- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jordan Peterson is on Rogan today
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:18 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:18 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
That is absolutely true. I honestly don't know why people like him so much, or what he offers that earlier thinkers don't.
He does a good job of presenting sociological concepts in the framework of theories like evolutionary psychology in a way that makes sense and makes people feel it’s highly applicable to their lives.
He’s good at grabbing pieces of concepts and blending them into philosophical discussion.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:20 pm to efrad
quote:
12 Rules for Life and Beyond Order are just rags compared to his other work. Which is why it's silly to reduce him to that.
What concepts has he introduced that’s new to psychology and the field? Do you have any links to active research he’s conducted?
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:22 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
What concepts has he introduced that’s new to psychology and the field?
You keep harping on introducing something new. Why is this so important? How much of "science" is necessarily introducing something new?
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:23 pm to OMLandshark
Maps of Meaning is pretty profound.
The Rules for life books are what one might expect. Not particularly unique but not worthless either.
His Harvard and University of Toronto lectures one can find online are valuable. I expect radical fame changed him but it would be difficult to not.
Jordan appears to lack the recognition for how deep the corruption has run into some of the institutions he vehemently defends.
His daughter seems to seek to capitalize entirely on his popularity. I certainly don't know the details of her life but some of her public behavior seems in conflict with Jordan's message. Her association with Andrew Tate isn't a positive reflection.
The Rules for life books are what one might expect. Not particularly unique but not worthless either.
His Harvard and University of Toronto lectures one can find online are valuable. I expect radical fame changed him but it would be difficult to not.
Jordan appears to lack the recognition for how deep the corruption has run into some of the institutions he vehemently defends.
His daughter seems to seek to capitalize entirely on his popularity. I certainly don't know the details of her life but some of her public behavior seems in conflict with Jordan's message. Her association with Andrew Tate isn't a positive reflection.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:24 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
You keep harping on introducing something new. Why is this so important? How much of "science" is necessarily introducing something new?
This is largely directed at the notion that he’s not just a consumer of science and a good communicator and some groundbreaking psychologist.
Why is it so important to gnash teeth and sky scream when someone points that out?
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:24 pm to timdallinger
quote:
Her association with Andrew Tate isn't a positive reflection.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:28 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
He does a good job of presenting sociological concepts in the framework of theories like evolutionary psychology in a way that makes sense and makes people feel it’s highly applicable to their lives.
First, I need to say that most evolutionary psychology is so utterly stupid that I can't believe anyone takes it seriously. Secondly, some of his writing is laughably bad. His introduction to Solzhenitsyn's new edition of The Gulag Archipelago was cringe-worthy.
quote:
He’s good at grabbing pieces of concepts and blending them into philosophical discussion.
I'd argue that he's extremely sloppy at this in particular. His criticisms of 'postmodernity' in 12 Rules made absolutely no sense, and some of the things he said in reference to the development of the continental tradition was so stupid it gave me a brain-bleed. Honestly, his criticisms are parroting several other people, such as Paul Weyrich and Stephen Hicks. That's in addition to him using Campbell and Jung as his departure points, which again begs the question why anyone reads him at all, when his source material is far superior.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:30 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
What concepts has he introduced that’s new to psychology and the field? Do you have any links to active research he’s conducted?
I never said he did, so what would this even prove? It sounds like you're arguing against something I'm not even stating. Humans can be categorized in more ways than just "only self-help writer" and "psychology field ground-breaker."
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:32 pm to BluegrassBelle
No you dumb twat, I’m reacting to you LYING. I don’t give a single frick what some morbidly-obese, puffed-up little fart from Kentucky thinks about anybody or anything. I care about someone too dishonest to comment on what I actually say, who instead drools out a low IQ Straw Man . Do better.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:36 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
He does a good job of presenting sociological concepts in the framework of theories like evolutionary psychology
I can't even begin to fathom what you have listened to from JP. Evolutionary Psychology does a great job of explaining why we have religion. JP actually takes religion seriously.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:36 pm to Lsupimp
Now that’s a proper melt.
Might want to follow Peterson’s Rule #6 though. Doesn’t seem like you really have your house in order when you lose your shite like that.
Might want to follow Peterson’s Rule #6 though. Doesn’t seem like you really have your house in order when you lose your shite like that.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:43 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
This is largely directed at the notion that he’s not just a consumer of science and a good communicator and some groundbreaking psychologist.
neil degrasse tyson and bill nye are literally just science communicators. neither of them are actually doing science. they're taking complex matters and explaining them in interesting ways.
i don't care for either (Bill Nye, especially) but i'm not hating on them for taking complex matters and turning it into entertainment or into an interesting talking point. it's better than more "ow, my balls!"
in the same vane, he's just a clinical psychologist communicator.
quote:
Why is it so important to gnash teeth and sky scream when someone points that out?
i think we can all agree the incel/manchild culture is a net negative for society. be those individuals on the left or the right, it's a bad thing. somebody writing literature and/or offering help to that community as simple or silly as it may seem is a net good for society.
saying "well this is dumb stuff people should be doing anyways, it's not groundbreaking" are like people that get upset at Dave Ramsey. He's not telling Warren Buffet what to do with his money. He's telling the idiot who financed living room furniture and has a maxed out Old Navy card how to get out of debt.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:47 pm to 3nOut
quote:
neil degrasse tyson and bill nye are literally just science communicators. neither of them are actually doing science. they're taking complex matters and explaining them in interesting ways.
i don't care for either (Bill Nye, especially) but i'm not hating on them for taking complex matters and turning it into entertainment or into an interesting talking point. it's better than more "ow, my balls!"
We can absolutely agree on that. And I’m not hating on him, if what he writes helps then I’m all for it.
I just don’t agree with putting him on the same level as say, an Aaron Beck. If that makes sense. For what it’s worth I feel the same way about Brene Brown, who has become insanely popular on the other end of the spectrum. So it’s not exclusive to Peterson.
Thanks for the rational response.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:50 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
to Lsupimp
quote:
. Doesn’t seem like you really have your house in order

