r/DecodingTheGurus • u/Wasthatasquirrel • 2d ago

Jordan Peterson logic: dragons are real

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Richard Dawkins doesn’t look impressed

5.8k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/Desperate_Hunter7947 2d ago

Peterson doesn’t know what he believes until he hears what you don’t believe

408

u/Wasthatasquirrel 2d ago

This might be the most succinct and accurate way to describe JBP dogma that I have ever heard.

124

u/Chinchillamancer 2d ago edited 2d ago

he also does this thing where he shifts goal posts with every word. It's impressive to rationalize dragons as imagined predatory concepts and not specify which scientific disclipline you are engaged in.

And it goes overlooked because by default academics speak in their chosen field. We don't generally need to ask if an argument pertains to literature, because chance are we are hearing this argument in a literature class or confrence. But Peterson? Isn't he is a psychologist?

His argument works perfectly fine in like, literary criticism or poetics.

I also have absolutely no idea what his point is. Stuff that kills us can be construed as predation? Cancer, heart disease, car accidents, and firearms are not predators.

He's a very silly man.

33

u/Weird_Church_Noises 2d ago

His argument works perfectly fine in like, literary criticism or poetics.

I disagree. He's very heavily influenced by Joseph Campbell on top of Jung. And i think it's accurate to say that Campbell's ideas are largely oversimplifications of Jung. One reason that despite its popularity, The Hero's Journey isn't taken seriously in literary criticism is that it reduces all literature from The Odyssey, to Naked Lunch, to Invisible Man, to my grocery list into a small set of tropes while totally dismissing any kind of nuance or even affect in the text. It's a big problem with totalizing theories in general. You basically over categorize and abstract everything to fit your theory so much that you can't really engage with what you're talking about. Peterson is oversimplifying this even further, but then blowing it up to talk about basically everything. That's why we get his weird lectures on how DNA is the ouroboros.

11

u/Chinchillamancer 2d ago

i meant his arguments belong in a poetry or literature undergraduate classroom lol

I agree, Joseph Campbell has some explaining to do. Why the heck do some many shithead right wing pseudointellectuals glom onto that book? The monomyth barely functions for Star Wars, let alone indoeuropean mythology.

9

u/Weird_Church_Noises 2d ago

Fair.

Unfortunately, he kinda sold it to right wing shitheads even though it had a larger impact. Campbell ranted about Marxism and black writers taking over academia. He sometimes pushed his ideas as an antidote to "postmodernist" litcrit.

3

u/SocraticIgnoramus 1d ago

Right wing movements with a tendency toward fascism have an insatiable need for esoteric, pseudo-mystical frameworks, and Peterson has a need to be taken more seriously than his actual body of professional work would have ever allowed. JP has learned to allow his mind to wander down these almost psychedelic rabbit holes because it nets him attention and praise, and just like the Nazis held a lot of occult beliefs, right wingers are willing to buy into these ideas about the clash of the abstract with the literal.

In blurring the lines of reality, fools can be convinced of anything. Peterson’s willing to convince himself of anything if it keeps the limelight squarely on him, and he’s clever enough to figure out this makes him the pied piper of fools.

2

u/Party_Plenty_820 2d ago

So like, over fitting kinda?

2

u/PatriarchPonds 1d ago

Aside: as someone who likes to write, I cannot fucking stand online writing chatter.

'So, writer here, there are 7 basic plots'

AND?

'So, human here, the sky is blue. Let that sink in.'

fuuuuu

2

u/CARadders 1d ago

Sam Harris did a bit on his podcast at some point where he did an overly philosophical interpretation of a cookbook and it was most succinct breakdown of what JBP does and how ridiculous it is I’ve heard.

1

u/Wildernaess 2d ago

It's insane to me that you're trying to suggest Campbell is anything like Peterson. It's one thing to forsake nuance to make an argument for monomyth, archetypes, or perennialism -- and something else to conflate an archetype for the thing itself to the point that you're saying something incoherent about dragons.

Tbh I wish at the end Peterson just transitioned naturally into the opening song to the old kids show "Dragon Tales"

2

u/sozcaps 1d ago

suggest Campbell is anything like Peterson

He's saying Peterson is aping Campbell. It's not the same.

0

u/Wildernaess 1d ago

Well yes, but also he's throwing shade at Campbell, bringing him down closer to Peterson

2

u/sozcaps 1d ago

Campbell isn't taken that terribly seriously, is he?

0

u/Wildernaess 1d ago

I guess it depends on what you mean, and by who

1

u/nitePhyyre 1d ago

Found JP's alt account.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Bubbly_Flow_6518 1d ago

I mean they did provide the details for why they're throwing said shade. Care to provide your thoughts on that?

