Another Peterson rant
Now that I’ve been listening to Jordan Peterson, you’re probably going to see quite a few excerpts here from his talks.
How does he get the ability to speak so fast and so long while hardly pausing for breath? This video features seven rants, but I’ve cued it up to show just one of them, on the topic of equality of outcome:
This is the day and age of youtube celebrities. Well, they already had American Idol right.
Oh, I don’t know about it being so amazing that he can go on and on about something he knows inside and out, knowledge which he feels some urgency to share — because it is in general unknown. I was so glad here that Peterson was not interrupted.
You know, back in the days of debates between Red Hat and Yellow Hat Tibetan Buddhism, it was considered a legitimate technique to shout down your debating opponent until your voice was the only one being heard. We see this all the time, constantly in fact, on CNN, ABC, NBC and so on. This is a conscious technique.
Red Hat and Yellow Hat Tibetan Buddhists ended up killing each other, by the way. The Yellow Hats won.
Might as well face it: you’re hooked!
Don’t worry! So am I.
Peterson is very assertive in adversarial situations, he does not politely back down. But that doesn’t mean he disrespects people — however the ideas of people can be very thoroughly dismantled with reason, with a concluding remark that the ideas were “the most idiotic notions ever.”
.
Peterson’s college lectures are quite different. His ancient wisdom (Genesis) lectures are 2 plus hours of intellectual passion, followed by student Q&A with thoughtful, friendly responses. It is not religious ministry by any means. Devout Atheist Sam Harris put Peterson on his podcast because his listeners requested it – they found found Peterson’s youtubes on the wisdom of Jewish, Christian, Daoist, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian creation literature compelling — not superstition or opiates of the masses.
I downloaded his book and about to start Chapter 3.
He sets it all out so clearly in Chapter 1 … well, first of all it is cathartic to read and second it shows how clear is his foundation. This clarity allows him to dance all over the steps like Fred Astaire when he’s on his feet.
It is delicious that his book is free. So was The Communist Manifesto (funded by Engels). We are as ripe for Peterson as were the exploited workers ready for Marx in 1848. The difference between the two is that Peterson is based on science and Marx not so much.
I dont know. I think Camille has him beat.
I’ve turned to YouTube as of late. Sad but true. NeoNeoCon you should do a YouTube channel. You can get paid for your work through those channels.
Read to me 🙂
My point here is that various people have commented that Jordan Peterson is who “Red Pilled” them and once they went down that Rabbit Hole they didn’t come up for air until they were completely transformed.
I know you are interested in changers as I am. I love changers. YouTube is full of “Red Pilled” changers preaching the good word. RoamingMillenial for example is a young asian person who just did a 3 hour q and a at a university working to explain why there are people who vote for Trump (like her).
BlondintheBelly of the Beast is another one who is amazing.
My favorite lately is Candace Owns who nicknames herself RedPillBlack
Anyways, I’m always loving this blog which I started reading since the beginning. More than 10 years now.
You can comment from behind the apple. 🙂
The interesting thing to me about Peterson is that he has charisma and exceptional foundational knowledge. I know all the things (well maybe not ALL the things) that he knows about the creed of individualism. I’ve been trying to make these same points in blog comments for years. What’s lacking? Charisma. My writing and speaking (especially the speaking) just don’t catch the attention. Sour grapes? No. I’m exceedingly happy that Professor Peterson is gathering a following. That he’s Canadian (those socialist hangers on who crib much of their economy from their American cousins) makes it just that much more satisfying. He’s doing the work of conservative angels – converting those who will open their minds. Horray!
Peterson in an interview when asked if he regretted anything he has said. Peterson replied that he was a bit harsh about the Men Going Their Own Way movement, a case of bitter older guys leading younger guys astray. The bitter older guys having been screwed, so to speak by pathological women that the older guys go tangled up with.
Harry The…
Paglia has him beat in only one way – that she can talk a little faster and gathers attention by waving her hands around. Her command of the subjects she is a supposed expert in is tempered by her inability to explain them to an outsider. She assumes everyone was either around in the 60s and 70s, or is a love child of same. Her reference point always, always goes back to what she believes was the open and creative spirit let loose by the summer of love in ’67. Oh, and the strong and vibrant Italian women in her heritage.
Petersen on the other hand is passionate but logical and very clear in explaining his positions. He doesn’t assume anything.
Paglia has him beat in only one way — that she can talk a little faster and gathers attention by waving her hands around.
He’s Norwegian, and she’s Italian. There you are. The way Paglia crows at the end of their soon to be famous 90 minute talk is one if the most delicious things I have heard in years, though.
