The problem with him and people like him is that they start off with truth, and then slowly devolve into a conclusion they drew from that kernel of truth and before you know it they’re operating completely on their conclusions and personal ideas instead of the actual data they began with. Teaching as if their conclusions are just as valid.
It’s a similar strategy to how most religious leaders operate, when giving a sermon. They read the text and then change its meaning to whatever fits their narrative and interpretation best, then they spend the next hour preaching their ideas with the root authority of the audience largely unmentioned after that.
Completely agree. I initially agreed with a lot of what he said, but he slowly tries to drown you in the deep end.
He’s such an oddity to me in that it sounds like he’s speaking very well and in an articulate manner. But then you try to actually parse out what he’s saying, and realize it’s barely coherent a lot of the time. It seems to be the same model as Scientology as far as I can tell.
90% of his advice is pretty much just boilerplate self help stuff you can find in thousands of books on Amazon. That stuff gets you in the door and is meant to develop a sense of trust because you might see initial improvement and feel good from the advice.
It’s when he does the rug pull and starts introducing trad nonsense into it that determines how willing a person is to keep following through on listening to him.
Like you mentioned, this is an extremely common tactic used by religious leaders as well as cults. Back in the mid 20th century when the whole self help craze started, many cults took to framing themselves as self help groups to attract outsiders. NXIVM is probably the most infamous example of this. The first few meetings should seem like a normal support group but would soon start ramping up into full on cult mode.
What you’re asking is like proof that I’ve made this comment, you don’t need me to show you that I wrote it because the evidence is automatic based on your ability to comprehend what I’m saying.
Jordan Peterson makes conclusions based on evidence and then uses them to argue his points. The proof is you just need to observe the facts he uses (and I’m being generous here, assuming the data isn’t taken out of context or something) and then listen to his arguments to discern when he’s using what the data suggests to explain his point versus when he’s using the conclusion he drew from the data to explain his point.
I think you’ll find it’s more often the latter than you initially realized, the man is good at talking in circles both because it makes it difficult to call him out on his bullshit as well as providing an air of expertise and intelligence.
What you’re asking is like proof that I’ve made this comment
No. What I’m asking for is links or references to the material which you used to form your opinion. Not necessarily all of it but at least something which supports what you’re saying. That’s what’s meant by the word “sources” in this context.
proof is you just need to observe the facts he uses
I’m asking you where I can observe his uses.
listen to his arguments
I’m asking you where I can listen to such arguments.
The problem with him and people like him is that they start off with truth, and then slowly devolve into a conclusion they drew from that kernel of truth and before you know it they’re operating completely on their conclusions and personal ideas instead of the actual data they began with. Teaching as if their conclusions are just as valid.
It’s a similar strategy to how most religious leaders operate, when giving a sermon. They read the text and then change its meaning to whatever fits their narrative and interpretation best, then they spend the next hour preaching their ideas with the root authority of the audience largely unmentioned after that.
Completely agree. I initially agreed with a lot of what he said, but he slowly tries to drown you in the deep end.
He’s such an oddity to me in that it sounds like he’s speaking very well and in an articulate manner. But then you try to actually parse out what he’s saying, and realize it’s barely coherent a lot of the time. It seems to be the same model as Scientology as far as I can tell.
Yeah, eloquence only works if you actually have a point to make. He seems like he’s talking in circles for the most part.
90% of his advice is pretty much just boilerplate self help stuff you can find in thousands of books on Amazon. That stuff gets you in the door and is meant to develop a sense of trust because you might see initial improvement and feel good from the advice.
It’s when he does the rug pull and starts introducing trad nonsense into it that determines how willing a person is to keep following through on listening to him.
Like you mentioned, this is an extremely common tactic used by religious leaders as well as cults. Back in the mid 20th century when the whole self help craze started, many cults took to framing themselves as self help groups to attract outsiders. NXIVM is probably the most infamous example of this. The first few meetings should seem like a normal support group but would soon start ramping up into full on cult mode.
If you haven’t seen this deep dive into Nexium, it’s crazy how this guy essentially built a cult of personal bodyguards and sex slaves.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/gENRqiaS8xM?si=30TvbyB-l-jelzoU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Bold of you to assume he started with actual data
Most charlatans do, it’s just cherry picked for the topic with all context ignored. Once again, just like religious leaders.
Do you have a source for Peterson having done this?
This video shortly and succinctly shows this a few times: https://youtu.be/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=rCJA_3-QaANHSQX9
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/hSNWkRw53Jo?si=rCJA_3-QaANHSQX9
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
The video is three hours long!
Yeah, that’s the joke he makes in the video.
Critical thinking and listening to him speak.
So that’s a no.
What you’re asking is like proof that I’ve made this comment, you don’t need me to show you that I wrote it because the evidence is automatic based on your ability to comprehend what I’m saying.
Jordan Peterson makes conclusions based on evidence and then uses them to argue his points. The proof is you just need to observe the facts he uses (and I’m being generous here, assuming the data isn’t taken out of context or something) and then listen to his arguments to discern when he’s using what the data suggests to explain his point versus when he’s using the conclusion he drew from the data to explain his point.
I think you’ll find it’s more often the latter than you initially realized, the man is good at talking in circles both because it makes it difficult to call him out on his bullshit as well as providing an air of expertise and intelligence.
No. What I’m asking for is links or references to the material which you used to form your opinion. Not necessarily all of it but at least something which supports what you’re saying. That’s what’s meant by the word “sources” in this context.
I’m asking you where I can observe his uses.
I’m asking you where I can listen to such arguments.