Here's something...I recently went through something horrific. Around the same time, I found Jordan Peterson clips on RUclips...his 12 rules...snippets of his advice... I distinctly remember being out one day, and I remembered his rule to stand up straight, and I did it...I know it's "obvious," yet I had never stopped to consider doing it. And it dramatically affected my mood that day. It's something I have since adopted whenever I think of it (and I still don't always think of it). My point: Sometimes it really does help for someone to state the obvious; many of us are lost in our stuff and need simple direction. I love him!
Excellent observation and great comment! It’s funny as I went through boot camp way back in 1996 and that’s one of those things getting drilled into you with the recruit division commanders screaming this at you for around nine weeks, they’d say “stand up tall, shoulders back, head up straight, stand proud.” or something very similar (they’d all say the same thing albeit with slight variations). You’re very right about it working as I really did mature a lot that year. I saw first hand how it helped many others that did not have the same level of confidence that I had.
@@Jimvesterstallone You are very welcome! Another thing I remembered after you replied was the level of mind games they would play with your head if only to see if you’ll break under pressure and don’t belong in the military. They do this because it’s a lot cheaper to send someone back home during recruit training than to spend countless dollars on them and their training just to have that person ‘break down’ later on, especially if that person’s ‘break down’ is in a combat zone! I’d estimate that we lost up to 20% of our division that first week! As the first week just prepares you for the training ahead (getting gear assigned, signing forms, drug test, medical & dental checkups, etc.) they repeatedly ask “who doesn’t want to be here? It’s much easier if you tell us now before you get assigned to a division [and start training!]” They want you to tell them as it only cost Uncle Sam a few bucks mostly on logistics at this point, e.g. hotels, airfare, and the like. They also ask you this on very little sleep and try to keep you awake! Now, I dunno your background on this, but kids that suffer extreme child abuse will mostly come out psychologically ‘broken’ themselves, but some (a MUCH smaller number) will thrive and come out stronger. Sadly, I came from a very abusive home and when I tell people what I actually haven’t repressed you could see the looks of disgust on their faces! I’m an open book regarding this, however the details are not relevant right now. What is relevant is the fact that I fortunately came out ‘emotionally scarred,’ but with a will that’s far stronger than many will ever have. I was not going to allow the pattern to repeat! I was also going to be the polar opposite of the ‘white trash’ who ‘raised’ me, and I guess a few accomplishments of mine did prove this if only to myself! Here’s my point (more of a theory, actually), confidence in general, without the cockiness, and regardless how one arrived to have a generally high level of confidence, will foster (a) Being immune to others who attempt to be emotionally hurtful to you, directly proportionate to the level of confidence. One who’s truly confident doesn’t ‘compete’ with others, but rather themselves exclusively. They also could care less regarding the negative, hurtful statements made my others. (b) One’s will, e.g. not giving up, is also directly proportionate to their level of confidence. And, finally (c) It doesn’t matter where or how this level of confidence was obtained or cultivated, only the fact that it’s actually “true” confidence (rather than narcissism, grandiosity, cockiness, etc.) Sometimes, which you’ll soon clearly see, extremely negative events could segue into positive events on the same ‘level.’ One final story to tie this altogether, and I know this is long, so I’ll try to be quick: While in boot camp, I don’t exactly remember what I did, but it was a relatively minor infraction, and there are a lot of those, so it’s not unusual. Many times, the recruit division commanders will have you “make it rain” as a form of punishment. Making it rain is having you do very quick exercises in full uniform for an extended length of time while commands and sometimes insults are yelled at you. So, I started to hit the deck and do push-ups, sit-ups, etc. - back up on me feet and do jumping jacks, running in place, etc. - rinse and repeat - as each command was called out. As I was in the best shape of my life, I was actually enjoying the workout, and he saw the ‘smile’ I had on, so he called over another recruit division commander to “join in the fun.” By the time ‘THEY were done,’ there were three of them yelling at me. Over an hour past and I was still going strong. Finally, I heard the words “stop, on your feet!” The recruit division commander finally asked “so, Rose, what the hell is it going to take to break you?!” With a smile, I simply said “You can’t. I’m sorry, but that’s just not possible.” He was so frustrated as he didn’t know what to even say to that, so I shrugged, and obviously defeated, he said “go back to everyone in the division, we’re through here.” I know one thing for damn sure, I earned his respect and the respect of a few of his peers that evening as the recruit division commanders were talking about me and this event. I don’t think I even spoke about it much thereafter, I really didn’t care one way or another about the event. The thing is, and this question could be perceived as if only bordering philosophical: If I didn’t face over a decade of various of types of quite literally heinous abuse, and had the mental strength to somehow not only survive, but walk away rather positively thereafter (which was a miracle according to numerous psychologists, therapists, etc., that I’ve seen), would the events of that evening have transpired any different?! I would go with a definite “abso-effing-lutely!!!” (read: Yes!) Feel free to ‘chime in’ with any thoughts, and again, thanks for reading this as I know it was a lot to digest!
@Calm in the Storm - I think many people view him that way, while I think he's really the culmination of adult voices most just didn't listen to while growing up and now find that advice so profound when put into the mouth of one man.
@@Malt454 I grew up, from about 6, reading, and reading, and reading. Born in 1948 -- do the math -- at my age I'm not much impressed by any so-called 'intellectuals" -- which isn't by itself the whole person. Better to read Socrates: he teaches how to THINK CRITICALLY.
Jim Grasso “a lawyer who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.” I suppose it would apply in a critique of oneself...too close to the problem.
Jim Grasso I’m sure the good doctor uses meta cognition all the time. I’m sure he is his own critic frequently. I’d hazard to guess that he knows himself better than the vast majority of us know ourselves. Still, a self critique my him would be interesting.
That's something I believe we all could do. It helps to understand why we might have the world view we have. A careful analysis could reveal blind spots.
"Dr Peterson, what's your favorite color?" "Well that depends on what you mean by favorite. And it also depends on what you mean by color. This is a very complex question.. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideologi- cal presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's arche- typal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism..." Be careful Dr.Grande Dr.Peterson might analyse you too🤣🤣
Man the hunter favors blue/green those being optimal hunting conditions. Women choose red/pink because those are the targets of a gatherer. That is wired into our DNA. Very few deviations. Lobsters
Well, that depends on what you mean by "what." In fact, we cannot define anything. That is all. Well, that isn't actually that...at all. Wait.... Falls into a black hole.
I just wanted to say that I appreciate your approach. You have a way of not tearing down. Your very thoughtful with your words, I sense no vindictiveness. You don’t take pleasure in that. Your a calming person and that usually translates to trust. Thank you for your videos and breaking down many things I think about. You do so with such dignity for all. ❤️
Social satirists Irma Bombeck and Art Buckwald identified the source of humor as anger. Early in his career Mark Twain identified the source of humor as anger. Near the end of his career he identified the source as pain. (I've been told by psychiatrists that behind anger is fear. I ask, "Fear of what?" I answer, "Fear of pain.")
@@chokinonashes61 Outside of his professional field, he seems like a typical waterboy for the neoliberal globalist empire to me...not exactly what one thinks of as a "reactionary." He's generally going very much "with the Establishment flow" in most every area but free speech and his recognition of some of the (generally ignored, ridiculed, or minimized) existential problems bedeviling young men today.
One correction on a statement you made, Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life is not a book for men. It’s for men, women, and anyone who wants to set their life in order. He’s always sure to make that point known. Thanks
I get what you're saying, and you're not wrong either, but the demographic that is the majority of his followers are young men. So to extrapolate that to say it's for men isn't entirely wrong. As at the very least, something he is doing is catering for men more than other groups and if there was a product that was used predominantly by men, even if it wasn't exclusively marketed towards them, we'd be inclined to perceive it as 'for men'
This is the best, most balanced critique I've seen on JP so far. Great to see a peer that is not afraid to be both critical and complimentary at the same time. This is rare and much appreciated for those of us trying to make sense of these difficult but important topics.
I’m sure Dr Grande would both dislike and appreciate a similar evaluation of himself, possibly from Dr. Peterson. I strongly believe Dr. Peterson could set aside his own evaluation and use his not insignificant insight and intelligence to make a very fair evaluation. In both cases they would likely have errors, but at least they would be well reasoned and fair. (As fair and reasoned as we could hope).
@@7LegSpiders I’m pretty sure Dr Peterson may have his feelings hurt, (he’s very sensitive) but he’s also a tough guy and has suffered far worse slings and arrows. And furthermore both of these men might learn more about themselves in such an endeavour then they would learn about each other. Unfortunately it may actually go over our heads unless they’d dumb it down, (I’m only peripherally knowledgeable on some of psychology as are most of the viewers/commenters so ideally they would keep it more mundane, which does risk slight inaccuracies for our sakes).
Difficult topics? The only reason the topics are difficult, is that you are trying to accommodate (and possibly obey) the leftist lunacy that is plaguing our culture.
I do believe that ends of relationships can be traumatic, depending on the relationships and how they end. I also think his philosophical theories are well-grounded in what he's read and that he's given Jung's work contemporary relevance. Maybe because I happen to be a lawyer, I do appreciate his logical reason. As a feminist, I was initially turned off to him because of things I'd gleaned from feminist media. I was wrong. When I actually began listening to his lectures and books, I found him to be informed, insightful and curiously open to new thinking, despite his adherence to the values of orderliness. Moreover, I find myself completely unoffended by his acknowledgment of the biological difference between men and women, and the inherent differences of physical, experiential and motivational aspects of gender that they entail. I think he's a genius, most of all, in his attempts to wed the benefits of order with the possible progress that can emerge from chaos.
Very well said. I also appreciate your ability to admit when you are wrong. A rare trait in today's world. If you don't mind a question, do you still consider yourself to be a feminist after listening to Jordan Peterson or has that changed somewhat? Even if ever so slightly?
His lectures are pretty fast forward, but I`ve recently seen some of his interviews and was blown away by such an engaged listener, so patient and supportive, and though suspicious at first, I now feel his motivational messages come from deep concern for changing the tragic human condition. A very fair and informed critique from dr.Grande
I don't know. At first I was captivated by Dr. P. Then, as I watched more and more lectures of his, I started to question his motiffs more and more often. When asked about certain topics, he seems to be deliberately disingenuine. Other times he ommits certain crucial facts or is incredibly uncharitable when speaking about his political opponents. I still attributed it all to his flawed human nature, but the deal-breaker was probably actually reading his work. It was far from what I expected it to be: unprofessional, sloppy and outright dumb at some points. I still appreciate the fact that he seems to be helping people (precisely young men), but other than that, I don't have much admiration for him.
I see him as capable, yet fallible, artistic individual with above average intelligence, and an expert on some topics. BUT also not someone that has critically thought about some topics to the extent that he has with other topics, and rightfully so. So we should listen to him and consider his ideas on his field of expertise. You know, not treat him as a Messiah of all topics like some people seem to do. I love Jordan Peterson because he made me think about some things from a different perspective. Hearing interesting advice about some things I've never considered can be intoxicating to me personally.
