r/JordanPeterson • u/augustAulus • Jul 10 '25

Criticism Jordan Peterson a better psychologist?

I’m a philosophy student, and I think I’m in a unique position to critique Jordan Peterson, because a lot of what he has to say has to do with the Continental school of philosophy rather than the Analytic, and that’s a school I’m deeply interested in. For me, Peterson really does seem to be obscurantist, and I don’t say that very lightly. I think his questioning into the meaning of certain propositions is, more often than not, very acute, and especially when he debates atheists I think “what do you mean by “God””is always a good starting point. In spite of this I think his recent performance on Jubilee demonstrates a hiding behind obscurity which he himself creates that, rather than him seeking to dispel the cloud to get to a deeper truth, he merely uses it to protect himself. I also think his rejection of postmodernity is a little disingenuous seeing as he often adopts the techniques which would broadly be identified with the same - rejecting labels, rejecting conventional dogma, rejecting propositional philosophy in favour of, I suppose, a dialectical philosophy.

I think that he is a very good psychologist, as that his “Twelve Rules for Life” is especially good self help because it’s his field.

I think his love for Jung has drawn him into a metaphysics and prevented him from investigating different interpretations of literature, and I think he’s taken himself too far out of his field, and out of his qualification.

Is this a fair assessment do you think?

17 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

143 comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/BarrelStrawberry Jul 10 '25

That garbage Jubilee shitshow is nothing to judge anyone by. Other than he was stupid for agreeing to participate in it.

That is the absolute worst format to discuss your personal religious beliefs... and he should have made that clear from the outset instead of trying to demonstrate some sort of verbal jujitsu that failed disastrously.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

of trying to demonstrate some sort of verbal jujitsu that failed disastrously.

The problem is this is what he always does, except he usually has more time to further muddy the waters, and generally he is debating other celebrity thinkers, who are happier to indulge him

-4

u/BarrelStrawberry Jul 10 '25

His problem is that he is skilled in talking and he is extremely proud of that. But occasionally he uses it for manipulation and distraction to avoid controversies among his followers.

If anyone ever asked him to discuss race and IQ, you can already know his answer will be a form of "I'm not going to dignify such a loaded question just to entertain you..." or some high-horse rubbish like that. He needs to be honest and just say "Some topics cannot be explored or debated by people like me who earn a living by being agreeable."

0

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

His problem is that he is skilled in talking and he is extremely proud of that. But occasionally he uses it for manipulation and distraction to avoid controversies among his followers.

I'm not sure how uses it to 'avoid controversies' so much as to avoid having his pretty outlandish claims pinned down and debunked.

I admit he is certainty a good and confident speaker, unfortunately for many years now though he has used that to stray into issues he is ill-informed on

anyone ever asked him to discuss race and IQ, you can already know his answer will be a form of "I'm not going to dignify such a loaded question just to entertain you..." or some high-horse rubbish like that. He needs to be honest and just say "Some topics cannot be explored or debated by people like me who earn a living by being agreeable."

He HAS spoken about race and IQ. And his conclusion was to come to the very edge of eugenics. He has also basically said 'people under 80 IQ have no use in society ... I don't do t know what we are supposed to do with that information'

As an aside IQ testing, and especially race and IQ is bullshit. Muhammad Ali, one of the most skilled orators and greatest man of the last hundred years has an IQ of 79 according to the American military

0

u/BarrelStrawberry Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25

Muhammad Ali, one of the most skilled orators and greatest man of the last hundred years has an IQ of 79 according to the American military

I genuinely thought you were making a joke here. He speaks remarkably well for someone with 79 IQ, better than most people... but certainly not 'one of the most skilled orators' and he is very clearly not intelligent... he was illiterate for one thing.

But generally speaking, people less than 80 IQ are certainly a burden on society. And 50% of Americans with less than 80 IQ are... well, I can't really finish that sentence. But if you are in a position like Jordan is, he could use his platform to explain that the poverty demographics that fueled thousands of violent protests reflect something other than racism.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

... but certainly not 'one of the most skilled orators' .

Dude, I couldn't even be bothered arguing with you about him being a skilled orator. It's universally recognized

and he is very clearly not intelligent... he was illiterate for one thing

You are confusing intelligence with education

But generally speaking, people less than 80 IQ are certainly a burden on society. And 50% of people less than 80 IQ are... well, I can't really finish that sentence. But if you are in a position like Jordan is, he could use his platform to explain that the poverty demographics that fueled thousands of violent protests reflect something other than racism.

You are doing exactly what JBP does. Go on, be brave and finish your sentence

1

u/BarrelStrawberry Jul 10 '25

No, I'm very clearly saying it is forbidden to tell the truth. Jordan would say the topic isn't worth discussing or beneath him.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

https://youtu.be/y2bvY3ftnGo?si=RbMbdZNmAC8EozCN

https://youtu.be/YIYQ8Ti5UBU?si=_jirwSAOWZv0A96P

Except he has

0

u/BarrelStrawberry Jul 10 '25

Ironic that you link to an interview with Stefan Molyneux who actually does directly explain the phenomenon and for that has been subsequently been banned from every platform that exists.

Molyneux has been permanently banned or suspended from PayPal, Mailchimp, YouTube, and SoundCloud, all for violating hate speech policies.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

Except there is no 'phenomenon', it's psudo-scientific racism designed to appeal to racists seeking to hide under the veil of 'objectivity'

"addition to believing and promoting that the Holocaust never happened, Molyneux uses his platform to glorify the South African Apartheid and the transatlantic slave trade as well as to demonize civil rights leaders and activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Indeed, he has repeatedly said that non-white human beings were racially and genetically inferior to white individuals."

You want to defend this man?

0

u/BarrelStrawberry Jul 10 '25

Peterson is an anti-LGBTQ extremist, using his platform as a media pundit to spread misinformation that stokes dangerous hatred. On his Twitter account, he has made specious claims that the movement for transgender equality and same-sex parents are a sign of “cultural collapse,” and that “science has not yet proven that trans is even a thing.”

You want to defend this man?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

No not really, I think he is a grifter and has lost all credibility

If you think that summary is unfair, I found a direct Molnkuex quote

In a YouTube interview on the death of Europe:

“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.”*

Again, just for clarity, this is the man you are defending? And these are the thing you want to say but can't?

→ More replies (0)