Seriously, what is with this guy? Setting aside his myriad of controversy there's nothing genuinely valuable this guy really provides and people talk about him as if he is touting a scientifically...
Seriously, what is with this guy? Setting aside his myriad of controversy there's nothing genuinely valuable this guy really provides and people talk about him as if he is touting a scientifically backed theory that works. Stephen Colbert came up with the name "truthiness" for stuff that just feels right.
As a teacher I teach principles of growth mindset because there's science to back it up and I've seen it work on students, that's what helps people develop resilience and grit and adjust to challenges with a mentality to solve them. Peterson assigns a lot of blame and tells you how to think about things just as much as those he purports are forcing others on how to think.
to paraphrase a comment i made previously: he makes good self-help for well off white dudes who haven't been taught basic life skills by their parents, and because of that and the credential in...
to paraphrase a comment i made previously: he makes good self-help for well off white dudes who haven't been taught basic life skills by their parents, and because of that and the credential in his name those same people have extrapolated that because he is good at writing self-help and has a credential, everything he says must be true (especially since a lot of it lines up with the political beliefs of most of these people)
I just don't get it. Why would you follow him when there is science out there on helping yourself now? I'm just not seeing what the world would look like under a Peterson revolution. I mean I...
I just don't get it. Why would you follow him when there is science out there on helping yourself now? I'm just not seeing what the world would look like under a Peterson revolution. I mean I don't understand how his ideas directly correlate to a better lifestyle. The guy is supposed to be an academic.
Why do people follow Deepak Chopra, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, Jenny McCarthy or Gwyneth Paltrow despite them peddling complete bunk? Because sometimes people just want easy answers from a celebrity they...
Why do people follow Deepak Chopra, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, Jenny McCarthy or Gwyneth Paltrow despite them peddling complete bunk? Because sometimes people just want easy answers from a celebrity they admire, simple guidelines that, even if they don't accomplish much (or are actually harmful), at least feel like they improve their life, and to have their already established beliefs validated and reinforced. Peterson's fans are really no different IMO.
I think this is an often overlooked part of it. Self-improvement often goes coupled with exactly the kind of critical self-reflection people tend to eschew, because it is hard and doesn't feel...
and to have their already established beliefs validated and reinforced.
I think this is an often overlooked part of it. Self-improvement often goes coupled with exactly the kind of critical self-reflection people tend to eschew, because it is hard and doesn't feel very nice. Jordan Peterson, like many snake oil salesmen, talks like he can offer all the benefits of self-improvement, and the illusion of being dedicated to doing the hard work, without any of it's downsides or fundamental existential questioning.
Goop, and by extension Paltrow, have drawn criticism by showcasing expensive products, and promoting medically and scientifically impossible treatments, many of which have harmful consequences. The controversies have included vaginal steaming, the use of jade eggs, a dangerous coffee enema device, and "Body Vibes", wearable stickers that were claimed to "rebalance the energy frequency in our bodies" and which Goop falsely claimed were made of a NASA-developed material. Goop settled a lawsuit regarding the health claims it made over the jade eggs.
The science might be out there (and this applies to many, many, many things), but any given person: needs to know that it exists; needs to be willing to look for it; needs to know where to look...
Why would you follow him when there is science out there on helping yourself now?
The science might be out there (and this applies to many, many, many things), but any given person:
needs to know that it exists;
needs to be willing to look for it;
needs to know where to look for it;
needs to be able to understand it;
and to realize when they are grossly misunderstanding it.
Most people know (1). Some people are willing to sink their time in (2). But (3), (4), and (4.1)? They are not easy, even when the field you are dealing with is more-or-less settled, and not full of contradictory or apparently contradictory information.
I'm just not seeing what the world would look like under a Peterson revolution
Indeed. Why would you follow someone who sounds profound when somewhere, in an undetermined location you don't know exists, there is data? @alyaza's description of the man's target audience is...
Indeed. Why would you follow someone who sounds profound when somewhere, in an undetermined location you don't know exists, there is data?
@alyaza's description of the man's target audience is exactly on-point. "No life skills" means you aren't capable of looking for stuff yourself. "No life skills" probably means you aren't aware what is out there, to begin with. Just because you were given everything doesn't mean you were taught all the same things.
I think part of it is that he introduces at least vaguely philosophic ideas to an audience that hasn't been exposed to philosophy very much. Philosophy is cool, and people who are depressed or...
I think part of it is that he introduces at least vaguely philosophic ideas to an audience that hasn't been exposed to philosophy very much. Philosophy is cool, and people who are depressed or alienated or whatever will naturally gravitate towards it, but since the Peterson crowd doesn't have any frame of reference they can't see that JP is just a charlatan.
In style, this video looks like a bad attempt at emulating ContraPoints. Not many people can pull this off (I only know one :). It's hard to watch. I actually think Jordan Peterson eventually say...
In style, this video looks like a bad attempt at emulating ContraPoints. Not many people can pull this off (I only know one :). It's hard to watch.
