I did not suggest he was thoughtful to imply that he was (always) "right." I suggested that he was thoughtful to contradict badger's statement that "his only utility" is to coddle "bitch men."
I think that's his only utility these days.
So what do you believe he's incorrect about? / He didn't say that they were objective; he said they were universal.
He said, "
Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that" followed by "
It's a conscious progressive attempt to manipulate and retool the notion of beauty, reliant on the idiot philosophy that such preferences are learned and properly changed by those who know better. See [here] and [here] but don't let the facts stop you."
It's hard not to laugh at this catastrophizing right off the bat, but I did give him the benefit of the doubt considering how boldly and assertively he was scientifically posturing.
The first link is a study titled 'Newborn Babies Prefer Attractive Faces.' The study shows that 12 out of 16 babies (a pitiful sample size for a study) spent more time looking at faces deemed attractive by adults. It wasn't able to say what features made the infants look for longer. However what's important here is the emphasis on faces, when Peterson's remark about the model being objectively "not beautiful" was in reference to her body size. That makes the study pretty useless to his point all-together.
The second link cites a study which looked at people's yearbook photos to study attractiveness. The research notes, "The majority of the yearbook photos were face portraits, so the rated physical attractiveness was based mostly on facial attractiveness." A similar problem. And the study was conducted by having 33 people aged only between 63 and 91 years old rank people's attractiveness in their HS photographs. Essentially none of what is contained in that study counters the idea that beauty standards are learned / change over time (we have historical evidence that they do), yet Peterson declared "THE FACTS" so condescendingly even though he didn't present any facts that were relevant to his claim.
I think we can characterize his tweet as a gaffe because the studies were so completely and utterly useless to his point. Since he is considered one of the most famous and prominent intellectuals on earth, we can either assume it was a gaffe to include such pitifully irrelevant citations - or we can assume that he's a just a pathetic whiney old man-child concerned more with generating 'likes' on twitter from his incel followers than he is with data and truth telling. I am comfortable agreeing to the latter scenario rather than it being a gaffe. You're right that it's more likely he wasn't even trying to make a cohesive point; his goal is primarily to get other dorky men with girl problems to stroke his ego. You can just tell he's the sort of guy who never got over the trauma of always being picked last in gym class.
Was it directed at her physical attractiveness, or the alleged PC Machine against which he has wagered a personal intifada--the one which catapulted his public image and career? Why would one who's aware of his M.O. be surprised or shocked by what he stated, much less characterize it as a "gaffe"?
This is exactly the point. He is whining like a little bitch boy re: "progressives" at Sports Illustrated choosing to highlight a plus size model (waaah) which he doesn't find attractive. Boo hoo. Someone get the man a tissue before he palms a handful of klonopin to calm himself down.
I am not surprised at all that Peterson is choosing to focus on lamenting such things of miniscule significance, because that's what catapulted him to fame. That's precisely what I said about him buying into his own bullshit and becoming a self-obsessed ego maniac that panders to fellow white boy betas. He's lost a lot of credibility as an intellect. I got into JP circa 2010 when I was going through a Jungian phase in philosophy, reading a lot of his earlier stuff geared toward that. It wasn't until like 2017 that he became an insufferable douche more obsessed with whining about the politically correct left than philosophizing or writing about history and psychology. I admit that there are people who knee jerk react hate him based on what he "represents," and I admit that he can be really interesting and compelling in some of his engagements, but there really are a lot of flaws in his positions that go beyond mine and other people's bias.
How much of this has to do with Jordan Peterson himself, and not your issues with the image his followers sustain?
I think it's both. I think I'm disappointed that he positioned himself as a mouthpiece for the alt right considering he is reasonably intelligent, and I wish he focused his time and energy on more intellectual pursuits or things he used to write about previously from a researcher point of view. Now he's just another anti-social justice crusader. The world doesn't need another Ben Shapiro.
I agree with you to an extent that Jordan Peterson has "always been this" if by this you mean a resentful dweeb. He always seemed frustrated that his already diminished status as an effeminate male continues to decline as the world becomes less impressed by (and perhaps even more hostile to) mediocre white men. But I think it wasn't until he was catapulted to notoriety via YouTube that his focus changed from history and psychology to basically trolling people on twitter all day. I don't use twitter, but people on other social sites I use have been mocking him relentlessly for what appears to be an addiction to fighting with feminists and trans people online. That doesn't exactly seem like something an "intellectual giant" would be focused on to the point of obsession.
But my biggest issue is indeed with his followers (and I think you chose a good word by calling them followers; his fanbase is very cult-like). I resent that his stans eat up everything he says without scrutiny. I can digest JP the same way I digest some of my other favorite thinkers, and none of them are right about everything. I feel like we can value so many people in history / philosophy / science yet criticize their shortcomings. Not so with Jordan Peterson. His stans go absolutely berserk and have these ridiculous fangirl meltdowns if you disagree with or criticize one of his really novice-level understanding positions he takes. Plus, like I said, telling a bunch of grown men to "make friends with the people who want the best for you" really isn't some monumentally profound piece of life-changing advice we haven't all been told since kindergarten. He's no Socrates, he's a father figure for lost boys. And the remarks about "setting your house in perfect order before you criticize the world" is just straight up horse shit, not genius. I just don't understand the worship of him is all.
I too do not believe he's the most prominent intellectual of this generation, or any generation, but nevertheless, he is thoughtful and rigorous in his reasoning. At the very least, he's worth hearing out.
I agree. But I've listened and I'm over it.
