all 12 comments

[–]Mnemonic 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes, JP is the false rebellion he talks about.

[–]Oof_Too_Humid 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I like some of his stuff -- but that's how they get ya isn't it. Made me suspicious when he discounted the possibility that CEOs could be psychopaths.

[–]Mnemonic 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly, his 'rebel' things sound okay but his solutions are basically: accept the system, you can only be happy if you're part of the system, system is good.

I became interested because he was described as giving value to myths, which is basic Gnosticism and talking about Jung. But the way he goes about it and the 'conclusions' he reach are paradoxical with the practice he claims to use to reach them.

He is like a politician, instead of fixing or destroying the machine he just wants to oil it up so the kinks aren't as noticeable.

I myself am conflicted with fixing or destroying because 'The Industrial revolution' is out of pandora's box and will only get back in if most of humanity is destroyed by a worldwide catastrophic event(s) (think dinosaur extinction level) {aka destroying the system}. And Fixing is as hard as debugging, only with a lot of different languages, cultures and different outlooks(aka design plans). Kind of like when we all go about implementing our utopian view on Saidit by editing the same files simultaneously.

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

i am not familiar with jp and looks like thats a good thing :-)

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He's good to listen to for a few hours, but he tends to end up blaming everything on post-modernism and then he sounds like a broken record.

[–]Mnemonic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great summary!

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ted was a victim of MK Ultra experiments, so he's understandably opposed to the doctrinal system.

JP is largely misunderstood. He makes statements that appear incendiary but have significant merit if considered carefully. The statements are generally gender and social rights/justice issues. He loses people when they ask him if he thinks a given situation is ok, and he generally responds, "I don't know", because no one has adequately researched the specifics of the topic being discussed (plus pinpointing causality in social sciences is dubious, at best). Public opinion on most social topics is largely based on unfounded social norms and sociological assumptions. This is the general thesis of 95% of his arguments.

For example: If women wear makeup at work, can that create an unintended/unforseen sexual/social message???

Imagine if women quit wearing makeup to work, or all men started wearing makeup, etc. Makeup or not, the workplace social environment will be impacted. The status quo is currently affecting society in ways that are not fully understood.

Then there's the non-gender pronoun debate, which is a SJW hot button issue that some use to attack him. The right supports him as, an enemy of my enemy; he's Canadian though and his views are to the left of most of theirs. You do have to listen carefully, because he doesn't state his personal views very often.

[–]Mnemonic 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

because he doesn't state his personal views very often.

So all his crying (just search Jordan Peterson Crying) is staged? (His emotional outbursts are something he's famed and loved for IIRC, best known and made it into a lot of Kermit memes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvBm0ZUfe7I)

Imagine if women quit wearing makeup to work, or all men started wearing makeup, etc. Makeup or not, the workplace social environment will be impacted.

Maybe a bad example because both cases have been happening for ages (In western society and still is). It wasn't that long ago that the elite men wore makeup (also, almost every man on TV wears make up 'because you have to look pretty in the unnatural light'). And pretty much only TV (or p*rn) brainwashed people think of make-up being 'natural' for women. (but maybe you mean mascara, that's a bit more general accepted {the eyes/brow stuff} as 'basic women stuff' though certain hair-colors (black and red) don't use it too often in the wild). But this can all be a culture difference

But more on topic and JP, the good part of him is his 'calling out' problems, excesses and whatever you call it. Though his solutions are founded in what Ted describes as the machine/system. So on the one hand he 'rebels' by calling out thing 'the status quo' misses/ignores or even endorses. But he himself so much system he can't really rebel so with long talks basically says to embrace the system (more specifically the system he grew up in and he has spun his tales around).

It's not perse a declassification of Jordan (I would happily believe and take it already as fact he's a good psychiatrist), but viewed in the Ted perspective he is this false rebellion. To put it blunt: Peterson does not take into account the tremendous and devastating 'Industry' and is fine with how society acts with it and sets people up (helps) them to integrate into this abomination of a system.

EDIT: did I already mention Ted was a bit of a radical fanatic? ;)

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ehh I think JP isn't quite as domesticated as the people Ted was talking about. But he does have a point.

[–]Mnemonic 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well Ted was talking about all people, the non-domesticated side of JP is just his rebel impulse.

But the/a true rebellion against the system he doesn't preach, he is preaching against changes he finds not correct to the system, but still fully endorsing the system.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the/a true rebellion against the system he doesn't preach

he is preaching against changes he finds not correct to the system, but still fully endorsing the system.

I mean... not really. He's pretty against post-modernism, and says it has taken over the culture and academia, and is openly against this.

There's various levels of changing the system, and I could agree he's on the more tame side of things, but he still is calling for deep change in a lot of ways.

Imo there is no "true rebellion against the system", it's all shades of grey. Some could make the argument that being happy within yourself for who you are is the truest rebellion in a system looking to control us with fear and conformity.

[–]Mnemonic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He's pretty against post-modernism

His own self-made weird definition of post-modernism while using post-modernism to reach that conclusion. It's post-modernist to see the flaws he sees in (for example) that gender-law in Canada or how he's treated by the academia because of his 'rebellion'. [though it depends which line of which post-modernist thinker you follow].

but he still is calling for deep change in a lot of ways.

I really fail to see that in concrete ways, he's saying micro-interventionists things that 'could' work for people to get back on track but that's not a change from going to a psychiatrist, or having a conversation with your house-doctor or even your loved one, spouse, friends or some random person in a bar. Here I kind of like him, but it's not new nor deep.

On his thoughts about myths, legends and human psychology you're better off reading Jung, get Gnostic or get more into your own local culture.

Imo there is no "true rebellion against the system", it's all shades of grey. Some could make the argument that being happy within yourself for who you are is the truest rebellion in a system looking to control us with fear and conformity.

Ah yeah, I think we are talking about a different 'system'. (because I agree on that) {Ted is more about the underlying [to put it matrix style] code}.

The Industrial revolution and the enslavement of humanity by technology, machines, factories, schools and most of all this 'new' government that it brought which is (usually) not royal but a cluster of everything and everyone willing to 'sell out' for power/money/other indulgences because that is what this system thrives on.

This system is what Peterson does not rebel against, he cherry-picked some strange outgrows and doubles down on those as parlor trick while the rest is basic psychiatry stuff taught in... the academia he 'somehow' rebels against.

Petersons crusade against the media-hyped concepts I like though his approach is the same and that I dislike.

Hmm to put the difference it more clearly: Consider a car.

Peterson is against having it mandatory painted pink, not only because it would be mandatory but also the 'reasons' brought up to why it should be painted pink. (and of course freedom)

Ted is against having a car for the sake of humanity and it's freedom in nature.

I hope this makes more clear why I say Peterson would be a false rebellion in the thoughtline of Kaczynski.