I actually think Jordan Peterson eventually say things that are in fact true and relevant, but they're usually surrounded by a sea of untrue and problematic statements in support of a bigoted world view. He's also a douchebag.
I think we ought to note, though, that while Contrapoints is maybe the most visibly successful channel combining Left-leaning social critique it is not the first channel to use higher production...
I think we ought to note, though, that while Contrapoints is maybe the most visibly successful channel combining Left-leaning social critique it is not the first channel to use higher production style and theatrics to deliver it, Hbomberguy was moving in that direction for a while as well (thought he is clearly more constrained by his budget and own sense of style) and unrelated channels like Captain Disillusion have been using the visual medium to high effect, albeit for a different topic, since before Contrapoints blew up.
I'm talking about the notion that this "emulates Contrapoints". While she is credited and probably an influence I think it is reductive to consider PT's current work as mere imitation, or to...
I'm talking about the notion that this "emulates Contrapoints". While she is credited and probably an influence I think it is reductive to consider PT's current work as mere imitation, or to suggest that it is "her" style.
Imitation can be a great thing, the issue was not being an imitation/homage or not, but rather the quality of said homage/imitation (or the product itself in case it is not an imitation — that's...
Imitation can be a great thing, the issue was not being an imitation/homage or not, but rather the quality of said homage/imitation (or the product itself in case it is not an imitation — that's why I said "looks like" instead of "is").
I really like Philosophy Tube even though he can be pretty dry, and this was very clearly an homage to ContraPoints (he even gives Natalie a few nods several times throughout), but yeah... the...
I really like Philosophy Tube even though he can be pretty dry, and this was very clearly an homage to ContraPoints (he even gives Natalie a few nods several times throughout), but yeah... the gimmick did get old pretty quick. At least Natalie mixes it up quite a bit to keep it visually fresh, interesting and funny.
Regardless it was still a good video, with solid reasoning (as usual), but I switched tabs about 10min in, and just listened to the rest instead of watching it.
I really enjoy PT's older work more. I understand what he's trying to go for, and I think it's a good idea to try and play more with the visual dimension since that's where video/film is at it's...
I really enjoy PT's older work more. I understand what he's trying to go for, and I think it's a good idea to try and play more with the visual dimension since that's where video/film is at it's strongest. But he just doesn't quite get it right.
I feel like us who think that are in the minority... I also prefer (in general) PT's older style of videos where he's more about philosophy and less about acting/production. Some of his newer...
I feel like us who think that are in the minority... I also prefer (in general) PT's older style of videos where he's more about philosophy and less about acting/production. Some of his newer videos really stand out tho, like the one about antifa. In any case, this trend of imitating Contra is getting annoying, altho it seems to be getting more subscribers to leftist YouTubers, so that's at least good.
On his Curiouscat he has said that the more theatrical spin is something he used to do in the beginning but moved away from due to time/budget constraints, and to which he's now returning because...
On his Curiouscat he has said that the more theatrical spin is something he used to do in the beginning but moved away from due to time/budget constraints, and to which he's now returning because that's kind of what he wanted to do in the first place.
I won't lie, I only got to know PT through his older but not his oldest videos, so I've really grown to like the simpler "guy talks about thing for half an hour" style, it's what draws me more towards Three Arrows and Cuck Philosophy these days. But I respect the artistic vision and I'm happy PT's able to make the videos he wants and not just the ones that keep the lights on.
Well, at some point sifting through the sea of bullshit he spouts isn't worth it for the few truths he provides. I could ask the regulars at the local pub about geopolitics with the same result:...
Well, at some point sifting through the sea of bullshit he spouts isn't worth it for the few truths he provides. I could ask the regulars at the local pub about geopolitics with the same result: With the amount of critical thinking involved in filtering the stuff you hear, you might as well figure it out for yourself. You're probably better off that way. Follows the same line of thinking as crying wolf, ya know?
I like ollie's style - even more than contra points at times. Steve Bannon was a good video as well. Just jives better with me. Contra is great too though.
Seriously, what is with this guy? Setting aside his myriad of controversy there's nothing genuinely valuable this guy really provides and people talk about him as if he is touting a scientifically backed theory that works. Stephen Colbert came up with the name "truthiness" for stuff that just feels right.
As a teacher I teach principles of growth mindset because there's science to back it up and I've seen it work on students, that's what helps people develop resilience and grit and adjust to challenges with a mentality to solve them. Peterson assigns a lot of blame and tells you how to think about things just as much as those he purports are forcing others on how to think.
to paraphrase a comment i made previously: he makes good self-help for well off white dudes who haven't been taught basic life skills by their parents, and because of that and the credential in his name those same people have extrapolated that because he is good at writing self-help and has a credential, everything he says must be true (especially since a lot of it lines up with the political beliefs of most of these people)
I just don't get it. Why would you follow him when there is science out there on helping yourself now? I'm just not seeing what the world would look like under a Peterson revolution. I mean I don't understand how his ideas directly correlate to a better lifestyle. The guy is supposed to be an academic.