So in reality you're one of the people that has actually treated him as a Messiah of all topics considering what you said "I love Jordan Peterson because he made me think about some things from a different perspective. Hearing interesting advice about some things I've never considered can be intoxicating to me personally. " You're one of those people that experiences something and then calls others out on that which you are also doing and makes it as if that's not something youre a part of but what's really going on here is you actually understand those people and have noticed that because you are one of those people.
@@Tolbat "You're one of those people that experiences something and then calls others out on that which you are also doing and makes it as if that's not something youre a part of but what's really going on here is you actually understand those people and have noticed that because you are one of those people" lol yeah it's almost as if people can make mistakes through experience, learn from them, and then give reasonable advice to other people on how to have a more productive, realistic perspective. You know, the kind of thing that leads to improvement, unlike your comment which solely exists to smear and tear down people like an insecure douchebag
@@andnowwevibe270 But he's not owning the fact he is one of those people, he is pretending he is not....yea real helpful...How about be honest so people can really relate to you and absorb your advice?
@@Tolbat There's literally no empirical or logically sound reason to assume the OP sees JP as an infallible genius on all topics. On no planet does 'He made me see some things from a different perspective' translate to 'I think he's right and well researched about everything'. You made a massive logical leap to get there, also known as an assumption. Can only imagine why Secondly the OP made a recommendation of good form: to not just assume that everything someone says is true because they have a reputation as an intellectual. Your post is just pure ad hominem based on a nonsensical logical leap. More than likely you just needed your boost of narcissistic supply to make it through the day
I've heard many criticisms of Peterson, this is the first actual critique I've heard which seems to me to be well thought out and reasonable. My evaluation of someone like this always has me questioning intention, which of course is difficult to determine. That said, I think Peterson has good intentions. He wants to help people. He gets very passionate whenever he feels someone is saying something that can be harmful and he fights back very intensely. This is one reason I think this about him. Thanks for your thoughts on him, very helpful.
Greetings from Finland. Having watched a number of Peterson's videos here and having wondered about these same questions, I found your eloquent and clear summary very useful!
@@andrewtaylor2430 this video seems to have been posted prior to Peterson’s drug abuse being common knowledge. But, if the creator didn’t make that pause deliberately, it was still a very apt pause.
Im very fond of Jordan Peterson's work, but Im always worried about not getting to attached to any one thinker, so Im always on the lookout for reasonable criticism. All the critique that I had found till now seemed to me to be either not very well informed or stemming from the need to defend a pre held beleif. This is the first reasonable and objective critique that Ive found, kudos for that! Suscribed!
@@lucaswilhelmmeyer6943 if you like thinkers who don't defend pre-held beliefs, then maybe you should find a guy who doesn't believe in god or racial IQ science? Because those have been around for awhile, and they're definitely "beliefs," not facts based on the science.
@@d.m.collins1501 It’s not Nike Peterson had made a particularly big deal out of what his religious beliefs may be , and frankly it’s not like Athieism has proven immune to ideological preconceptions either. And has he particularly “defended racial IQ science”? How?
@@cainemangakahia4842 he hasn't defended racial IQ. He used the fact that if you see the people who come into the extreme ends of top IQ range, are dominated by Jews (statistics), and used that to make the point against equity.
Well, I found that chappie interesting until he said that there is no poor people in the United States. Such an outrageous lie took my respect from him. To be so immune to other peoples suffering and to brush their tragedies off so carelessly is just mindblowing. Anyone can say what they want about that person, I just dont want to hear anything related to him.
@The Insatiably Curious Skeptic The poverty in the states is different, but it still exists. For example in certain parts of the US people freeze to death because of poverty, that is not something that you would see in the slums of Bombay India. The suffering is different but it is still there.
@The Insatiably Curious Skeptic No what he says is not true, there is poverty and poor in the US and people that die from impoverished conditions. However not all poverty or the poor in the US are entitled like you say, some are that way from genetic dispositions of low IQ, congenital disorders, inbreeding. The thing that separates the US from India is that the US does not have a Cast system. If an individual in the US is born into poverty with a high IQ, they have opportunities to climb the ladder of education and become successful and get out of poverty. This foundation of education for all was laid down by the Calvanists since the New England colonies and is what makes the US unique.
I'm not sure what the point of it was. Shouldn't it have been more of an analysis for a psychological understanding channel? I understand the Dr didn't want to go into specific details, but in doing so it didn't address some of the main critiques of Peterson, particularly on giving out "vacuous" self help advice and being the equivalent of a "Rorsach test" where wholly competing views can find their own meaning in what he says. Plus, Peterson's divisive sociological political views are kinda the point. Might have been better to do it, say, from a standpoint of - is this narcissistic behavior? Or something similar.
Anthony Miesel here’s a few other ones about his views on Marxism & Postmodernism. Really educational ruclips.net/video/V2hhrUHSD6o/видео.html ruclips.net/video/cU1LhcEh8Ms/видео.html
@mike gallimore ha ha😊... sassy comeback & I do appreciate your facetious parley, BUT... to expound on xyzz Doe's point which is the crux to your comment: 1) As a proclaimed "Self-Help" guru w/ books titled "Maps of Meaning" & "12 Rules..." the ire the Dr.'s ideas invoke in academic & intellectual circles is well deserved. His ideas: often hackneyed, using superfluous verbosity to exclaim the obvious. When Bill Maher exclaimed, "Why do I feel what this guy says is just common sense?" it's bc that's precisely his m.o. & that extends to almost all he spouts (esp. "Life advice") put under a scrutinous microscope. And the mental acrobats the reader (listener) has to perform to make sense of the Dr.'s long-winded, hifalutin proclamations leaves one (groupies) to acquiesce an undeserved appeal to authority. 2) Since the Dr. has been a constant critic of Marxist/Communist/Socialist philosophies to then flee to Russia in search of some rehab not available in the "post-modern" west is unabashedly hypocritical. Your anecdote about a fitness instructor is spot-on 👍(better than my ethical commitee politician recently found cheating analogy). His personal trails are inconsequential to his ideas & conclusions, (like dismissing Nietzsche due to his mental dissipation) & to hastily claim, "Well look how many people he's helped!" is an unwarranted appeal to emotion to the issues he's espousing. Taken on their own, his precepts & "Rules" (at face value) may seem wise, but held to any exegesis are found invalid & lacking integrity. ( Like advice to mimick the hierarchy of male lobsters? One may as well take Meine Kampf arguments about the master race seriously, ergo the Nazi comparisons among other radically conservative stances.) This can't be overstated enough esp. for someone called the "Intellectual of our Time" & who has been undeservedly crowned a "Messiah" in the Pscho/Self-help community. If there's any argument that we are not in the realm of the Bizarro - well here we are folks! And as far as our grandparents are concerned Mike G.😉, when they complain about the latest medication they've been prescribed, change the subject to one of the most meaningful events in their life & listen humbly.
sorry to hear that you have lost the ability to think. "12 rules for life is rules for how young men should act" -clear bias before he even begins teh actual critique
@@immortalwombat10 Peterson has said that the rules don't just apply to men but everyone. A list to become a better person. A guide to moral fortitude, and a foundation grounded in strong basic ethics
"Either I'm not smart enough to understand what he is saying, or some of them just don't make sense"... I am glad you said that! I too had the exact same thought. Given, his popularity, I assumed my inability to comprehend some of his thinking was likely be a flaw in my intellect too ... I think this actually made me more curious and willing to listen to what he had to say in hindsight. The goal was to understand this "great mind" ... then after a while I started to think he is sometimes more concernced with gaining attention and causing controversy rather than speaking the truth.
What's an example of something you have a hard time following? I have never felt this way listening to JP, but it certainly helps if you are a bit knowledgeable in the areas he's covering
@@tyson6857 I don't have a particular example off the top of my head as I haven't listened to him for a while. I do have a degree in Psychology and have continued to read and consume psychology content after graduating (basically over 20 years of interest/ study in a wide range of areas)... this isn't an "appeal to authority" this is just me saying I do have more knowledge in the area than most.
@@rc198028 JP draws parallels across a multitude of fields, so if one has gaps in their knowledge, for example in mythology, while JP very quickly connects and arranges different dots, it probably is understandable that one could get lost.
I am not sure Peterson aims to be ‘entertaining’ 😐 at all. His rambling style seems to be actually his natural thought process. A lot of people ‘gets’ him. A lot of people don’t.
Peterson is quite the fan of Carl Jung, and among the things Jung has talked about are "archetypes" which are basically images and motifs Jung thought were some sort of innate knowledge all humans have in some form such as the archetype of the hero or the father, etc. This is particularly relevant for storytelling, and Peterson has said he does aim to tell stories and keep people interested. From there I would say he does intend to be entertaining in the sense of keeping attention on him when he's trying to convey whatever thoughts he has.
@@jackalopegaming4948 i think that everyone that is teaching something should aim to be entretaining, without detriement of the knowleadge itself of course
Sometimes people associate the word ‘entertaining’ to evoking extreme emotions or reactions or to performing clownish acts. I think Peterson’s style evokes curiosity and thought. I think he’s entertaining in that manner.
@@jackalopegaming4948 to further that, a lot of the theorised interpretations of archetypes focus on how an archetype (Great Father, Anima/Animus, etc) can be of merit for humans in explaining. Peterson follows Jung to a high degree, so I feel he takes influence from Jung in this sense. He isn't afraid to enter the realm of storytelling in an educational setting because he sees the utulity in it from a Jungian theoretical standpoint.
Me and my gf found his book very useful in our lives. We may have been both not been living our best lives, I think that's who he appeals too most. The forgotten people of this world.
Summary + A good debater: he's polite and listens carefully and generously to the views of his conversation partners. He's speaks articulately, precisely and deliberately. He doesn't let people put words in his mouth. + He's intelligent and productive and has thought very deeply about his opinions and conclusions. + His mix of subject areas makes him interesting and knowledgeable. + His conclusions are interesting and engaging. - Many academics consider his 12 rules to be "simplistic and obvious." - He often "moves a little too far beyond" what his evidence supports when making a conclusion. He arrives at those stretched conclusions via experience and personal opinion without explicitly stating he's doing so, giving him an undeserved air of validity. The example given is a time he gave a conclusion that defied an accepted medical definition without explicitly stating he was doing so. - Some of his lectures, especially some philosophy ones, are too abstract and removed from his source literature to make sense or to have a coherent meaning. - He is hard to follow. - He rarely makes it clear when he is crossing the line between philosophy (opinion) and science. Unsubstantiated criticisms 1. He has rude mannerisms: Todd thinks that's just his deliberate and attentive style. 2. He is unqualified to speak about politics: no one should be barred from political discussion, and JP backs up his views with subjects he is well versed on. 3. He's "ambiguous, murky, and unfocused.": Todd believes this is a product of his multiple subject areas. Though I'm personally not convinced it provides an excuse for it.
thats one grip I've had with listening to JP he seemed to be a bit vague or beat about the bush somewhat, maybe I'm being ignorant but its just how I feel.
@@Jorpando Anything that attempts to bridge academic philosophy and/or psychology and everyday life application and experience, will be criticised from both sides.