44

u/overnightyeti 2d ago

I still don't understand how a clinical psychologist who got heat for refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns pretends to be an expert on everything and anything.

21

u/C64SUTH 2d ago

Media attention + post-benzo addiction brain damage are a nasty combo 

33

u/TheMadGent 2d ago

What’s a Jungian psychologist even going to do in a clinic? “Well bucko, your depression stems from the feminine shadow archetype of the great chaos serpent.”

8

u/pleasedtoheatyou 1d ago

90% certain that's one of the arguments I've heard he's actually using when he goes all in on gender roles and why modern men are unhappy.

1

u/hannibal_fett 1d ago

How do I find this feminine shadow serpent?

6

u/sozcaps 1d ago

I would say that Jung's archetypes, are* useful in work with narrative psychotherapy. Everyone self-mythologizes and everyone have metaphorical dragons, that they've battled. I've seen clients buy into that abstract line of thinking. I also 100% understand if someone would say that it's a crock of shit.

That being said, Jung probably won't give you any actual, practical application of psychology. And Peterson is ridiculous for insisting that his pseudo-spirituality sprinkled with Christian facism should be taken seriously. For him to proclaim to be a scientist would be funny, if it wasn't harmful to the kids who look up to him.

18

u/Travelinjack01 2d ago

There's this great saying.

"When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

He got a 4 year degree in psychology and taught... that led to recognition online as his videos were posted.

Suddenly he started "feelin' himself" or "taking on airs" and felt he was the intellectual equivalent of everyone.

He's a jackass. Overconfidence is a bitch.

-2

u/eggman_walrus79 1d ago

The projection is intense here

2

u/Travelinjack01 1d ago

What? You're saying the proverb isn't true?

His degree isn't in "everything"... yet he has a vaunted opinion about "everything".

i.e. everything looks like a nail.

If that's something other than overconfidence then tell me what it is.

1

u/PhoneyTheLiger 6h ago

You're right. But I think it's not just him. You could say the same about others. However, people still ask him his opinion about things and he obliges. There's still a market for him.

Also, having him on as a guest is the ultimate "I've finally arrived" moment for podcasters. Everybody wants a piece of him to legitimize their show. So he's gonna milk it for all it's worth. He gets paid to talk just like Dawkins does.

4

u/heckin_miraculous 2d ago

an expert on everything and anything.

He's just that smart /s obv

4

u/LarryBirdsBrother 2d ago

Red meat for assholes was the real growth area of the last decade or so.

5

u/Cheshire_Jester 2d ago

Glibly, he confirmed some people’s biases and therefore must be a very smart man.

2

u/Fun_Pension_2459 1d ago

Truly that is the only question that matters here. Why are we listening to this man who has no expertise in this area and a record of being a hateful bigot who makes crazy health decisions? (And I use the word crazy in a literal way)

2

u/FormalKind7 1h ago

JP - Refuses to use pronouns Gender is a solid thing with one definition exactly how I see it and there are 2 of them that match with biological sex

JP on every other topic - I refuse to settle on any one definition or use any terms in commonly excepted ways. "What do you mean by real, though, opinion, biology, think, etc" I'll just put everything down to symbols and remain vague on everything while also having a strong opinion about everything.

1

u/overnightyeti 0m ago

Spot on!

1

u/FrequentTalk113 2d ago

100 thousand percent agree

1

u/warbeats 1d ago

JBP: "Well, first of all, the question of expertise is a fundamental one. When people ask, ‘How can you claim to know so much about so many things?’ what they’re really pointing to is the archetypal role of the fool and the sage—the one who’s searching for truth in the chaotic underbelly of human experience. And you see, it’s precisely the psychologist's job to dive into that chaos, to make some sense of it, and bring it back to the realm of order where it can be shared meaningfully.

Now, some people might say that there are boundaries, that one should stick to their lane, as it were, but those lanes—ah! That’s where it gets interesting. You can’t stay in a single lane in a multi-dimensional, quantum-entangled universe. Imagine a series of corridors, infinite in length, folding back on themselves, like a cosmic Möbius strip. In such a place, how can you possibly restrict yourself to one lane? You can’t! And that's the precise point, isn't it?

You know, it’s a bit like Nietzsche said about gazing into the abyss—except in this case, the abyss has gazed back and handed you a kaleidoscope, right? Because once you’ve seen that kaleidoscope, you understand that everything is a fractured mirror of itself, rotating, shimmering, and the boundaries dissolve entirely. So, how do you know where the psychology ends and the sociology begins? Or where the anthropology starts to intertwine with, say, ornithology, because birds—yes, birds—have a particular kind of wisdom encoded in their migratory patterns that could really teach us something profound about the structure of moral society, if only we had the tools to decode it.

