Jordan Peterson & Controversies

[Cedar]

Why is this a serious accusation? Is Peterson basing his self-worth on what I'm writing on a forum? Are we part of a legal proceeding in which I'm a character witness? I'm not trying to be rude, but put this in actual context. Someone who admires someone will not always see their flaws. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
Again, I would like to circle around to what does he have that more respected experts don't? He doesn't conduct research. His persona is divisive. What does this have to do with the mission of CT?

[Ivory]

@cedar
Gaslighting is a serious accusation and if he commit this act, I think we all deserve to know. Your distaste of his name on this forum is centered on his character. You said this yourself. If someone has a strong tendency to gaslight, then this will be a SERIOUS character flaw. If Peterson truly did this, and as often as you say he did, then this forum ought to know. Auburn especially, ought to know.
Please come forward with the evidence.
I will be harsh here and say that, if you cannot actually show us evidence where Peterson is gaslighting people, then I will come to the conclusion that you, Cedar, will accuse someone of an incredibly heinous and despicable act based on no evidence. I don't take accusations of this sort, accusations to ANYONE's address, lightly. This is no joke. Please be earnest.

[fayest42]

I just want to throw in some thoughts about whether the controversy around Jordan Peterson matters. Does it matter in terms of whether some particular thing he says is true? No, of course not. Does it matter in terms of deciding whether or not to present CT as having a connection to Jordan Peterson? Yes, potentially. I imagine Auburn would hesitate before writing an article connecting the ideas of CT to the ideas of Hitler, even if the connection were perfectly legitimate, because he would recognize that people coming to the website would be turned off by this connection. Please note that I am not equating Jordan Peterson to Hitler. I'm simply using Hitler as a tool to demonstrate that a person's public image does matter when you are deciding whether or not to connect your work to theirs if you have a goal of drawing more people to your work, which I believe CT does.
I am not stating on opinion on whether or not I think Auburn should keep or remove the article about Jordan Peterson, but I did just want to note that his public image is worth considering, and it is indeed the case that he is a very divisive figure.

[Cedar]

And so many more. He does it throughout the entirety of his interactions. Honestly, every interview and debate I have seen he has deployed the tactics of gaslighting.
Healthy debate looks very different and I am by no means great at it. Look to Ezra Klein's interviews with people he is in disagreement with to see a decent example.
Real life calls. Must go for now.

[Animal]

@Cedar
If you think I care enough about that argument to send goonies to chase you down and argue with you - you really don't know me. Interpersonal grudges don't interest me, unless someone is noticeably hurting someone I love or is standing between me and my goals.  Please leave me out of this.
I am only willing to invest emotion and passion into things that matter.  I would not ask my husband to stoop so low as to give importance to your subjective emotions about a character who you invented and called "Animal."  On the contrary, I'm flattered by the attention.
Please take his posts for what they are, and do not read motives into them.

[Ivory]

@cedar
Where in the interviews is the gaslighting? Please be specific. You posted more than 3 hours of non-specific footage. Please show us the evidence. Timestamps would be helpful.
As for personal, Cedar, you accuse this man of GASLIGHTING and now you ask me to show you a video where he DOESN'T do it? Are you being serious here? Do you not comprehend the weight of your words? And you think this is me being petty?
Your view of the man is the very basis of this argument and you can't even provide proper evidence of this SERIOUS accusation. So in response to being challenged, you evade the matter at hand and turn this on me? Asking me if this is personal and involving my wife in this?
How dare you.

[Elsie]

@cedar
accusations are still serious even if no one involved ever hears about them
dividing people is great for talking-points, and making-and-breaking things
if you want people to pursue value and enrichment for themselves, let @auburn have value and enrichment for his CT project with jordan peterson and his ideas too

[EpicEntity]

Potential gas lighting
a Discrediting
b Using a mask of confidence, assertiveness, and/or fake compassion to make you believe that you “have it all wrong.”
c Changing the subject; divert the topic by asking another question, or making a statement usually directed at your thoughts
d Minimizing
e Denial and avoidance
f Twisting and reframing
SJW: 0:14 b, 0:18 f, 1:10 e, 2:10 f, 2:18 d,..........................
JP: 0:18 c, 0:21 d, 0:32 a, 1:55 a, 2:27 abde (it's like whatever)...............
JP Followers: 1:40
Gaslighting maybe better left to an overall pattern of behavior or a brainscan. Instead surface instances. I suspect that an unhealthy Je lead is the embodiment of a gaslighter. As healthier ones do it in the most lightest, accidental, and non-harmful ways.