A grandiose nutjob who pushes snake oil salesmen through her show....who made a career turning suburban white women dumber and ended up being a 'Black Icon'. Okay she had to wear a sack to school and thats terrible but throughout her adult life she mostly distanced herself from pressing issues most black people in her country faced. She and her crew of quacks have to be taken off the pedestal
Meine Meinung du Falafel You’re right! Critique doesn’t have to be respectful, nice, politically or socially correct. Absolutely! Every other critique of Peterson’s work seems to be driven by ideological nonsense. I simply pointed out that this guy did not do that and what he did do, he did with class. So what point are you trying to make?
09BiGDylan He doesn’t deserve a platform? Can you explain why that is? Or is it simply that you are intimidated by someone who has opposing views to your own?
@@09BiGDylan you don't get a "platform" because you deserve it, but instead because someone/somewhere wants to hear what you have to say. Your use of "deserve" implies you need permission, and in your case permission from a social Marxist and all that entails.
I thought that was a very fair and balanced overview of JP. I could watch him all day long! He’s taught me a lot by modelling HOW to think, not WHAT to think. It’s the mental process clear of emotion. Yet I get the impression he’s a very ethical and empathetic person too. Nice work Dr G!
Yess exactly, people who actually want to develop teach others how to filter and discuss what the good ideas are, not necessarily centered on what they think is best
Jordan Peterson seems to be much better when he's telling people how to think rather than what to think. Any one person will be filled with opinions that are right and wrong, and you shouldn't choose any one person to copy the beliefs of. Some of his beliefs are rather odd, controversial, and in my view, untrue, but a lot of what he teaches about how to go about forming beliefs is very wise. The fact that his advice regarding how to think has actually led me to disagreeing with him goes to show that it really was good advice - instead of teaching us to think in a way that would make us automically agree with him, he wanted us to think for ourselves. When I started with Jordan Peterson I was quite a fan. I genuinely have him to thank for improving my way of thinking and becoming more critical. Despite that, nowadays, I take him with a grain of salt. Again, he really is at his best when he's telling people how to think rather than what to think.
Honestly, his words did kickstart me improving my life. I wouldn't ever suggest putting your faith in a single person, though, and his behavior since in the political sphere is concerning and disappointing, especially considering how kind he comes off as.
I do feel you missed a very vital positive. Temperment. The ability to stay calm in some of the appearances where others have a very clear disdain or agenda is consistent and lends credence to be mindful of what you say.
You don't know what all those words mean, do you @robert williams? Ironically, what you said brought my mindful consideration to the idea of quality over quantity in language ( yours, because my temperament is what clinicians describe as "bitchy," and "logorrheic in occasional explosive bouts." Some of the pressure has been released, credible sources report.
Peterson speaks common sense, but in a time where common sense and reason are rare or even shunned, he sounds like a wise philosopher. Nothing Peterson has said I've found to be profound or life changing. He hasn't said anything I haven't read or heard before. He's not a bad guy, but I think he gets heaped with more praise than he likely deserves.
well here's the thing, everyone nowadays is being raised on false premises and rigid ideologies. they might feel like common or basic ideas but sometimes thats just what one need to really move foward. a reminder of basic, common sense truths. just like any boxer would say, you can't box on a high level if you didn't master the basics and you can't remain a high level boxer if you do not practice the basics on a daily basis. in that way, i believe that his carrying of these simple truths on the scale that he's doing it right now is deserving of some level of praise!
@@Mephistozenith Excuse me, but when you make a sweeping generalization like that, you are necessarily wrong. These are the kinds of things that can hinder communication with different generations. I'm very happy to be able to say l have pretty good communication with both my daughter and my grandchildren. I don't tell them what they're supposed to think.
@Hugh mungous Dildeaux yup, and said bad relationship may well be the reason for the breakup. Thus, as JP said, some people who have broken a relationship may have PTSD. That was my initial understanding when he said that.
I have no desire to offend, but I wonder what experience you have with people who are effected by PTSD? I was diagnosed with it ( combat vet ) and have found a lot of people have lose definitions of what the disorder is.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu he taught hate? No way. He's far too understanding for that. White what? I'm brown and i have never seen that. Since you bring up race, what race are you?
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu If Dr. Peterson was a "white supremacist" why would he spend so much of his professional life warning people against those kinds of ideologies and the thinking that leads to them? Seems pretty counterproductive.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu Lolololol you blind ideologue 😂 I'd ask for proof of any of these claims but I know you don't have any. Chances are you're just a left wing ideologue who assumes any logical/reasonable criticism of the left makes you a white supremacist when that makes you ironically as bigoted as the Nazis were. The man has said more than once he considers himself a centralist, he has said more than once that he despises the alt-right and that they despise him.. But that's not enough to convince you right? Doesn't fit your narrative.. I welcome you to prove me wrong
You both stimulate deeper thoughts within me & give me tools that can make me a better person and I feel blessed by that. It's too easy these days to say "if they can why can't I" mentality and at the end of the day you find that you like yourself so much less. I hope you both continue with this free content you give us to make us all better people ❤️💯👍🏻
I greatly appreciate Dr. Grande's content, it's rational and objectively analytical. So many arguments I see today, both sides are perfectly valid and offer insight, but you're expected to pick one emotional and political extreme or the other, and view the world in black and white. It's frustrating, things tend to land somewhere in the gray area in between, and people attatch too much of their own individual identity to every opinion and idea that they have, and feel defensive and attacked by anyone who disagrees. It's increasingly rare and refreshing to hear basically a reasonable compromise regarding emotionally charged subjects and figures. Jordan Peterson is a perfect example. Though I think I'd find myself agreeing with a lot of his viewpoints, I haven't seeked his material out, and only know him based on what others have said. But it's my understanding that he doesn't align himself with a certain political movement or idealogy, rather it's been applied to him after the fact. So now you have one side that views him as a cornerstone representative of their beliefs, and another side that automatically discredits or invalidates anything he says, while if it came from someone else, they'd most likely be in total agreement. Unfortunately, given the nature of his videos, and having a more neutral character than someone like JP, this type of content won't ever find the same popularity. But know that it's still appreciated by someone! 👍
One danger area for smart people is that some of them may tend to overestimate how smart they are. This is understandable, as they are often the smartest person in the room. But they're not _always_ the smartest person in the room.
Smart people tend to know their limits... Jordan Peterson is just some dude who sells self-help books to a demographic that used to be reluctant to buy them...
I’m fascinated with this.. I typically agree with your evaluations and I have been binge watching for a while now.. I never heard of this man until recently on the YT shorts.. and I was absolutely CONFLICTED on how I felt about him.. initially I was totally on board with what I saw, but… after I saw several more clips… I was definitely brought back a step.. I’m really appreciating having your perspective on his material and output..
It’s a disservice to yourself to not watch his long form discussions. Snippets here and there do not do the man justice. Watch his Dr. Oz interview, compelling stuff with an interviewer that I figured would be a detractor initially. His interview with Russel Brand is also interesting, as they aren’t necessarily of the same opinion but the discussion is productive regardless. Dr. Peterson is a “liberal” by the classic definition, which turns off a lot of those that consider themselves “liberal” but don’t really know what that means.
This was a fair, reasonable and accurate summary of Dr. Peterson. I am a huge fan of his, even though I don't always agree with some of his ideas and sources. I have been watching your stuff recently, and so far am quite impressed with your take on various topics and people.
I look at Jordan Peterson the way I kind of look at Joseph Campbell's relation to the power of myth. Both highly intellectual peoplewho try to put their entire philosophy under one umbrella of cohesive thought so to speak.because of the high intellectualism, they can manage to do this. It can be confusing sometimes. But I kind of like it. But then again, who the hell am I?
I found that Jordan Peterson has consistently provided meaningful paths in the forests of ambiguity. I think your unique, lucid take on his wanderings has a refreshing outlook that invites different ways to see them. Thanks
His willingness to have live debates with people who have an apparent desire to discredit him is stupendous. The fact he tends to come out unscathed is amazing to me.
Maybe it's because he is able to decorate them with rarely used but beautiful sounded vocabularies, and avoid answering yes/no questions directly. "Does he believe in god?", looked.for his videos, he never directly answer this, not even with "I'm not sure".
@@williampan29 I agree that he has a an excellent command of the lexicon, however he is very precise in his speech and generally uses the words that correctly defines the subject matter. Words are often nuanced in a way the words such say for instance dog, or pet, or even canine might reflect different ideas depending on context.
I don't necessarily agree a 100% with you, but I also love the fact that your points are so nuanced and qualified. I can't feel anything but respect for the way you analyze his work.
I find myself, simply, unprepared for Peterson's lectures especially with not knowing world history nearly as well as he does. With being a doctoral level psychotherapist and social scientist I can keep up with his mental health input but his social perspective and understanding on how history repeats itself is beyond phenomenal... I believe having a knowledge of history is pivotal in understanding his presentations
As someone with a PhD in history, I don't find his command of the subject very strong - although I haven't seen a great deal of his content. Similar to Todd's assessment of his use of Jung, to me Peterson seems to use history more as a rhetorical tool, rather than being too concerned with historical evidence. But, his books sell better than mine, so what do I know :'D
@@cuttingbored4195 is it possible to know a lot about history, yet lack the ability to apply lessons from the past to today's cultural decline? Is it possible that Dr Peterson knows enough history facts to be able to draw useful conclusions to be applied to today's pressing issues.
Thank you for your fair and reasonable analysis of Jordan Peterson and criticisms surrounding him. I'm so glad you objectively viewed him without a certain bias. We need more therapists and thinkers like you.
Depends on what is meant by “relationship failure”. A relationship can break up because one or each grow apart. But, a relationship can break up due to control: extreme emotional &/or physical/psychological abuse......and in that example, I believe some /male and or female/ can and do , suffer PTSD.
You're right! Although Dr. Grande is correct, that the DSM has a strict definition that excludes emotional/psychological abuse and includes only physical (or the threat of it).....it also includes as the definition all of the symptoms that can arise, and definitely they all can happen from emotional trauma, including from relationship breakdown.
Breakups specifically do not cause PTSD, but the trauma within them, if they are an imminent threat to your life/wellbeing, can in fact cause PTSD. So yes it is a diagnostic overreach
What a relief! I was beginning to think JP was perfect - such a comfort to know he is only human like the rest of us. Joking aside this is a pretty good video so well done 👍
Nobody is perfect and to put someone on a pedestal just setting him and his fans for a dissapointment. It was heartbreaking when he came out with fighting drug addiction. I really loved that his followers were supportive.
@@SynnJynn It is not good to put anyone on a high pedestal and Jordan Peterson actually always encourages humility. But it wasn't intentional drug addiction. So it wasn't very disappointing, but very sad indeed. He was put on a very potent anti-anxiety medication to help cope with his emotions regarding his wife's deteriorating health. He then experienced withdrawal symptoms (not drug addiction) when the doctors stopped his medications. He loves his wife so much that he was anxious and feared for her health. Both he and his wife are making great recovery so far.
