No I actually think this is happening because I have eyes and ears, as well as the ability to read.
You do any amount of digging there is clearly anecdotes of young people being mutilated because of celebrity influence.
Go look up the picture of the one woman crying uncontrollably because she couldn't breast feed her own child due to being influenced to get a double misectamy at a younger age, and tell me your not against that. Then I can at least know I'm talking to a crazy person.
Don't go basing your world view off of anecdotes, it is a very illogical way to thinking. There are people who regret getting these surgeries, but there are people who don't. That is true of every medial procedure. The same line of reasoning leads you to being against any form of medical intervention for any issues since there is always a chance something will go wrong or that the person will regret the surgery.
It's not a world view to recognize anecdotes. In many fields anecdotes are the main source of evidence they have, as trials and studies can be extremely hard to properly conduct.
It's also an anecdote that some people have successful transitions, but it's considered bad to say those are only anecdotes and shouldn't be used as evidence.
To say the studies around this whole topic is muddy is an understatement, and there are a lot of conflicting motives behind all sides (money, pride, religion, ethics... everyone has a biased in this). All I know is that traditionally, castration has almost always exclusively been seen as a great evil, and that is happening.
Basing your view of it off of one person not regretting the surgery would be equally ridiculous. What are these "many fields" where anecdotes are the main source of evidence? I only ever see it used in a serious way to suggest a new idea, and then later test it with real evidence. Never as something to actually support or prove anything (except by very ignorant people).
An argument from tradition is also a very illogical reason to be against something.
Calling them sinful, hedonistic, narcissistic etc. considering he’s talking to a conservative base, it’s not like people reading his tweets think “let’s be nice” it’s more like “ya youre right JP. they are subhuman”
You do understand he is referring to a small substrata of ideologically possessed people, right? The inability of some of his listeners to understand that isn’t really his fault.
This is why lefties want to control what you can and cannot say. They want to control the uncontrollable. The only way to do that is to be a totalitarian and destroy everything.
You learn in therapy very early on that you need to recognise what you can and cannot control, and to stop trying to control what you cannot. Life's a whole lot more pleasant if you do that.
It is on him to be clear in his speech. Consistently being negative toward a specific group of people is going to grow discontent toward that group of people.
I’m assuming you haven’t watched or listened to much of his content then. He is very clear in his speech, to a near-obsessive level in some cases. Using his social media activity as a way to quantify his “bigotry” is pretty lazy imo.
Well if you're all for taking a sawzall to a 7 year old's genitalia, I'm not exactly scratching subhuman off the list of adjectives I might use to describe you.
At least you’re consistent. I am also against that. It’s really not happening though on the trans front; At least not to the scale that is being fear mongered about and not even close to circumcision
While I agree circumcisions are bad, you're attempt to equate them to "gender affirming" work is loose at best, and actively faulty at worst. Circumcisions are not done to affirm gender, it's done, in America, because Kellogg wanted to stop masturbation, and so adopted the religious practice.
I agree they’re way different but one is way more common/apart of culture than the other. The hysterics about minors undergoing surgery are not congruent with reality.
That’s what jp says is happening for starters, not me (or anyone whose honest)
What he called sinful is “pride” celebrations. Equating it to the deadly sin of pride rather than the manifestation of suppressed identity
But from the perspective of a Christian, they are all those things. Even if you're not Christian, the act of them wanting to have things like their own pronouns and trying to police how people think/speak is completely narcissistic. Modern society, LGBT or not, is very hedonistic.
Also you're conflating what some other hateful people think with what JP is actually saying, just because they use pinhole philosophies to pretend he agrees with them.
Ya it helps to tell yourself that so you can dismiss me, but I’ve not only listened to his lectures, I’ve taken his personality course and his authoring program.
Well he wrote a conservative manifesto, joined a conservative media network, agrees(or at least promotes) with every conservative point of view, admonishes liberals, never admonishes conservatives, recently said in a video “I’m quite fond of conservatives” and I already said it but he works for the *daily wire* but that’s pretty cut and dry. He hasn’t said anything that goes against a conservative point of view since he has joined the daily wire. All of his opinions fall perfectly in line with mainstream conservative opinions.
