of privilege than does race.  All of these other factors are controllable to a significant degree by the individual in modern western society regardless of race or ethnicity.  If it is desirable that EVERYONE in a society enjoy or can at least strive for such privileges, then ascribing them to a specific race is a non-starter, because the color of ones skin is the one thing a person cannot change.  By claiming such privileges to be rooted in the color of ones skin is akin to saying that those of other races are not capable of attaining them.  And that is bullshit!    

If you think it is a cancer then what specifically do you think is the cure?  What precisely do you suggest be done about it?

Here is a video that might interest you.

I watched the first 5 or so minutes and you are correct, this video WILL interest me.  I certainly have no problem with intelligent critiques of Peterson's thoughts or opinions.  I can't scrape together the other 30 minutes right now, but I'll definitely be back to catch the rest. Thanks for the link!

Factors such as wealth, location, education, intelligence, position in a state or corporate hierarchy, and other psychological factors/traits have much more bearing on the perception of privilege than does race.  All of these other factors are controllable to a significant degree by the individual in modern western society regardless of race or ethnicity.

I think it is easy for people to jump to the conclusion of "white privilege' because through the centuries here whites did hold the upper hand. But I think that the word that should be applied is just sheer bigotry. 

As a child I was poor in a poor mixed neighborhood. No one had privilege of any sort. But what some whites had was the idea that by their sheer whiteness they were better than the blacks. Other whites didn't feel that way. They were more than aware that they could never hang with the Rockefellers or the Vanderbilts (they all lived on LI with us). The true privilege was WASP wealth and power. Now you could argue that the whites who felt that they were better just by being white, had "white privilege", but in reality, no middle class person would be seen by any of us. They viewed us as "white trash". So, I do think that bigotry is a real thing, but I have to think about the concept that whiteness alone buys you anything more than a token.

It seems to me that it's pretty easy to demonstrate that White privilege exists.

Just ask, "In America, is it better to be born White, or to be born Black?"

Of course... This doesn't work when dealing with Bad Faith .

As a child I was poor in a poor mixed neighborhood. No one had privilege of any sort.

Likewise.

But what some whites had was the idea that by their sheer whiteness they were better than the blacks.  Other whites didn't feel that way.

Indeed, and we had no reason to.  Those that did think that way were simply racists.  Anyone who claims to be superior in some way based solely on race is a racist by definition.  Bigotry, in my opinion, is a much broader term. The Oxford Dictionary definition of “bigotry” is: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.  Bigotry can certainly involve much more than race, and often rears it's head when the games of identity politics, strict ideologies, stereotyping, or generalizing about people are being played. 

I agree.. racism is a more specific word for what I was describing. We should all use the most precise word that we can, as each comes with its own set of connotations. 

OK – I got through most of the video to which you linked despite the numerous hang-ups of the NT site that kicked me out of the video and the NT page several times.  My first impression was that his criticisms of Peterson’s arguments were every bit (if not more) circular in nature, incoherent, and built of “word salad” than he claimed Petersons arguments were.  In a couple of places his long-winded criticism of what Peterson was saying was actually a reformation of Peterson’s very point!  How does one counter an argument by simply restating the opponent’s point using another set of words, unless… ah yes… perhaps one did not listen to the opponent’s argument closely enough in the first place.  As I listened and listened again due to the site lock-ups, it occurred to me that many of his “criticisms” were simply a result of him not having listened to the full context of Peterson’s arguments, or perhaps not having understood them.

But it was at least an attempt to offer a somewhat intellectual counter to Peterson’s thoughts as opposed to the straight up ad-hominem we see from many at the mere drop of Peterson’s name.

Just to make clear, the connection problems I had earlier tonight turned out to be on my end.  NT is working fine, and I am very impressed with the changes that have been made here since I first joined months ago!

Bob,

You could ask the same question to Asians, Jews, Catholics, Indians etc. The real question is, it is better to be a white anglo-saxon protestant.

