07 Nuggets of wisdom from Jordan Peterson

[POB]

Last week I was watching an interview of Jordan Peterson where he was being attacked by another feminist (surprise surprise) just because she was not able to understand his viewpoints without prejudice. Even so it was a nice interview, where he dropped a lot of great advice that I'll take the liberty to reproduce here:

1) A SUCCESSFUL MAN SHOULD BE COMPETENT

2) PEOPLE CHOOSE AN INCOMPETENT MATE BECAUSE THEY ARE INTIMIDATED BY COMPETENCE, SO THEY SETTLE FOR SOMEONE THEY DON'T RESPECT BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN MASTER THEM

3) IF YOU REPRESS SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR TOO LONG, IT COMES BACK WITH A VENGEANCE

4) YOU WANNA SEE WHAT ARE THE THINGS THE DARK PARTS OF YOU ARE ATTRACTED TO. IT HELPS TO KEEP AN EYE ON WHERE THINGS MAY LEAD IF THEY GO SIDEWAYS.

5) THERE'S NOTHING WORSE THAN BEING HARMLESS.

6) YOU DON'T WANT TO CONTROL AGGRESSION. YOU WANNA INTEGRATE IT. MEN NEED TO LEARN TO BE DANGEROUS. WE JUST DON'T USE THAT DANGER, EXCEPT WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

7) MARRIAGE'S GOAL IS NOT TO BE HAPPY, BUT TO GIVE STABILITY TO THE KIDS

I don't agree with the man in some topics, but I always stop and listen to what he has to say.
Peace.

~POB

 

[Alpha13SC]

Jordan Peterson seems to have valuable information. Maybe we could make a thread, or use this just for his interviews/clips where he has really something useful to say.

 

[POB]

Jordan Peterson seems to have valuable information. Maybe we could make a thread, or use this just for his interviews/clips where he has really something useful to say.

He seems to always have something useful to say lol
His Joe Rogan interview looks great too (recently caught bits and pieces of it)

 

[Will_V]

I like the guy, he's someone I can always learn something from even if I don't quite agree. Especially the way he reveals the structure of human existence in terms of symbols, archetypes and recurring stories throughout history, it's the kind of thing I can sit and listen to for hours.

I also learned an exceptionally useful and practical thing from him, which is that you can always tell when you are about to say something that you shouldn't say, because the moment before you say it, it makes you feel physically weak. You can literally feel a self-delusion in your body just before it comes out.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I think there are some negatives worth mentioning in the context of the forum.

The main thing I don't like (and I think this is why some guys in seduction have an issue with him) is that he seems to consider any casual sexual enterprise on the part of a man as nothing more than predation. Which is kind of strange, since, as someone who apparently seeks to bring men to grips with themselves, surely he should see the problem with labelling something that literally every man desires in such bluntly negative terms. I would never tell that to my son, even if I believed it was true.

I've seen him talk about how women line up to get banged casually by very high SMV guys like basketball players, as if it's a surprising but perfectly natural phenomenon, but any guy who consciously goes out to seek that and make it happen for himself, he paints in a negative light. I think it shows a pretty poor understanding of what game even is, and what its value might be especially to women, as well as betraying the potential of men to pull themselves up by their bootstraps rather than just sit and accept whatever sexual morsels are thrown his way.

I don't think he's dishonest about it, but for several reasons his views on women, sex and relationships seem to be idealistic rather than practical, and sometimes border on pedestalizing women and female sexual selection, as well as certain societal structures and hierarchies, without offering the counter-weight of male agency.

It's a shame, because the guy is very intelligent and articulate, and is capable of revealing the truths of certain things in ways that no one else does. But his practicality seems to stumble over his idealism sometimes on certain topics without the two ever really being reconciled together.

 

[POB]

The main thing I don't like (and I think this is why some guys in seduction have an issue with him) is that he seems to consider any casual sexual enterprise on the part of a man as nothing more than predation. Which is kind of strange, since, as someone who apparently seeks to bring men to grips with themselves, surely he should see the problem with labelling something that literally every man desires in such bluntly negative terms. I would never tell that to my son, even if I believed it was true.

He can't come to terms with his own masculine biology, that's why. Very common in super intelligent academic types.
Not everything can be explained by science (including individual desire), hence why he struggles a lot to understand all the guys who are just at ease with seducing lots of girls and are not predators or ill intended towards them.