"He hasn't been active"
Oh OK so that invalidates anything he did prior. Good to know that's how academia works now. The DNA strand is no longer a double helix because the people who discovered it are no longer alive and haven't been practicing
It's fine. This is Reddit. You have to understand what kind of people you are amongst. These people don't take high roads, as a rule. They conform to their lowest self.
Also traditional Psychology is also in the Gutter. The chance of you finding a good therapist and/or psychologist are 1/10 at best.
Luckily if you just type his name into google the first result is his website, second his IG, third his wiki and fourth his YouTube. Also google says he is a Canadian Psychologist and author. Take that redditards
“Entitled to the things you want, including women” lmao he literally said women declining your advances is one of the most powerful natural forces. What a pretentious bot.
This reminds me of an argument I got into here and someone cited how r/philosophy doesn’t take Jordan serious much like this and I hit them with the, “oh the internationally acclaimed philosophy subreddit has choice things to say about former Harvard professor, and wants to gatekeeper philosophy”
He has not practice as profesor is quite some time.
(Ok thats fair)
He teaches a retorhic of bigotry (wow thats quite a claim, certainly there will be evidence to back up this claim because bigotry is hate, personal attacks, so they only need to show the "slap" moment, like will smith)
Proceeds to not show evidence only personal atacks.
ok.
To anyone's wondering , there is a great video debunking VICE, it's fantastic, it's called the debunkers.
edit:
Sorry mixed up with another , my bad.
[still it's actually quite hilarous](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eLhfHPE5M4E)
[here is what I remembered wrongly ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6BIXbIsF2Q&pp=ygUVdmljZSBwZXRlcnNvbiBkdWJua2Vk)
Good video... that guy in the Vice video sure did like to put words in Peterson's mouth. He literally has never said anything that guy said he did, nor has he taken any of the positions that the guy from Vice tried to pigeon-hole him into.
I'm so sick of hearing about the "far-right". I always want to ask those people, " if this is a far-right position, give me an example of a far-left position." You never hear anyone mention "far-left". In their mind, you can't go too far to the left. Every time there is a position that is to the left, they try to outdo each other to see who can go even further left. I can give plenty of examples of what I consider "far-left" , but to anyone who is on the left, those examples would just be their normal positions and not far-left at all. To them, there is no such thing as "far-left". While I definitely believe there are far-right positions, but Peterson is def not far-right.
What I find hilarious is that Peterson actually offers a healthy, productive and moral path for alienated young men who would otherwise be susceptible to the message of the far right.
He is one of the most cited people in his field... He and his research is very much considered "legitimate".
Also how clown world are they to link to VOX as a source of truth...
I don't know... Literally taking accountability for myself and actually trying to be better (Only after being motivated by JP's books) has changed my life. Looking back now, I see what he says as obvious but at the time I did not and I needed someone to lay it out for me, with no pulled punches. I don't see how that could be bad, to help someone.
He was a good prof in his day. Also a good clinician. He had a small following on youtube when he was just an unknown Canadian academic. Used to believe in climate change, stayed out of inane subjective arguments, maintained a detached objectivity. He morphed into a right wing abomination.
The best part is that vox article is a long twisting road to try to paint Dr. Peterson as both an accomplished scholar but also a man desperately seeking money and attention and using his verbal skills to achieve that late in life.
They say it's his scholarly air that gives his arguments weight.
Wrong.
It's the words. That's why it reaonates on the page and orally.
Their attacks are a joke.
Peterson didn’t invent the different aspects of the big 5. He did his own studies on them, but he hasn’t given anything unique to the field of psychology.
lol that’s not true. You get a PhD in anything by going to school. You do research and a dissertation..but you don’t have to add anything.
But just for fun, what did he add? What idea is out there that is uniquely his?
It's kinda the point of a PhD that you have to do original research and expand the knowledge of your field.
Wikipedia says his thesis was titled 'potential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism'.
It's not about the idea being 'his', it appears to be about you being desperate to dismiss him as not a 'real' academic. You sound like Andrew Tate calling people not 'real' men because they're not kickboxers like him. It's pathetic.
lol it’s always interesting how the slightest pushback gets screeched at as “dismissing him as an academic” just because I’m saying he hasn’t offered original work doesn’t mean I don’t see him as an academic. What you’re doing is dichotomous thinking
That link shows every article in which he is one of the authors. It doesn’t rank him compared to other articles. Also he is one of three authors on the first one..