Perrie,

Absolutely!

I am a male WASP. I have lived a deprived life. I have never known discrimination!

Spend a week in Detroit. 

White privilege is real. It is a cancer.

Speak for yourself. Explain in detail what you mean. Am I supposed to be ashamed because I am white? Libs just have to keep the racism issue going.

I don't get the impression that other intellectuals take him very seriously. He is a pop philosopher of the moment. Google for criticism of Jordan Peterson and you will find a lot of intellectual opposition to him.  I wouldn't be an intellectual if I had it in me, which I probably don't.  Being scholarly doesn't interest me. 

I think he's an interesting guy who has a case to make, and I would watch him in small doses. He is somewhat pretentious, which I smell out and end up avoiding, right or left. 

I don't get the impression that other intellectuals take him very seriously. He is a pop philosopher of the moment.

I'm sure that is the impression one might get from reading Google searched articles critical of Dr. Peterson.  Even so, I went ahead and did as you suggested and found THIS article , which I feel sums up a great deal about Peterson's so-called "intellectual" detractors. 

Graduate school marketing departments and collegiate salesmen speak of the virtues of reading thinkers like Jung and Dostoyevsky and how great it is to learn from those who studied them in depth. If college and the universities fail at preparing people with vocational skills, at least they should be able to provide them with a liberal arts education that they can actually use, right?

This is exactly what Peterson is doing. To read an alt-right political agenda or something else into it is willful ignorance.

Indeed.  And he embodies a threat to the ivory tower view of intellectualism, which infects many of our universities.

Jordan Peterson is accomplishing for depth psychology what colleges failed to do for the liberal arts in general: ignite curiosity in free individuals and create lifelong students.

Peterson’s crime is giving listeners and students tools they can use to improve their lives and connecting these tools to literature, mythology, and clinical experience.

Isn’t the point of understanding oneself and the world better to help oneself? Isn’t liberal arts, properly done, self-help? What should liberal arts look like if it can never be used to improve one’s own life?

If intellectuals were honest about Peterson and what he’s accomplishing, even the most anti-Peterson intellectual should be able to admit that his project is a net-good accomplishing the goals on which most of his colleagues set out in going to graduate school. He’s a prolific researcher and reputable to boot — formerly a professor at Harvard and now at University of Toronto. 12 Rules for Life is not his first book, with Maps of Meaning coming in as a tome of a textbook and depth psychology.

Even the claim that Peterson is unfairly parlaying his prominence into profit falls apart on its face. 12 Rules for Life was proposed before Peterson’s prominence due to Bill C16 (as anybody who knows the timeline for publishing a book should realize) and Peterson started posting his lectures on YouTube years before late 2016.

Peterson influences lifelong students in and outside his classroom and inspires a generation of readers and learners.

That’s why intellectuals oppose him .

Indeed.  I don't see Dr. Peterson as being pretentious.  In fact, that is one of the things he despises about the current state of liberal arts departments and many professors in most of our universities.  So pretentious are they and the students they brainwash with their postmodern ideology that they resort to not only silencing other views, but also forcing their views on others via government.  The antithesis of "liberal". 

He comes across as confident to me.  Confident that he has studied history, science, philosophy, and psychology and understands that current trends are a serious threat to the individual in our society and ultimately to our society as a whole.

Peterson is a very not-nice person, an intellectualized MAGA preacher with a Canadian accent.

I have watched a few videos by him or about him. Over intellectualizing. He uses words as much to confuse the issues as he does to illuminate them. 

I only watched the one video, and that was enough.

He is too conversant in his subject matter to be called a pseudo-intellectual, but I think that is the net effect of it. I have seem him referred to as the philosopher for the idiocracy. 

Over intellectualizing. He uses words as much to confuse the issues as he does to illuminate them.