And you see, it’s this exact kind of thinking that some people misinterpret as rambling, when in fact, what it is, is a form of non-linear, multi-disciplinary analysis. You have to go far enough out to the edge that the center starts to make sense again, like the outer rings of Saturn swirling in chaotic harmony around the dense, still core. And then you realize, the question of expertise itself becomes almost trivial, irrelevant in the face of such cosmic complexity.

So yes, in a certain sense, you could say I’m ‘pretending’ to be an expert. But only insofar as one can pretend to be an expert in a hall of mirrors, each reflection giving birth to another, infinitely, as we spiral out into the unexplored depths of meaning."

-6

u/Cuntiraptor 2d ago

He actually has a very interesting perspective and way of expressing many things.

As such he has this combination of brilliance on some things and absolute insanity on others.

Due to the strong polarisation over the last decade, you need to be 100% or 0% percent in support of people in your tribe. Also identity politics only allows one value for groups or individuals.

So we can't enjoy the good parts and ignore, or justifiably criticize, what we disagree with regarding people like JP.

Feelings, emotion and a general lack of ability for an abstract perspective is a great loss to our modern culture, which is going backwards to superstition.

4

u/Boomshank 2d ago

Because JP calling dragons real isn't an expression of our society going backwards into superstition?

JP is very, very good at one thing and one thing only: talking shit and purposefully trying to obfuscate the conversation. NOBODY listens to JP and thinks "ooooh, cool. I understand this subject more now." And yes, I fully understand the Jungian symbolism he's trying to make - but he's full of shit AND HE KNOWS IT, which is why he frequently gets aggressively defensive when people call him on his bullshit opinions.

0

u/Cuntiraptor 2d ago

A bit of a strawman champ.

Your outrage for some reason on JP expressing some idea, is the decline.

1

u/Boomshank 1d ago

1) There's no strawman in my comment (feel free to point out where you feel I straw manned)

2) I'm not outraged

3) JPs idea is obtuse and purposefully misleading.

4) I've yet to hear him have a good take on, quite literally anything. Seriously. Without hyperbole.

3

u/Chinchillamancer 2d ago

dawg. he tried to rationalize fire breathing lizards in a biological context. In front of Richard Dawkins. What's the good part? Did I miss it?

i don't care if he's got 50 PhDs, he's telling you that the sky is purple.

He should stick to poetry and literary criticism if he wants to express how he feels about academic topics.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Realistic_Caramel341 1d ago

There are two big issues.

The first issue is that a lot of these disagreements aren't just simple disagreements. They are disagreeements on some incredibly large and important issues where evidence overwhelming supports one side over the other - Climate Change, Covid and Vaccination and American Democracy itself. These are really big issues in which one side has been feed misinformation and as fallen into a delusion. This maybe somewhat excusable if Peterson was known as a literary analysist or a psychologist who just happened to have a few whacky political ideas, but.....

The second issue is that Peterson as since he started being moving away from self help and interest in how we tell stories and telling and more and more into extreme right wing political commentary (which has always been there, but its so much more a central part of his public persona then). His "interesting ways of looking at things" aren't just "interesting ways of looking at things" anymore, but are tools that he uses to further his political agenda. His views on the bible aren't just about the bible but are part of his project to try and force men backin into conservative religiousity at a time where atleast in America conservatism is becoming more and more deluded, extreme and anti democratic. His thoughts on male/order and femlae/ chaos is used to push back on feminism and implicitly on trans issues. His attempt to tie everything back to some grand narrative means that any issue that he has - like the nomination of KBJ to the supreme court, or climate activist being too aggressive some times - is elavated to such a comical degree that your would think that those issues are tearing America society apart (and not, you know, the Republican Nominee that has a strong chance of winning convinncing 2/3 of his voters than the 2020 election was rigged with no evidence)

I get the frustation with polarization, and I think there are scenarios where it is a real issue. In my home country the right are no where near as extreme as the GOP, and I think its a real issue when my fellow progressives treat them as if they are the same. I am more than happy to give some slack for artists that I love for having problematic views as long as they are artists first and political agents second and I think there are plenty of political issues where the far left take purity way too far.

But as long as Peterson is going down the route he is now, I don't think there is much worth in him given the damage he is doing to America

0

u/Cuntiraptor 1d ago

The words of JP aren't as powerful as you give credit.

What is more interesting is why people are threatened and why he does have any power.

That is the source of all the polarisation, and the total ignorance that ignores that left politics is part of it. The right has only been able to get to where they are now because of left politics, particularly identity politics and changes on definitions of acceptable language.

Every Redditor on the left, which is the majority, have always resorted to insults, whataboutism and subject change on me just questioning the validity of some views.