“I knew it! We agree about everything, evvvvvrything!!”
Harry the Extremist, mezzrow, The Other Chuck:
Paglia does talk faster. But actually, Peterson talks with his hands an awful lot, too. I was surprised at that. He uses them in a very expressive and unusual way, too. Doesn’t just wave them around.
I like the way Peterson has learned to suppress the “ums” and “uhs” most of us pepper our speech with. Instead, his speech is filled with these silent gaps. When I noticed that, I though, “he’s making it up as he goes along,” and I recently found a video where he says he’s doing exactly that. Not only is he judging audience reaction to what he says, but he is in fact putting his thoughts together on the spot. (Although of course he has points well in hand.)
My only complaint about Peterson’s videos is the cussin’ – but then, he is very emotionally engaged in his opinions, and perhaps yields to the passion of the moment, even if he is constructing the arguments themselves on the fly — which is noticeable in the Paglia discussion. He really is listening to her, rather than just waiting for a break in which to insert his own comments, like far too many interviewers.
I really liked the way they threw the ball back and forth, with very few real interruptions, and following each other onto new tracks whenever a topic was covered sufficiently to establish their agreement.
J.J. Says:
October 23rd, 2017 at 8:02 pm…. I’ve been trying to make these same points in blog comments for years. What’s lacking? Charisma.
* * *
Part of his “rock star” status comes from the incident that propelled him into the limelight: refusing to yield to the PC insanity of the Canadian Pronoun Law (or whatever the formal name is): he wasn’t saying anything new or unique, but he was saying it OUT LOUD..
Somewhat like Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the door — and he apparently had what passed for charisma in the 16th century.
As a side note, this description of Luther’s “Disputation” sounds a lot like Damore’s Google memo, which got him into so much trouble with the Establishment that currently holds a position similar to the Catholic hierarchy back in the day: complete control of your worldly goods and spiritual welfare (if you let it).
“Hans Hillerbrand writes that Luther had no intention of confronting the church, but saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices, and the tone of the writing is accordingly “searching, rather than doctrinaire.” ” [Wikipedia]
Here’s Jordon B. Peterson on MGTOW – “pathetic weasels” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uTMPwFlf9I
followed later by a bit more nuanced appraisal of MGTOW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLbjmIajj9g
Take away, MGTOW not “pathetic weasels” but not really a good thing.
How do we even know that ”the Human Resources Department at the University of Toronto has adopted an equity position” that means “Equality of Outcome”?
I went to their website and don’t see this listed as one of their positions. Is Peterson alleging a hidden agenda? He doesn’t appear to, imo. Indeed he argues against the position rather earnestly. Too earnestly imo…as his arguments seem totally obvious.
He doesn’t cite an example of this policy in action. Indeed, his cites seem to contradict his claims…like about classes being overrepresented by group x. I mean, if groups are overrepped then where’s the enforcement of the offending (but so far unseen) policy?
I for one am happy that he lacks this charisma factor. His intense interest in The Word overrides vanity, keeps the “ums” in check, and allowed him even to post the physically unflattering but intellectually stimulating series on psychology 2017 wherein he was shot at an unflattering angle from below. I listen, too, on dog walks when the phone is in the pocket and the sun blocks out my screen so that sometimes one plays that I had not selected. Yesterday I got his answer to a student’s “what were you like 25 years ago.” In another, he advises students not to take notes during lecture. In still another, he describes how to read and NOT underline: Rather, read, stop, write-think.
He’s cute enough for me! My mind has never found a cuter mind.
Manju:
“Are you open to learning?”
DJ Moore 10/23-11:36: “Not only is he judging audience reaction to what he says, but he is in fact putting his thoughts together on the spot.”
.
It is a marvelous display of respect for the transcendent potential in moving from thoughts to declared speech. It ties in very nicely with Peterson’s Genesis/Creation lectures on “In the beginning there was the Word.”
Take away, MGTOW not “pathetic weasels” but not really a good thing.
Not a good thing per se, but as Heinlein remarked never appeal to a man’s better nature. He may not have one. Always appeal to his enlightened self-interest.
But since marriage as practiced in the west is a really bad deal for men, many come to see MGTOW as enlightened self-interest.
I became interested in him after his passionate defense of free speech in Canada: he confronted an angry mob head-on. He’s a radical outlier on Western college campuses: he supports Western democratic values, norms, and institutions. In a place where common sense and reason have no place in public discourse, he argues passionately for both.
