Jordan Peterson Event Report

[Darat]

Something that sounds cool can never be discredited by facts.

Sad but true.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Something that sounds cool can never be discredited by facts.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Hans,

I'm rather disappointed in your response. My last long post wasn't about toxic masculinity, but about the APA guidelines and Peterson's response to them. You are quite right that those guidelines do not define or even use the term "toxic masculinity", but you didn't seem to realize that 1) I didn't pick the source, and 2) I wasn't addressing the topic of toxic masculinity itself in that post (note I didn't use the term either), but only the APA guidelines and Peterson's response to them. Your own post does nothing to address either mine or Peterson's criticism of the APA guidelines, which (again) are distinct from the validity of toxic masculinity as a concept.

I think it's criticism enough that your comments on the source just showed that at best you didn't actually read the document. Because for example you talk about "how to prevent it" or some philosophical "but why is it a bad thing", when even skimming through the document would have revealed that that's not what they're talking about. It doesn't deal with whether it's good or bad in some generic sense. It's just that if some guy comes stressed and depressed, be aware that it may or may not have to do with his thinking that he doesn't measure up to some masculinity standard. And how do you deal with that, so that he doesn't end up sucking oh his manly .45.

Incidentally more than one such imposed standards are known to be sources of stress. E.g., being among rabid homophobes can actually cause straight people to start being stressed that maybe they're not straight enough. Every time society imposes a standard to be X, some people will be insecure about whether they measure up.

Is it good at society scale? Is it bad? Is it a worthy compromise? SHOULD one prevent society from doing that? None of that's is the focus of that document. It's just how do you deal with it as a mental healthcare professional. And telling someone depressed exactly about whether he measures up to a standard of masculinity that the standard is good, and he needs to grow a pair and man up, well, we know that doesn't work on depression.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

As for Peterson's response, because I've read that too, geeze, what a butthurt narcissist spewing a gish-gallop of irrelevant fallacies. I mean, other than picking on the author, the language, and the like, he offers exactly zero credible rebuttal to the actual material. He doesn't even actually talk about the actual guidelines, it's just a springboard for his propaganda piece. It's exactly the kind of propaganda piece for numpties who've already drunk their kool-aid and just want someone to pat them on the head and tell them they're right.

It's even ironic that he gets butthurt that they cite their own peer-reviewed articles a bit too much (in his opinion), yet he cites NO studies at all to contradict any of the stuff in the actual APA guidelines. Not even his own. And not just here. His bibliography generally seems to be missing in action. At best he recent-ish started quoting Jung, but he didn't use to do even that, and still mostly doesn't.

Likewise he gets butthurt that it's based on a methodology from 1949 (according to him; obviously in the world he sees with the head inside his own colon, nobody else stared noticing newer stuff and adapting to it), yet all he ever does is at best a guy from the same era (sometimes; not this time), and apply no methodology whatsoever. Again, I'm not seeing him cite ANY actual study using ANY methodology whatsoever.

Literally the ONLY study cited at all in that response is ONE from last century about how research programs in many universities are sub-par. Yet he doesn't do anything to show that it even applies to the exact same universities where those studies cited in the APA guidelines were produced. I mean, even that would be a genetic fallacy (attacking the originator or source rather than the substance), but he is literally not even doing that. It's just some implication that even that applies.

Literally the only other bibliography offered there is one guy's article against the term "microaggression", but exactly nothing else against the rest of the document he's attacking.

Basically, verdict: just a pure propaganda fluff piece, for those who've already drunk his kool-aid.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

I think it sometimes goes the other way. They start out believing, but when they begin to realise how much of a cash cow it can be they become more cynical about it.

Very rare that a bs artist starts out believing their bs. That's for followers.

But because of all the reinforcements and echo chamber effects, they very rarely escape the journey to belief.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Sure, but there will always be people who think they understand something and do not. That is never going away. There are people on both sides of the argument on evolution by natural selection, both who affirm it and deny it, who actually have not got the first clue about it. There are people who think that evolution is essentially a Lamarckian process and will laugh at the Christian fundamentalist dip ***** who don't get it. In that case both are wrong, but that does not mean that evolution by natural selection is wrong, and to try to dispense with the idea on the basis that "everyone gets angry" is a non-starter.

As for "toxic masculinity", I remember an episode in which Sam Harris talked with an ex-neo-Nazi who said he and his (all-male) gang used to spend their weekends getting into a bit of fascism, getting drunk and beating up ethnic minorities. At the end of his interview, he took questions from the audience and one of them got up and asked Sam Harris about the idiotic idea of "toxic masculinity" to which Harris responded that if he had not just heard an hour and a half of very detailed examples of toxic masculinity then he did not know what to say.