@@mdaddy775 Well he doesn’t get angry about criticisms. He gets super annoyed when people try to trap him putting words in his mouth and completely twisting everything he says to try and make him out to be the bad guy they imagine he is. You sound exactly like those people 😂😂 Why wouldn’t anyone get mad at being purposefully defamed and taken out of context all the time 🤦♂️
I always appreciate Dr Grande's thoughtful analyses. I personally like Dr Peterson very much(I am a physician, so I support Dr Grande's observation!). I wonder if Dr Grande would consider another video discussion of Dr Peterson in regards to his anxiety disorder and clonazepam dependence.
I think he is hyperactive. He seems to be anxious all the time. I believe his brain moves faster than he can talk. I do find his opinions are too rigid and I am not sure if it's really science. I am glad that he has recovered from his medication problems.
@@gentleeyes Don't be fooled - there is a good reason why Dr. Grande kept repeating that point. You have to be smart to understand that there are people smarter than you. Its a strange paradox that is documented by the Dunning-Kruger Effect (Google it). Peterson's IQ is at least 4 - and possibly 5 standard deviation's above the rest of us. That is essentially Einstein territory. I dont agree with everything Peterson says, but I have no doubt about his towering intellect.
Mr. Grande, I hope you will always make sound and balanced critiques about people as you have done so far, without getting into fame trap many people have fallen. Have a healthy life. Thanks for your efforts.
Sorry. Dr Grande's critique of Peterson merely provides the semblance of being fair and balanced. It fails to be fair or balanced because it fails to engage with Peterson's atrocious standards of evidence (as exampled by his citation of Facebooks purported list of 70 different gender varieties, when the list contained potential identifications by gender or sexuality, and where those which were gender specific contained multiple repeats in the forms of variant spellings, capitalizations, abbreviations, and synonyms so that the actual number of gender identifications on the list was about five).
@@tom_curtis However, Dr. Grande did specifically say that Jordan Peterson had produced a very large body of work, on a variety of topics. He did reference some negatives/criticisms regarding his expressions of clarity between evidence and opinion. He was not attempting to drill down on any one particular subject that Jordan Peterson had lectured on...that would take days.
@@tracylove3937, the relationship between evidence and opinion in some of Jordan Peterson's work is similar to that found among flat earthers. Worse, it is the opinions in which the evidence is so lacking for which Peterson is most famous; and which are his most influential opinions. A fair and balanced critique of Jordan Peterson would make those issues central, while acknowledging his genuine expertise in psychology.
He’s a mixed bag for me. He doesn’t always get it right, but he does offer young people a lot of useful advice that works. His book 12 rules of life helped me a lot. He is like a father figure to those who didn’t have one.
I agree. Especially since he is mostly talking about stuff he understands. He gets that right. But he also talked about the NS dictatorship in Germany once. He made so many mistakes do to not knowing things. I really like his attribute towards honesty though. I somewhat modefied that and try to only speak the truth, beinv humble whenever I am wrong and never let anyone who is in my environment klaim false information as valide.
He seems open to criticism and willing to take on difficult subjects. He gives unpopular opinions and has made himself a common target of those who think otherwise. I appreciate his integrity and wich more people shared his courage.
@dan saint amour l don't see any instances of his being open to criticism. But he certainly INVITES criticism. I personally think he does it on purpose, and that's not all wrong. We need to discuss the things that roil the tides of thought. But he's certainly aware by now that when he says something controversial, especially on gender issues, that a lot of people who have no education at all find validation and comfort in their sexism and racism from what he says. Read the responses to his little snippets and you'll see.
Quality critique. I have listend to another critique a while ago about Petsron where the personal bias was showing at every other sentence. This is fair and balanced and definitely gets a thumbs up from me.
Are you sure you know how to listen? Or how to think? Are you sure you're not just having knee-jerk responses without any thinking or education being involved when you consume with someone's claim that something Peterson is saying is "personal bias" -- maybe he has an authoritative command of science and facts that you have no concept whatsoever about. A lot of people not only don't how to listen these days, they don't how to think either. You might think I am slinging around negativity saying that, but I know to assess those two aspects of a person's speaking or writing. Based on your statement, I entirely doubt you have if you have much ability at all to listen or think. It is EXTREMELY unlikely you can match Peterson's intelligence, depth and width of education, depth of thought, and depth of experience in life. And he is famously careful about what he says, so you might be missing an opportunity to learn a lot from him. I would wonder if that sort of missing of opportunities to learn doesn't sum up your life and mind to date.
@@vancouverterry9142 I think that you misunderstood what PresidentScrooge was saying. He was talking about the person who was critiquing Peterson having personal biases not Peterson himself.
@@alexscott1257 I think your reading comprehension is below high school standards, at least the high school standards of my day. Any competent grade 8 or 9 reader in my day would realize that my words are clearly saying that the critique PresidentScrooge is saying IS "fair and balanced" (i.e., the critique by Grande) is NOT fair and balanced. I also say that if PresidentScrooge doesn't understand Peterson's work well enough to realize that Grande's critique is NOT fair and balanced then he, PresidentScrooge, isn't up to understanding Peterson, Peterson is over Scrooge's head, etc., etc., as I go to say. The tones of annoyance you see are based on my reaction to anyone thinking that Grande's critique here is "fair and balanced" in this particular review-- to my mind, the critique isn't, and any endorsement of it is, essentially, by necessary implication, an affront to Peterson's work, which deserves a lot more serious consideration and a lot more respect than Grande is deigning to give it here. You should take stock of the extent you have misunderstood rather clear statements and wonder how much you misunderstand things that you think you understand. There's an epidemic of incompetent listening and incompetent "thinking" among the younger generations. Spend some time reading long, multi-clause statements of progressive or probative reasoning such as philosophy, law, or some areas of math and science that are presented in text (as opposed to mathematical symbols) and perhaps you can get yourself out of the haze-thinking syndrome sooooooooo many younger people are in. Trust me, it's REALLY BAD, Man, and you don't want to be part of it. I do appreciate that your motivation seems to have been to clarify things for me, and that you weren't laying into me with any kind of hostility, whatsoever, etc., and in that, I SALUTE your intention to be fair and establish rationality to the dialogue, although it's taken things in an unexpected direction vis-a-vis where you're coming from. If you can tolerate my thorniness, the silver lining in all this is a good wake-up call to you. I am too old to get any particular jollies from calling younger people out -- I come across as thorny many a time, but I am usually just trying to wake up intellectually-incompetent individuals with the hope that the wake-up call will also wake up others. Sure, when people lay into me, or make unwarranted insults to others, I often respond in kind, sometimes savagely, but that too is ultimately an attempt to wake folks up. I simply don't how the younger intellectually-incompetent generations can be woken up other than having the bubble of haze they're living in popped with some sharp points. Better folk than I might be able to do it with some deft, compassionate magic touch, and, if so, I admit my limitations and defects in comparison. There's quite a problem now in modern society in that there is so much sloppy, sloppy, sloppy and under-educated thinking around that to do anything OTHER THAN pop the haze-filled bubbles younger people in the West are living in, there's no way to correct them. If you can get yourself into the game and do it better than I can, I will also salute you in that. Thank you for the original intention of your comment to me.
@@rowdy7480 Oh my, such a comment from AB C ! Is that how you run your life and raise your kids, rather than going to school yourself or educating them?
Jordan Peterson is absolutely amazing. Some people probably have a hard time following him but you have to understand that he messed up college level lecturer so you almost do need at least a higher than average vocabulary and idea of concepts to understand him. But I find them to be amazing, even if I have to stop and re listen to what he said because what he says is so impactful and deep that it's like eating thick bread without milk sometimes
At times, that's what happens when you listen to a college graduate level work in any field of study. Listen (or read) more than once is what I tell my gifted high school students while studying Physics.
I am a huge fan of Jordan...That should never mean someone just blindly believes or cant accept criticism. I totally agree when someone says Jordan can be all over the place...But I also know Jordan is aware of this. Many lectures he will flat out start talking and mention he is trying to figure something out on the spot...followed by speaking to those in attendance with his line of thinking and coming up with an answer. I don't think anyone hasn't run into a problem where there line of thinking isn't jumping around trying to make the puzzle fit together....Part of the problem solving I know I at least personally use at times...Come out of left field etc and every once in a while gain some real incite from it. In the end, negatives and positives, what matters to me most is he obviously cares and wants others to do better....That is the most important thing Imo. Good video, not really much bad to say about him...if you are staying away from Politics...I will say that as far as the Fellow academics criticize him part....I personally think most (NOT ALL) of much of that is because those same academics criticizing him to the point of going overboard, are also on the opposite side of his political stance....Meaning they look for anything to take a stab...You said it yourself in a round about way...People try and TRAP HIM....WHY??? If he was flat out wrong then there would be no need for any traps.... And I have seen his IQ mentioned but only in response to someone asking him what it is....Not sure why people have an issue with it...Like you said, looking at his body of work etc...It falls in line with an IQ in that range. I feel it is only contested by those who don't like him cause...reasons?? Act like the guy can only comprehend mopping floors lol Appreciate your video.
His politics are centrist so it's funny you say academics are on the opposite side, but I understand what you mean. As a lifelong conservative, he has actually pulled me a bit to the left. His deep fusion of scientific insights into human nature combined with a healthy respect for many key insights rooted in the Judeo-Christian world view is extremely relevant to many people on a personal level. I hope he gets well soon.
I would like to say that I believe a failed relationship can cause PTSD. I had a long and serious relationship end very badly and it took a decade to get over it. It impacted everything in my life and changed me as a person.
Yes that’s true. Infidelity also. I was recently diagnosed with CPTSD, and part of my trauma was from infidelity in my intimate relationships. I would still have nightmares about them over a decade later.
Is your condition not serious unless you have the ticket for the PTSD club? Since time immemorial breakups, cheating, and the like have caused that sort of issue. It really doesn't need to be compared to an extreme condition like PTSD.
@D4 C the idea is that just because something doesn’t fit into the definition of the DSM it doesn’t mean it’s untrue or that it doesn’t exist. As we know, things are still progressing and being changes so even what we now “know” in psychology is not absolute. That’s my opinion. It might not be official, but unofficially people might still display certain symptoms from situations that are not directly being recognized by science (yet). And yeah, the problem is, no, your problem isn’t serious enough in other people’s view unless they have a name and diagnosis. Same with medical staff or psychologists. A therapist once compared my problems with someone else’s saying “but they have serious issues, not like you” and I instantly lost trust in her because I still didn’t know “what” my problems were but all I knew was that they affected and continue to greatly negatively impact my day to day life. I’m still struggling by myself having to hide when that “something” begins to manifest. It might be mood related, or a personality related, but I don’t know. Because I don’t have capable and qualified people to tell me what’s happening. Yet it’s not being acknowledged by the people that are supposed to help people like me. So yeah. There you have it. You have to deal with it by yourself in that situation. See what the problem is here? Sometimes you have to go on a limb and treat patients that don’t necessarily fit the mould in the ways that the mould would indicate and see if the treatment works for them anyway.
It potentially could cause PTSD but the point is that it is not a criteria in the DSM. As a clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson would be acting irresponsibly and unethically if he started creating his own criteria for mental illness. He could, if he chose to, conduct the research required to challenge the existing criteria.