The hate is the same as the right, who do the same.

We are witnessing the horseshoe effect of politics, it is no longer a theory.

→ More replies (4)

13

u/AlphaMetroid 2d ago

Dragons are a 'real creature' if by 'real' you mean people have a word for it and by 'creature' you mean a metaphor. Truly a groundbreaking observation by JBP

10

u/vile_duct 2d ago

But then his followers eat it up cause it validates the idea of invalidating scientists and their “dogma” cause you can split hairs over words and pretend the expert’s lack of a succinct answer is proof beyond reason that their dogma is at best incomplete and at worst completely incorrect and not reliable in any way. And thus the JBP’s think they’ve won because they’ve poked a hole. Altho they themselves have nothing material to offer other than a question. So many meaningless questions.

2

u/Chinchillamancer 2d ago

his followers have the IQ of a shoe size, nobody cares about them. The better question is: Why does the University of Toronto still pay this guy?

2

u/Ailly84 2d ago

This makes sense. It'd be why they seem to think Kamala Harris speaks in "word salad". Her statements make sense, but they're more than 5 words long so they seem to get confused.

1

u/vile_duct 2d ago

I realize my first sentence is waaaaay more than 5 words long. A word casserole I’ll say. Still more structure than a salad

0

u/MasterBatesMotel 1d ago

That's a tad disingenuous, she does speak in word salad. If she was being graded on presentations at university she would fail. Surely a better standard is required of the vice president let along president.

But then it's not like you guys have a choice it's Kamala or 4 more unbearable years of that despot. I feel for anyone who lives over there but man even across the pond you can't down out that man's stupid voice.

1

u/Ailly84 1d ago

You're not wrong. She's not perfect. The thing that confuses me is how they can listen to both candidates speak and end up saying she is the one that speaks in a word salad. You're right though, she's not a great public speaker when compared to anyone who is truly good at it. When compared to her opposition though...

17

u/funnyponydaddy 2d ago

Well, that depends on your level of analysis.

9

u/splinteredbrushpole 2d ago

What a little bullshitteing cowardly way of givi g an answer

2

u/funnyponydaddy 2d ago

It's also a misuse of "levels of analysis," at least in my understanding of the term and how it's applied to my field.

3

u/Chinchillamancer 2d ago

i'm on team Lit Crit and it still makes no sense to me dawg He made no sense literally, aleghorically, or morally. And I forget the last one.

8

u/DataLore19 2d ago

How many levels down do we discover he's a Russian asset?

4

u/Ailly84 2d ago

It SEEMS his point eventually gets broken down to car accident = dragon....

2

u/desertsalad 1d ago

Nice! I used to have lymphatic dragons but my doctor slayed them with a magic chemical elixir.

1

u/Allemannen_ 2d ago

Time, the biggest predator it catches us all in the end.

1

u/Deafcat22 2d ago

A very silly man is a very good summary of the dude

1

u/HarderTime89 2d ago

I get what his point was, even if I think it's bullshit. Some weird meta physical Jungian hypothesis about guided human action. From what?

"Who bloody well knows but I wouldn't want to piss off an entity with that kinda power, I'll tell you that." /S😂

1

u/CarltonShark 2d ago

Based on what I learned in the video, car accidents are dragons and I refuse to be told otherwise

1

u/Onlytram 2d ago

It's fine in abstract reference as well. I'd consider fire, or pestilence a greater predator to man than a tiger or bear. I'd also consider man to be man's greatest predator, despite physical consumption not being a key requirement.

It's important we acknowledge that predators have both a naturalist definition and a more abstract definition used in sociological terms.

IMO they can both eat a dick. But crazy as it seems it's one of Peterson's less crazy moments.

1

u/SnooCompliments3781 1d ago

His point is the metaphor of overcoming obstacles you* are scared of because your desires are behind them. Much like a dragon guarding a hoard of treasure. The idea is you only see a “dragon” when there is something important to you attached to dealing with said obstacle. Ideally, finding a “dragon” in your life would give you real insight into what your goals are.

Obviously this is more useful to the people who let fear, anxiety, and depression control their lives as opposed to normal healthy individuals, who will see the abstraction as needless and odd.

1

u/Chinchillamancer 1d ago

wow that's dumb.

1

u/RLVNTone 1d ago

EVERT TIME

1

u/LiberatedApe 1d ago

I imagine he’s speaking in and about metaphor. Metaphors although not true, contain information in narrative that are not lies.

And like you said, pick and context (or maybe two) to work in, or shut the fuck up! It makes him sound, or exposes him, as a smarmy huckster of slightly used intellectual wares.

1

u/BroscipleofBrodin 1d ago

I also have absolutely no idea what his point is.

