At what age did you grow out of Jordan Peterson?

At what age did you grow out of Jordan Peterson?

No idea who that is

this is now a spoderman thread
>tfw no spoderman folder

>pic
>valid
Pick two. Fuck this kermit cocksucker

>two bit academic
>he says as he posts on Sup Forums

No idea who that is

>two bit academic
>was a professor at Harvard and U of T
Pick one and only one.

Never, I never really was on board with him C. G. Jung is a hundred times better.

sort yourself out kiddo

t. messy room

>Strawman is now humor

Jesus when will the left learn things are funny WHEN THEY ARE TRUE.

But they wont since they define true as "that which I agree with", hence why they strawman characters and morally judge them OVER AND OVER AGAIN FUCKING REEEE

I decided I really didn't like him when he spent five minutes not answering the simple question of whether or not he believed in the supernatural. He whined that he 'didn't like the question', arrogantly went on about how anyone who even asks him doesn't even understand the question, then said he 'acts as if God exists' which is a blatant dodging of the question. I wish Christopher Hitchens were around to roast his fucking balls. Say what you want about that bloated drunk old man but he cut through smug overbearing academic babble like nobody else.

I'm watching him talk about Frozen now, and I just find him more and more absurd. I can't even discern what his problem is or what about it is 'propaganda'. Elsa learned she couldn't run away from shit she started, Ana learned that Chad Thundercock was a dick and she should get with the weird yet dependable loner guy. What's so fucking bad about that?

If you've listened to any Peterson you'd know he wouldn't have a problem with Hitchens calling him out. He seems pretty concerned with truth and if he realizes he's wrong about something he'll probably rethink his position.

t. butthurt peterson fan. get rekt faggot, he got BTFO

The guy is brilliant but if you edge lords want to throw away all his opinions because you don't agree with his view on a fucking Disney movie you should neck yourselves.

>if he realizes he's wrong about something
that's the whole point, user, he's always speaking extemporaneously, with no real direction or thesis, and his lectures are 90% conjecture, with 10% allusion to Nietzsche, Jung, and Piaget. He's not even wrong. he seems like a scatterbrain, albeit a well intentioned one.

That's why people like him. He supports his theories with a ton of evidence but isn't so rigid that he's unwilling to change his view.


This is also why people like Dawkins are garbage. He things he knows everything already, he's only in it to inflate his ego.

So defend post modernism OP.

>He supports his theories with a ton of evidence
what theories? he has no theories. his lectures are mostly conjecture, and he seems to surprise himself when he makes a cogent point.
>This is also why people like Dawkins are garbage
kek

I'm sorry you don't get it
I love JBP

He's literally just a retard spouting stupid shit about topics he looked at for half a minute, producing papers and literature written in stupidly chaotic English.
Only people that understand these topics even less than Peterson would take him for anything other than a crank who is hiding his ignorance behind confused and fancy language.
Example of him spouting dumb shit attached.

Note that this isn't just a single offense, here's another dumbfuck quote from "The Architecture of Belief":
"A moral system -- a system of culture -- necessarily shares features in common with other systems. The most fundamental of the shared features of systems was identified by Kurt Godel. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that any internally consistent and logical system of propositions must necessarily be predicated upon assumptions that cannot be proved from within the confines of that system."

you are just a contrarian. you just like the feeling of being superior and shit on anything that anyone likes, if any of your obscure interests became popular you would hate them in a betrayal of yourself, but it's not really a betrayal of yourself because you hold no real values, you *only* liked it because it was obscure. If a large collective agrees with anyone, you will be the first to call them out for their 'dumb views'

you're too stupid to understand moral axioms, apparently. that sentence makes perfect sense. it is you that are simply not intelligent enough to keep pace with peterson. sorry.

Jordan peterson saved my life.

You haven't sorted yourself.

Sam Harris is autistic.

No one is saying you can't like him, moron. He's a good story teller, no different than Robert Anton Wilson. He's no intellectual, that's for damn sure. When your professor is giving a lecture, and he asks the class, "I've been thinking about this for a while, tell me if you think this sounds right", you are listening to a charlatan.