Instead, it seems that people who want to deny the existence of it as a meaningful concept are those who like to argue "They are saying all masculinity is toxic!". I seem to remember that Peterson himself took this line when he criticized an APA report about what toxic masculinity is or at least the "risk factors" of being male. The Very Bad Wizards took this idea to task when they pointed out the report was made largely on the back of people complaining about a similar report that had been made for women and wondered, what about for men?

Here is Jorpy complaining about that, getting almost into a rage about it and then retorting with a bunch of non-sequiturs.



The report, from what I can see, is clearly saying that both harmful and positive aspects of masculinity exist:



And again, for anyone who doubts that there is any "tradition" of violence or sexism in masculine behaviour, just look again at examples of neo-Nazi behaviour, gang culture, football hooliganism, general alcohol-fueled domestic violence etc...

I wish there was a kudos system for posts because while I've nothing to add to this post I do want to thank you for it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it's criticism enough that your comments on the source just showed that at best you didn't actually read the document.

You premised that conclusion at least in part (if not in whole) on the basis that I was talking about toxic masculinity, which I wasn't. And being informed of this error, you didn't take any time to re-examine anything.

Edited by sarge: 

removed rule 12 violation

Because for example you talk about "how to prevent it" or some philosophical "but why is it a bad thing", when even skimming through the document would have revealed that that's not what they're talking about. It doesn't deal with whether it's good or bad in some generic sense.

That may not be their primary focus, but it's absolutely part of the document. You're kidding if you think that there isn't a judgment being made here about "masculinity ideology".

It's just that if some guy comes stressed and depressed, be aware that it may or may not have to do with his thinking that he doesn't measure up to some masculinity standard. And how do you deal with that, so that he doesn't end up sucking oh his manly .45.

That's all well and good. And if you paid close attention, I never claimed that everything about the APA was bad, or even that it was badly motivated. But this isn't all they're trying to do, not by a long shot. Preaching to this hypothetical client that he's got white male privilege isn't going to help him. Trying to get him to be an "ally" for leftist causes won't cure his depression. And ignoring how often factors like fatherlessness play into these pathologies isn't going to lead to better clinical outcomes. The guidelines have problems, and you haven't actually addressed a single one of them. You've just said that one aspect of the guidelines is well intentioned, but I never claimed otherwise.

Is it good at society scale? Is it bad? Is it a worthy compromise? SHOULD one prevent society from doing that? None of that's is the focus of that document. It's just how do you deal with it as a mental healthcare professional. And telling someone depressed exactly about whether he measures up to a standard of masculinity that the standard is good, and he needs to grow a pair and man up, well, we know that doesn't work on depression.

Who ever argued for that? This is a straw man.

But let's look at this a bit more. One of the aspects of "masculinity ideology" that was cited was achievement. Well, that IS a good thing, isn't it? Not necessarily any particular expectation for it, but achievement itself is a good thing (with the obvious requirement that you're achieving something worthwhile, like a successful career, etc). And achieving more will actually make most people feel better. Unrealistic expectations are bad, absolutely, but if you've actually paid attention to Peterson, he's never been about setting unrealistic expectations. The whole "make your bed" thing is precisely about setting expectations low, so you can actually meet them.

If you try to convince people that they don't need to achieve, you might make them feel better in the moment, but when they realize that the world isn't so accommodating to failure, they'll realize that advice is bull ****. Unsuccessful males don't need to be told that it's perfectly fine to be a failure. They need help in succeeding, because the world is cruel to failures, and as much as we might wish it were otherwise, it isn't. And treating "achievement" as part of this "masculinity ideology" that's just hurting them, as if they should abandon attempts to achieve, isn't actually any form of kindness.

 

[cosmicaug]

But, when someone does pin him down, as Sam Harris did on the subject of truth, a lot of his argument for the importance of "pragmatic truth" unravels under the glaringly obvious point that he is not arguing for truth, though he insists on calling it that, but some kind of shared fiction. Worth listening to. Harris and Peterson had a number of subsequent debates going back and forth where I think it becomes pretty clear that Peterson is in the game of "Jesus smuggling" as Douglas Murray characterized it (whether he agreed with the charge or not, I think Murray's term is accurate).

I caught a video on YouTube where he debated with Matt Dillahunty. Peterson looked like a moron; at times saying the sorts of things that are hard to have a good answer to because they sound so stupid one ends up assuming that they were misunderstood.