JP is extremely knowledgeable without question and I do not discredit his intelligence. I am fairly simple and feel sometimes these perceived brilliant individuals can just be 'to smart for his own good" He handles keeping within his wheelhouse of expertise but when elaborating philosophical and or theoretical hypothesis can be a bit grandiose and his abilities in his own mind are beyond the scope of reality and it is very controversial. Then again this is an excellent way to stir the pot and provoke interesting and engaging conversations or debates. In conclusion, he is a very talented, intelligent and envelope pushing style that is intentional for the attention and recognition that will acquire the respect, approval and acceptance of his colleagues and even his critics. Basically, it sells. His approach is effective in what I think his goals are and how to achieve them regardless of outside support or critique. Overall, a very talented, insightful, and articulate with the addition of going above and beyond what he is actually capable of doing. Although it can be very convincing to many. Definitely a profound figure in his areas of expertise. I respect the man. I will just say I give him credit cause it is due to him. Right or wrong, we all are and that is no exception with JP. With that I personally cut the man some slack.
This was a very fair breakdown of Dr. Peterson in the most general sense and I enjoyed hearing your honest opinions and found them to be presented extremely reasonably.
Hey, Dr. Grande! Now please review Slavoj Zizek, but before April 19, and we will get the full set of reviews before their debate in Toronto. Zizek must be easy to review for a psychologist!
@@Jasmian And quite justifiably so. I like Zizek, even though I am far from being a Marxist. He is just a real person, smart, and not a bulshitter (the latter quality is very valuable and very rare these days). BTW, I am a compatriot of Peterson, but I will keep an open mind in regards to their upcoming debate.
There are millions of young men/ late teens who haven’t had an effective father figure or any father at all. Peterson has become a kind of ‘ Daddy ‘ substitute for guys who’ve reached a crossroads in life and crave a classic authority figure from the 1950s . With this in mind, it’s hard to deny the assertion that years of liberalism that took over from right wing conservative family values may be the root cause of a lot of teenage angst . Couple this with Peterson’s pragmatic approach to life, and you have a ready made audience to tap into. He’s a classic ‘ Daddy ‘ , the only thing missing is a tweed suit and a pipe !
@@stechriswillgil3686 I wouldn't like to be a young person today. The world was daunting enough when I was young. I wouldn't regard Peterson in having solutions though.
The best thing about Jordan Peterson is that he has original, well reasoned, and well intentioned thought. He will explain and defend his stance so long as he thinks it’s reasonable. I think he has identified that people need simplistic truths to live by in order to live, fulfilling, purposeful lives. I think academia doesn’t like him generally, because he’s a threat to their general narrative. He’s a well-educated, well spoken, and seemingly authentic human being at a time when being both an authentic and good person is increasingly rare. He explains his thought pattern as to why phenomenon are occurring and proposes solutions that makes sense to him. I honestly believe that people hate him because he speaks that if you are downtrodden, you should empower yourself, and because he left it open ended as to who would be downtrodden, a bunch of young men who have been told they are toxic and patriarchal, and generally evil and privileged just by their existence, have gravitated towards him, and found truth and help in his words. Everybody else seems to have messages of empowerment in society right now, and he stands against the grain and speaks the truth he has experienced.
Excelent review! You made a grate job staying in a quite objective perspective on such a character as Peterson. Your analysis are precise as Jordan's speech!
A Sin Verba en Argentina -- que buena observacion sobre la precision del lenguage de Dr. Grande tal como Dr. Peterson.... One of the many reasons I appreciate them both so much! From the "it takes one to know one" file.... [To borrow your disclaimer, I have never met Dr. P, so this is a long-distance reflection....] I don't think you (Dr. G) are "not smart enough" to understand JP (my text abbreviation -- we're not really on a nickname basis! 😄 ). However, there are folks whose brains have a particular kind of wiring or chemistry (or a combination -- no one really knows the full explanation) that inclines them to make lots of intuitive leaps -- to see connections among things that others perceive as unrelated. (Think John Nash's bulletin board in "A Beautiful Mind"....) If we do this within a certain limited range (and can manage the more difficult quirks of wiring/chemistry well enough to communicate effectively about our observations), the world chants -- "Genius!" (As it does with someone like Einstein -- whose personal struggles are less-known than his "thought experiments", and as it eventually did with Nash, once he made it back from his crisis into "the zone".) If we struggle with baseline functioning or communication too much to convey our useful insights (or if our wiring/ chemistry are so far off-center that our observations are not useful to others), the world clicks its collective tongue and calls the psych hospital! Most people's brains don't spend as much time in this "zone" as JP. (I suspect mine is of a similar type, which may be why I follow him easily through the weeds & often find him expressing "bizarre" thoughts I have had myself! 😊 ) It is my suspicion that IQ -- at least, as measurable by test performance -- is only somewhat related to this kind of brain function, and my personal experience is that it actually robs us of fluency in other (more practical!) areas. No one is good at everything, indeed. Some people, though, are better at connecting many things than at delving deeply into one -- I wonder whether JP may be more the former and yourself the latter - ? Thank God for you both -- the old proverb has wisdom: "It takes all kinds [to make a world]...."
Dr. Grande very gently says that Peterson often doesn't make sense. He gives Peterson an out by saying it could be because Dr. Grande is not smart enough to grasp the nonsensical lectures. This would beg the question that if someone as sharp as Grande finds the lectures nonsensical who the heck are they for? Around the 13:55 mark he notes a common criticism is that Peterson is "ambiguous, murky, and unfocused", which supports the original assertion. Somehow Grande doesn't make that connection and calls the criticism unfounded, despite that often being his personal experience as well.
I’m so glad you treated Jordan Peterson fairly in your review. He’s one of my favorite people on RUclips. The way he talks about personal responsibility and morality reminds me of Scott Peck, another one of my favorites from back in the day.
@@sandracmyers Yes, Peck wrote The Road Less Travelled. It has been a favorite of mine for many years. And some of Jordan Peterson’s writing and speaking reminds me of some of the things Scott Peck had to say.
Personal responsibility? Like when Peterson lies about his opiate and benzo addiction and has to go to Russia to have himself put into an extended COMA because he was too much of a wimp to go through the withdrawal like everyone else does? You mean like when Peterson blames women for all men's problems?
"I always get choked up when jbp gets choked up." That's what another commenter said on another video, on another channel. The man is exceptionally intelligent, but he also expresses his emotions. THAT is what I love about him.
would love to see an update on your analysis of JP. he and or his content is a growing empire here in YT. maybe that angle? what are the second career options when one climbs out of the ivory tower?
Peterson demystifies areas of thought, teaches that people can think for themselves and that they should never be afraid to take responsibility for their own actions and thoughts.
It’s funny because I’m a college-aged woman in my twenties, and most of the other Peterson fans I know are also girls. A young woman I mentor got me 12 Rules for Life, and I’ve lent it out to like 5 or 6 other girls that I live with and am friends with. All my sisters also love Jordan Peterson. It always strikes me as odd to so strictly characterize his fans as young men. I understand that those are just the stats, but I can’t help but feel like it really isn’t representative of my own experience with Jordan’s work.
@@mcgheebentle1958 it's just another way to try and dismiss any relevancy he has. His detractors like to paint him as a Frankensteins monster made up of misogyny, racism, transphobia, patriarchy, far-alt-right sympathies, and so they say the only people who listen to him, and who he is also actively seeking and recruiting, are the ever dreaded "young straight white cis males"
One of the areas where I appreciate Dr. Peterson's lectures; he always tells his audience to read what he covers. I often feel he also gets very emotionally invested in his topics of messaging thereby appearing unreasonable or emotionally expressive. I see him as a human being. His attempts to be personable and not interested in profit as he is on the message or topic. I would argue that anyone is capable of politics. He has struggled himself with much of what he discusses. He certainly has conviction. My concern is quite often with the placing of persons upon a pedestal when he really is just trying to be a teacher. I would argue that his teacher's heart is something that truly irritates his detractors. I also see that same desire, the teacher's heart, within you Dr. Grande.
you seriously believe that dude's just a teacher that wants to teach? not interested in profits? THE ONLY SOURCE ANYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND HIM IS A THESAURUS! he attempts to make profound statements & yet he gives nothing but pure PPBS (pseudo-profound bulls**t)
@@amybock6499 I'm betting you're one of those folks that thinks they're more intelligent than anyone else in the room, and you are sans a PhD. I didn't ask you what you thought. I don't give a shit about your feelings or your $0.02. In fact, your comment is what amounts to bullshit, so take your crazy somewhere else.
@@amybock6499I wouldn't argue he only offers PPBS, as you pointed out, but - the fact is - he is significantly more educated and much more knowledgeable than his audience. In general, Americans are not avid readers, certainly not readers of Jung or Dostoyevsky, etc., even though JP encourages them to read them or anyone else he considers his source. Those are demanding books and take time and thought (!) to digest their contents. Therefore the admiration for someone who has actually read such books and seems to understand them is kind of logical, and a critical assessment of his interpretation of the read content is almost impossible or at least very unbalanced. How can anyone even judge whether JP interpreted the content (or anything else) correctly when those people didn't read the book because it was too difficult for them to read...? Basically, only people with his level of intelligence and knowledge who understand what's going on can meaningfully judge him. (Recognizing and distinguishing Socrates from sophists is difficult unless the person who tries to do it is not one of them.)
Regarding PTSD and relationship dissolution-... The nature and cucumstances of that ending can absolutely be traumatic. Particularly if there are existing comorbidities and previous trauma. I'm not a clinician, I'm a client. When my therapist suggested PTSD to me, I thought she was nuts and scoffed at the idea thinking about service men and women overseas fighting stupid wars and watching their friends step on an IED. After months of exploring the idea and disecting my marriage and divorce and events surrounding it, I saw how she got there and had to agree.
100% seconded. Marrying a narcissistic and psychopathic partner (ok, my own choice, but love was blind) can do so much crippling harm - such persons are indeed metaphorical landmines for unsuspecting INsignificant others. This is the one argument of Dr. Grande I have to disagree with from personal and witnessed experience.
the end of the relationship is a good thing. the relationship itself caused PTSD. i think one can also get PTSD being a caregiver for someone they love who has a terminal illness with multiple life threatening events before they die. like watching someone repeatedly step on landmines and having to take them to the hosptial or administer CPR on them yourself until the paramedics come. no one get out of life unscathed.
@@annesmith1491 I think really the criticism is a technical one:. PTSD coming from breakups is not in the DSM, so you can't call it that. Even if the patient has all the same symptoms. it's not officially PTSD. You have to call it "has symptoms similar to PTSD". It's just psychologist inside baseball. Not a critique that's important for mortals
A relationship failure due to extreme abuse can result in PTSD. When Peterson says could, he is being precise that there are extreme events that can cause the same result, other than war or surviving an environmental disaster.
