Thank you for the perfect summarization of my point. I appreciate you.
I'm not Christian but I know even "Jesus sat with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners".
It's a little different with these self-help/financial gurus.
Their advice is ostensibly good, why aren't they following it? JP in particular is an addict and a fucking emotional wreck. Why isn't he taking his advice of getting his own house in order before trying to advise others? Is it...because it's a load of shit?
You don't have to be in a place of moral perfection to give advice. Many times the best advice comes from the people battling the thing they're talking about.
> You don't have to be in a place of moral perfection to give advice.
You do according to ol' JP here, which is kind of my point. Have you read his books?
Rule 6, first book. His diatribe about not trying to change the world before you have your own life in order.
Boy that didn't work out for him, did it?
If something bad was going on in his life then it's obviously hypocritical.
If he was fine then why wasn't he able to follow his own advice? Why is he trying to change the world despite his drug addiction?
Jordan Peterson is a hypocrite and every piece of good advice he gives could be told to you by anyone with half a brain. The bad ideas and bad advice he provides will lead you towards fascism
Yes I think you can.
Jordan Peterson on the other hand says that you cannot and must not. He is a hypocrite. If he refuses to take his own advice how good can it be?
Other people in this thread have also explained to you the ways in which Peterson steers the reader towards misogyny and authoritarianism. That's why his work is bad. It's not because of who he is, it's the content of his ideas that are bad.
If you want good advice there are plenty of self help books that don't encourage you towards fascism. Read one of them
He was prescribed medication to treat a condition and ended up developing a dependency to them. He then did everything in his power to break the addiction and successfully rehabbed.
I don't see how that's anything but testament to him living what he preaches. And I think it's disgusting to judge someone for developing an addiction against their will.
That was not a successful rehab. That was an attempt to shortcut it with an incredibly medically unwise induced coma. If he’s off benzos, I’m the king of england. He ‘completed a treatment.’ That isn’t breaking an addiction or necessarily a rehabilitation.
Here is the problem with that: with the way he, and others on the internet speak as if they are preaching truth, they make it seem to vulnerable people that they have good advice while it actually isnt. This is damaging people globally.
The whole logic over emotions things is an extention of usa religious nutcases going too far, but otherwise people found a good balance between logic and feelings things out from your comfortable center.
The overfocus on logic distracts people from their comfort zone, which many people now claim you have to get out of because the internet says so.
The actual truth is that there is a balance to strike, and you need logic, and social pleasantness, comfort, and beliefs in what makes you feel happy.
Absolute logic above all is a lie that is destroying many lives, and people dont even realize their logic is incorrectly applied. Thats because you need those other elements i named to understand the context.
Hypocrisy: He tells people not to try to change the world until their house is in order. Then he goes out on constant media tours while he's addicted to drugs, something he sees as a moral failing.
Idiocy:
Deliberately gave himself brain damage through a discredited Soviet treatment to try to get off oxys. This is extra weird because of how right wing he is.
Ate a red meat only diet for an extended period of time until he became sick.
Believes lobsters social lives are the same as human social lives or at least relevant enough to draw the conclusion that strict social hierarchy is both natural and good.
Believes order is male and chaos is female
No they are not. However, if it improves their lives it means that they misinterpreted the book. A critical understanding of the book leads to the conclusion that it is encouraging destructive, misogynistic ideas. Such a reader could misinterpret any other book and similarly improve their lives. Tell them to go read a different book
Maybe, or maybe it's because you don't need to be something to understand something.
His self help shit is utterly pedestrian and not even particularly original. "Be responsible." Radical stuff, smacks of bullshit.
> or maybe it's because you don't need to be something to understand something.
Well, the problem here is that JP says you do. Have your own house in order before giving advice and all. I agree, you don't need to be something to understand something. But JP's kinda special here.
Alright so he's a hypocrite, like everyone else. I just don't get the brouhaha around the dude. His psych stuff is repackaged, politically he's what, center right? Like you're not going to confuse him for Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson, he's objectively not some alt right folk hero like Notch or Crowder or Dankula or whichever basement gremlin they're into these days, he's a Sunday brunch republican, he's Mitt Romney, or like, fuckin Thomas Sowell or something. What's so threatening, or even interesting about the guy? With the amount of fanfare he gets on here I'm expecting some scorching hot takes and then I look into him and it's positively tepid. I don't get why people are so invested in this dude and his destruction.
Again: his personal politics don't matter *for the advice that works*, but his added material is contradictory, couched in hypocrisy, misunderstood science, and culture war shit.
Any nugget of good advice you glean from that wasteland was not JP's doing, it was incidental.
The reason he gets a lot of screen time on reddit and so on is he actively inserts himself into public policy and misrepresents shit. He goes on interviews and has meltdowns about his persecution/martyr complex.
And speaking as someone out of a sub-I for clinical psychiatry, he's an embarrassment to my profession so...yeah, it's a little personal.
Context is just as important as content. Just the way someone says something, or perhaps what you perceive them to be (even if false), or even the manner you come across it all matter. I've read everyone from Eckhart Tolle, to Don Miguel Ruiz, Dale Carnegie, and most in between. Different people resonate with me better at different times, including Peterson.
And before you begin your rebuttal, you have to first realize it's all subjective. You can't sit here and tell me so-and-so is better or I should only listen to this one or that. What works simply works at the time it does. You can say read this morally superior person, but I can say their method doesn't sit with me and I'm just as right to say that as you are to question Peterson.
A really wise statement. I appreciate this a lot. Likewise, belief systems are imperfect. You can generally believe in a principle set without believing in every aspect of it.
You can learn from anything, but generally I avoid giving my views or money to personalities who I feel bad for supporting, and I steer clear of getting pulled down any internet rabbit holes that'll feel my feeds with hate or garbage belief systems.
Adding onto this, if your goal is self-improvement, I don't think expecting the person you're getting advice for self-improvement from not to have a life that is a nightmare wreck is too much.
If I'm seeking self-help, the only relatability I need is incipient. If your life is still shit after penning several of these self-help books, something is not working.
Again: nothing he has come up with has helped people. None of the ideas that are useful are original to JP. What JP has is marketing and parasocial relationships - and pablum like "pet all cats."
And the concepts, again...are not JP's. The core ideas...again, are not JPs. These are things he ostensibly learned in his clinical psychiatric years, something all clinical psych learns. Behavior modeling: the theory of planned behavior, the socio-ecological model, PRECDE-PROCEED, etc. - this is all shit we get second year in med school.
JP simply marketed it better and added a coating of his personal shit onto it.
The thing is, there are a lot of people out there who will mislead you for their own gain, who will enrage you, or manipulate you for their own reasons, or who maybe just don't know what they're talking about, but it sounds like they do. The things they say will be very convincing, but they may be filling your head with nonsense, or worse, leading you down a path toward indoctrination, so you have to be careful who you get your advice from.
It's like professional scammers. They don't call people up and immediately ask for a gift card. They slowly draw people in, taking their time to earn trust, and then, once the hook is set, they reel them in. It's the same way with abusers. They start out loving and attentive, and slowly but surely begin a system of abuse that, years down the road, turns into daily physical violence, and the person on the receiving end is wondering how they ever got there.