I thought that at first too, but in those cases I simply hit the rewind button and listen to it a few times until I can fully absorb and understand his point.  I've listened to dozens of his lectures and podcasts and usually come away feeling like I learned something useful.  But I also feel that he sometimes blurs the lines between hard science (methodological studies and the like) and philosophy in his arguments, and that tends to confuse people.  I've had long conversations about this with my son, a graduated philosophy major, and we agree that one of Peterson's weaknesses is his muddling of philosophical concepts from time to time.  Just started reading his recent book, so I'll have to see what I think after that.

But all in all, I think Dr. Peterson has some very good points to make, and that there is indeed at least some evidence in our society of the negative effects of what he considers to be a post-modern mindset and identity politics.

He uses words as much to confuse the issues as he does to illuminate them.

This statement reminds me of some lefty frequent seeders here.

Canadian accent

Canadians don't have accents, it's the rest of you that have them

Eh?

To be sure, Peterson is a learned man. This does not make up for his banal, one-note intellect, however. Peterson’s lectures and conversations are rambling discourses: here a scrap of Nietzche, here a bit of Joseph Campbell, here something about lobsters… a hundered verbal Venn diagrams all delivered with the earnest panic of Jack Lemmon’s character in The China Syndrome.

And so it is with his book. Even fans of Peterson concede that 12 Rules for Life  is “a verbal spew of near incomprehensible philosophical interpretations of ancient myths” that is “mostly Peterson talking to himself.”

medium

LOL!  Hilarious article!  I actually enjoyed it, even though it offered not a single coherent rebuttal to any of Dr. Peterson's actual opinions.  But it did illustrate the sort of pop-culture pandering, ad-hominem, non-intellectual level of discourse that Peterson warns of as indicative of the post-modern mindset.  Wouldn't it be something to see a debate between this Jason Yungbluth and Dr. Peterson?  Now THAT I'd pay to see! 

Perhaps Jason could work in one of his highly intellectual statements about people he loathes like, "... in favor of a president who at any moment could appear in a YouTube video jizzing on Stormy Daniels tits".   That's helpful right?

The best part of the article is the responses from readers at the bottom. Like this one:

Instead of pointing out the errors of Peterson’s thought, the article -like the many others superficially critiquing his overwhelmingly popular and timely message- smugly sits on the ideology that Peterson indicts without making much of an effort to enter evidence demonstrating where he has gone wrong. I don’t know about the author, but this article echoes with the tenor of a spoiled child’s end of playtime.

Jordan Peterson's popularity strikes me as a fad. You Tube virality comes and then goes. 

He seems far too eggheadish to me to be able to sustain the interest of the average young male. 

He is riding a wave that is making him money and gaining him a modicum of fame. 

From what I have read he believes that male dominance and hierarchies such as class are hard wired into human societal inclinations through evolutionary biology. I don't think that is the way to go. 

I looked at 3 or 4 articles that are critical of him today. The general theme of the criticism is that he is all over the place and his presentation is a hodgepodge. 

Here is a link to one of the criticisms if you are interested. 

" 12 Rules for Life is only Peterson’s second book in twenty years. Packaged for people brought up on BuzzFeed listicles, Peterson’s brand of intellectual populism has risen with stunning velocity; and it is boosted, like the political populisms of our time, by predominantly male and frenzied followers, who seem ever-ready to pummel his critics on social media. It is imperative to ask why and how this obscure Canadian academic, who insists that gender and class hierarchies are ordained by nature and validated by science, has suddenly come to be hailed as the West’s most influential public intellectual."

nybooks

I do not know why people find him difficult to understand.   The term 'multivariate', for example, may throw some off but his explanation was very good (and not complicated).   Disparity is rarely simple - and equality is something that is difficult (if not impossible) to define (much less implement).

This interviewer was horrible - trying repeatedly to put twist Peterson's points (sometimes to the opposite of what he stated).   I was impressed with his composure.

Will do a bit more investigation of Peterson but so far I have to agree with the author's implication.