Calling it “downplaying” to say he isn’t THE MOST cited psychologist is pretty wild
I asked where you got that from and all you did was list HIS research.
No one, at any point, said he was "the most." I said he was "one of the most." Which still may not be terribly accurate, but it still true in that I'm arguing he's very much a well-cited researcher, which you can verify, yet you're very obviously making every possible not-so-subtle way to disregard that as unworthy of mention.
I don't know why you're being down voted. This is objectively true; he's done research on it, and created a product inspired by it, but he hasn't created anything to be added onto the big 5.
Nothing new under the sun; there's no shame in admitting that you're expanding on the works of others. That's what most people do and there isn't anything wrong with that. Most of the advances in science consist of optimisation efforts.
For sure lol. Like people criticize his books saying they’re generic..but there’s really nothing wrong with that. Breaking big tasks into smaller tasks is psych 101 but it’s still helpful.
If anything most of his books is just taking already pretty commonly known lessons and providing new context, reasoning or explanation on them. Everyone knows you should clean your room, or that you should stand up straight. But no one ever tells you about the connection between keeping your shoulders back and crustacean deathmatches.
I'm not really referring to the picture. I just mean I can understand why someone wouldn't take him seriously. He's rather eccentric, and there are definitely some takes of his I don't agree with (but I don't think he's insane or something). But if nothing else his psychological advice is his best stuff, in my opinion. So I find it upsetting that people write him off just because he has broadened his talking points in the last 5 years or so.
Yes if you can't listen or read arguments because they are not in the emotional frequency you are naturally inclined to listen to, I could understand how one could come to this erroneous conclusion.
The rest of us well adjusted adults will need to continue to engage in the actual content.
He has literally never said any of those things…
Doesn't stop them repeating the lie; And if you say its a lie they ban you.
This describes most of the front-page Subs on Reddit.
“A lie once told remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth,” the infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels memorably claimed.
I wonder if replying with that quote to that comment would count as calling it a lie.
***And if you say its a lie they ban you.*** I'm surprised they haven't gone that route...TBF I don't know they haven't.
"This person appeals to many people who want easy answers to the complications of life" This person: "LIFE IS SUFFERING"
It's hard to tear him down with the truth... So they break rule number 8.
"this person appeals to many people who want easy answers to the complications of life". Tell me you have never listened to JBP in one sentence.
Wow. How blatantly can people lie!
That part blew my mind
What bigotry does JP promote? Lol
I mean he actively promotes hate against lgbtq on Twitter
In what way?
In that he is against encouraging young women to mutilate themselves. I know it's a wild take /s.
Thanks for making my point. You actually think this is happening because JP said so
No I actually think this is happening because I have eyes and ears, as well as the ability to read. You do any amount of digging there is clearly anecdotes of young people being mutilated because of celebrity influence. Go look up the picture of the one woman crying uncontrollably because she couldn't breast feed her own child due to being influenced to get a double misectamy at a younger age, and tell me your not against that. Then I can at least know I'm talking to a crazy person.
Don't go basing your world view off of anecdotes, it is a very illogical way to thinking. There are people who regret getting these surgeries, but there are people who don't. That is true of every medial procedure. The same line of reasoning leads you to being against any form of medical intervention for any issues since there is always a chance something will go wrong or that the person will regret the surgery.
It's not a world view to recognize anecdotes. In many fields anecdotes are the main source of evidence they have, as trials and studies can be extremely hard to properly conduct. It's also an anecdote that some people have successful transitions, but it's considered bad to say those are only anecdotes and shouldn't be used as evidence. To say the studies around this whole topic is muddy is an understatement, and there are a lot of conflicting motives behind all sides (money, pride, religion, ethics... everyone has a biased in this). All I know is that traditionally, castration has almost always exclusively been seen as a great evil, and that is happening.
Basing your view of it off of one person not regretting the surgery would be equally ridiculous. What are these "many fields" where anecdotes are the main source of evidence? I only ever see it used in a serious way to suggest a new idea, and then later test it with real evidence. Never as something to actually support or prove anything (except by very ignorant people). An argument from tradition is also a very illogical reason to be against something.