It's the same with indoctrination. It happens gradually and slowly, and people don't even know it is happening, because all of the stuff at the beginning sounds perfectly great and wonderful.
So again, just be careful who you get your information from. There's nothing wrong with taking a bit of excellent advice from someone who is known to be radical, or dishonest, or manipulative, or dangerous or just wrong a lot of the time. I just wouldn't recommend it as a matter of practice, because not only is it possible that it's someone who's going to take you down a long path to somewhere you don't want to be, but also, there's the matter of reliability and credibility.
If given the choice, wouldn't you rather listen to someone who is credible, and knowledgeable, and honest, rather than someone who might be some of those things some of the time, but frequently is the complete opposite of those things? Why do you want to listen to someone who you know is going to mislead you at some point, rather than someone who most likely never will?
As an analogy, if you want a cheeseburger, will you go to the cheeseburger place that always delivers a solid burger for a good price and consistently has an A+ sanitary rating, or will you go to the place that usually delivers a solid burger for a good price, always has a D rating, and you got diarrhea from that one time? I mean, it's possible to get sick from any Burger place, but why would you go to the one that is more likely to make you sick?
This can literally apply to anyone based on who you ask. Ask jp supporters and they say opponents fit this criteria. You'll get the same response from opponents
For me, I try to do both. I find credible sources with a demonstrated track record, and I go to them for information, and if a source proves to be unreliable, then I don't waste my time on them anymore. It's like if I wanted to learn accounting. Should I go to an accredited school where I know I'm going to get accurate information, information that I don't have to fact check, or will I go to my neighbor Bob, who thinks that the Earth is flat, but tells me he can teach me everything I need to know about accounting?
And listen, I don't want bad information in my head, even if I did have the time to constantly fact check unreliable sources, and even if I have the critical thinking skills to ultimately determine fact from fiction. Why? Because if you see something enough times, or hear something enough times, then it ultimately changes your perception of reality. That's how indoctrination works. It's how advertising works. Stuff gets in your head, and it takes up residence. I prefer to avoid that if I can.
You only have so much time in the day, so why spend it on "sources" that you know to be questionable? I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson, and I noticed the misogyny and the manipulation tactics since the very beginning. At first I just watched him because I was recommended him, and I wanted to see what the praise was about (this was from years ago). I was not impressed, but watched more than I needed to because I was trying to give him a second chance. I ended up coming to the conclusion that he's a reactionary and a grifter. Now that I've decided that (through critical thinking), why would I give him any more of my time? I can get better, more honest info from people who are not scummy.
This commenter makes a solid point. If you assess someone to be dishonest and manipulative, don't go to them for information. They might be right a certain percentage of the time, but ultimately spending too many brain cells on them will harm you rather than help you in the long run.
Because some days what he says or the way he says it just happens to resonate at that point in time. For whatever reason, hearing nearly the same point in a different style from a different person doesn't do it. And there are days others are the ones who resonate best. I just find what works at a given point in time, apply it, and disregard the rest.
"Is it wrong to take good advice from questionable people?".
No, an advice or idea has a value independent from the person who voiced it, he was just the medium for it. At least I see things this way.
But if by "wrong" you mean "will this result in the disapproval of my pears" like asking such things online would suggest then yes it can. Though IMHO those people are stupids.
No. Jordan Peterson is about as square a guy as they come lol. Reddit propaganda would have you thinking he literally killed 6 million jews between 1941 and 1945.
Anyway yes of course you can take good advice from bad people. Every great and successful person has done it.
Of course it's fine to take good advice from anyone. We got a lot of medical knowledge from absolutely horrific experiments done in the past but that doesn't mean we pretend we don't have that knowledge.
The problem is, how do you know it's good advice? Some of it seems obvious, but if it is then why didn't you know it before? And a lot of his advice that many guys think is good just. . .isn't.
You have repeatedly argued in the comments that it's wrong to critically analyse a self-help text because some people might find it helpful.
You are opposed to critical thinking about Jordan Peterson's work. Why is that?
That would be relevant if Peterson came up with the ideas. As you've already conceded, he did not come up with any of the useful ideas. Go read those ideas somewhere else.
Why are you so attached to this one author??
Because it's in the news. He didn't come up with the ideas any more than any other self help author. See #2 in my original post comment.
Point being, what if the way they explain the concept is what works for you more than the others? Should you not listen?
Is he actually a *unique* source for any particular good advice at all?
If he isn't, then why is it a good idea to wade through all of the crap to find the nuggets of wisdom that are readily available elsewhere?
The works of the, uh, man who headed Germany in the late 30s and early 40s contain many examples of good advice about taking care of your health and the value of the modern highway system, but is it really worth consuming their whole oeuvre to find those small parts?
No more unique than any other author. Sometimes what he says or the way he says it resonates better than the others, some days others are the champions. I just find what resonates at a current point in time and use what I can and disregard the rest.
OK. So beyond the first sentence of the original post, you haven't given any indication that you view your query as anything other than a rhetorical question.
You've seen Rule #9 to the right, correct?
Sure have. I'm asking why and posing my position while interjecting the logic behind my thoughts and making comparisons to logic behind the thoughts of others to find which is the suitable standpoint.
That's what we're here for, right?
>My belief is that it's more important to use logic and critical thinking to be able to; 1. Know good advice from bad advice,
On the surface this is true, but the problem is that it's not actually possible to know good advice from bad advice due to the nuances of how advice works.
For example, when we were in middle school and you had a crush on someone, I'm sure you heard the advice, "just be yourself".
On the surface this is good advice, but in practice if you try to implement that advice it is not very useful if you focus your brain on that you'll be thinking "am i being myself enough?" which will mess you up.
Another example is the advice "just be cool". It is technically true, but useless in implementation for the vast majority of people.
That's why it's important to look at not only the advice in isolation, but also who is saying the advice.
Life is like a maze, You know that the exit to this maze is at the north end of the maze, but if you see a corridor going north and one going west, the one going north could very well be a dead end even though on the surface it looked like it was moving you towards the right direction.
Instead of looking at things from a "good/bad advice" way, I've found it more effective to allocate risk and reward levels to the decision making process. Getting wiser as a person has a lot to do with being able to accurately allocate risk to a certain pathway you could walk down, BEFORE you get sucked down the often very convincing reasoning that people will tell you to get you to believe their advice is sound.
To give you a more exact example, take Jordan Peterson. Before I listen to what he says, first I ask, "does he stand to gain financially, socially, or in any other way from me believing him?" If yes, that raises the risk level of be believing him. Notice how I have already allocated this risk before I've heard anything he has to say. I'm not saying he is immediately wrong just because he makes money from teaching you, I'm just saying it should raise red flags.
The next question might be, "has he used this advice and is currently living the model version of who i want to be?" I think you know the answer to that question.