@@IMWeira Amen to that - some take no prisoners, even if the other person is open to discussion, and clearly state that their goal is to annihilate the "adversary" until nothing of them is left (in my case in front of our daughter, and not only once -> the mission is not yet accomplished, but serriously under way *small violin*). PTSD from relationship breakups is real, when it means that you lose your retirement funds to lawyers, and that you face homelessness because you are forced to sell your home to accomodate the wishes of the ex husband (yes, I am a woman - contrary to the hate propaganda that is delivered by many divorced men it is entirely possible for a wife to be ruined by her man). When the breakup/ divorce shatters your whole life and all prospects for your future, especially if you are not a spring chicken any more, this is highly dangerous. On this topic I can not agree with Dr. Grande, out of my own life experience. I would appreciate if he were right.
I think Jordan rambles, split hairs to sound like he sees many views on one subject, pauses for the impression he's going to something profound, uses obscure words like hannity to put himself just a bit higher on the intelligence table and has yet to say something profound yet simple.
I never feel inclined to trust someone who brings up their IQ score. Convince us you're intelligent by practical means, telling your audience they should listen to whatever you have to say because because you have an impressive IQ is playground nonsense. (This isn't a sentiment specific to Jordan Peterson, there are lots of internet pseudo-gurus who do this)
When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Stephen Hawking gave a curt reply: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers"
There is information and connections that can not be obtained without a high iq. Not everyone is created equal. That doesn't mean someone is worth less than others. Simply they aren't capable of as much intellectually than the more intelligent. People who brag about their iqs are arrogant assholes that look down on others. Those that use there intellectual capabilities to help others either in a selfish manner or altruistic manner are those we need to listen to and cling on to because while we might not understand completely, we do have the ability to obtain immeasurable knowledge. And if you think that is useless your a fool.
maybe he wrote the 12 rules because he realises his work is complex and meaningful but wanted to reach those who will struggle to get engaged in the work on that level. that book, in my understanding of it is full of compassion for those who have been left behind in society.
It tells you that you suck over and over again actually. That you have a shot at improving yourself if you follow his advice, but otherwise you suck. Not much compassion tbh, a lot of implying he knows better than you about everything, and confusing tangents about the Bible and archetypes from Jungian psychology. There's occasional decent advice like "compare yourself to your past self and not to others", but it's surrounded by a lot of weird tangents and shoehorning in of scientific research from fields outside of his own that he doesn't seem to understand very well. Like, he says lobster brains essentially melt when they are beaten in a fight, but lobsters don't even have brains they have multiple ganglia, and the research isn't conclusive on what exactly goes on in lobster ganglia. He also brings up serotonin, because the winning lobsters have higher amounts of it, and implies that these mechanisms have some kind of implication for hierarchies throughout the animal kingdom, despite the fact that serotonin does different things in different areas of the human brain, never mind across species. Does this seem confusing and irrelevant to the discussion of hierarchy among humans? Yeah, it does to me too. The book's full of these unhelpful, point-obscuring tangents and assertions
7:10 Love your work Dr. G, but looking at this point that you raise, I'm of the opinion that PTSD (and CPTSD) in relationship breakdowns is quite prevalent when one looks at Narcissistic Abuse. (Obviously this is not all relationships, but possibly and surprisingly a significant number of relationships). Even if JP has not referenced this abuse aspect of relationships, I would envisage that this would be a factor in his thinking; as IMHO, there is an exponential & growing rise in Narcissistic Abuse/Traumatised individuals in society. If anything, then PTSD as a fallout (and as an exacerbation) of relationships, is quite a serious consideration if we wish to nurture a healthy society.
That was a great analysis! It's refreshing to hear a balanced perspective that isn't either putting him on a pedestal or declaring him a complete moron ;) I definitely see where you're coming from on most points, especially the ones about "edginess", philosophy theories and complexity. I remember watching several debates of him and other people (of comparable intelligence) and, while everyone else was consistently easy to follow, he had moments of "drifting off" into things that made very little sense to me, honestly. Now, I'm not a native English speaker, nor am I very well-read in philosophy/theology, so I definitely don't expect to understand every bit of every lecture, but I feel like in a debate/talk that is directed towards a broader audience, not professionals, it's generally a good tone to speak on a level that is understandable to most people, although of course he's not obligated to do so. I also have noticed from personal experience that people who understand some subject really well are generally able to explain it on almost any level of complexity, even if it's very basic and in simple words. So at times I'm not sure why he gets "carried away" so often compared to most intellectuals/speakers I've seen. Personally I really enjoy some of Peterson's works, but overall his approach is sort of too "edgy" for me and also I just don't enjoy listening to his speaking style/voice too much (which is, of course, not a valid criticism whatsoever, just a personal preference), so I rarely seek his content; the drama that tends to surround him is a bit off-putting as well. Lastly, I feel like some of the criticism that he gets is inspired not by JP himself, but rather by his "fanbase", so to speak, which (same as passionate fans of most things in the world, to be fair), are often a bit immature/cult-y and tend to belong to a very particular type of people. I feel like some "outsiders" conflate the fans' behaviour and opinions with Peterson's a bit, which skews his reputation to a degree. But that is just a guess on my part.
While I like the balanced style of Dr. Grande's video and your comment, I think that as sophisticated as Jordan Peterson is, as surprisingly simplistic are some of his views on gender roles, family, education and some other more mundane topics. There is a reason why he is - despite his apparent protest - so easily instrumentalized by the alt-right, incel, neo-fascist and young conservative mostly younger whiter and mal"er" groups. - He himself cites the finding that higher intelligence more often goes together with more openness to new ideas. His own aversion to what he calls "Marxist left" borders on irrational emotion. And I find little to no openness to new ideas there. That is just my opinion, though. Thank you very much for your video, Dr. Grande! And thank you very much for your very careful comment, Valeria Vagapova!
my opinion on jordan peterson is that he is selectively reductive in the way he explains the topics he's engaging in for the sake of pushing a political narrative. i believe he is genuinely an intelligent person but he only uses that intelligence to expand on certain topics where it benefits his predisposed worldview. this isn't a major issue i suppose and i think most of us myself included fall victim to this issue but I think its worth pointing out. for examples i would point to his talks on most sociological issues where he seems to focus his interest entirely on individual actions rather than recognizing the systems and customs those individuals live within.
I agree with you. It is fundamentally a huge drawback to quite blatantly use your views to shape your arguments, when you’re supposed to be objective and factual.
Yeah, but who doesnt. Also, The system is the people and the people are the system. Its not seprate things. If the people in the system are doing the right thing the system wil be right. Your ability to seprerate the individuals from the system as seprate entities isnt based in reality. Might i add its very simular how conspiracy theorist think. Except the focus on shadow groups instead ofnthe system's. Did you know the laws that make up the system are passed by people. Im just not sure why your so wilfully gave up your logic for your polictical groups rhetoric.
As usual I find your analysis fair, balanced and full of valuable insight! 👍🏻 I also witnessed JP getting a bit too “brainy” for his own good occasionally and annoying his guest with very open ended questions … but isn’t this is typical of individuals who have high IQ ?…. Of course, perhaps my own IQ wasn’t high enough to follow him either ….🤔😏😂
😂 He's done nothing to me but I basically don't like the guy....I guess I'm too thick!!!! I'm certainly 'stupid' enough not to believe in any God.... apparently!
Einsetien, Penrose, Schrodinger, etc, don't talk like Peterson at all. And they have astoungingly high IQs. Peterson is pedantic. He would describe walking across a street in a way that calls more importance to the process than it actually possesses. Look at his interview with Sir Roger Penrose on Consciousness. He has nothing to add to the conversation but stares it away with soliloquies disguised as questions. The co host however, builds upon what Penrose is saying by asking relevant questions that help Penrose build a model of the subject matter that the audience can understand.
I think the popularity of Dr. Phil and Dr. Peterson is their message of personal responsibility. Many people get stuck because they can't see their own behaviors as the basis of their problems and want to find someone or some thing to blame so they have an excuse for bad behavior. I am a big fan of people realizing that the only person they can change is themselves and they set about doing it.
Every one has their own opinions, but I hate the comparison of Dr.Phil to JP.. Peterson seems way more intelligent, honest, and learns from his mistakes. Phil seems like he's in it for the fame and money, doesn't actually care
The main problem with that idea is that if you acknowledge that slot of things a genuinely beyond someone's control it just becomes victim blaming. I'm mildly autistic, and no matter how hard I try I'm always going to be autistic, and always going to be at a disadvantage in social situations compared to others who aren't autistic. All I've gained from this idea is alot of self hatred for being the way I am.
@@dylanhaugen3739, My son is also mildly Autistic. We taught him how to do things that didn't come naturally to him, such as shaking hands and eye contact. I totally understood how he felt but I stressed to him that although it wasn't his comfort zone, he would move easier through life making is a learned behavior. He just came for a long over due visit for his 31st birthday. Although he has made an unusual life for himself, he's self sufficient and has assured me he is content and doing well. I told him that he has taught me not to keep score in the usual ways and that his contentment and independence makes me proud.
I like how you pointed out that many of his references of Carl Jung aren't necessarily taken at face value (opinion), but treated as fact (empirical evidence). I have a very high opinion of Jordan Peterson myself, but this was a very important distinction that you made here. Subscribed, great job by the way, Dr. Grande!
You come across as really humble! My opinion on his work is a bit more harsh, so it was really nice to see you weighing your words carefully Thank you for the video.
You're a fair man.. Well balanced and a well skilled and honed intellect.. However.. The Michael Jackson critique, through the prism of the documentary, was outwardly prosaic. The rest of your commentary is considerate and broad, straying from some polarising issues in areas, but you cannot redact the record by narrowly focusing solely on the documentary.. I'm sure, your intent and purpose was to specifically critique this documentary, but I feel there was so much more evidence of wrong doing on his behalf that was obfuscated by lens in which you chose to examine him. I would love to hear your thoughts on the history of the man in its entirety. Well, at least as much as you did for JBP. Thank you, huge fan..
Dr. Grande, I enjoy the entirety of your offerings and the way you present your content. I also want to tell you that your willingness to admit the possibility of being wrong is a refreshing trait in someone of your caliber and in your position. You approach "self-deprecating" without tarnishing your character and illustrate that a humble demeanor is nothing of which to be ashamed. Thank you for your example and educational content on all matters psychological and legal. Much Respect.
My take on Jordan Peterson is that he is intelligent, has interesting ideas and is becoming mentally ill. When he was younger he seemed normal but as he’s gotten older I see him being overly egotistical and disdainful of others to the point of seeming odd. His energy is so angry that it seems like he has unresolved issues that are spewing out on others. He’s got a very negative vibe, I don’t know how else to put it. I just can’t place any trust in someone who seems so out of whack.
you'd be angry too if you could see the state's deceptive tyranny with the clarity that he can. you might also claim Trump is a loud-mouthed buffoon but people tend to forget he was also the recipient of the most insidious and farcical political deception and the circus of our times - the Russian collusion hoax. How much of his outburst is reactive v. proactive? It's very common to see the harbingers of what was in the olden days basic common sense as "mentally ill" when the current mainstream is already way beyond anything sane.
Himanshu Sorout that’s one way of looking at it, but being unbalanced is being unbalanced. He needs to either pull himself together or get professional help.