Put it this way, if Jordan Peterson says something, it might be true, but it might not be true, and might not not be true. I wouldn't rely on him.

Sure, but it will be a deeper truth, even if not actually really true.

Also, he has a way of going outside his wheelhouse sometimes.

 

[cosmicaug]

I've seen other such accusations, but what exactly do you mean by this? Obviously it's meant as an insult, but do more than that. Actually explain its meaning. Who counts as an incel, what does being a prophet of them consist of, and why is that a bad thing?

I don't think you've actually thought any of this through. I think you're just echoing accusations you've heard others make.

It seems like because you disagree with another you are assuming the other must not have thought about the thing you disagree about (else, the other would share your outlook). May I boldly suggest that, possibly, this may not be so?

There's a certain ideology that is common to incelhood & to folk aligned with such (obviously dominated by profound misogyny, grievance, sense of entitlement, etc.). JP's message seems to resonate very strongly with them. This much is clear.

BTW, JP would not consider it an insult. He implicitly allows that it may be so but he sees himself as an agent of help to that demographic (this would not even be bad if it were true).

 

[cosmicaug]

I've only ever seen incels use it un-ironically this way

Nah, it's way more widespread than that.

It seems common in the alt-right. It might be associated with machismo & the "death of masculinity" narrative there (you know, because being alpha is masculine and because every male should be an alpha male ). You can barely go a week on Twitter without a male MAGA candidate or three tweeting a declaration of their alphaness. Of course, the incelosphere is a prime recruiting ground for all of these movements so there's an obvious overlap with incelhood.

 

[cosmicaug]

I've been to only a couple of such 'audiences' in my entire life (Noam Chomsky and Udo Erasmus, both back in the 90's) and both times the feeling I was left with was 'meh'. I can read, I don't need to bask in some guru's charisma to learn what they might have to teach me.

Oh does Udo Erasmus have a cult following? I remember challenging the factual basis of material in his Fats That Kill, Fats That Heal at some point (may have been late 90s but could have been in the 2000s), and receiving a very hostile, condescending response from someone. At some point, this deteriorated into a defense of Stanislaw Burzynski (and maybe other cancer quackery?) by this person. Right then, I lost any respect I may have had for this person.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Oh, at this point "incel" IS at this point just a generic insult by butthurt fanboys on Twitter. Same as "fascist" (or "socialist" or "pedophile" or "groomer" for the right-wingnuts) and a few others. You can literally find more examples of stuff like a father of 4 being called an "incel" by the Twitter gang than it being actually used correctly. Seriously, some people are so utterly disconnected from reality when they make such claims (and again, right wing IS included) it's stopped being funny long ago. I guess that's what you get when the only verification for someone's delusional claims is an echo-chamber. Just bark like the other popular puppies, they'll clap like seals, that's all the thinking needed. (Again, goes for both sides.)

 

[cosmicaug]

If people really listened to him, I think they'd find they disagreed with much less of what he's saying than they imagine. Because a lot of it is really just basic stuff, like take responsibility for your own life, start with small things and work up, that sort of thing. There's a hell of a lot of room for common ground here, if people are willing to find it.

He's nothing special. Some of it is, like you say, (mostly harmless) basic stuff and not really even worth mentioning (sure, go ahead & clean your room... whatever) & the rest is a mixture of gibberish & reactionary nonsense (probably what pays the bills, let's face it). His cult treats it as brilliance. That, it is not.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

He's nothing special. Some of it is, like you say, (mostly harmless) basic stuff and not really even worth mentioning (sure, go ahead & clean your room... whatever) & the rest is a mixture of gibberish & reactionary nonsense (probably what pays the bills, let's face it). His cult treats it as brilliance. That, it is not.

Well, you know, broken clock, twice a day, and however that went

But seriously, nobody is wrong about everything. I mean, you can even find something or another that Stalin was right about. At least given what he knew at the time. (E.g., thinking he needs to buy warships or at least components from the USA in the '30s, since his industry was not up to par. That abomination that got put into World Of Warships as the Kearsarge? Actual design made in the USA for Stalin.)

Same goes for Peterson and several others. I mean, if you were bored enough to look for it in the proverbial haystack, you probably could find something that Trump or De Santis said that was actually right.

What damns the cult is, as you too seem to say, swallowing the rest of the kool-aid unthinkingly.

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems like because you disagree with another you are assuming the other must not have thought about the thing you disagree about (else, the other would share your outlook). May I boldly suggest that, possibly, this may not be so?