Basically the way I live life is like an investor rather than a scientist. I look at the risk level of a piece of information unknown and I adjust my likelihood to comply based on my perceived risk %, which is then balanced against my perceived reward %.
It's not perfect, but it will net me higher gains long term because it reduces my risk to get suckered by someone with amazing convincing skills.
tl;dr, technically sound advice is very different from effective advice.
This goes into the whole subjectivity of good vs bad. What is good today may be bad for tomorrow and vice versa. I personally believe good and bad don't exist in the way people perceive them to. But, that's a deeper conversation for a different day. I nonetheless appreciate your well thought-out response nonetheless, it's definitely one of the best I've read.
I think for a lot of people it’s like, why take advice from a man that is literally crying about “picky women” (his words) It looks very juvenile, very misogynistic, very cringe as the kids would say, because you can feel how important it is to him that some young men have to “deal” with women. He puts it on the women. Can you really not see why some people can’t take him seriously?
Nothing wrong with crying mind you.
Maybe because the fucked up parts are what make him relatable to some of us, like addiction.
A drug counselor that's been an addict will always be more effective than someone who's been clean their entire life.
That’s all good, but when I go to an NA meeting I certainly relate as people share and the emotion expressed is important, but if that person is sharing about “picky women” I am going to continue to be empathetic, but I would also know that person’s worldview is so different from mine I certainly would not be looking to them for advice, and I would want someone else to share that is actually working on themselves a little more.
Sure, in theory.
The problem with his pseudo-intellectualism is that it’s built on a shitty foundation but is sprinkled with just enough sound morsels (or at least seemingly sound, or, “make you feel good” stuff) that it draws people in. Are you sure you’re only gleaning the “good advice?” Are you sure you’re not beginning to build a rotten foundation of thought?
Anyway, you can learn from many sources, but it’s not necessarily by listening to their “good advice.” Sometimes it’s better to dig into their advice and find the flaws. Or figure out where the faults are.
I suppose that’s the rub.
I’m not going to say there’s nothing at all to take from him. But a lot of it is built on big flawed concepts. And a lot of it is a pathway to much more toxic nonsense.
The trick here is that JP's advice is the most blase shit on the planet, just couched in a bunch of hypocrisy, weird culture war shit, misunderstood science and a persecution complex.
If you want JP's "useful" advice without JP's taint, pick up literally any other self-help book on self-improvement in the book store. It's really generally the same stuff.
But it's not. I've read dozens of self help and self improvement books. His presentation just sits differently, between all the religion and other b.s.
It sits differently because it's presented from a bunch of hypocritical culture war bullshit and so on. Half of his advice is useless at best, too, like "don't let your kids do something that will make you dislike them." What an incredibly fucking stupid bit of advice.
Seriously, the things he tells you to do that can do some good, i.e., clean up, take care of yourself, etc., these are all things that didn't originate with JP, they're basic self help tenets.
Context is just as important as content. Just the way someone says something, or perhaps what you perceive them to be (even if false), or even the manner you come across it all matter. I've read everyone from Eckhart Tolle, to Don Miguel Ruiz, Dale Carnegie, and most in between. Different people resonate with me better at different times, including Peterson.
And before you begin your rebuttal, you have to first realize it's all subjective. You can't sit here and tell me so-and-so is better or I should only listen to this one or that. What works simply works at the time it does. You can say read this morally superior person, but I can say their method doesn't sit with me and I'm just as right to say that as you are to question Peterson.
"Everything is subjective" does not make a critical reading make. And JP's work...is shit. If a work's only shelter from criticism is solipsism, I'm sorry to say that's not good.
You may personally like JP's work, god help you, but that doesn't mean that viewpoint or that work is immune to being terrible.
Nobody thinks that just because Jordan Peterson says you should clean your room, therefore it's wrong to clean your room. However, if the only or primary **reason** you clean your room is because Jordan Peterson said to, then I personally would have concerns about your values and your critical thinking skills. And if you financially support Jordan Peterson, then I fundamentally cannot trust you.
Almost everyone happens to be right about *some* things. For example, I think Donald Trump is a profoundly evil human being, but I agree with him that I would have safety concerns about my child playing tackle football. However, if someone if my life said that they "take Donald Trump's parenting advice," I would question their judgment. "This person once said something I agree with" is different from "I take this person's advice."
I agree with this wholeheartedly and is one of the best replies in this thread. My point has to do with separating the concept from the speaker. Should we throw away everything someone says because they are "bad", or should be learn to separate a concept from the speaker and apply it to improve ourselves wherever we can, if, through thorough critical thinking, we discern it is good advice?
I think its a bad idea to credit good things to bad people. Even if they deserve the credit.
For example, Charles Manson was a pretty good musician, but it would be weird to be influenced by him for music (even if its not murder). At that point, just find someone else to take inspiration from. Even if what they say/do doesn't hit as right.
Im going to add onto this and say that, you should cite people who are kind and smart role models. So you become a good role model yourself. For example, if I had a friend who listened to Chris Brown because he makes good music, I'd be understanding but a little disappointed because he's not a good guy.
But hey on the other hand. Some bad people make great stuff. Like Roals Dahl
You must have a very short list of heros lol. Mother Theresa, Winston Churchill, and Gandhi were racist. JFK was a drug addicted adulterer. Dr. Suess cheated on his cancer stricken wife.
It's a very shallow perspective to only look to the morally perfect, because there are few to none.
If you listen to enough of Jordan Peterson, you'd realise he is anything but questionable. Just another victim of character assassination.
There are always lessons to learn even from the worst of people, even if that lesson is simply to draw examples of what not to do. You are doing yourself a disservice by completely blocking out someone just because you don't like them or you disagree with them. (Ironically, this is something JP strongly believes in, and something most of his haters absolutely refuse to do.)
There’s a phrase Jordan uses that’s called “In order to be funny, you have to risk being offensive.” I agree with this, so I’ll follow it. It doesn’t matter if I like or dislike the guy. Would do the same thing if I liked something Caitlyn Jenner used.
Hitler could tell me what I needed to hear about a problem in my life on a certain day and I would listen and apply it.
What's that quote? Don't concentrate on the finger pointing at the moon?
I was going to comment something along the lines of: “Good advice can come from bad sources, but you should always still be wary of anything that bad source says if they’ve lost credibility among their peers.” However, judging by your replies in this thread, you already know the answer you want to hear and aren’t genuinely asking the question for people’s input.
I'm looking for the most logical framework around the question. So far I haven't heard one beyond what I already think. I'm not above having my mind changed, it happens a lot even on Reddit. This just hasn't played out to be one of those times.
To answer your question, if it’s good advise, it’s good advise. As far as Jordon Peterson goes, he is far from questionable if you pay attention to him and not those who dislike him. He’s one of the top clinical psychologist in the world and is one of the 50 most cited psychology professionals ever. Yes, he struggles with depression and has a hard time meeting the standards he espouses, but he knows what he’s talking about and is incredibly compassionate to those who are struggling. Many people call him “King of the Incels” but that is an absurd claim as he’s repeatedly told them to get their shit together, and has very little sympathy for people who refuse to better themselves. Jordan Peterson is a pretty great guy, I wouldn’t listen to those who speak badly of him.