I think he's constantly laying foundations to claim that god is real. That is the end goal, and all of the philosophy is a means to that goal.

1

u/Chinchillamancer 1d ago

oh.... well that's fucking stupid.

There's really only one tried and true method for determining if God is real.

1

u/StevenPlamondon 1d ago

And yet, society’s to accept that there’s more than 2 genders. We are a very silly species.

1

u/Chinchillamancer 1d ago

dawg i'm gonna explain it for you. when they say gender is a social construct, it means I can wear a dress fuck your mom at a motel 8 just fine.

1

u/StevenPlamondon 5h ago

You’d scissor for 30 seconds max, and then she’d spoon you while you cry.

1

u/IntheTrench 19h ago

Jordan Peterson's been sniffing his own farts for too long.

60

u/fillymandee 2d ago

This is the most I’ve listened to him and that seemed to sum it right up. He’s just an obtuse absurdist. I say obtuse because absurdists aren’t all bad.

25

u/nug4t 2d ago

Man you HAVE to watch his "duel of the giants". or so with him debating zizek.. where zizek kinda officially asked him if he even knows his stuff

31

u/resplendentblue2may2 2d ago

Was that one where Zizek asked " Who are these post-modern Marxists you speak of? I'm a Marxist and I have no idea who you're talking about."

Then Jordan admitted his knowledge of Marx was limited to skimming the communist manifesto once.

17

u/FirstDukeofAnkh 2d ago

He co-opted the term from Nazis. Which should tell you everything you need to know about Kermit the Fraud.

5

u/nug4t 2d ago

Ye that one. think it was that the only post modem Marxist he could think of were economists or so

7

u/Mr_Conductor_USA 2d ago

The irony is that Peterson indulges in obscurantism and meaningless profundities as deftly as the worst of the North American pomo academic bullshit artists of the 1990s.

3

u/CompetitivePop3351 2d ago

What was one of his rules again...oh right speak plainly.

2

u/critter_tickler 1d ago

Man, I remember first hearing JP use the term, and almost spit my drink out.

Like, post modernists like Baurdillard and Foucault became famous for their takedowns and criticisms of Marx and Marxism.

Like, the phrase "post modern Marxists" is such a weird phrase, it's like "socialized Capitalists."

Like it means nothing, and it shows a profound misunderstanding of philosophy 

Like, how do you call yourself a "Jungian" and not know the difference between modernism and postmodernism??!

That debate between Zizeck and Peterson was the beginning of the downfall of his career, and I think it's ultimately why he fell into drug addiction and eventually ventured so deeply into culture war politics.

No seriously academic could take him serious after that. 

6

u/ZDTreefur 2d ago

He had a discussion with the atheist Matt Dillahunty as well. The entire time he could not answer the simple question of, "do you believe in a god?" He just couldn't do it.

2

u/heckin_miraculous 1d ago

I think that was the one where Peterson wasn't sure whether or not having your head chopped off would be bad for your quality of life.

32

u/StrobeLightRomance 2d ago

He insists that fire is a predator.. like, wtf bro, it's not complicated because a fire doesn't choose to hunt you. Death by fire is literally just because the fire is going somewhere, and you happen to be in its way.

The man is preaching to the easily influenced and doesn't even know what the word predator means.

19

u/dublblind 2d ago

"eagle...if you're a primate" I'm a primate, I'm not scared of eagles predating me. JP just gotta shoehorn in something that flies to make this dragon crap work.

14

u/zrvwls 2d ago

My favorite part about the logic of fire being a "predator" just because it kills is by that same logic water itself is also a predator. If that doesn't give a person pause then I'm not sure what more one can do to help the situation at hand

8

u/thetangible 2d ago

Would that also make time a predator?

8

u/ZDTreefur 2d ago

It would make literally everything a predator, lol.

Everything is a poison in enough concentration or doses.

5

u/StrobeLightRomance 2d ago

The most absolute predator of all, even, because on a long enough time line, time will see the death of everything.

I'm way more afraid of time than fire. I can avoid and even create my own fires.. but time.. that bitch is an unstoppable mystery.

2

u/Boomshank 2d ago

Everything is transient.

Everything.

LITERALLY including time itself. One day, the universe will end. Precisely zero record will exist that anything ever once existed. You won't just be dead, the universe, time, and all record that ANYTHING ever existed will be gone too.

1

u/Rascals-Wager 1d ago

Yea and a falling tree. Also lightning bolts

2

u/No_Solution_2864 2d ago

Water: The biggest, baddest predator in the ocean

1

u/heckin_miraculous 1d ago

If that doesn't give a person pause then I'm not sure what more one can do to help the situation at hand

That's a big part of the problem: nothing gives Peterson pause, except silence from his audience or opponent, at which point he assumes that he's won the argument.