Hold up. Not only did I not start out thinking he was wrong, I didn't even start out assuming that we even disagreed. That's why I started with a question.

The response to that question (which never answered it) is strongly suggestive that he and I disagree, but that's still an assumption. If he would answer the question, we might be able to move forward and establish points of disagreement, and then find out if he's right and I'm wrong or vice versa. But I'm not the one avoiding that conversation. And it's fundamentally that avoidance, not any disagreement, which makes me think he hasn't thought it through.

There's a certain ideology that is common to incelhood & to folk aligned with such (obviously dominated by profound misogyny, grievance, sense of entitlement, etc.). JP's message seems to resonate very strongly with them. This much is clear.

It's not clear to me. I have only a vague sense of what this ideology is, and I have no idea if they actually follow Peterson or not. Is there any actual data to back this up?

BTW, JP would not consider it an insult. He implicitly allows that it may be so but he sees himself as an agent of help to that demographic (this would not even be bad if it were true).

Yes, I'm aware of that. I suspect Susheel may not be.

Another poster expressed joy in seeing Peterson's emotional response to being labeled as such. He fundamentally misunderstood Peterson's reaction. He though Peterson was upset at being insulted, and was thus a crybaby. But it wasn't anything of the sort. He was upset because he doesn't like a group of people who are having a hard time being kicked while they're down, rather than helped to do better.

 

[Venom]

Someday I'd like to see Jordan Peterson and David Berlinski battle it out for the King of Non-answers.

 

[Brainster]

As for "toxic masculinity", I remember an episode in which Sam Harris talked with an ex-neo-Nazi who said he and his (all-male) gang used to spend their weekends getting into a bit of fascism, getting drunk and beating up ethnic minorities. At the end of his interview, he took questions from the audience and one of them got up and asked Sam Harris about the idiotic idea of "toxic masculinity" to which Harris responded that if he had not just heard an hour and a half of very detailed examples of toxic masculinity then he did not know what to say.

Is there such a thing as toxic femininity?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Someday I'd like to see Jordan Peterson and David Berlinski battle it out for the King of Non-answers.

Pretty much, yes. I've not yet seen Peterson actually address anything beyond, "well, *I* say the opposite" or even "yes, well, you're a poopy-head." His response to the APA guidelines is pretty literally the latter, and doesn't address any actual claims in those guidelines.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Is there such a thing as toxic femininity?

Uh... The whole Karen thing, for example? I mean, we even have a bunch of Hollywood thinking that strong female character means:

1. Mary Sue, and
2. asking to talk to the manager.​

And that's not even counting some of the dumbest stuff on Twitter, produced by trying to get the most followers by being the loudest demented puppy barking in the same general direction as the popular pack. Including stuff like, "all men should get mandatory vasectomies" (because I <bleep>ed around without protection, got a kid, and now nobody wants to marry me and support it) or "imagine a world without men"/"kill all men" or "STEM is sexist" or the like. You don't want to lose those precious followers to someone who got offended at something/someone you didn't, I guess. Mind you, not all, but there's a subset that thinks being the most toxic and head-up-own-ass is how you're a liberated and powerful woman. (Or man, or non-binary, or attack hellicopter, or...)

Or how about the thing that's been known even before that, namely that girls growing up on fair tales like "Beauty And The Beast" and whatnot, are more likely to end up battered wives? Basically a combination of thinking that if you just stick with him long enough, and nag hard enough, he'll change to whatever your charming prince idea is? Yeah, that's both the obvious self-destructive AND toxic. How about you just divorce instead if you're not compatible and you're unhappy?

Mind you, the same applies to most gangs on twitter that didn't get banned. They may not be as representative of, nor hailed as saviours by, the general population as they like to think they are. Apparently when they fired the moderators in Japan, it turned out that most people are just talking about manga, anime and other benign topics. The previous "hot" topics seemed to be just the pushed radical stuff to troll for views and reactions.

So basically it's not necessarily saying anything about the women or feminism at large. (Which I like to think I still support. Could be wrong, though, same as in any other self-evaluation.) Is all I'm saying.

 

[catsmate]

Wasn't the whole "alpha male" thing discredited by the person who came up with it?

(L David Mech, my son tells me.)

Long, long, since.
Mech didn't actually formulate the "theory", it was common belief for years before him, and has been trying to have his outmoded book (early '70s) taken out of print due to the inaccuracies but it makes money for the publisher still.....

Basically anyone who spouts this nonsense today is outing themself as an idiot.