Did I say that he was saying that I can't like him? you're the moron. and the post you just replied to also applies to you 10x

What? How is your reply even remotely related to anything in my post?
Are you projecting?

Gödel did not prove that axioms cannot be proven.
Even ignoring him completly missunderstanding Gödel's incompleteness theorems, he is still extrapolating from well defined mathematical axiomatic systems to 'moral systems', which is in itself dumb and pretentious as fuck.
Only a retard would consistently missapply mathematics outside of mathematics to make his followers believe that the authority of mathematics contributes to the truth of his statements.

He teached at Harvard.
Also, asking what the other think is a very socratic technique.

>moral axioms
>Godels incompleteness theorem
kek

>He's no intellectual
He has explicitly stated he does not consider himself an intellectual. Which isn't a bad thing.

read it again, search your soul you know it to be true.

Maybe he didn't agree that the positive message message in Frozen was positive?

>He teached at Harvard.
What possible relevance does that have?

Butt-rekt post-modernist fag. lol

I doubt that many charlatan teached at harvard.

I only started hearing about this guy a few months ago, I don't think he's saying anything particularly interesting. Like the pic you posted suggests, he seems to blame everything bad on postmodernism.

>and as I sat there with a messy room wondering how can I make a name for myself in academia, Sesame street lights up the television screen, and I don't even watch television so I took it as a sign. "That's it!" I thought to myself. So I began mimicking Kermit the frog and, well, you know the rest of that story.

Irrelevant and unknown person.

No one is saying it's a bad thing. He's an engaging speaker, bordering on cult leader. His appeal is that he's speaking against things you don't like, and he does it convincingly. You're suffering from confirmation bias, he's a sincere scatterbrain that loves to talk, full stop.

>teached

American education, everyone.

"Positive" messages for women are shit because they will just LARP as men, won't have kids or substitute kids with foreigners.

Positive messages for men are good because they get off their lazy asses, assume responsibility and fix the world.

Yes, women should also assume responsibility but having kids is their main one.

basically this guy is a practicing clinical psycologist who was successful and thought 'ok how do i help more?' so he buddied up with the cuckanada edu system and became a 'professor'

you are right about him speaking 'with no real direction'. i have only watched his class lectures, im not a podcast kind of guy, and i agree with what you are saying but imo i think you are looking at it with the wrong lense. he isnt a professor of academia, he studied and was successful at practice in his field and then is basing basically himself/his ideology on information and experiences he learned from being a successful psychiatrist.

obviously this can be bad, we see this bad side when professors add in their worldview and college kids become rabid cultural marxists. peterson however tries very hard to stick to his im here to sort YOU out bit and not become political

user, I graduated from NYU and had plenty of wacky professors. You don't even know what it is that he taught at Harvard. It could have been Psychology 101.

that sentence is only hard to read if you are illiterate as fuck

Jew please go.

You are aware that nearly 100% of psychology in its current state is conjecture right?

The SJW far left is picking up on just how much of a threat Jordan Peterson really is. The man is uniting the lost flock of millenial men, urging them to sort their lives out and improve on themselves before they go out and fix the world. The SJW menace to western civilization knows what is just beyond the horizon, their ultimate undoing is being baked in to society right now and Peterson is the chef, the Shepard collecting the lost flock of disillusioned young men and guiding them toward western civilization's salvation. This thread and any you see popping up on the internet, especially founded on such weak criticism is only the beginning. The far left is afraid and does not know how to deal with this man.

That sentence is also plain wrong, but no one reading the book would notice because the rest of the book is written in a similar gibberish manner.
"Active apprehension of the goal of behavior, conceptualized in relationship to the interpreted present, serves to constrain or provide determinate framework for the evaluation of ongoing events, which emerge as a consequence of current behavior."
I can guarantee you that he puts as little thought into idiotically complex sentences like these as you would when reading the book.
You either end up reading every sentence thrice to check for inconsistencies or you skim through more gibberish without being able to immediately validate whether the author is a crank.

>>Strawman is now humor
>when will the left learn things
>they
>they
That's a strawman. You're using "the left" instead of judging individual arguments.

You were so busy being a faggot that you forgot to ask, "What is his definition of 'God'".