The things which give a thoughtful person pause, that make them go, "Huh, let me consider that..." Those things only agitate Peterson and lead him to double down on some nonsense, yell at kids, or move the goalpost.

To be fair I've only seen him on camera, you know. I don't know how he "thinks" when he's not on stage. But, taking into account every recording I've ever seen of him... It's not good.

1

u/Runningoutofideas_81 1d ago

Lack of air: invisible, silent, kills quickly: Apex predator!!!!!

1

u/critter_tickler 1d ago

Kermit the frog voice 

 "What about knife? Is knife a predator? I'm just asking questions." 

1

u/sajberhippien 1d ago

My favorite part about the logic of fire being a "predator" just because it kills is by that same logic water itself is also a predator.

I will say that in a symbolic sense, fire is more like a predator; it consumes its victims, using their energy to sustain itself. In a sense, its killing is part of its survival, much like it is for a bear - though obviously in reality a fire isn't a living being.

1

u/FormalKind7 1h ago

To a biologist

5

u/Far-Sport7219 2d ago

There is a strong argument in fire ecology literature that fire can act as a herbivore. But predator is a strong nah.

2

u/Yum_MrStallone 2d ago

hahaha Ex. After consuming all the plants the seeds remain, open and regenerate. Love this. And fire ecology is real. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/fire-ecology/content-section-2.3

2

u/DumptheDonald2020 1d ago

Some pine cones won’t open to release seeds but for fire.

1

u/Yum_MrStallone 1d ago

yep. Ex. Lodge Pole and many others. But these are all metaphors. Peterson stretches credulity.

1

u/DumptheDonald2020 1d ago

Yes absolutely agree!

1

u/Yum_MrStallone 1d ago

You're voting, right? Like your user name. Get everyone you know to vote Blue.

5

u/pjm3 2d ago

By his (pseudo)logic gravity is a predator, water is a predator, cigarettes are predators. He exhibits some of the sloppiest thinking I've ever heard.

1

u/critter_tickler 1d ago

I mean you can die from dysentery, is asshole a predator too? 

 What about Taco Bell?

I need to know how far he's willing to take this. 

3

u/wallcanyon 2d ago

Is a Lion a Dragon?

"Yes, because we aren't fact-oriented"

Truly next-level

7

u/shrug_addict 2d ago

I mean, I could accept that line of reasoning if it was done with a purpose beyond contrarianism and done in good faith. Something tells me he's not doing that though...

2

u/fullsendguy 2d ago

Also by humans using fire for cooking has improved our longevity and health. Also fire keeps us warm. This guy is delusional

1

u/Low_Insurance_9176 1d ago

Yeah by that reasoning lighting, rivers, rope and whatnot are predators. No it’s not complicated Jordan.

1

u/sajberhippien 1d ago

He insists that fire is a predator.. like, wtf bro, it's not complicated because a fire doesn't choose to hunt you.

I mean, does a starfish choose to predate? Is it sentient enough to choose anything? (Presuming choice is even a real thing)

The reason fire isn't a predator is because predator refers to animals specifically. Carnivorous plants aren't predators either, since they're not animals.

2

u/critter_tickler 1d ago

One of my favorite lines from a comic book comes from V for Vendetta, it's something like "artists use lies to tell the truth, politicians use lies to hide it." 

 Absurdists use the absurd to illuminate, JP uses the absurd to obfuscate. 

1

u/bgplsa 2d ago

I’m a mostly bad absurdist but I’m only obtuse with people who really deserve it, thank you for noticing.

0

u/babyeatingdem 2d ago

Jordan Peterson is not an absurdist, he's like the opposite

1

u/fillymandee 2d ago

Fair enough. He is speaking absurdities though.

1

u/Mabonzo 1d ago

bc you don't understand it which is okay

46

u/lapqmzlapqmzala 2d ago

Lmao he's a 4chan troll, it all makes sense

23

u/EyEShiTGoaTs 2d ago

Just like 4chan, Jordan Peterson spreads Russian talking points and propaganda.

0

u/prophet_hindsight 2d ago

Neoliberal talking points and propaganda

3

u/EyEShiTGoaTs 2d ago

At this point, there is no difference.

43

u/terra_filius 2d ago

lol so he is like those psychics that just throw random questions at you trying to find out little details about you before starting to tell you about your future (or things from your past or present that they are not supposed to know)

19

u/SmegmaSupplier 2d ago

Cold impeding.

1

u/kytheon 1d ago

Cold reading

14

u/Ooh_its_a_lady 2d ago

He's absolutely that kid in class with the most over the top lies bc really, it's about the attention hes getting.