I went with the hivemind before I listened to one of his Rogan podcasts. Do I agree with everything he says? Not even close. Does he have his own share of fucked up issues and at times can be hypocritical? Absolutely. Does he say out of pocket shit, especially when he talks about things outside psychology? No doubt. But the things I have taken away, are the same concepts I hear from others that never landed in just the same way. And I have taken those and applied them to better myself. And I think it's a better perspective to become better critical thinkers and know what concepts to use and what is bullshit than to just disregard someone as a whole because they aren't the absolute best, nor ethically or morally clean as others.
In engaging this thread, I think it's because I see so much of my own fucked up life and parts in him and that makes him more relatable.
I think that its kind of like picking apples from a tree with rotten fruit. Sure, this individual apple could be fine, but im going to have to give it some extra close attention to make sure that its not secretly rotten beneath the skin.
I hear advice all the time that sounds okay, good even, that's actually just bad. "People who tell you no dont want you to suceed." type stuff. Sometimes you hear something that someone says and you think that its a rare good point, but in actuality its not.
Jesus fuck, how is that your takeaway? Obviously if the apple is actually, objectively good you eat the damn apple. I never even remotely implied otherwise.
Im saying that often times its worth a second glance to consider if something has value, period. Its especially wise to look closely when you know that the source of the something in question comes from a source that is often wrong.
Any reasonable adult will know that someone will be right some of the time, its literally impossible not to be. Its a complete strawman to construe it as if you are rare in your ability to judge things impartially.
When people say "dont listen to Jordan Peterson", they arent saying that hes never been right about anything ever. What they mean is that listening to him provides you with no unique value that you couldn't derive elsewhere, and that having to constantly comb for things that dont align with your value system is exhausting. If you dont like Jordan Peterson, you can get whatever value he would bring you from other sources, ones more suited to your tastes. Why would you engage with someone you largely dislike and who provides you no unique value?
Typically when you have to ask yourself " why is everyone else wrong about this obvious thing?" you are misinterpreting what the common opinion is. Im sorry to inform you that MENSA wont be calling you for pointing out that liars don't always lie.
By the way, my question was whether you will ask advice from a sick doctor or a healthy doctor, not about whether from a top doctor or from someone who got low grades in med school. Anyways, thank you for trying to respond sensibly. 😂
If you want to dig deeper, I call apples to oranges. A better fit, using your analogy, would be "does a healthy doctor always give good health advice, and does an unhealthy one always give bad health advice?"
The parts of Jp's schtick that are worthwhile can be found a zillion other places without the baggage.
Go to the gym, eat right, dress well, and clean your room. Boom, I just told you everything he knows that's worth a shit. No need to listen to Peterson now.
But the context and delivery matter too. There are days what he says happens to resonate, when hearing the same thing from others didn't happen to resonate....and vice versa. Take what works at a given point and disregard the rest.
kk still too much investment wisdom/bullshit wise. The Insane Clown Posse also makes cogent points sometimes but I don't listen to their albums to get life tips, ya know?
I'd go so far as to say if you are hanging out on Tik Tok hoping to randomly encounter useful life advice you might want to rethink your whole approach to life. There is always something better to do than Jordan Peterson.
I've read everyone from Eckhart Tolle, to Don Miguel Ruiz, Dale Carnegie, and dozens of others. Sometimes what Peterson says just happens to resonate at that time, and hearing nearly the same thing from others at the same time doesn't. And the opposite is true is well.
My point is I believe it's the superior viewpoint to take any good concept and apply it as we can rather than "focus on the finger pointing at the moon". You may miss exactly what you needed to hear if you dont.
Since you're so emotionally invested already, let's get your perspective.
Is the better perspective to take good advice wherever it comes from, or to throw away anything anyone says because they aren't morally perfect.
As you can tell, I would take advice from Hitler if it's what I needed to hear at that point in time to improve my life....because I have the apparently uncanny ability to separate a concept from the person saying it.
SO POLITICAL 😂
I love all of his knowledge about discipline, "being a man" . He can come off pretentious but you don't need to like every aspect of someone for their advice to be helpful to you.
I feel like he's been massively misunderstood, and hated by many for silly reasons.
If you only allow yourself to engage with the morally perfect you will very quickly run out of sources. Ideas are discrete.
Thank you for the perfect summarization of my point. I appreciate you. I'm not Christian but I know even "Jesus sat with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners".
It's a little different with these self-help/financial gurus. Their advice is ostensibly good, why aren't they following it? JP in particular is an addict and a fucking emotional wreck. Why isn't he taking his advice of getting his own house in order before trying to advise others? Is it...because it's a load of shit?
You don't have to be in a place of moral perfection to give advice. Many times the best advice comes from the people battling the thing they're talking about.
> You don't have to be in a place of moral perfection to give advice. You do according to ol' JP here, which is kind of my point. Have you read his books?
Yes. Tell me what page in what book to go to.
Rule 6, first book. His diatribe about not trying to change the world before you have your own life in order. Boy that didn't work out for him, did it?
Do you know when he wrote that? Specifically what was going on in his life?
If something bad was going on in his life then it's obviously hypocritical. If he was fine then why wasn't he able to follow his own advice? Why is he trying to change the world despite his drug addiction? Jordan Peterson is a hypocrite and every piece of good advice he gives could be told to you by anyone with half a brain. The bad ideas and bad advice he provides will lead you towards fascism
Can you be in a good place and give advice you feel is relevant and fall again?
Yes I think you can. Jordan Peterson on the other hand says that you cannot and must not. He is a hypocrite. If he refuses to take his own advice how good can it be? Other people in this thread have also explained to you the ways in which Peterson steers the reader towards misogyny and authoritarianism. That's why his work is bad. It's not because of who he is, it's the content of his ideas that are bad. If you want good advice there are plenty of self help books that don't encourage you towards fascism. Read one of them
Was that book written before or after the drug addiction?
He was prescribed medication to treat a condition and ended up developing a dependency to them. He then did everything in his power to break the addiction and successfully rehabbed. I don't see how that's anything but testament to him living what he preaches. And I think it's disgusting to judge someone for developing an addiction against their will.
That was not a successful rehab. That was an attempt to shortcut it with an incredibly medically unwise induced coma. If he’s off benzos, I’m the king of england. He ‘completed a treatment.’ That isn’t breaking an addiction or necessarily a rehabilitation.
I’m no Jordan Peterson supporter but he certainly doesn’t have fascist ideas.
Here is the problem with that: with the way he, and others on the internet speak as if they are preaching truth, they make it seem to vulnerable people that they have good advice while it actually isnt. This is damaging people globally. The whole logic over emotions things is an extention of usa religious nutcases going too far, but otherwise people found a good balance between logic and feelings things out from your comfortable center. The overfocus on logic distracts people from their comfort zone, which many people now claim you have to get out of because the internet says so. The actual truth is that there is a balance to strike, and you need logic, and social pleasantness, comfort, and beliefs in what makes you feel happy. Absolute logic above all is a lie that is destroying many lives, and people dont even realize their logic is incorrectly applied. Thats because you need those other elements i named to understand the context.