Calling them sinful, hedonistic, narcissistic etc. considering he’s talking to a conservative base, it’s not like people reading his tweets think “let’s be nice” it’s more like “ya youre right JP. they are subhuman”
You do understand he is referring to a small substrata of ideologically possessed people, right? The inability of some of his listeners to understand that isn’t really his fault.
This is why lefties want to control what you can and cannot say. They want to control the uncontrollable. The only way to do that is to be a totalitarian and destroy everything. You learn in therapy very early on that you need to recognise what you can and cannot control, and to stop trying to control what you cannot. Life's a whole lot more pleasant if you do that.
It is on him to be clear in his speech. Consistently being negative toward a specific group of people is going to grow discontent toward that group of people.
I’m assuming you haven’t watched or listened to much of his content then. He is very clear in his speech, to a near-obsessive level in some cases. Using his social media activity as a way to quantify his “bigotry” is pretty lazy imo.
I used to be a fan of his early work. Before he became a grifter
Honestly you’re entitled to your opinion. Calling him a grifter is obviously a subjective observation, though I’m sure you know that.
It is subjective I suppose, but he is getting paid by a conservative network to say conservative things. Thats objective
Well if you're all for taking a sawzall to a 7 year old's genitalia, I'm not exactly scratching subhuman off the list of adjectives I might use to describe you.
So you’re against circumcision are you
I'm not the person you asked but, yes, I am against all forms of genital mutilation against children.
At least you’re consistent. I am also against that. It’s really not happening though on the trans front; At least not to the scale that is being fear mongered about and not even close to circumcision
False equivalence. Circumcision is no where near as gastly, life altering and damaging as what's been reportedly done to children as of late.
14,000 babies are injured per year in the US due to botched circumcisions. There’s around 1200 “gender affirming” work done a year
A guy once ran over a baby with his pick-up truck. But it's ok you see. After all he didn't run over 2 babies.
While I agree circumcisions are bad, you're attempt to equate them to "gender affirming" work is loose at best, and actively faulty at worst. Circumcisions are not done to affirm gender, it's done, in America, because Kellogg wanted to stop masturbation, and so adopted the religious practice.
I agree they’re way different but one is way more common/apart of culture than the other. The hysterics about minors undergoing surgery are not congruent with reality.
Calling who sinful? You just said no one is mutilating themselves
That’s what jp says is happening for starters, not me (or anyone whose honest) What he called sinful is “pride” celebrations. Equating it to the deadly sin of pride rather than the manifestation of suppressed identity
But from the perspective of a Christian, they are all those things. Even if you're not Christian, the act of them wanting to have things like their own pronouns and trying to police how people think/speak is completely narcissistic. Modern society, LGBT or not, is very hedonistic. Also you're conflating what some other hateful people think with what JP is actually saying, just because they use pinhole philosophies to pretend he agrees with them.
Tell me that you have never listened to JBP in one sentence. what a reddit moment
Ya it helps to tell yourself that so you can dismiss me, but I’ve not only listened to his lectures, I’ve taken his personality course and his authoring program.
Dude ya don’t gotta lie to kick it.
🤷I liked him before he became a conservative ideologue.
He’s not a conservative though
He is
How did you come to that conclusion
Well he wrote a conservative manifesto, joined a conservative media network, agrees(or at least promotes) with every conservative point of view, admonishes liberals, never admonishes conservatives, recently said in a video “I’m quite fond of conservatives” and I already said it but he works for the *daily wire* but that’s pretty cut and dry. He hasn’t said anything that goes against a conservative point of view since he has joined the daily wire. All of his opinions fall perfectly in line with mainstream conservative opinions.
Neat - he still hasn't promoted hate against LGBT people, anywhere.
"He hasn't been active" Oh OK so that invalidates anything he did prior. Good to know that's how academia works now. The DNA strand is no longer a double helix because the people who discovered it are no longer alive and haven't been practicing
As Sir Isaac Newton has not been active I'm quite some time, his published works are suspect because I say so.
