-->
@zedvictor4
@MisterChris
I'm of a similar mind, to what you're both saying.
Posts #119, #120.
Jordan Peterson
Posts
Total:
170
-->
@ebuc
The topic is "all for one and one for all" I am against it and said why. You comment I have emotional issues or lack intellect in so many words to those comments I made. I by default can only conclude you favor "all for one and one for all" You say I have not addressed a question. Please restate the question and be very detailed in that question. I don't want to be accused of misinterpreting your questions or questions. To my recollection you haven't asked any questions but only made unsubstantiated character assessments about me. So please go ahead with your questions, I will answer them directly and succinctly.
-->
@sadolite
Sad-lite-lite = irrational, false narrative rant. Sorry not interested anymore. Best wishes sadolite, to you and your kind.
-->
@ebuc
So in other words, backed into a corner then deflect and then reiterate I am irrational. Good argument.
-->
@ebuc
"Best wishes sadolite, to you and your kind." = False narrative
28 days later
-->
@Lemming
I haven't read this thread, but I do agree with Peterson's view regarding equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity. His analysis of the extremes of both the Right and the Left seem pretty reasonable too.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
You would be astonished at how many people would disagree and that they think they are entitled to everything everyone else has worked for, but they themselves haven't lifted a finger to earn any of it.
-->
@sadolite
Repeats a very standard centre-right "cultural conservative" script cloaked in the impressively dramatic performance of a dark mysterious professor deeply wrestling with new, dangerous ideas. All while serving a steady stream of intellectual junk food - the same group of conservative think-tank personalities interviewing each other over and over, evasive rhetoric about being apolitical, and worst of all, self-help books. The kind of sludge dumped onto the internet every day by people like Peterson is what makes it such a boring and repetitive place for those actually interested in discussing ideas, as opposed to "advertainment".
-->
@rbelivb
Never bought one of my self help books myself, but if they help some individuals try to improve their lives, or succeed in improving their lives, what's so bad about that?
-->
@rbelivb
I only read tech manuals, self help books are for the helpless and hopeless.
-->
@sadolite
I wouldn't be astonished at all.
If a milkable system is provided, then people will milk it......It's what is known as a liberal society.
It's one of the reasons why the U.K. has to import labour.
-->
@rbelivb
Interesting. I'm not sure I'm reading that right but I do agree that self-help books are generally useless. I think they take inferences for granted. I did find ancient philosophy helpful. Stoicism espoused by Epictetus is the best self-help so far (imho).
-->
@Lemming
Never bought one of my self help books myself, but if they help some individuals try to improve their lives, or succeed in improving their lives, what's so bad about that?
They encourage a philosophy of "minimalism" which leads people to "shut out distractions" and "simplify" their lives, to become more "productive" - turning their lives into more of a closed system. People perceive the self-help books as helping them improve their lives, because the self-help books encourage them to focus monomaniacally on small, incremental improvements rather than big-picture thinking, and on their own lives rather than the broader culture - so that they gain a sense of righteousness and self-satisfaction in the small mundane tasks which they were going to do anyway. In terms of relationships, they emphasise the differences between groups by promoting cliches, therefore deepening cultural divides. I actually think it makes people dumber and more neurotic by reading those books.
-->
@rbelivb
Interesting perspective, though I don't agree or disagree with your view, myself.
Have you read many self help books yourself?
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I learned 2 things at a very young age. If you are not willing to compete at everything you will be a loser. Not engaging in completion in the work place or anything else automatically makes you a loser. Second, not being able to deal with failure and losing guarantees you will remain a loser. I fail and lose a lot but I never quit competing. The things that I suck at are what I don't give much effort to. I accept that I am a loser at certain things in life but those things don't interest me and are not important to who I am as an individual. Nobody can be good at everything. But you damn sure better be good at doing something that can earn you money and you better figure it out quick. "The world waits for no man"
-->
@sadolite
OK. Are you still a loser if you learn things late in life? Do you think there is an age in which learning is too late?