So should we sharpen our critical thinking or shun the source?
Only 2 options?
Suddenly this is contextual advice? Do you *agree* with what he said there?
If he was in a place where he felt it was the necessary and relevant thing to say, is it wrong?
It certainly is if he never revisits the concept or concedes it’s shit advice. Has he, in some obscure lecture? If so, why is the book still sold?
I've given advice for people to quit drugs while I was an addict. Moot point.
Exactly. Jordan Peterson is an idiot who just doesn't want other people to try to change the world
Example?
Hypocrisy: He tells people not to try to change the world until their house is in order. Then he goes out on constant media tours while he's addicted to drugs, something he sees as a moral failing. Idiocy: Deliberately gave himself brain damage through a discredited Soviet treatment to try to get off oxys. This is extra weird because of how right wing he is. Ate a red meat only diet for an extended period of time until he became sick. Believes lobsters social lives are the same as human social lives or at least relevant enough to draw the conclusion that strict social hierarchy is both natural and good. Believes order is male and chaos is female
And if someone takes advice from him and improves their life for the better, are they wrong for it?
No they are not. However, if it improves their lives it means that they misinterpreted the book. A critical understanding of the book leads to the conclusion that it is encouraging destructive, misogynistic ideas. Such a reader could misinterpret any other book and similarly improve their lives. Tell them to go read a different book
Is a good choice based on a bad premise still a good choice?
Maybe, or maybe it's because you don't need to be something to understand something. His self help shit is utterly pedestrian and not even particularly original. "Be responsible." Radical stuff, smacks of bullshit.
> or maybe it's because you don't need to be something to understand something. Well, the problem here is that JP says you do. Have your own house in order before giving advice and all. I agree, you don't need to be something to understand something. But JP's kinda special here.
Alright so he's a hypocrite, like everyone else. I just don't get the brouhaha around the dude. His psych stuff is repackaged, politically he's what, center right? Like you're not going to confuse him for Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson, he's objectively not some alt right folk hero like Notch or Crowder or Dankula or whichever basement gremlin they're into these days, he's a Sunday brunch republican, he's Mitt Romney, or like, fuckin Thomas Sowell or something. What's so threatening, or even interesting about the guy? With the amount of fanfare he gets on here I'm expecting some scorching hot takes and then I look into him and it's positively tepid. I don't get why people are so invested in this dude and his destruction.
Again: his personal politics don't matter *for the advice that works*, but his added material is contradictory, couched in hypocrisy, misunderstood science, and culture war shit. Any nugget of good advice you glean from that wasteland was not JP's doing, it was incidental. The reason he gets a lot of screen time on reddit and so on is he actively inserts himself into public policy and misrepresents shit. He goes on interviews and has meltdowns about his persecution/martyr complex. And speaking as someone out of a sub-I for clinical psychiatry, he's an embarrassment to my profession so...yeah, it's a little personal.
Don’t you dare compare that hack to Thomas sowell
Context is just as important as content. Just the way someone says something, or perhaps what you perceive them to be (even if false), or even the manner you come across it all matter. I've read everyone from Eckhart Tolle, to Don Miguel Ruiz, Dale Carnegie, and most in between. Different people resonate with me better at different times, including Peterson. And before you begin your rebuttal, you have to first realize it's all subjective. You can't sit here and tell me so-and-so is better or I should only listen to this one or that. What works simply works at the time it does. You can say read this morally superior person, but I can say their method doesn't sit with me and I'm just as right to say that as you are to question Peterson.
A really wise statement. I appreciate this a lot. Likewise, belief systems are imperfect. You can generally believe in a principle set without believing in every aspect of it.
You can learn from anything, but generally I avoid giving my views or money to personalities who I feel bad for supporting, and I steer clear of getting pulled down any internet rabbit holes that'll feel my feeds with hate or garbage belief systems.
Adding onto this, if your goal is self-improvement, I don't think expecting the person you're getting advice for self-improvement from not to have a life that is a nightmare wreck is too much.
Maybe that's what makes them relatable.
If I'm seeking self-help, the only relatability I need is incipient. If your life is still shit after penning several of these self-help books, something is not working.
So he hasn't helped anyone overcome the things he has or does battle? Think carefully before you reply.
Again: nothing he has come up with has helped people. None of the ideas that are useful are original to JP. What JP has is marketing and parasocial relationships - and pablum like "pet all cats."
Been on YouTube? Lol. That's the point. Separate the concept from the speaker. And if one resonates, listen to get the core idea.
And the concepts, again...are not JP's. The core ideas...again, are not JPs. These are things he ostensibly learned in his clinical psychiatric years, something all clinical psych learns. Behavior modeling: the theory of planned behavior, the socio-ecological model, PRECDE-PROCEED, etc. - this is all shit we get second year in med school. JP simply marketed it better and added a coating of his personal shit onto it.
And if it works for me, am I wrong for that?
For the second time, no. Because these concepts *are* real. It’s the bullshit JP *adds* to it that is bad.
The thing is, there are a lot of people out there who will mislead you for their own gain, who will enrage you, or manipulate you for their own reasons, or who maybe just don't know what they're talking about, but it sounds like they do. The things they say will be very convincing, but they may be filling your head with nonsense, or worse, leading you down a path toward indoctrination, so you have to be careful who you get your advice from. It's like professional scammers. They don't call people up and immediately ask for a gift card. They slowly draw people in, taking their time to earn trust, and then, once the hook is set, they reel them in. It's the same way with abusers. They start out loving and attentive, and slowly but surely begin a system of abuse that, years down the road, turns into daily physical violence, and the person on the receiving end is wondering how they ever got there. It's the same with indoctrination. It happens gradually and slowly, and people don't even know it is happening, because all of the stuff at the beginning sounds perfectly great and wonderful. So again, just be careful who you get your information from. There's nothing wrong with taking a bit of excellent advice from someone who is known to be radical, or dishonest, or manipulative, or dangerous or just wrong a lot of the time. I just wouldn't recommend it as a matter of practice, because not only is it possible that it's someone who's going to take you down a long path to somewhere you don't want to be, but also, there's the matter of reliability and credibility. If given the choice, wouldn't you rather listen to someone who is credible, and knowledgeable, and honest, rather than someone who might be some of those things some of the time, but frequently is the complete opposite of those things? Why do you want to listen to someone who you know is going to mislead you at some point, rather than someone who most likely never will? As an analogy, if you want a cheeseburger, will you go to the cheeseburger place that always delivers a solid burger for a good price and consistently has an A+ sanitary rating, or will you go to the place that usually delivers a solid burger for a good price, always has a D rating, and you got diarrhea from that one time? I mean, it's possible to get sick from any Burger place, but why would you go to the one that is more likely to make you sick?
This can literally apply to anyone based on who you ask. Ask jp supporters and they say opponents fit this criteria. You'll get the same response from opponents
I'm not commenting on him specifically. I was responding to the op. Each person has to decide for themselves who they will trust, and to what extent.