Why do people follow Deepak Chopra, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, Jenny McCarthy or Gwyneth Paltrow despite them peddling complete bunk? Because sometimes people just want easy answers from a celebrity they admire, simple guidelines that, even if they don't accomplish much (or are actually harmful), at least feel like they improve their life, and to have their already established beliefs validated and reinforced. Peterson's fans are really no different IMO.
I think this is an often overlooked part of it. Self-improvement often goes coupled with exactly the kind of critical self-reflection people tend to eschew, because it is hard and doesn't feel very nice. Jordan Peterson, like many snake oil salesmen, talks like he can offer all the benefits of self-improvement, and the illusion of being dedicated to doing the hard work, without any of it's downsides or fundamental existential questioning.
For the uninitiated, what did Gwyneth Paltrow do?
-- Wikipedia, Gwyneth Paltrow (citations removed)
Sigh. When will the evils of “alternative medicine” end?
Unlikely that they will.
The science might be out there (and this applies to many, many, many things), but any given person:
Most people know (1). Some people are willing to sink their time in (2). But (3), (4), and (4.1)? They are not easy, even when the field you are dealing with is more-or-less settled, and not full of contradictory or apparently contradictory information.
Lobsters. Lobsters everywhere.
Indeed. Why would you follow someone who sounds profound when somewhere, in an undetermined location you don't know exists, there is data?
@alyaza's description of the man's target audience is exactly on-point. "No life skills" means you aren't capable of looking for stuff yourself. "No life skills" probably means you aren't aware what is out there, to begin with. Just because you were given everything doesn't mean you were taught all the same things.
I think part of it is that he introduces at least vaguely philosophic ideas to an audience that hasn't been exposed to philosophy very much. Philosophy is cool, and people who are depressed or alienated or whatever will naturally gravitate towards it, but since the Peterson crowd doesn't have any frame of reference they can't see that JP is just a charlatan.
In style, this video looks like a bad attempt at emulating ContraPoints. Not many people can pull this off (I only know one :). It's hard to watch.
I actually think Jordan Peterson eventually say things that are in fact true and relevant, but they're usually surrounded by a sea of untrue and problematic statements in support of a bigoted world view. He's also a douchebag.
I think we ought to note, though, that while Contrapoints is maybe the most visibly successful channel combining Left-leaning social critique it is not the first channel to use higher production style and theatrics to deliver it, Hbomberguy was moving in that direction for a while as well (thought he is clearly more constrained by his budget and own sense of style) and unrelated channels like Captain Disillusion have been using the visual medium to high effect, albeit for a different topic, since before Contrapoints blew up.
Antecedence is not very relevant when assessing quality.
I'm talking about the notion that this "emulates Contrapoints". While she is credited and probably an influence I think it is reductive to consider PT's current work as mere imitation, or to suggest that it is "her" style.
Imitation can be a great thing, the issue was not being an imitation/homage or not, but rather the quality of said homage/imitation (or the product itself in case it is not an imitation — that's why I said "looks like" instead of "is").
I really like Philosophy Tube even though he can be pretty dry, and this was very clearly an homage to ContraPoints (he even gives Natalie a few nods several times throughout), but yeah... the gimmick did get old pretty quick. At least Natalie mixes it up quite a bit to keep it visually fresh, interesting and funny.
Regardless it was still a good video, with solid reasoning (as usual), but I switched tabs about 10min in, and just listened to the rest instead of watching it.
I really enjoy PT's older work more. I understand what he's trying to go for, and I think it's a good idea to try and play more with the visual dimension since that's where video/film is at it's strongest. But he just doesn't quite get it right.
I feel like us who think that are in the minority... I also prefer (in general) PT's older style of videos where he's more about philosophy and less about acting/production. Some of his newer videos really stand out tho, like the one about antifa. In any case, this trend of imitating Contra is getting annoying, altho it seems to be getting more subscribers to leftist YouTubers, so that's at least good.
On his Curiouscat he has said that the more theatrical spin is something he used to do in the beginning but moved away from due to time/budget constraints, and to which he's now returning because that's kind of what he wanted to do in the first place.
I won't lie, I only got to know PT through his older but not his oldest videos, so I've really grown to like the simpler "guy talks about thing for half an hour" style, it's what draws me more towards Three Arrows and Cuck Philosophy these days. But I respect the artistic vision and I'm happy PT's able to make the videos he wants and not just the ones that keep the lights on.
Well, at some point sifting through the sea of bullshit he spouts isn't worth it for the few truths he provides. I could ask the regulars at the local pub about geopolitics with the same result: With the amount of critical thinking involved in filtering the stuff you hear, you might as well figure it out for yourself. You're probably better off that way. Follows the same line of thinking as crying wolf, ya know?
I like ollie's style - even more than contra points at times. Steve Bannon was a good video as well. Just jives better with me. Contra is great too though.
At this point, Oliver Thorn and Natalie Wynn are basically the same person.
https://tildes.net/~misc/c64/the_intellectual_we_deserve
This is a political debate desguised as an academic one. Dr. P tells his stories, you should tell yours too.