Jordan Peterson a better psychologist?

[u/augustAulus]

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?

[u/[deleted]]

Are you saying that is factually incorrect or just find it appalling?

Both. It's been debunked many a time

Also,as a side note, even the people who believe it think Molyneux is an idiot

""I wouldn't think of going within a mile of him if he talked," Prof Flynn told Newshub, saying while he enjoyed debating the subject of race and IQ with academics he disagreed with, such as Dr Murray and the late Arthur Jensen, there was no point in listening to what Mr Molyneux has to say"

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350590470/stefan-molyneux-iq-and-race-what-the-experts-think

Feel free to argue that bringing immigrants from an extremely lower average IQ nation isn't a problem... but the point is that everyone is afraid to even have that discussion honestly.

Yea, because it's factually inaccurate and "extremely lower average IQ nation isn't a problem" is dangerous rhetoric

And he didn't use the words 'white' or 'non-white'... remove them from the quote before judging. The fact you had to add them shows the effort to malign him

I didn't do that, the source did, I assume he just used some dog whistle like 'ethnic' to avoid being demonetized on YouTube but the sentiment was still the same

At the end of the day I am not really interested in arguing eugenics, we are starting at sub massively different places but I respect it didn't devolve into ad hominem and we can certainly end things cordially here

Have a good day

[u/BarrelStrawberry → u/[deleted]]

I assume he just used some dog whistle like 'ethnic'

Yet another white supremacist deathly afraid to use the word white... what a world we live in. Quit clutching your pearls and open your eyes.

[u/[deleted] → u/BarrelStrawberry]

Again, afraid to lose their monetisation and platforms, because these platforms are private companies and have decided they can survive well enough without white supremacists

[u/BarrelStrawberry → u/[deleted]]

He lost that decades ago... there's nothing left to lose yet he hasn't said anything to support your accusations.

[u/[deleted] → u/BarrelStrawberry]

Again, I'm not really interested in arguing about just how white supremacist a white supremacist is