Every time I watch Peterson on You Tube I always feel he could have easily condensed his lecture by about 80 or 90%. I guess being a college professor he feels he must talk for about a hour no matter what.
The challenge of teaching is to make listeners understand, not just hear. Otherwise teachers wouldn't be needed, they could just narrate a textbook in class.
I think he does that because he knows they're going to cut the interview for their political agenda. And if he leaves facts out it makes easier. Now he actually refuses to do interviews unless they are shown in entirety.
i really like that Peterson is flawed, its why im attracted to his lectures and writings. You can watch him actively questioning himself during a speech, when do you see anyone else in the mainstream taking pause. He's a very smart man that lead me to a lot of self improvement, he didn't fix my mental illness of depression, which isn't fair to expect, he's speaking to the masses, not me. BUT, he helped me reject my nihilist view points that amplified my depressive and suicidal thoughts, he provided me the tools I needed, not a personalized fix.
He's actively choosing words to obscure his flaws and to leave the plausible claim that you didn't understand open, there's a difference. He's a clown.
@@grant46n2 His views on ideology: he has constantly said that we should view things with the absence of an ideological lense. Meaning, literally viewing everything objectively. This is my biggest critique of him, because it is literally impossible to view things objectively without any sort of influence from ideology. He claims to do this…but has said multiple times he follows basic Judeo-Christian values- which are quite literally ideological. And even then, it is absurd to claim you can view things entirely objectively. If you exist, if you think, if you are alive- you view things subjectively all of the time. He does this in order to promote his views as being that of objective. And this, further perpetuates some of his very outdated, conservative views.
@@choblgobblrr1074 Um, you can view things objectively quite easily by arguing for and against that viewpoint simultaneously, and weighing the for and against.
Although it’s not one of the criteria in the DSM for PTSD imo it’s possible depending on the personality type of the individual experiencing the loss and the specific circumstances. Imagine how Denis Raider’s family felt. In Canada, the CPA consists of a hand full of Psychiatrists that receives heft research grants from the gov. It seems like a conflict of interest when it comes to many of the Senate bills they endorse. Just one example is Animal protection legislation written in 1876. Antiquated wording allows 99.97% of abuse/torture to go unprosecuted yet they endorsed it consistently.
I like Jordon Peterson, I started watching his lectures all the way in New Zealand before he was really that famous because I like when he talks about anthropology. I reckon you could be a Jordon Peterson type influencer doc!
@@vancouverterry9142 I think what your saying is that you don't like Peterson and that you don't think people should listen to his ideas. Simpler to just say so and then why.
@@vancouverterry9142 What game? You're a fanatic getting flustered over a benign comment. I can only imagine how you would react of someone didn't straight up like Peterson.
This came across like you were praising Jordan rather than analysing him. Almost as if you didn't want to do an in-depth analysis or critique him too much for fear of backlash.
@@jamallabarge2665 Maybe. Or maybe he feared the backlash that would happen from critiquing someone like Jordan. The entire point of this style of content is to critique the person in question so it doesn't matter if they agree or disagree.
@@MzMahoganyHoneyBrown Is it really necessary to be personal? Isn't it better to be professional? Just because RUclips doesn't restrict positing to professionals does not excuse amateurish behavior. Right?
I have two major problems with Peterson. Firstly, the diet he and his daughter follow and encourage others to is incredibly restrictive, unbalanced and potentially dangerous. Secondly- and somewhat linked, is his very poor understanding of biology. He’s made numerous bizarre statements on the subject and while I think some could be taken as symbolic, I don’t think all of them can.
Oh damn, I totally forgot about the diet thing... It's definitely quite troubling how some of his followers blindly adopt his questionable diet based mostly on a single anecdotal (and quite unusual) experience of his daughter. There simply isn't enough scientific evidence to support that diet, it might work for some people but it definitely shouldn't be recommended to most. I find it quite sketchy.
I find your criticism of Jordan Peterson to be really fair and reasonable. I've watched and read quite a lot of his work and I too noticed, that his conclusions are sometimes going beyond what is supportable by evidence or even logic. I noticed it the first time when he touched my field of expertise, which is linguistics. It wasn't too big of a deal and I'm aware of those patterns. His content is very valuable in my opinion, even with the need of that rare grain of salt, while listening to or reading him.
Great job! Regarding PSTD: the symptoms of PTS arise from an injury to the stress processing nervous system, the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS). Thus, if the end of a relationship is sudden or the result of betrayal that causes injury to the ANS, then that individual can be suffering from PTS, rather than exclusively loss and grief. This is an important distinction. Traditional types or supportive/insight psychotherapy can successfully treat simple or complex grief, but not PTS, not an injured and thus impaired nervous system. Peace all!
Here's something...I recently went through something horrific. Around the same time, I found Jordan Peterson clips on RUclips...his 12 rules...snippets of his advice... I distinctly remember being out one day, and I remembered his rule to stand up straight, and I did it...I know it's "obvious," yet I had never stopped to consider doing it. And it dramatically affected my mood that day. It's something I have since adopted whenever I think of it (and I still don't always think of it). My point: Sometimes it really does help for someone to state the obvious; many of us are lost in our stuff and need simple direction. I love him!
Excellent observation and great comment! It’s funny as I went through boot camp way back in 1996 and that’s one of those things getting drilled into you with the recruit division commanders screaming this at you for around nine weeks, they’d say “stand up tall, shoulders back, head up straight, stand proud.” or something very similar (they’d all say the same thing albeit with slight variations). You’re very right about it working as I really did mature a lot that year. I saw first hand how it helped many others that did not have the same level of confidence that I had.
@@jayrose6312 Thank you for sharing that! Great point, that the military pounds this into people... The little things can be the big things.
@@Jimvesterstallone You are very welcome! Another thing I remembered after you replied was the level of mind games they would play with your head if only to see if you’ll break under pressure and don’t belong in the military. They do this because it’s a lot cheaper to send someone back home during recruit training than to spend countless dollars on them and their training just to have that person ‘break down’ later on, especially if that person’s ‘break down’ is in a combat zone! I’d estimate that we lost up to 20% of our division that first week! As the first week just prepares you for the training ahead (getting gear assigned, signing forms, drug test, medical & dental checkups, etc.) they repeatedly ask “who doesn’t want to be here? It’s much easier if you tell us now before you get assigned to a division [and start training!]” They want you to tell them as it only cost Uncle Sam a few bucks mostly on logistics at this point, e.g. hotels, airfare, and the like. They also ask you this on very little sleep and try to keep you awake!
Now, I dunno your background on this, but kids that suffer extreme child abuse will mostly come out psychologically ‘broken’ themselves, but some (a MUCH smaller number) will thrive and come out stronger. Sadly, I came from a very abusive home and when I tell people what I actually haven’t repressed you could see the looks of disgust on their faces! I’m an open book regarding this, however the details are not relevant right now. What is relevant is the fact that I fortunately came out ‘emotionally scarred,’ but with a will that’s far stronger than many will ever have. I was not going to allow the pattern to repeat! I was also going to be the polar opposite of the ‘white trash’ who ‘raised’ me, and I guess a few accomplishments of mine did prove this if only to myself!
Here’s my point (more of a theory, actually), confidence in general, without the cockiness, and regardless how one arrived to have a generally high level of confidence, will foster (a) Being immune to others who attempt to be emotionally hurtful to you, directly proportionate to the level of confidence. One who’s truly confident doesn’t ‘compete’ with others, but rather themselves exclusively. They also could care less regarding the negative, hurtful statements made my others. (b) One’s will, e.g. not giving up, is also directly proportionate to their level of confidence. And, finally (c) It doesn’t matter where or how this level of confidence was obtained or cultivated, only the fact that it’s actually “true” confidence (rather than narcissism, grandiosity, cockiness, etc.) Sometimes, which you’ll soon clearly see, extremely negative events could segue into positive events on the same ‘level.’
One final story to tie this altogether, and I know this is long, so I’ll try to be quick:
While in boot camp, I don’t exactly remember what I did, but it was a relatively minor infraction, and there are a lot of those, so it’s not unusual. Many times, the recruit division commanders will have you “make it rain” as a form of punishment. Making it rain is having you do very quick exercises in full uniform for an extended length of time while commands and sometimes insults are yelled at you. So, I started to hit the deck and do push-ups, sit-ups, etc. - back up on me feet and do jumping jacks, running in place, etc. - rinse and repeat - as each command was called out. As I was in the best shape of my life, I was actually enjoying the workout, and he saw the ‘smile’ I had on, so he called over another recruit division commander to “join in the fun.” By the time ‘THEY were done,’ there were three of them yelling at me. Over an hour past and I was still going strong. Finally, I heard the words “stop, on your feet!” The recruit division commander finally asked “so, Rose, what the hell is it going to take to break you?!” With a smile, I simply said “You can’t. I’m sorry, but that’s just not possible.” He was so frustrated as he didn’t know what to even say to that, so I shrugged, and obviously defeated, he said “go back to everyone in the division, we’re through here.” I know one thing for damn sure, I earned his respect and the respect of a few of his peers that evening as the recruit division commanders were talking about me and this event. I don’t think I even spoke about it much thereafter, I really didn’t care one way or another about the event. The thing is, and this question could be perceived as if only bordering philosophical:
If I didn’t face over a decade of various of types of quite literally heinous abuse, and had the mental strength to somehow not only survive, but walk away rather positively thereafter (which was a miracle according to numerous psychologists, therapists, etc., that I’ve seen), would the events of that evening have transpired any different?!
I would go with a definite “abso-effing-lutely!!!” (read: Yes!)
Feel free to ‘chime in’ with any thoughts, and again, thanks for reading this as I know it was a lot to digest!
@Calm in the Storm - I think many people view him that way, while I think he's really the culmination of adult voices most just didn't listen to while growing up and now find that advice so profound when put into the mouth of one man.
@@Malt454 I grew up, from about 6, reading, and reading, and reading. Born in 1948 -- do the math -- at my age I'm not much impressed by any so-called 'intellectuals" -- which isn't by itself the whole person.
Better to read Socrates: he teaches how to THINK CRITICALLY.
I believe it would be interesting if Dr. Grande critiqued himself.
Jim Grasso “a lawyer who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client.” I suppose it would apply in a critique of oneself...too close to the problem.
Jim Grasso I’m sure the good doctor uses meta cognition all the time. I’m sure he is his own critic frequently. I’d hazard to guess that he knows himself better than the vast majority of us know ourselves. Still, a self critique my him would be interesting.
Do himself!
That's something I believe we all could do. It helps to understand why we might have the world view we have. A careful analysis could reveal blind spots.
Specially after defending Bill Gates in the Covid 19 video
"Dr Peterson, what's your favorite color?"
"Well that depends on what you mean by favorite.
And it also depends on what you mean by color.
This is a very complex question..
One must acknowledge the underlying
verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a
multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many
people fundamentally conflate with their ideologi-
cal presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity,
causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's arche-
typal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic
juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's
magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism..."