I don't think he's dishonest about it, but for several reasons his views on women, sex and relationships seem to be idealistic rather than practical, and sometimes border on pedestalizing women and female sexual selection, as well as certain societal structures and hierarchies, without offering the counter-weight of male agency.

His views on women are 100% idealistic and flawed.

It's a shame, because the guy is very intelligent and articulate, and is capable of revealing the truths of certain things in ways that no one else does. But his practicality seems to stumble over his idealism sometimes on certain topics without the two ever really being reconciled together.

Bingo!

 

[Warped Mindless]

I like the guy, he's someone I can always learn something from even if I don't quite agree. Especially the way he reveals the structure of human existence in terms of symbols, archetypes and recurring stories throughout history, it's the kind of thing I can sit and listen to for hours.

I also learned an exceptionally useful and practical thing from him, which is that you can always tell when you are about to say something that you shouldn't say, because the moment before you say it, it makes you feel physically weak. You can literally feel a self-delusion in your body just before it comes out.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I think there are some negatives worth mentioning in the context of the forum.

The main thing I don't like (and I think this is why some guys in seduction have an issue with him) is that he seems to consider any casual sexual enterprise on the part of a man as nothing more than predation. Which is kind of strange, since, as someone who apparently seeks to bring men to grips with themselves, surely he should see the problem with labelling something that literally every man desires in such bluntly negative terms. I would never tell that to my son, even if I believed it was true.

I've seen him talk about how women line up to get banged casually by very high SMV guys like basketball players, as if it's a surprising but perfectly natural phenomenon, but any guy who consciously goes out to seek that and make it happen for himself, he paints in a negative light. I think it shows a pretty poor understanding of what game even is, and what its value might be especially to women, as well as betraying the potential of men to pull themselves up by their bootstraps rather than just sit and accept whatever sexual morsels are thrown his way.

I don't think he's dishonest about it, but for several reasons his views on women, sex and relationships seem to be idealistic rather than practical, and sometimes border on pedestalizing women and female sexual selection, as well as certain societal structures and hierarchies, without offering the counter-weight of male agency.

It's a shame, because the guy is very intelligent and articulate, and is capable of revealing the truths of certain things in ways that no one else does. But his practicality seems to stumble over his idealism sometimes on certain topics without the two ever really being reconciled together.

A lot of his views are colored by his religion.

I generally like JP but like with a lot of intellectuals on the right, they just can’t seem to get past the whole religious thing.

 

[Will_V]

A lot of his views are colored by his religion.

I generally like JP but like with a lot of intellectuals on the right, they just can’t seem to get past the whole religious thing.

I actually like very much the way he is not afraid to color things in religious or semi-religious terms. I think the concept that a man is to some extent a religious creature by his biological nature is an interesting fact that many intellectuals would rather bury and avoid altogether.

The way I see it, religious belief itself is a pragmatic choice in many cases rather than acceptance of some objective truth, as it speaks through symbols that are the language of the deepest subconscious (like the symbols of dreams) as well as those archetypal stories that appear even in non-religious contexts, together with an ethical and moral framework, so that it can help someone reorganize a scattered mind from the bottom up and regain a hold on meaning. So when I see people like Dawkins arguing with religious people over whether something is factual, they are missing the point.

This fascinates me a lot, because it makes perfect sense to me that the mind is not simply a general processor operating on objective data, but is rather a mechanism evolved into using certain symbols and stories to operate more effectively, the same way we evolved to use hands. Why should nature care whether a belief is objectively true? If it can be used to harness greater potential, and produce a more effective outcome.

...

I do agree with you in a sense, in that I think JP's problem is being overly idealistic (rather than religious per se). He is obsessed by communism for example, the most ideological thing ever invented, and he comes across as someone who is quick to accept something as absolute truth if it speaks to him on some ideological level, which you can see by the way he talks about it in a very emotional way. There are numerous things I've observed or read about him that suggest that he has the psyche of someone who is overburdened by a sense of meaning and import in things - the same way that an artist might see some powerful meaning in the smallest details or most insignificant things - and that it makes it impossible for him sometimes to detach and look at something clearly. Which is fine, because otherwise it probably wouldn't be possible for him to dig so deeply into things that cross between the spiritual and the biological, and connect the dots together in a practical way that has been so useful to many people.