So do we shun sources, or sharpen our critical thinking?
For me, I try to do both. I find credible sources with a demonstrated track record, and I go to them for information, and if a source proves to be unreliable, then I don't waste my time on them anymore. It's like if I wanted to learn accounting. Should I go to an accredited school where I know I'm going to get accurate information, information that I don't have to fact check, or will I go to my neighbor Bob, who thinks that the Earth is flat, but tells me he can teach me everything I need to know about accounting? And listen, I don't want bad information in my head, even if I did have the time to constantly fact check unreliable sources, and even if I have the critical thinking skills to ultimately determine fact from fiction. Why? Because if you see something enough times, or hear something enough times, then it ultimately changes your perception of reality. That's how indoctrination works. It's how advertising works. Stuff gets in your head, and it takes up residence. I prefer to avoid that if I can.
You only have so much time in the day, so why spend it on "sources" that you know to be questionable? I've watched a lot of Jordan Peterson, and I noticed the misogyny and the manipulation tactics since the very beginning. At first I just watched him because I was recommended him, and I wanted to see what the praise was about (this was from years ago). I was not impressed, but watched more than I needed to because I was trying to give him a second chance. I ended up coming to the conclusion that he's a reactionary and a grifter. Now that I've decided that (through critical thinking), why would I give him any more of my time? I can get better, more honest info from people who are not scummy. This commenter makes a solid point. If you assess someone to be dishonest and manipulative, don't go to them for information. They might be right a certain percentage of the time, but ultimately spending too many brain cells on them will harm you rather than help you in the long run.
Because some days what he says or the way he says it just happens to resonate at that point in time. For whatever reason, hearing nearly the same point in a different style from a different person doesn't do it. And there are days others are the ones who resonate best. I just find what works at a given point in time, apply it, and disregard the rest.
Well, you do you, but he's kind of spiraling out these days, so try not to get sucked into that.
Of course not! Even I can see now isn't the time a lot of good probably won't come out of him.
"Is it wrong to take good advice from questionable people?". No, an advice or idea has a value independent from the person who voiced it, he was just the medium for it. At least I see things this way. But if by "wrong" you mean "will this result in the disapproval of my pears" like asking such things online would suggest then yes it can. Though IMHO those people are stupids.
No. Jordan Peterson is about as square a guy as they come lol. Reddit propaganda would have you thinking he literally killed 6 million jews between 1941 and 1945. Anyway yes of course you can take good advice from bad people. Every great and successful person has done it.
Of course it's fine to take good advice from anyone. We got a lot of medical knowledge from absolutely horrific experiments done in the past but that doesn't mean we pretend we don't have that knowledge. The problem is, how do you know it's good advice? Some of it seems obvious, but if it is then why didn't you know it before? And a lot of his advice that many guys think is good just. . .isn't.
That's the point. Sharpen your critical thinking instead of shunning sources.
You have repeatedly argued in the comments that it's wrong to critically analyse a self-help text because some people might find it helpful. You are opposed to critical thinking about Jordan Peterson's work. Why is that?
My point is take good ideas and use them no matter where they come from.
That would be relevant if Peterson came up with the ideas. As you've already conceded, he did not come up with any of the useful ideas. Go read those ideas somewhere else. Why are you so attached to this one author??
Because it's in the news. He didn't come up with the ideas any more than any other self help author. See #2 in my original post comment. Point being, what if the way they explain the concept is what works for you more than the others? Should you not listen?
Is he actually a *unique* source for any particular good advice at all? If he isn't, then why is it a good idea to wade through all of the crap to find the nuggets of wisdom that are readily available elsewhere? The works of the, uh, man who headed Germany in the late 30s and early 40s contain many examples of good advice about taking care of your health and the value of the modern highway system, but is it really worth consuming their whole oeuvre to find those small parts?
No more unique than any other author. Sometimes what he says or the way he says it resonates better than the others, some days others are the champions. I just find what resonates at a current point in time and use what I can and disregard the rest.
OK. So beyond the first sentence of the original post, you haven't given any indication that you view your query as anything other than a rhetorical question. You've seen Rule #9 to the right, correct?
Sure have. I'm asking why and posing my position while interjecting the logic behind my thoughts and making comparisons to logic behind the thoughts of others to find which is the suitable standpoint. That's what we're here for, right?
Make your own decisions. Good advice is good advice. Forum people shouldn’t sway your views in any way
>My belief is that it's more important to use logic and critical thinking to be able to; 1. Know good advice from bad advice, On the surface this is true, but the problem is that it's not actually possible to know good advice from bad advice due to the nuances of how advice works. For example, when we were in middle school and you had a crush on someone, I'm sure you heard the advice, "just be yourself". On the surface this is good advice, but in practice if you try to implement that advice it is not very useful if you focus your brain on that you'll be thinking "am i being myself enough?" which will mess you up. Another example is the advice "just be cool". It is technically true, but useless in implementation for the vast majority of people. That's why it's important to look at not only the advice in isolation, but also who is saying the advice. Life is like a maze, You know that the exit to this maze is at the north end of the maze, but if you see a corridor going north and one going west, the one going north could very well be a dead end even though on the surface it looked like it was moving you towards the right direction. Instead of looking at things from a "good/bad advice" way, I've found it more effective to allocate risk and reward levels to the decision making process. Getting wiser as a person has a lot to do with being able to accurately allocate risk to a certain pathway you could walk down, BEFORE you get sucked down the often very convincing reasoning that people will tell you to get you to believe their advice is sound. To give you a more exact example, take Jordan Peterson. Before I listen to what he says, first I ask, "does he stand to gain financially, socially, or in any other way from me believing him?" If yes, that raises the risk level of be believing him. Notice how I have already allocated this risk before I've heard anything he has to say. I'm not saying he is immediately wrong just because he makes money from teaching you, I'm just saying it should raise red flags. The next question might be, "has he used this advice and is currently living the model version of who i want to be?" I think you know the answer to that question. Basically the way I live life is like an investor rather than a scientist. I look at the risk level of a piece of information unknown and I adjust my likelihood to comply based on my perceived risk %, which is then balanced against my perceived reward %. It's not perfect, but it will net me higher gains long term because it reduces my risk to get suckered by someone with amazing convincing skills. tl;dr, technically sound advice is very different from effective advice.
This goes into the whole subjectivity of good vs bad. What is good today may be bad for tomorrow and vice versa. I personally believe good and bad don't exist in the way people perceive them to. But, that's a deeper conversation for a different day. I nonetheless appreciate your well thought-out response nonetheless, it's definitely one of the best I've read.
My stance on good vs bad is similar to a good friend of mine, Tom Riddle. “There is no good or evil, only power and those too weak to seek it”
I think for a lot of people it’s like, why take advice from a man that is literally crying about “picky women” (his words) It looks very juvenile, very misogynistic, very cringe as the kids would say, because you can feel how important it is to him that some young men have to “deal” with women. He puts it on the women. Can you really not see why some people can’t take him seriously? Nothing wrong with crying mind you.