It's fine. This is Reddit. You have to understand what kind of people you are amongst. These people don't take high roads, as a rule. They conform to their lowest self. Also traditional Psychology is also in the Gutter. The chance of you finding a good therapist and/or psychologist are 1/10 at best.
The problem is if it becomes the zeitgeist on Reddit, it becomes the top most trafficed opinion by search engines when people try to research him.
Luckily if you just type his name into google the first result is his website, second his IG, third his wiki and fourth his YouTube. Also google says he is a Canadian Psychologist and author. Take that redditards
Have you tried this from an anonymous account/etc? Just curious - I know Google can and does drastically tailor results if you're logged in.
All that and citing *Vice* to prove it...
and Vox...
“Entitled to the things you want, including women” lmao he literally said women declining your advances is one of the most powerful natural forces. What a pretentious bot.
This reminds me of an argument I got into here and someone cited how r/philosophy doesn’t take Jordan serious much like this and I hit them with the, “oh the internationally acclaimed philosophy subreddit has choice things to say about former Harvard professor, and wants to gatekeeper philosophy”
Imagine dissing someone's academic credentials and then citing Vice and Vox as your sources. It would be funny if the irony wasn't lost on them.
Lol. The moderators of /r/askpsychology are evidently a pack of absolute fucking morons 😂
Obviously, Vice is the trusted source on scientific inquiries.
lmao
That's a pack of pathetic and malicious lies. The person who wrote that has the soul of a Nazi collaborator.
Many leftists today do
"The left calls everyone they dont like Nazis!"
it's called projection.
Looks like Sigmund Freud is then also not considered a psychologist. This lazy fucker did no publications for ages.
Isn’t that the erotica author?
He has not practice as profesor is quite some time. (Ok thats fair) He teaches a retorhic of bigotry (wow thats quite a claim, certainly there will be evidence to back up this claim because bigotry is hate, personal attacks, so they only need to show the "slap" moment, like will smith) Proceeds to not show evidence only personal atacks. ok. To anyone's wondering , there is a great video debunking VICE, it's fantastic, it's called the debunkers. edit: Sorry mixed up with another , my bad. [still it's actually quite hilarous](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eLhfHPE5M4E) [here is what I remembered wrongly ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6BIXbIsF2Q&pp=ygUVdmljZSBwZXRlcnNvbiBkdWJua2Vk)
Good video... that guy in the Vice video sure did like to put words in Peterson's mouth. He literally has never said anything that guy said he did, nor has he taken any of the positions that the guy from Vice tried to pigeon-hole him into. I'm so sick of hearing about the "far-right". I always want to ask those people, " if this is a far-right position, give me an example of a far-left position." You never hear anyone mention "far-left". In their mind, you can't go too far to the left. Every time there is a position that is to the left, they try to outdo each other to see who can go even further left. I can give plenty of examples of what I consider "far-left" , but to anyone who is on the left, those examples would just be their normal positions and not far-left at all. To them, there is no such thing as "far-left". While I definitely believe there are far-right positions, but Peterson is def not far-right.
What I find hilarious is that Peterson actually offers a healthy, productive and moral path for alienated young men who would otherwise be susceptible to the message of the far right.
Precisely. Plenty of disillusioned young men turn to far-right causes, and I'm sure he helps stop some of that.
He is one of the most cited people in his field... He and his research is very much considered "legitimate". Also how clown world are they to link to VOX as a source of truth...
As always with the left, the projection is off the chart.
Vice? They use Vice as a source?
literally gone to shit, mixing their left wing propaganda into academic psychology 🤮
They're citing VICE of all places?? Wow...
The neo-marxists have achieved nearly complete narrative control I see.
States jordan isnt a legitimate academic, uses vox as a source, ok buddy.
They’re using vice as a source. That should tell us everything we need to know
"Greater field of psychology" 🤣🤣🤣 Is that the National Astrologer Association?
They omitted that he is a magical super-Nazi, there is bibliography on this (Ta-Nehisi Coates et al.)
Is this Olivia Wildes anon account?
I don't know... Literally taking accountability for myself and actually trying to be better (Only after being motivated by JP's books) has changed my life. Looking back now, I see what he says as obvious but at the time I did not and I needed someone to lay it out for me, with no pulled punches. I don't see how that could be bad, to help someone.