 

[Ree]

7) MARRIAGE'S GOAL IS NOT TO BE HAPPY, BUT TO GIVE STABILITY TO THE KIDS

i cant sing jordan petersons praises loud enough,marriage being for kids this was an eye opener for me

 

[Ree]

Jordan Peterson seems to have valuable information. Maybe we could make a thread, or use this just for his interviews/clips where he has really something useful to say.

good idea

I like the guy, he's someone I can always learn something from even if I don't quite agree. Especially the way he reveals the structure of human existence in terms of symbols, archetypes and recurring stories throughout history, it's the kind of thing I can sit and listen to for hours.

I also learned an exceptionally useful and practical thing from him, which is that you can always tell when you are about to say something that you shouldn't say, because the moment before you say it, it makes you feel physically weak. You can literally feel a self-delusion in your body just before it comes out.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I think there are some negatives worth mentioning in the context of the forum.

The main thing I don't like (and I think this is why some guys in seduction have an issue with him) is that he seems to consider any casual sexual enterprise on the part of a man as nothing more than predation. Which is kind of strange, since, as someone who apparently seeks to bring men to grips with themselves, surely he should see the problem with labelling something that literally every man desires in such bluntly negative terms. I would never tell that to my son, even if I believed it was true.

I've seen him talk about how women line up to get banged casually by very high SMV guys like basketball players, as if it's a surprising but perfectly natural phenomenon, but any guy who consciously goes out to seek that and make it happen for himself, he paints in a negative light. I think it shows a pretty poor understanding of what game even is, and what its value might be especially to women, as well as betraying the potential of men to pull themselves up by their bootstraps rather than just sit and accept whatever sexual morsels are thrown his way.

I don't think he's dishonest about it, but for several reasons his views on women, sex and relationships seem to be idealistic rather than practical, and sometimes border on pedestalizing women and female sexual selection, as well as certain societal structures and hierarchies, without offering the counter-weight of male agency.

It's a shame, because the guy is very intelligent and articulate, and is capable of revealing the truths of certain things in ways that no one else does. But his practicality seems to stumble over his idealism sometimes on certain topics without the two ever really being reconciled together.

I dont think he thinks that,his criticisms of the pua lifestyle are that it has a tendency of making men "pretenders",men are taught how to fake being high value,rather than how to be high value,that much i think is true

 

[Ree]

His views on women are 100% idealistic and flawed.

have you ever actually listened to jordan peterson?or are you relying on second hand information,his views on women are spot on,

 

[Ree]

So when I see people like Dawkins arguing with religious people over whether something is factual, they are missing the point.

eaxctly,Im an atheist but I will be the first to admit that the bible is a storybook that has stood the test of time,and there is likely a biological reason ,

 

[Will_V]

good idea

I dont think he thinks that,his criticisms of the pua lifestyle are that it has a tendency of making men "pretenders",men are taught how to fake being high value,rather than how to be high value,that much i think is true

That's not how it came across to me. If I remember correctly (it's been a while) he said directly that seducing a woman for casual sex requires some kind of psychopathy - he said it in very derogatory terms. Implying that casual sex is like some kind of violent attack. I think this is a horrible perspective to apply to something that, like I said, virtually every guy would like to have in his life, and which women often fantasize about, participate in and enjoy. For young guys with little or no sexual experience who are struggling to get that side of their life in order, I think it's just going to hamstring their efforts.

If he was a bit more nuanced about it - like the way he likes to say that 'there's no such thing as casual sex' that's a valid and debatable point of view. But frankly I haven't seen anything to suggest he really understands sex itself beyond marital sex as a physical union, and procreation. That's what one might expect of someone who married a childhood sweetheart and probably has a very small pool of sexual experiences to draw from, and whose experience of what sex is to other people is likely composed mainly of counselling victims of trauma, but he should be smart enough to know that he doesn't know a whole lot about that side of life, especially for younger people who are navigating a different world from where he came from.

I'm not someone who thinks you need to extoll the virtues of casual sex to young guys/girls for them to find the right experiences in life, but to paint it as some kind of evil is the sort of thing that can tangle someone up psychologically for life.

 

[Winston]

Actually I am not even sure JBP is christian. I have read an article that I think accurately describe him as pagan.

What makes him especially interesting is that he speaks about the Good and the Bad, without the need to speak about God, his morality doesn't need a religion to work properly. The basis of his morality is biology, not religion.

I think his last book Beyond Order is even better than 12 rules. Definitely one of the living intellectual worth following.

 

[trashKENNUT]

I saw in the chats.

@Gunwitch be like "People think that Jordan Peterson is great in dating when really he only fucks his wife".

I was chuckling quietly behind the chats. I be like yo brother, I thought I was in one of this shows.

z@c+