[Ivory]

@epicentity
You are right: one instance does not prove a pattern of gaslighting. That video especially doesn't show any party in a good light. Bad setting, worse tension. That wasn't a debate, that was a (verbal) fight.
I am especially curious to hear from @cedar about the gaslighting that, she said, repeatedly happened in all those interviews that she posted.

[Animal]

@EpicEntity
Those people were bullying him. Be honest 🙂 how would you react to that type of pressure?

[Ivory]

@fayest42

I just want to throw in some thoughts about whether the controversy around Jordan Peterson matters. Does it matter in terms of whether some particular thing he says is true? No, of course not. Does it matter in terms of deciding whether or not to present CT as having a connection to Jordan Peterson? Yes, potentially. I imagine Auburn would hesitate before writing an article connecting the ideas of CT to the ideas of Hitler, even if the connection were perfectly legitimate, because he would recognize that people coming to the website would be turned off by this connection. Please note that I am not equating Jordan Peterson to Hitler. I’m simply using Hitler as a tool to demonstrate that a person’s public image does matter when you are deciding whether or not to connect your work to theirs if you have a goal of drawing more people to your work, which I believe CT does.

The issue I have with this comparison is that there is a big difference between the historical fact of massacring people, and mere public perception. To say that Hitler has a negative image, while correct in essence, is of an entirely different order (based on historical facts) compared the the divisive image of Peterson.

[Animal]

@fayest42
Hitler is not a "divisive" figure. Society at large has decided Hitler is bad. Those who are Hitler "fans" are outcasted by anyone reasonable in society.
Jordan Peterson is divisive and controversial - but he is only considered a "condemnable" by extremist fringe groups such as the far left.  There is no real condemnation of him, or social expectation to condemn him, except among these fringe groups. Because he hasn't massacred anyone, hasn't been a violent dictator, hasn't thrown people in gas chambers.  So, this comparison between him and Hitler doesn't make sense.
No one reasonably respectable in society would tout Hitler's ideas without expecting to be looked upon as an extremist by average people, but associating oneself with Peterson is not 'condemnable' except by extremists.
To compare Peterson to Hitler is making a mockery of the Holocaust and the people whose families died in gas chambers, or who have survived these horrible conditions.

[fayest42]

@ivory @animal, I tried to make it clear that I was not trying to suggest that Hitler and Jordan Peterson are similar figures. Of course they are totally different and are viewed very differently by society. My point was just to demonstrate the general principle that what the general public thinks about a person is worth considering when deciding whether or not to make a connection between your work and theirs. If Auburn thinks that Peterson is not divisive enough to warrant removing the article about him, I think that is fine, and I wouldn't argue about it. The only reason I made the post was because some people were questioning why the fact that there are controversies surrounding Peterson matters, and I was pointing out that if you are trying to draw more people to your work, then it does make sense to consider your public image, which is affected by the public image of the people you associate yourself with.

[Animal]

@fayest42
Makes sense 🙂 yes, I do appreciate that point. It's important to be associated with the right people for the impression that one wishes to make, definitely.

[Bera]

@cedar - thank you for pointing this out. I forgot this article !
Then we actually have relevant information about why Jordan Peterson's ideas are relevant to us.
These are the main points :

• The belief in anciently encoded memory –  that has a visual imprint and which is represented through symbolism (i.e. fear of snakes and snake symbolism associated with evil, male & female symbolism and duality, the cuteness of babies with a care-taking response, the color red and ripe fruit and desire, etc)
• The belief in innate male and female differences – as proven by studies conducted in the Scandinavian countries, as well as the objective validity of ‘gender roles’ from a biological perspective. (this is a point we discussed previously by the way)
• The belief (increasingly supported by neuroscientists) that we are a collection of loosely connected sub-personalities. It seems obvious to anyone who has ever struggled with self control, but we are conscious only of a tiny fraction of the processing that goes in our minds, and we control only a small fraction of our thoughts. The vast majority of our thinking happens on a subconscious level and involves a diversity of motivational systems each fighting for their drive to take the wheel. Our conscious self is like the chauffeur of a car full of other characters which are other sides of us. These “characters” (“my dark side”, “my angry side”, “my moody side”, “my silly side”) coexist in a regulated tension, but can sometimes get out of balance. An understanding of what is happening within us is addressed using a psychoanalysis of the relationship between these different motivational vectors, which can often be unconscious.
• The belief in Type – although his preferred instrument is the Big Five, it’s essentially the same system as was first sketched by C.G. Jung through his definition of the I/E – N/S – T/F dimensions, with the majority of the same categories represented. The Big Five is a sort of scientifically rigorous incarnation of the same understanding of the greatest differences in temperament among individuals.