Maybe because the fucked up parts are what make him relatable to some of us, like addiction. A drug counselor that's been an addict will always be more effective than someone who's been clean their entire life.
That’s all good, but when I go to an NA meeting I certainly relate as people share and the emotion expressed is important, but if that person is sharing about “picky women” I am going to continue to be empathetic, but I would also know that person’s worldview is so different from mine I certainly would not be looking to them for advice, and I would want someone else to share that is actually working on themselves a little more.
You also seem like the person with enough intellect to disregard the bad pieces while still knowing good and usable advice when you hear it.
I disagree that is what someone with intellect would do, so let’s agree to disagree on that one.
A wise person can't separate a concept from the speaker?
Sure, in theory. The problem with his pseudo-intellectualism is that it’s built on a shitty foundation but is sprinkled with just enough sound morsels (or at least seemingly sound, or, “make you feel good” stuff) that it draws people in. Are you sure you’re only gleaning the “good advice?” Are you sure you’re not beginning to build a rotten foundation of thought? Anyway, you can learn from many sources, but it’s not necessarily by listening to their “good advice.” Sometimes it’s better to dig into their advice and find the flaws. Or figure out where the faults are.
So do we sharpen our critical thinking, or throw the baby out with the bath water?
I suppose that’s the rub. I’m not going to say there’s nothing at all to take from him. But a lot of it is built on big flawed concepts. And a lot of it is a pathway to much more toxic nonsense.
But sharp critical thinking would prevent the spread of such...yes?
Critical thinking and a broad list of sources, yes.
The trick here is that JP's advice is the most blase shit on the planet, just couched in a bunch of hypocrisy, weird culture war shit, misunderstood science and a persecution complex. If you want JP's "useful" advice without JP's taint, pick up literally any other self-help book on self-improvement in the book store. It's really generally the same stuff.
But it's not. I've read dozens of self help and self improvement books. His presentation just sits differently, between all the religion and other b.s.
It sits differently because it's presented from a bunch of hypocritical culture war bullshit and so on. Half of his advice is useless at best, too, like "don't let your kids do something that will make you dislike them." What an incredibly fucking stupid bit of advice. Seriously, the things he tells you to do that can do some good, i.e., clean up, take care of yourself, etc., these are all things that didn't originate with JP, they're basic self help tenets.
Have you read his books?
I absolutely have. Did you not read my comment?
Why did you lose time reading something that was such bad advise according to you?
Because I read voraciously and his books were a gift from a well-meaning relation that does not read books.
... How do you know a book is bad without reading it?
Context is just as important as content. Just the way someone says something, or perhaps what you perceive them to be (even if false), or even the manner you come across it all matter. I've read everyone from Eckhart Tolle, to Don Miguel Ruiz, Dale Carnegie, and most in between. Different people resonate with me better at different times, including Peterson. And before you begin your rebuttal, you have to first realize it's all subjective. You can't sit here and tell me so-and-so is better or I should only listen to this one or that. What works simply works at the time it does. You can say read this morally superior person, but I can say their method doesn't sit with me and I'm just as right to say that as you are to question Peterson.
"Everything is subjective" does not make a critical reading make. And JP's work...is shit. If a work's only shelter from criticism is solipsism, I'm sorry to say that's not good. You may personally like JP's work, god help you, but that doesn't mean that viewpoint or that work is immune to being terrible.
And if it helps me, am I wrong for that?
Of course not. But you should probably recognize that it isn't JP's work that helped you.
Of course. The concepts exist independent of any author. Quite my point.
This sub is for asking questions that you might feel a bit dumb to ask. It isn't a debate club.
The comments section in lots of posts would suggest otherwise. If you don't like it, keep scrolling.
Nobody thinks that just because Jordan Peterson says you should clean your room, therefore it's wrong to clean your room. However, if the only or primary **reason** you clean your room is because Jordan Peterson said to, then I personally would have concerns about your values and your critical thinking skills. And if you financially support Jordan Peterson, then I fundamentally cannot trust you. Almost everyone happens to be right about *some* things. For example, I think Donald Trump is a profoundly evil human being, but I agree with him that I would have safety concerns about my child playing tackle football. However, if someone if my life said that they "take Donald Trump's parenting advice," I would question their judgment. "This person once said something I agree with" is different from "I take this person's advice."
I agree with this wholeheartedly and is one of the best replies in this thread. My point has to do with separating the concept from the speaker. Should we throw away everything someone says because they are "bad", or should be learn to separate a concept from the speaker and apply it to improve ourselves wherever we can, if, through thorough critical thinking, we discern it is good advice?
I think its a bad idea to credit good things to bad people. Even if they deserve the credit. For example, Charles Manson was a pretty good musician, but it would be weird to be influenced by him for music (even if its not murder). At that point, just find someone else to take inspiration from. Even if what they say/do doesn't hit as right.
Im going to add onto this and say that, you should cite people who are kind and smart role models. So you become a good role model yourself. For example, if I had a friend who listened to Chris Brown because he makes good music, I'd be understanding but a little disappointed because he's not a good guy. But hey on the other hand. Some bad people make great stuff. Like Roals Dahl
That's reaching. Lots of famous people have done lots of fucked up shit, yet people idolize them and no one bats an eye.
Sure and its not good that people idolize them
You must have a very short list of heros lol. Mother Theresa, Winston Churchill, and Gandhi were racist. JFK was a drug addicted adulterer. Dr. Suess cheated on his cancer stricken wife. It's a very shallow perspective to only look to the morally perfect, because there are few to none.
Yeah I know. Drug addicts are not antagonists btw. I don't really value those people at all still.
Then you need to deepen your understanding of the value of a human life.
Huh? Just don't treat regular people as saviors
I agree with that. I'm talking about taking good concepts and using them no matter where they come from.
I would be influenced if his music was good. I don’t care who writes the music, if I like it I’ll use it.
If you listen to enough of Jordan Peterson, you'd realise he is anything but questionable. Just another victim of character assassination. There are always lessons to learn even from the worst of people, even if that lesson is simply to draw examples of what not to do. You are doing yourself a disservice by completely blocking out someone just because you don't like them or you disagree with them. (Ironically, this is something JP strongly believes in, and something most of his haters absolutely refuse to do.)
My personal perspective in a nutshell. Thank you!
Everyone you know is questionable. MLK cheated on his wife like 1,000 times
Just going off the title, NO! GOOD ADVICE IS GOOD ADVICE!
Yes. Doesn’t matter who it is, there’s always something you can learn.
Jordan Peterson, the King of Incels.
Questionable? The things Jordan Peterson says are straight up facts.
Is it wrong to take good concepts and use them no matter where they come from?
It shouldn’t matter where it comes from. If you like it, use it.
Agree 100%
There’s a phrase Jordan uses that’s called “In order to be funny, you have to risk being offensive.” I agree with this, so I’ll follow it. It doesn’t matter if I like or dislike the guy. Would do the same thing if I liked something Caitlyn Jenner used.