If a 60 year old publishes his first book, do you think he's a loser?
-------
Edit: On an unrelated note, I Just saw the advertaient video or whatever. Yeah, I'm not interested in that interview, no matter how good the comments make it. Plus, the culture is pretty bizarre to me. No thanks, I'd rather read Butler's Five Sermons whose audience is universal. My opinion.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
If you did nothing with your life until the age of 60, you wasted your life. I'd call that being a loser. The fact that you made some money writing a book at age 60 still doesn't change the fact that you wasted the majority of your life.
-->
@sadolite
That's harsh.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Maybe so, but the truth doesn't give a shit about your feelings.
-->
@3RU7AL
Before I watch this, what am I supposed to take away or learn from this? I assume you posted this for a reason and not just for my entertainment.
-->
@sadolite
Before I watch this, what am I supposed to take away or learn from this? I assume you posted this for a reason and not just for my entertainment.
I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson conversations and this is the best one.
-->
@3RU7AL
I've watched nearly all of his content. He pretty much states the obvious about everything, but in todays woke retard world nothing is obvious to the indoctrinated imbeciles being produced by the education system. I feel sorry for anyone born after 2000. Their futures are really quite hopeless.
39 days later
-->
@ethang5
Peterson didn't really debunk it he just called it racist and pivoted to collectivism and gulags. the second guy literally just used anecdotes about him not experiencing it.
74 days later
Politically I disagree on as much stuff as I agreed with for Jordan.
Religiously I disagree more than that.
Yet he has easily informed me the most in his field and always worth listening to - especially when he stays in his lane in psychology.
I don't think I would be able to listen to him the same way if he does what the vast majority of authoritative oralists do which is to deride, categorise and fire shots at those that disagree with him.
Religiously I disagree more than that.
Yet he has easily informed me the most in his field and always worth listening to - especially when he stays in his lane in psychology.
I don't think I would be able to listen to him the same way if he does what the vast majority of authoritative oralists do which is to deride, categorise and fire shots at those that disagree with him.
-->
@sadolite
Any of you familiar with Jordan Peterson?
Yes.
If so what kind of opinions do you have of his lectures regarding men and women and what their differences are and what each brings to the table in a relationship when they are younger and then get older. I think he is spot on. It goes without saying most women will disagree but the statistics do not lie and are irrefutable.
Never state that statistics are irrefutable especially as it concerns behavior. As it concerns clinical psychology, it is protocol for Jordan Peterson to render inferences using statistics as an accurate capture, but at the end of the day, they are nothing more than consensus-based opinions. Jordan Peterson has offered plenty of gems which I'm sure many have found useful. He's a thoughtful, intelligent and considerate man. If you're asking what I personally think of his opinions regarding men and women, I'm neutral. There are a lot of generalities as is expected with his milieu, but nothing I wouldn't consider food for thought.
Woman age like milk and men age like fine wine is what I would use to describe is philosophy.
Has he actually said this?
Women are born with inherent value and men are not.
Says who?
Women control sex and birthing, men control relationships.
With the exception of birthing, says who?
-->
@Athias
Has he actually said this? No, "I" said it. I was very clear. "Woman age like milk and men age like fine wine is what "I" would use to describe his philosophy.
"Women are born with inherent value and men are not." Nature says so. Women are born with the ability to have children. It requires no practice, effort or work. Men have to earn value, they are useless until they demonstrate they are not. Many men remain useless their entire life. They cant even take care of themselves let alone a wife and kids.
Women control sex and birthing, men control relationships. Men by the vast vast vast vast majority seek woman for relationships. That means men choose who they will be in a relationship with. The fact a man gets rejected is irrelevant, woman by a vast vast vast majority wait for a man to choose them.
-->
@sadolite
He's still relevant? Or have you been watching his old videos?