Posted on 1/26/22 at 3:51 pm to lechateau
quote:
Have never listened to Rogan ever. Listened for about 30 minutes of this. Peterson's brain works on a completely different level than Rogan. Rogan kind of sounds like a moron
That’s what makes him such a good interviewer. It’s very approachable and conversational. He’s interviewed everyone from scientists to Elon Musk to rock stars to conspiracy theorists with the same approach. It makes it an easy digestible listen as if we were in the room asking the questions.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 4:37 pm to Sev09
I agree with this... He is an excellent interviewer. Just your average dude that is curious about people. I'm not a huge fan of Rogan, but I don't dislike him. I just don't have the time for him. I'll listen to a clip occasionally and sometimes a whole show if the lineup sounds intriguing, but in my line of work I don't get breaks and can't listen to music (drive thru order taker). I'm usually too busy exercising, smoking J's, or going to concerts. I'd like to see him do another standup tour and come to a venue near me.
This post was edited on 1/26/22 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 1/26/22 at 4:38 pm to Abstract Queso Dip
quote:
I'm usually too busy exercising, smoking J's, or going to concerts.

Posted on 1/26/22 at 4:53 pm to SCLibertarian
If this thread is an indicator of what the Poli board is like, I'm glad I avoid it....
Posted on 1/26/22 at 6:32 pm to tigahbruh
Been a very entertaining interview. Highly recommend it for anyone who is a JRE or JP fan. 3/4 through and its flying by.
Posted on 1/26/22 at 7:31 pm to timdallinger
quote:
Her association with Andrew Tate isn't a positive reflection.
Watch it or Cobra will beat the frick out of you and tell you to stfu bitch
Popular
Back to top


2