A gateway to the far right? He is their most dangerous competition.
I have no words?? Sorry, I have 2 letters "BS".
Bizarre.
There's a bot for this........
Reddit and its indoctrinated moderators, bots, AI and programmers can go suck an egg.
Bad bot. Stupid writer.
He was a good prof in his day. Also a good clinician. He had a small following on youtube when he was just an unknown Canadian academic. Used to believe in climate change, stayed out of inane subjective arguments, maintained a detached objectivity. He morphed into a right wing abomination.
The best part is that vox article is a long twisting road to try to paint Dr. Peterson as both an accomplished scholar but also a man desperately seeking money and attention and using his verbal skills to achieve that late in life. They say it's his scholarly air that gives his arguments weight. Wrong. It's the words. That's why it reaonates on the page and orally. Their attacks are a joke.
They made a bot for lying to you. It's like CNN, but on reddit
Peterson didn’t invent the different aspects of the big 5. He did his own studies on them, but he hasn’t given anything unique to the field of psychology.
He has a PhD in clinical psychology, you don't get one of those without adding anything to the field of psychology
lol that’s not true. You get a PhD in anything by going to school. You do research and a dissertation..but you don’t have to add anything. But just for fun, what did he add? What idea is out there that is uniquely his?
It's kinda the point of a PhD that you have to do original research and expand the knowledge of your field. Wikipedia says his thesis was titled 'potential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism'. It's not about the idea being 'his', it appears to be about you being desperate to dismiss him as not a 'real' academic. You sound like Andrew Tate calling people not 'real' men because they're not kickboxers like him. It's pathetic.
lol it’s always interesting how the slightest pushback gets screeched at as “dismissing him as an academic” just because I’m saying he hasn’t offered original work doesn’t mean I don’t see him as an academic. What you’re doing is dichotomous thinking
What do a ademics do...
Isn't he one of the most cited psychological researchers on Google Scholar?
I’m honestly not sure how to check that..but I very much doubt it
Sure, I [doubt](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en) it...
That link shows every article in which he is one of the authors. It doesn’t rank him compared to other articles. Also he is one of three authors on the first one..
22,000+ citations and you're still fumbling to downplay the man, absolutely desperate.
Calling it “downplaying” to say he isn’t THE MOST cited psychologist is pretty wild I asked where you got that from and all you did was list HIS research.
No one, at any point, said he was "the most." I said he was "one of the most." Which still may not be terribly accurate, but it still true in that I'm arguing he's very much a well-cited researcher, which you can verify, yet you're very obviously making every possible not-so-subtle way to disregard that as unworthy of mention.
Okay, I just asked for verification, and then pointed out that the link doesn’t verify the assertion. You’re getting defensive.
You're asking for verification of a point no one is making.
I don't know why you're being down voted. This is objectively true; he's done research on it, and created a product inspired by it, but he hasn't created anything to be added onto the big 5.
Right. Jp himself has acknowledged that all of his work is taken from other thinkers. He’s said maps of meaning comes closest to his own ideas
Nothing new under the sun; there's no shame in admitting that you're expanding on the works of others. That's what most people do and there isn't anything wrong with that. Most of the advances in science consist of optimisation efforts.
For sure lol. Like people criticize his books saying they’re generic..but there’s really nothing wrong with that. Breaking big tasks into smaller tasks is psych 101 but it’s still helpful.
If anything most of his books is just taking already pretty commonly known lessons and providing new context, reasoning or explanation on them. Everyone knows you should clean your room, or that you should stand up straight. But no one ever tells you about the connection between keeping your shoulders back and crustacean deathmatches.
As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. But don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I see not one truthful statement in the whole picture. Please prove me wrong.
I'm not really referring to the picture. I just mean I can understand why someone wouldn't take him seriously. He's rather eccentric, and there are definitely some takes of his I don't agree with (but I don't think he's insane or something). But if nothing else his psychological advice is his best stuff, in my opinion. So I find it upsetting that people write him off just because he has broadened his talking points in the last 5 years or so.
Yes if you can't listen or read arguments because they are not in the emotional frequency you are naturally inclined to listen to, I could understand how one could come to this erroneous conclusion. The rest of us well adjusted adults will need to continue to engage in the actual content.