I think it would be a good idea to discuss these points, as they are actually the ones that are relevant to CT theory.
Do you guys believe they are true or false?
Do you believe they are relevant to CT or not?
Because Jordan Peterson is not mentioned here as a role model of good manners or patience...:) He is rather mentioned here because some of his ideas are partly connected to CT theory.
About associations with people who are not viewed in a good light by society...I could agree with this in principle if Auburn's article had anything to do with shared values, but at least the way I see it, it is simply about theoretical associations. What is actually being shared are not moral principles, but opinions about psychology.
This in order to not go into more details about Jordan Peterson's moral values, as our opinions about this topic are different. But in reality this has nothing to do with the article. As the article is not about values; it's about opinions regarding the collective unconscious, psychological differences between male and female, type and development.
I hope this makes sense and I am curious about your opinions !

[EpicEntity]

Auburn is in this world. In this world he finds the key so devise and different from the habits of modern day that it expands CT's 1024 revolution by 100 fold. Many people around the world benefit from this very discovery even the one's who's ancestors were met with some much cruelty by the creator of this world.
In reality auburn can not travel in this world. He must make people happy, he must manipulate people the way they want to be manipulated. The offspring of the creator's torture along with everyone else could have been armed with great self knowledge, but are instead less understanding of themselves.
The drama among humans over history has become truth of people. So the truth of possibility must now be forever forgotten.
Updated

[EpicEntity]

BTW great insights @bera

[EpicEntity]

@fayest42 I was too arrogant to think about your last post with great depth... But I when I thought about it even more I started asking... What does it mean to attract truth seekers to the works of this community? What is it that they love and what is it that they hate? What public image would a truth seeker expect Auburn to have? What is a truth seeker even comprised of? If someone is not truth seeker then how far are they from being one?

[fayest42]

@epicentity Yes, I think these are good questions to ask. Who is Auburn trying to attract to CT? What do those people tend to think of Jordan Peterson? If they don't like him, will they immediately leave or will they stick around to see exactly why he is brought up? If they disagree with that article will they still be able to see the wisdom of CT as a whole? Also, how important is Jordan Peterson specifically? Could the points made in that article be made without reference to him? One could even ask if his divisiveness could be useful? Sometimes controversies draw more people to something than would have otherwise seen it. Is that something we want? I don't really have an answer to any of these questions, but these are some of the questions Auburn could ask himself about this.

[Bera]

@epicentity

What does it mean to attract truth seekers to the works of this community?

I told you in the chat earlier, but I felt like I needed to say it here too. In my opinion, truth seekers are attracted by the truth. 🙂

@fayest42

Who is Auburn trying to attract to CT?

CT is a research project, so, at least the way I see it, it aims to find out the truth about types and to inform whoever is interested. There is no specific target group, as far as I know. There are people with very different backgrounds interested in CT.

If they don’t like him (Peterson), will they immediately leave or will they stick around to see exactly why he is brought up?

If someone leaves CT because he/she doesn't like Peterson and because Auburn mentioned Peterson as being relevant to CT in this neutral, non - offensive way, it means this person's views significantly clash with ours.
An then in the end even if this article was not on the site, this clash would still come to light sooner or later. This person would go on discord and find videos of Jordan Peterson and feedback about them from Auburn or members' opinions that were not opposed by Auburn. Or would at some point ask something about Jordan Peterson and be unhappy about the answer. Or would see the thread with Big Five test results and remember this is a system supported by Jordan Peterson and become upset that we are "popularizing" it indirectly.
It is likely that this person would still be unhappy in the end after we also wasted energy on trying to address these issues. If the person didn't discover that CT has some similar views with Jordan Peterson, I guess this difference in views would still manifest somewhere else sooner or later.