In his world view "God" is essentially ultimate reality, or more precisely the mechanisms behind ultimate reality. If there is no "God", there is no perfect version of reality to strive towards. But chances are you are going to get wrapped up in the meaning of the world "God" and instantly think about the Christian God because you are a narrow-minded cunt.

how is this sentence hard to read exactly?

I read his entire book at the only moment I struggled was when he started talking about alchemeny and even that wasn't due to the writing but due to the topic

I agree, although I don't know enough to comment on his politics, he comes off more like a self help guru than a professor. I'm also very leary of the fact that he's asking for and receiving donations.

It's a sweeping generalization you moron.

He wasn't trying to be funny
Is it normally difficult for you to figure out when people are trying to be funny?

He's a bit stream of consciousness when speaking but he does raise interesting and thought provoking points.

But even he said in one of his talks that he doesn't present his ideas as if they are complete and resolved, he presents them as ideas he has yet to have refuted.

>At what age did you grow out of Jordan Peterson?
After i stopped watching the Muppets

>contrarian
>betrayal of the self because you hold no real values
See pic related
>moral axioms
See pic related.
>he learned from being a successful psychiatrist.
>not realizing a PhD in psychology makes you a psychologist (intellectual) and not an actual doctor.
>not realizing the income potential is exceedingly less as a psychologist and unless you write self-help books you're not going to break more than 100k with clinical practice
>not realizing that you're a retard if you spend 8 years getting a Psychology PhD only to make ~100k whenever you could have went to med school and psychiatry residency in the same time and been making around $250k minimum and actually be able to prescribe drugs.

>instead of judging individual arguments.
See pic related.

>behind ultimate reality
The thing in itself, right? You say this to a guy on the street he'll laugh at you. What a stupid statement, really. See pic related.

Is that an anus?

You should re-read the post, because I am not even attacking his assertion about god, but instead his missapplication of mathematics outside of mathematics as an authority to back up his arguments and his complete missunderstanding and butchering of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

>No one is saying it's a bad thing
You implied it was by stating he is no intellectual and commenting on how professors give lectures. You seem to be educated, not all professors are eloquent and well spoken. Some of them can barely hold a lecture without going on a tangent.

>His appeal is that he's speaking against things you don't like, and he does it convincingly.
What points of his would you refute then? He is 100% spot on when he discussed the directionless lives that young men are living in our society. Guys that find no purpose in life and sit on their ass and jerk off after binging on video games for most of the day. Even worse is that the amount of wacky bullshit coming from the left is hard to comprehend. The DC pride parade had gay protesters that stated the parade wasn't inclusive enough. Take a moment to think about that. It's a disgusting state and I'm glad someone has the balls to take the national stage and say it. It's also encouraging that he is trying to help young men find that direction they lack, or at least facilitating it.

>You're suffering from confirmation bias
>implying

Forgot to tag you for this:

>judging individual arguments

And you:
for

>ultimate reality
in initial post here:

Gents, study the picture hard and do some serious reassessment of your lives. Intellectualism is a mental disorder.

It's also a strawman, he misrepresented the argument of hundreds of millions of people by saying "the left".

very much self help; like i said he was a practicing psychiatrist that realized he could help groups of people earlier on in life before they fuck up too bad (college freshman) by becoming part of the education system.

"Maps of Meaning is a university course taught by Dr. Jordan B Peterson. It describes how the world is portrayed in story form in myths, rituals and religious conceptualizations and how that is related to brain function and behavior. In doing so, it presents a solid alternative to nihilism and totalitarianism"

Isn't "God" in his world view the ultimate Darwinian truth how you should act in the world in line with the K-selection strategy of being able to replay social games which benefit all players at all times?
It's a K-selection strategy because religion makes people invest time and resources in having kids, building communities, sustaining them, and improving them and making sure the offspring do this, too.

>The far left is afraid and does not know how to deal with this man

Let them be afraid, they have already lost. The battles to come are just a formality.

this is actually precisely why I like him. Don't take him so seriously and you can glean some decent points of truth from the thicket of words he rambles out

see

>American
Irish eyesight, everyone

>"Active apprehension of the goal of behavior, conceptualized in relationship to the interpreted present, serves to constrain or provide determinate framework for the evaluation of ongoing events, which emerge as a consequence of current behavior."

no idea what that’s supposed to mean

BEWARE-these are reddit users. Their verbiage is reddit tier.