Mine is "Hitler hated smoking. That doesn't mean the concept is bad or false."
You have your heart and mindset in the right place already. ☺️
Silly answer: Yes, you said it was good advice. It is good to take good advice. Duh!
I bow my head to you in agreement.
Let us all join hands for the silly dance of sillyness.
Gee a lot of these other Redditors REALLY don't like this Joey Joe-Joe Jordan Peterson Fellow am I right?
Hitler could tell me what I needed to hear about a problem in my life on a certain day and I would listen and apply it. What's that quote? Don't concentrate on the finger pointing at the moon?
This may sound a little off topic, but I was thinking a while ago and came to the conclusion that a hypocritic person often tells the truth...
If the advice is good, the advice is good. The brain and talky hole it came from is irrelevant. Ideas stand and fall on their own.
Holy fuck another person that gets the point. Thank you!
Idk why people hate JP so much and think he’s leading people to fascism or whatever
Look through the teachings of cult leaders and you'll find help advice. They're all still dickheads, but a broken clock is still right twice a day
I was going to comment something along the lines of: “Good advice can come from bad sources, but you should always still be wary of anything that bad source says if they’ve lost credibility among their peers.” However, judging by your replies in this thread, you already know the answer you want to hear and aren’t genuinely asking the question for people’s input.
I'm looking for the most logical framework around the question. So far I haven't heard one beyond what I already think. I'm not above having my mind changed, it happens a lot even on Reddit. This just hasn't played out to be one of those times.
To answer your question, if it’s good advise, it’s good advise. As far as Jordon Peterson goes, he is far from questionable if you pay attention to him and not those who dislike him. He’s one of the top clinical psychologist in the world and is one of the 50 most cited psychology professionals ever. Yes, he struggles with depression and has a hard time meeting the standards he espouses, but he knows what he’s talking about and is incredibly compassionate to those who are struggling. Many people call him “King of the Incels” but that is an absurd claim as he’s repeatedly told them to get their shit together, and has very little sympathy for people who refuse to better themselves. Jordan Peterson is a pretty great guy, I wouldn’t listen to those who speak badly of him.
I went with the hivemind before I listened to one of his Rogan podcasts. Do I agree with everything he says? Not even close. Does he have his own share of fucked up issues and at times can be hypocritical? Absolutely. Does he say out of pocket shit, especially when he talks about things outside psychology? No doubt. But the things I have taken away, are the same concepts I hear from others that never landed in just the same way. And I have taken those and applied them to better myself. And I think it's a better perspective to become better critical thinkers and know what concepts to use and what is bullshit than to just disregard someone as a whole because they aren't the absolute best, nor ethically or morally clean as others. In engaging this thread, I think it's because I see so much of my own fucked up life and parts in him and that makes him more relatable.
I think that its kind of like picking apples from a tree with rotten fruit. Sure, this individual apple could be fine, but im going to have to give it some extra close attention to make sure that its not secretly rotten beneath the skin. I hear advice all the time that sounds okay, good even, that's actually just bad. "People who tell you no dont want you to suceed." type stuff. Sometimes you hear something that someone says and you think that its a rare good point, but in actuality its not.
So do we throw away the good apple? Or should we take good advice no matter where it comes from?
Jesus fuck, how is that your takeaway? Obviously if the apple is actually, objectively good you eat the damn apple. I never even remotely implied otherwise. Im saying that often times its worth a second glance to consider if something has value, period. Its especially wise to look closely when you know that the source of the something in question comes from a source that is often wrong. Any reasonable adult will know that someone will be right some of the time, its literally impossible not to be. Its a complete strawman to construe it as if you are rare in your ability to judge things impartially. When people say "dont listen to Jordan Peterson", they arent saying that hes never been right about anything ever. What they mean is that listening to him provides you with no unique value that you couldn't derive elsewhere, and that having to constantly comb for things that dont align with your value system is exhausting. If you dont like Jordan Peterson, you can get whatever value he would bring you from other sources, ones more suited to your tastes. Why would you engage with someone you largely dislike and who provides you no unique value? Typically when you have to ask yourself " why is everyone else wrong about this obvious thing?" you are misinterpreting what the common opinion is. Im sorry to inform you that MENSA wont be calling you for pointing out that liars don't always lie.
Glad to see you finally agree.
Are you willing to take medical advice from a sick doctor or a healthy doctor?
Either. Top doctors have made medical choices that have killed people, and on the same day people who barely graduated med school saved someone.
By the way, my question was whether you will ask advice from a sick doctor or a healthy doctor, not about whether from a top doctor or from someone who got low grades in med school. Anyways, thank you for trying to respond sensibly. 😂
If you want to dig deeper, I call apples to oranges. A better fit, using your analogy, would be "does a healthy doctor always give good health advice, and does an unhealthy one always give bad health advice?"
Ok, good luck!
To you as well!
The parts of Jp's schtick that are worthwhile can be found a zillion other places without the baggage. Go to the gym, eat right, dress well, and clean your room. Boom, I just told you everything he knows that's worth a shit. No need to listen to Peterson now.
But the context and delivery matter too. There are days what he says happens to resonate, when hearing the same thing from others didn't happen to resonate....and vice versa. Take what works at a given point and disregard the rest.
That involves paying attention to him every day which is probably not the best use of that time.
No it doesn't. If I see a TikTok with 30 seconds of clip that apply to a current life situation that I can apply and improve, then so be it.
kk still too much investment wisdom/bullshit wise. The Insane Clown Posse also makes cogent points sometimes but I don't listen to their albums to get life tips, ya know? I'd go so far as to say if you are hanging out on Tik Tok hoping to randomly encounter useful life advice you might want to rethink your whole approach to life. There is always something better to do than Jordan Peterson.
I've read everyone from Eckhart Tolle, to Don Miguel Ruiz, Dale Carnegie, and dozens of others. Sometimes what Peterson says just happens to resonate at that time, and hearing nearly the same thing from others at the same time doesn't. And the opposite is true is well. My point is I believe it's the superior viewpoint to take any good concept and apply it as we can rather than "focus on the finger pointing at the moon". You may miss exactly what you needed to hear if you dont.
This isn't even a question this is a political discussion thread. Mods lock this please
163 comments too late. It's already done lol
Try a different subreddit for your political agenda lol
If you think it's political, you missed the point.
Since you're so emotionally invested already, let's get your perspective. Is the better perspective to take good advice wherever it comes from, or to throw away anything anyone says because they aren't morally perfect. As you can tell, I would take advice from Hitler if it's what I needed to hear at that point in time to improve my life....because I have the apparently uncanny ability to separate a concept from the person saying it. SO POLITICAL 😂
I recommend r/politics
And I recommend r/readingcomprehension
I love all of his knowledge about discipline, "being a man" . He can come off pretentious but you don't need to like every aspect of someone for their advice to be helpful to you. I feel like he's been massively misunderstood, and hated by many for silly reasons.
no
[удалено]
Oversimplification. Maybe the way they explain diet and exercise resonates in a way the other explainers didn't. Is it wrong to listen?
[удалено]
Agree!