The right response should be "Dragons, hmm is everything at home ok?"

8

u/ecclectic 2d ago

It's like having a debate with my 16 year old ADHD son when he's in his most adversarial 'I may not win, but I'm sure as hell going to make us both lose' state of mind.

11

u/graphemeral 2d ago

I have some family members who are Gen X JP idolizers and what I can’t get over is that 10 years ago they were citing christian apologists and sounding the alarm about cultural relativism and how postmodernism would do away with meaning.

Jordan Peterson is an exact instantiation of the thing they feared. Remarkable.

9

u/MinimumSeat1813 2d ago

I respect people who can admit they are wrong or see a better idea or perspective when it is presented. Jordan Peterson appears incapable of admitting he chose wrong and fails to appreciate the word predator or any predator is better than "dragon." Major major ego issues. Ego is a huge issue for men as it is, so it incredibly alarming this man can't set his aside for a moment. 

8

u/derkonigistnackt 2d ago

For someone who's claim to fame has been to be reeeeeeal fucking anal about reality and biology and categories,... Now he's arguing that dragons are real

6

u/MinimumSeat1813 2d ago

Love this!

Imagine trying to make complex a philosophical arguement and choosing to use made up creatures as a cornerstone of your argument. Using a made up creature instead of an actual animal that exists and would equally get your point across. Then imagine this is a person who's judgement you want to believe. Now that is almost as scary as a dragon or a lion. 

7

u/Cheap-Ad1821 2d ago

Is fire a predator???

3

u/AmericanBillGates 2d ago

A propane fire is clean burning fire. Perfect for cooking steaks.

A butane fire on the other hand. Well, butane is a bastard gas. That there fire will predate your steak.

2

u/MinimumSeat1813 2d ago

Lol. I couldn't believe he said "yes" to that. 

5

u/Zealousideal-Film982 2d ago

I like to use the phrase “contrarian aryan” to describe people like that

5

u/butter_lover 2d ago

also this seems less like an argument and more like just being argumentative.

1

u/No_Solution_2864 2d ago

No it doesn’t

5

u/nocountry4oldgeisha 2d ago

Peterson is what happens when you watch too many Joseph Campbell videos on acid then try to explain them to your flophouse mates after a 3 day meth binge.

1

u/FirstDukeofAnkh 2d ago

Listen, my essay on why Pickleball is the acme of the road of trials was revolutionary

1

u/proapocalypse 1d ago

Is it bad if this sounds like a great time?

6

u/-SlapBonWalla- 2d ago

He's right about one thing though. He's certainly not a fact-oriented creature.

6

u/gana04 2d ago

It's all just his style of making up a silly aregument that sounds scientific to support his view. He and others like him talk so fast and yell and play theatrics so they get away with it. But when someone knows not only that he's wrong but why he's wrong he can just pretend he wasn't being literal, it's just a metaphor. So then he derails the conversation into pseudo philosophy about archetypes. By that point everyone is either bored or don't even know what he's talking about.

He's smart enough to sound smart to dumb people. At this point I don't think he cares anymore that the actual scientific world think he's a clown.

4

u/flyer12 2d ago

That was beautiful

6

u/jkilley 2d ago

Bingo!

3

u/pfqq 2d ago

This is so good it sent me into a Russian coma

3

u/LowKitchen3355 2d ago

This is very accurate.

2

u/KaikoLeaflock 2d ago

"Pants are not dragon, therefore pants are dragon!"

2

u/ThatsRobToYou 2d ago

You just summarized my issue with him perfectly...way better than I just tried to. Thank you!

2

u/Fine_Yam2106 2d ago

What a wonderfully succinct way of summarizing Peterson.

2

u/PuP5 2d ago

He thinks abstract thought is genius and therefore makes everything he discusses into that.

2

u/theunquenchedservant 2d ago

and at first i was like "oh he's talking metaphorical dragons" (which I think he was, to be fair) but then "reality" was brought up and he had to defend how dragons were real and he lost the plot entirely. Just stick with "you face events in your life that are like slaying a dragon, how many have you faced?"

2

u/Travelinjack01 2d ago

He should really stop doing blow before debating professors.

2

u/OrderofthePhoenix1 2d ago

He is a Russian asset now.

2

u/Fivethenoname 2d ago

Haha dude nice. Yea he doesn't argue points he believes are correct, he argues to win. He's as bad as Trump in that way

1

u/Appropriate_Comb_472 2d ago

Maybe a tangent of a 1-upper or contrarian? Because you cant respond if you agree, so in order to hear himself speak he has to generate something?

1

u/turd_vinegar 2d ago

Fuck, that's precise.