Why can't we separate ideas from the people who have them, Peterson being wrong on one thing or losing one debate or whatever has no bearing on a completely separate idea/lecture. Peterson has interesting ideas so I listen to some of his lectures.

>You implied it was by stating he is no intellectual
user, your assumptions are your own.
>Guys that find no purpose in life and sit on their ass and jerk off after binging on video games for most of the day
Again, speak for yourself.
>implying
Implying that his students are being cheated. They are a captive audience, listening to the incoherent ramblings of a scatterbrain and not receiving the education for which they're paying.

Pretty sad shareblue has to attack jordan peterson now.

Don't like the guy for being a globalist/multi-cultist.

Fair enough.

Are you so retarded that you believe that there is literally no underlying anything to the universe?

We heard it here first. Physics is not real and time is only man made and does not actually exist.

this user gets its

> does not understand that to apply morality to more than one entity, basic maths is required.
> does not know what discrete math is.

okay.

...

What the fuck are you on about?

...

> What is Boolean algebra

>Dr. Jordan Peterson
>Clinical Psychologist
>McGill University (Ph.D)

What are you trying to show me? That you're wrong twice. He still isn't a psychiatrist.

>No M.D.
>not a psychiatrist

Clinical psychologist. There is a difference. A big one.

Only an intellectual would pursue psychology over psychiatry. That's why he went into the professing gig, because it's more profitable to teach than to practice as a Psychologist.

Irish sobriety, more like.

I still have no clue what you're on about.
I am complaining that he is *missapplying* mathematics outside of mathematics, not that he is *applying* mathematics.

The fixer upper song is cancer alone.

Peterson is right about Frozen. The most privileged woman in the land runs away from her minimal duties. Like mereda in Brave. In Frozen most men are evil, capitalism is evil and if you love your abuser with true love, like Anna loves Eliza, you might live..

>talks about philosophy and intellectual topics
>pretends he knows about physics
If Oppenheimer sat around talking about "the Ultimate reality", instead of actually proposing real life hypothesis that are actually testable, no nuke would have ever been developed. In fact, if morons like you were in charge of science, we'd still be living in the fuckin stone age, kid.

Science isn't intellectualism. Get your shit straight and stop trying to shift the argument.

>The left
>Independent thought

lmfao

Source on the Frozen affirmations?

Leaked CGI sarlaac pit of the next star wars

>no nuke would have ever been developed
you say that like it's a bad thing

Because you've contributed more?

yeah I needed some info on postmodernism and I tried watching this guy's video and I just got more confused. Apparently postmodernism is evil and only applies to people who disagree wth him

The only arguments people have on this board about Peterson are strawmen. If someone actually took one of his arguments and deconstructed it and gave a well thought out explanation why its wrong i would be impressed. In reality i shouldnt be impressed since Peterson has so many fucking outlandish arguments from the surface it shouldnt be impossible to put together a counter-argument with some substance. Nope just strawmen from larping 4chanlets, you pathetic lot should read more books

>Getting tired of the savior of mankind
Commie pls

> Postmodern thought isn't cancer
You shareblue faggots need to go back.
Now, if you will excuse me, I'm about to hit 99 woodcutting on runescape. What have YOU done with your life, lately?

Gödel proved that axioms cannot be proven, thus faith in god is required for proof.
>Gödel didn't prove that axioms cannot be proven
>There's a giant logical leap between "Axioms cannot be proven" and "Faith in god is required for *all* proof"
>Counterexample: We define the peano axioms, thus for all n in N0: n + 0 = n. No faith in anything required.
For the statement "Faith in god is required for *all* proof" to be true you would have to choose definitions for "faith" and "god" that are so arbitrary and broad that they're useless and counterintuitive to what anyone else understands under these terms.
So the first part of his statement is wrong, and the second part of his statement is only true if you're willing to twist the common definition of "god" and "faith" to fit the statement into uselessness.

you can ask over and over again but all there really is to be a postmodernist is to:
1) say that the person who disagrees with you knows nothing about postmodernism
2) wear funny clothes/colors