Could the points made in that article be made without reference to him?

I think so, yes, but he makes them too and then it's fair to reference him.

 Sometimes controversies draw more people to something than would have otherwise seen it. Is that something we want?

I don't think it is something we want. I personally don't like conflicts and disagreements. But, on the other hand, they are an inevitable part of life, especially in a community of people from different countries, age groups and backgrounds. Even type / quadra differences can play a part in this.
I will give some examples that I think could be connected to our discussion till now:

Fi: Discovery of Inner Essence
The Fi user is aware very early on that every individual possesses a unique and sacred soul which remains unmodified at its core, but which can be tarnished and crippled by our necessary collision with an imperfect world. Through years of conditioning, the environment misshapes and warps that essence when we’re forced to live through imaginary characters and personas; to fabricate egos and narratives atop of our neglected and parched nativity. When Fi is strong in a person, an acute aspiration buds forth to boldly return themselves and others to their sacred spark; that purity that remains always incorruptible but buried beneath a mountain of faces.

Vs.

Fe: The Human Condition
Given this awareness, the Fe user is an acute student of human behavior, understanding – by the tracking of this domain – how we act, how we emote, how we move and why we make the choices we make. Fe monitors how it is that society shapes our opinions and thoughts; how it is that collective ideologies permeate into our beings and define our moral landscapes for better or worse. Thus, Fe soon comes to develop a concept of “the human condition” from a universal place defined by what commonly manifests across populations and lifetimes.In this sense, Fe comes to understand “what it means to be human” from the outside-in, using what is externally evident as reflective of our shared internal reality.

And then regarding an observation above - that Jordan Peterson rarely says anything new, there is :

Ni: Narrowness & Convergence
The Ni user is not an inciter or generator of novel things, nor is his specialty a spontaneous creativity, but is instead the holistic assimilation of trends over time, and a convergence of perspective along the most reinforced trendlines. They generally see only one or a few trajectories stemming from a given situation and are magnetically drawn to the likeliest interpretations. Thus, the ideas the Ni user arrives at are not things he creates, but things he discovers to already be “the case”; often sourcing from an inside-out evaluation of being but just as well from a panoramic evaluation of society. In this way, the Ni user is a sort of investigator or excavator of the primordial imagery in himself and society. 

vs.

Ne: Daydreaming
The Ne function is motivated to discover new information, whether by absorbing it from the outside or by synthesizing it out of existing datasets through a creative alchemy. 

So, at least some of the reasons for disagreement can even be function related, type related or quadra related. Which is interesting and informative in itself.

[EpicEntity]

Okay I think because of all the thoughts presented on this thread and remembering I'm not a decision maker. I'm ready to create a 'law' and just leave it at that. I just read Bera last entry. I'm still thinking about to how add what Bera said to this complete thought. But I think what Bera, fayest42, and I claim as truth stand well on there own.
A truth seeker doesn't like those who would turn down anything what would or could work. If this happens truth seekers will not come to CT. Those who seek other things will come to CT and support it for reasons other than the truth.

Spoiler

I forgot that... This is something that I saw when someone from my experiment group became less active because he realized I was sticking to CT when DaveSuperPowers wasn't properly ruled out. Either I was in split in-between favoritism and truth or I did not justify the overall purpose of the testing.

[collapse]

I wouldn't be surprise if Auburn already know this in his own way. Seeing as we are having this discussion prompts the need for greater clarification in some form. I guess we will see how things go and maybe experiment with taking JP's words off and on if that works.

[EpicEntity]

@fayest42
Who is Auburn trying to attract to CT? I don't know yet
What do those people tend to think of Jordan Peterson? A truth seeker would think about what things he says is relatively true.
If they don’t like him, will they immediately leave or will they stick around to see exactly why he is brought up? A truth seeker would figure out what CT agrees with when it comes to JP. If that happens to no longer be true they may or may not leave depending on how quickly the inconsistency is resolved.
If they disagree with that article will they still be able to see the wisdom of CT as a whole? Depends on fast the untruth is corrected.
Also, how important is Jordan Peterson specifically? Depends on how critical his words are to the CT model.
Could the points made in that article be made without reference to him? If it is already truth then that would be a waste of time.
One could even ask if his divisiveness could be useful? Sometimes controversies draw more people to something than would have otherwise seen it. Is that something we want? A truth seeker will endure for the truth and does not allow fear to make decision for them. If a truth seeker knows they are in a lie they will not tolerate it.
I don’t really have an answer to any of these questions, but these are some of the questions Auburn could ask himself about this. Agreed
Edit: What do you think?