He can go off the rails into minutiae. For example, his one hour philosophical argument with Sam Harris about truth (Sam’s podcast) is absolutely painful to listen to.
Still, he’s an articulate and knowledgeable person who is a strong advocate for liberty, justice, and reason. I’m not exactly a total fan, but I appreciate his contributions.
internet killed the movie stars
I hate listening to people, especially rants. Is any of his work written down?
“Peterson is very assertive in adversarial situations, he does not politely back down.” Mark30339
SJWs understand no other language. They must be challenged with passionate intensity. It’s their stock in trade.
“I dont know. I think Camille has him beat.” Harry the Extremist
It’s easy to mistake certainty for wisdom. Knowledge or as J.J. terms it, “exceptional foundational knowledge” is the scaffolding and common sense, the bindings/rivets/glue upon which wisdom is built.
om,
Peterson admitting to regret over past error is the mark of a man who learns from his mistakes.
The Other Chuck,
Paglia’s “Paglia has him beat in only one way — that she can talk a little faster and gathers attention by waving her hands around. Her command of the subjects she is a supposed expert in is tempered by her inability to explain them to an outsider.”
I like Paglia and she writes fairly well but she’s not good at speaking extemporaneously. Clarity in explanation is directly related to mastery of the subject.
This quote comes to mind: “If you can’t explain what you’re doing and why you’re doing it to any intelligent layman, that really means that you don’t understand it yourself.” Allan Bromley, former President of the American Physical Society
Paglia speaks of realities that she’s at most visited in dreams or… briefly when high. She “sees through a curtain darkly” (as do we all) but to her credit she doesn’t pretend that realities that can’t be measured must not exist.
mezzrow,
Paglia naturally practices Emile Zola’s mantra, “If you ask me what I came into this life to do, I will tell you: I came to live out loud.” By “loud” I think Zola meant what Heinlein spoke of, “Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.”
DJMoore,
Thanks, that’s an insight I can keep; lecturing someone ignores their reactive input while effective communicating… requires responding to their reactions…
Manju,
We can be confident that ”the Human Resources Department at the University of Toronto has adopted an equity position” because “equality of outcome” is a foundational part of the Left’s dialectic.
Geoffrey Britain:
When Harry the Extremist said Paglia “has him beat,” I assumed he meant in the fast-talking department.
In that arena she has no peer.
Peterson and Paglia discussion. Good stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM
It is an hour and 43 minutes and I’ve played it at 1.25 speed. Usually I can put somebody on 1.5 speed and understand them but these people blow my brain up
Geoffrey:
In the interview where Peterson expressed regret he was very clear that he realized the stakes were very high and his words are under extreme scrutiny by the opposition. He is very careful consequently. Watch and listen you will be rewarded and drawn to think deeper about important things.
GB:
Excellent points. I don’t hate Paglia, just find her tiring. What you say about her is spot on.
@ mark: “opiates of the masses.”
I remember my sociology professor saying that, on the surface, this phrase isn’t what it appears to be (religion is the drug of the masses) but something else – can’t remember exactly what it was but it was illuminating.
GRA Says:
October 24th, 2017 at 11:01 pm
It can mean that religion is constructed by humans to control or entertainment/pleasure other humans.
Or that humans prepare the opiate, as food, for other humans to consume.
Thus in that fashion, Marx believed that Marxism should replace the opiate of the masses. Which it did.
Opiates are illegal in the US, but Marx’s days was probably different.
They often used opiates as medical treatment, to treat female “hysteria”, or as a pain killer. Due to its expense and addiction rates, people couldn’t get as addicted freely as they do now on meth.
om,
As it turns out, I’m the one who first turned neo on to Peterson… I’m gratified to learn that you find yourself drawn to think deeper about important things.
I hadn’t heard or read that from Neo, maybe I missed it, in any event it was a good thing that Neo has made his works more widely known.
Peterson has been on the radar so to speak since his opposition to the Ontario Human Rights Commission personal pronoun proscription was handed down.
It’s amazing that people who complain about how long the things I write, which take a few minutes and sometimes require less than a minute to read, are too long so they’ll skip it.
When they listen to other people talk on for hours at a time, even if they are multi tasking.
The key problem is that they are bored, not whether the substance is long or short. It’s also whether they agree with their idols or not. I make it a motif of mine to filter out the wannabes.
Assistant even once got the wrong judgment of me, and given his psychological background and high IQ… is pretty ridiculous.
Whether people agree or not with me, is not what I seek. If they have something interesting to claim, I’ll listen to them. If not, I mirror reflect their attitude towards me, back at them. It’s easier that way.