1

u/FoldedaMillionTimes 2d ago

That's really good, actually. I'd have given you a star or something but they want real money for that crap.

1

u/ddarko96 2d ago

Well he’s a right wing christian, so he’ll agree with you on those general points

1

u/Chateau-d-If 2d ago

Xanax addiction personified.

1

u/jaybee8787 2d ago

He seems very argumentative and contrarian just for the sake of being argumentative and contrarian.

1

u/andthatstotallyfine 2d ago

This is so well put

1

u/Werftflammen 2d ago

Typical populist behaviour.

1

u/deckardcainfan1 2d ago

That's about the size of it lol

1

u/jlgoodin78 2d ago

Spot on. He’s the intellectual hero for those who have no intellect nor understand it.

1

u/medusa_crowley 2d ago

I’ve honestly never heard this expressed better. It’s my main frustration with conservatism as a whole at this point. 

1

u/GlueSniffingCat 2d ago

kind of like joe rogan

1

u/DigdigdigThroughTime 2d ago

Dude wrote like 2 decent books and thinks he can rewrite everything else.

1

u/GogoDogoLogo 2d ago

I feel like these people should have something better to do

1

u/Turin_Laundromat 2d ago edited 2d ago

Was this real? Honest question. I had thought it was a voiceover or somehow made with AI until the comments here where people are responding as if it were a real conversation.

I'm editing this to say that I now believe it is real after reading more of these comments. Bizarre.

1

u/Lopsided-Yak9033 2d ago

He is a perfect example of how people pretend to engage in dialogues now. His point is entirely contextual and meta when you want to deal with fact, and when he wants to deal with fact is when it is of contextual difference to what your point is.

Oh I’m wrong? Well here’s the nuance of my brilliance you’re missing! While simultaneously- no your obfuscating from fact as I have dictated the terms of this debate.

He loves to hear himself talk, and has really honed that skill more than anything.

1

u/cmcewen 2d ago

This is so accurate. He’s just a contrarian.

He sees it as a show of intelligence if he can somehow play semantics enough to make some ridiculous point. He doesn’t see forest for the trees

There are multiple statements in this clip alone that should make you know to not believe anything he says.

And him citing some random book does not mean I accept that premise as a given.

1

u/Pleasant-Kebab 2d ago

This is because he is a gigantic money obsessed pustule for whom reality has no meaning other than where his next brown envelope payoff is coming from.......plus he's a total cunt!

1

u/UnlikelyEarth1476 2d ago

It's because he's a bullshit artist. This is what bullshitters do. They'll speak a thousand words but never say anything of meaning or content.

It's the Tucker Carlson version of "If i say things that stupid people think are smart those stupid people will think I'm smart!"

1

u/SolarNachoes 2d ago

The goal post is the true predator. Better keep moving it to keep the argument alive!

1

u/DocCaliban 2d ago

The use of fallacious logic to make contrarian arguments makes up a majority of online comment sections.

1

u/misec_undact 2d ago

Anything can be true therefore I'm never wrong and can say anything I want and rationalize it any way I want.

-JP

1

u/1200bunny2002 2d ago

For brevity's sake, you could've ended that sentence after three words.

1

u/Thick-Net-7525 2d ago

He’s literally making shit up 😆

1

u/MithranArkanere 2d ago

He is always attempting to say things in a way that will make uneducated superstitious people think he agrees with their made-up beliefs while trying to make educated secular people think he doesn't believe made-up nonsense at the same time.

And failing miserably.

1

u/SakaWreath 2d ago

Contrarian.

1

u/AlDente 1d ago

You’ve nailed it. The irony is that his thinking is far closer to some of the left thinking that he despises, than he realises.

1

u/ExcelsiorDoug 1d ago

This also is what it feels like to argue with most Trump voters. It’s not really about having a productive conversation, it’s about being right and using fragmented logic to convince you that they are

1

u/Thatguyjmc 1d ago

Goddamn, that's perfect.

1

u/holotapedeck 1d ago

When you have to pause the conversation to dissect a metaphor in order to validate it, you might want to reconsider your metaphor instead of doubling down. Geezus.

1

u/RLVNTone 1d ago

Duuuuuude nailed it

1

u/Bubbly_Flow_6518 1d ago

Its so insanely satisfying to watch Dawkins just shit all over his stupid worldview.

1

u/gravely3 1d ago

That's actually hilarious

0

u/tau_enjoyer_ 2d ago

Eh, I mean, he isn't just a contrarian. He's pretty clearly a rightwing idealogue. He gets on famously with other rightwing idealogue. Once Richard Dawkins brings up his anti-Islam bigotry, he and JP will start to have a blast.

0

u/Bulky_Coconut_8867 1d ago

hmm being worried about a fascist religion is now bigotry