[Cedar]

@auburn It would be better if this preference for JP and his interpretations were communicated more clearly and directly, instead of just "likes" on points that represent your opinions. I was expecting a more neutral setting here and have found the level of politics to be detracting from anything CT is attempting to add. I imagine many wouldn't care either way, but for some of us, it discredits you. Having him as a personal influencer informs us on implicit or explicit (I don't know your mind) bias. Without being aware, mindful and honest of our biases, we act them out. CT is built on only one person, that doesn't naturally filter prejudices out.  You are capable of getting stuck in the weeds while overlooking large populations lived experience.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Hi Cedar, I've only liked a few comments (rather than jumping into this thread) not because I don't have more to say but because, as you noted, this tends:

to be detracting from anything CT is attempting to add

I have been busy working on CT materials, and I'm not as interested in politics around JPB as I am about advancing the theory.
Even now I can only afford to dip briefly in this thread (as it's gotten very long), but I wanted to say that the purpose for the Peterson article was to provide a counterpoint to the blank-slate hypothesis, which was also one of Jung's core rebuttals. This is stated at the start of the article, and the rest of it is meant to flesh out that same point.
Jungian psychology, and typology, asserts that our contextual upbringing and personal choices are not the end-all of what we are, but that we inherit cognitive architectures from the collective unconscious and our biology more broadly.
Peterson is important not simply as a researcher but as a synthesizer (this is no easy feat) and a contemporary articulator of Jung's points of view -- which I believe are critical for a public understanding of human psychology. I remember that a few years ago if one wanted to look up videos about the Anima / Animus, the collective unconscious and the Shadow online -- you wouldn't have found half as many videos. Peterson's inspired a portion of this generation back into a psychoanalytical perspective, which acknowledged deep-rooted structures in humans. In this sense, the public awareness Peterson brings to us about psychoanalysis aligns squarely with CT's hope to bring about more awareness of our innate human nature.

I imagine many wouldn’t care either way, but for some of us, it discredits you.

If agreeing with certain things Peterson says about human psychology discredits me to some people, then that will have to be the case. But I would hope that this discrediting isn't based on anything other than the actual positions and views I mention aligning with him on. Because, naturally not every view he has is mine, and I don't stand as a representative for him nor anyone else.
But insofar as him and I have convergence, I see no reason to question that agreement - or its announcement - based on a politicization of his personality, since I stand by those things all the same. I also share convergence with ideas from Paul Ekman, Iain McGilchrist, George Lakoff, Carl Jung, etc -- and would no less retract my agreement with them, based on politicization, either.

Depends on how critical his words are to the CT model.

I think this may be the central question.
So his works are not "critical" to CT-- in the sense that the CT project could certainly thrive with no mention of Peterson. Nothing about CT's foundation rests on his personhood. That said, again it's the psychological ideas he articulates that are central, but those don't really have an owner and have been said by many others across the decades.
Peterson's works are not very relevant in either metabolism, vultology or behaviorism (maybe Big Five a little bit). However, his work is rather instrumental in an understanding of mythology and the unconscious. Peterson is one among various authors I look at, such as Marie Von Franz, Thomas Moore, Eric Neumann, Jung and Joseph Campbell, to try to triangulate the testimonies of our members here when they discuss their psychological experiences and symbolisms. Thus, Peterson's psychology and mythology lecture series-- and his Maps of Meanings book-- are what I primarily source for insights.
While the article chronicles the enantiadromia at play that brought him into public attention, his gender pronoun battles, battles on matters of identity politics, and his specific characterization of the historical reality of the patriarchy/non-patriarchy, do not have foundational theoretical relevance to CT.
(However, CT does concede to the abundant research that's out there on what psychological leanings one's biological sex adds to the rest of the psyche. But sex is looked at as one factor among many, with type + function development being overall more predictive of what sort of multi-factorial personality outcome will manifest in a person.)
I hope this provides a general summary of how, and in what ways, I use/reference Peterson in relation to CT.

[Author]

Posts