Be careful Dr.Grande Dr.Peterson might analyse you too🤣🤣
Hahahahhahaha wth
this is 2 good XD top comment for sure
Too good 😀
Man the hunter favors blue/green those being optimal hunting conditions. Women choose red/pink because those are the targets of a gatherer. That is wired into our DNA. Very few deviations. Lobsters
Well, that depends on what you mean by "what." In fact, we cannot define anything. That is all. Well, that isn't actually that...at all. Wait.... Falls into a black hole.
I just wanted to say that I appreciate your approach. You have a way of not tearing down. Your very thoughtful with your words, I sense no vindictiveness. You don’t take pleasure in that.
Your a calming person and that usually translates to trust.
Thank you for your videos and breaking down many things I think about. You do so with such dignity for all. ❤️
Ditto!
I agree, well said
Social satirists Irma Bombeck and Art Buckwald identified the source of humor as anger.
Early in his career Mark Twain identified the source of humor as anger. Near the end of his career he identified the source as pain. (I've been told by psychiatrists that behind anger is fear. I ask, "Fear of what?" I answer, "Fear of pain.")
I second that!
You should see his latest video on Meghan Markle. He definitely is a hypocrite now
Interviewer : Are you OK Dr.Peterson?
Jordan Peterson : Define OK.
Schizophrenic REACTS 😂 True....but, he has a point.
That's what makes him so interesting. He's ahead of the curve.
@@ML-qs3tf Spot on.
@@TheEternalOuroboros
He misrepresented his free speech start. He is just another reactionary when he goes out of the psychology field.
@@chokinonashes61 Outside of his professional field, he seems like a typical waterboy for the neoliberal globalist empire to me...not exactly what one thinks of as a "reactionary." He's generally going very much "with the Establishment flow" in most every area but free speech and his recognition of some of the (generally ignored, ridiculed, or minimized) existential problems bedeviling young men today.
One correction on a statement you made, Peterson’s book 12 Rules for Life is not a book for men. It’s for men, women, and anyone who wants to set their life in order. He’s always sure to make that point known. Thanks
Most of his audience is male but you're right, it's for everyone
I noticed that immediately as well.
Why would I want to live like him
I get what you're saying, and you're not wrong either, but the demographic that is the majority of his followers are young men. So to extrapolate that to say it's for men isn't entirely wrong. As at the very least, something he is doing is catering for men more than other groups and if there was a product that was used predominantly by men, even if it wasn't exclusively marketed towards them, we'd be inclined to perceive it as 'for men'
@@Guppyg53 your IQ is too small to resemble Dr Peterson so even if you did want to live like him you simply couldn't.
This is the best, most balanced critique I've seen on JP so far. Great to see a peer that is not afraid to be both critical and complimentary at the same time. This is rare and much appreciated for those of us trying to make sense of these difficult but important topics.
I’m sure Dr Grande would both dislike and appreciate a similar evaluation of himself, possibly from Dr. Peterson. I strongly believe Dr. Peterson could set aside his own evaluation and use his not insignificant insight and intelligence to make a very fair evaluation.
In both cases they would likely have errors, but at least they would be well reasoned and fair. (As fair and reasoned as we could hope).
@@john-paulsilke893
Love that idea!
Agree!
@@7LegSpiders I’m pretty sure Dr Peterson may have his feelings hurt, (he’s very sensitive) but he’s also a tough guy and has suffered far worse slings and arrows. And furthermore both of these men might learn more about themselves in such an endeavour then they would learn about each other. Unfortunately it may actually go over our heads unless they’d dumb it down, (I’m only peripherally knowledgeable on some of psychology as are most of the viewers/commenters so ideally they would keep it more mundane, which does risk slight inaccuracies for our sakes).
Difficult topics? The only reason the topics are difficult, is that you are trying to accommodate (and possibly obey) the leftist lunacy that is plaguing our culture.
I do believe that ends of relationships can be traumatic, depending on the relationships and how they end. I also think his philosophical theories are well-grounded in what he's read and that he's given Jung's work contemporary relevance. Maybe because I happen to be a lawyer, I do appreciate his logical reason. As a feminist, I was initially turned off to him because of things I'd gleaned from feminist media. I was wrong. When I actually began listening to his lectures and books, I found him to be informed, insightful and curiously open to new thinking, despite his adherence to the values of orderliness. Moreover, I find myself completely unoffended by his acknowledgment of the biological difference between men and women, and the inherent differences of physical, experiential and motivational aspects of gender that they entail. I think he's a genius, most of all, in his attempts to wed the benefits of order with the possible progress that can emerge from chaos.
Well said.
I couldn't have put it in better words. Completely agree with you.
Great take.
@ Sandra Young Hall Who are you talking about?
Very well said. I also appreciate your ability to admit when you are wrong. A rare trait in today's world. If you don't mind a question, do you still consider yourself to be a feminist after listening to Jordan Peterson or has that changed somewhat? Even if ever so slightly?
Basically what I got from this video is that he is really good at what he does but isn't perfect
... in contrast to how some may be positioning him (even he himself, at certain times and topics). Yes.
@constant change you are 😘
Who is?
In other words. Hes human and so far an ok person
Basically, what I got from your comment is that you're an over-simplistic fool!
His lectures are pretty fast forward, but I`ve recently seen some of his interviews and was blown away by such an engaged listener, so patient and supportive, and though suspicious at first, I now feel his motivational messages come from deep concern for changing the tragic human condition. A very fair and informed critique from dr.Grande
I don't know. At first I was captivated by Dr. P. Then, as I watched more and more lectures of his, I started to question his motiffs more and more often. When asked about certain topics, he seems to be deliberately disingenuine. Other times he ommits certain crucial facts or is incredibly uncharitable when speaking about his political opponents. I still attributed it all to his flawed human nature, but the deal-breaker was probably actually reading his work. It was far from what I expected it to be: unprofessional, sloppy and outright dumb at some points. I still appreciate the fact that he seems to be helping people (precisely young men), but other than that, I don't have much admiration for him.
I sooo agree Marijana! He is an exceptionally genuine and kind man. I pray for him often.
@@MrKosobi Your loss, IMHO.
Why are you imputing motives rather than considering the message?
@Rick Lane {{Citation needed|date=July 2020}}
:-(
@Rick Lane Really classy, "Lobsterson" doesn't detract from your supposed points at all, Rick Lame.
I see him as capable, yet fallible, artistic individual with above average intelligence, and an expert on some topics. BUT also not someone that has critically thought about some topics to the extent that he has with other topics, and rightfully so. So we should listen to him and consider his ideas on his field of expertise. You know, not treat him as a Messiah of all topics like some people seem to do.
I love Jordan Peterson because he made me think about some things from a different perspective. Hearing interesting advice about some things I've never considered can be intoxicating to me personally.
So in reality you're one of the people that has actually treated him as a Messiah of all topics considering what you said "I love Jordan Peterson because he made me think about some things from a different perspective. Hearing interesting advice about some things I've never considered can be intoxicating to me personally.
" You're one of those people that experiences something and then calls others out on that which you are also doing and makes it as if that's not something youre a part of but what's really going on here is you actually understand those people and have noticed that because you are one of those people.
@@Tolbat "You're one of those people that experiences something and then calls others out on that which you are also doing and makes it as if that's not something youre a part of but what's really going on here is you actually understand those people and have noticed that because you are one of those people"
lol yeah it's almost as if people can make mistakes through experience, learn from them, and then give reasonable advice to other people on how to have a more productive, realistic perspective. You know, the kind of thing that leads to improvement, unlike your comment which solely exists to smear and tear down people like an insecure douchebag
@@brandonrox10 Sure. Like when he said that Trump was smart.
@@andnowwevibe270 But he's not owning the fact he is one of those people, he is pretending he is not....yea real helpful...How about be honest so people can really relate to you and absorb your advice?
@@Tolbat There's literally no empirical or logically sound reason to assume the OP sees JP as an infallible genius on all topics. On no planet does 'He made me see some things from a different perspective' translate to 'I think he's right and well researched about everything'. You made a massive logical leap to get there, also known as an assumption. Can only imagine why
Secondly the OP made a recommendation of good form: to not just assume that everything someone says is true because they have a reputation as an intellectual. Your post is just pure ad hominem based on a nonsensical logical leap. More than likely you just needed your boost of narcissistic supply to make it through the day
I've heard many criticisms of Peterson, this is the first actual critique I've heard which seems to me to be well thought out and reasonable. My evaluation of someone like this always has me questioning intention, which of course is difficult to determine.
That said, I think Peterson has good intentions. He wants to help people. He gets very passionate whenever he feels someone is saying something that can be harmful and he fights back very intensely. This is one reason I think this about him. Thanks for your thoughts on him, very helpful.
Greetings from Finland. Having watched a number of Peterson's videos here and having wondered about these same questions, I found your eloquent and clear summary very useful!
“He seems like he’s high... in openness to opinions”. Lmao excellent pause.
@@andrewtaylor2430 this video seems to have been posted prior to Peterson’s drug abuse being common knowledge. But, if the creator didn’t make that pause deliberately, it was still a very apt pause.
Hahahahahaha
@@marialagattuta5438 he needs to clean the opiates out of his room
The pause wasnt long enough to justify this comment.
@@lukepatto4366 well, I didn’t time it... but it was certainly long enough to catch my notice.
Im very fond of Jordan Peterson's work, but Im always worried about not getting to attached to any one thinker, so Im always on the lookout for reasonable criticism. All the critique that I had found till now seemed to me to be either not very well informed or stemming from the need to defend a pre held beleif. This is the first reasonable and objective critique that Ive found, kudos for that! Suscribed!
He is a man, not a devil.
@@lucaswilhelmmeyer6943 if you like thinkers who don't defend pre-held beliefs, then maybe you should find a guy who doesn't believe in god or racial IQ science? Because those have been around for awhile, and they're definitely "beliefs," not facts based on the science.
@@d.m.collins1501
It’s not Nike Peterson had made a particularly big deal out of what his religious beliefs may be , and frankly it’s not like Athieism has proven immune to ideological preconceptions either.
And has he particularly “defended racial IQ science”? How?
Well you should see his talk with Sam Harris. That's very interesting
@@cainemangakahia4842 he hasn't defended racial IQ. He used the fact that if you see the people who come into the extreme ends of top IQ range, are dominated by Jews (statistics), and used that to make the point against equity.
Well, I found that chappie interesting until he said that there is no poor people in the United States. Such an outrageous lie took my respect from him. To be so immune to other peoples suffering and to brush their tragedies off so carelessly is just mindblowing. Anyone can say what they want about that person, I just dont want to hear anything related to him.
Some people have never been to skid row or under any bridge in any large city in the US.
@The Insatiably Curious Skeptic The poverty in the states is different, but it still exists. For example in certain parts of the US people freeze to death because of poverty, that is not something that you would see in the slums of Bombay India. The suffering is different but it is still there.
@The Insatiably Curious Skeptic No what he says is not true, there is poverty and poor in the US and people that die from impoverished conditions. However not all poverty or the poor in the US are entitled like you say, some are that way from genetic dispositions of low IQ, congenital disorders, inbreeding.
The thing that separates the US from India is that the US does not have a Cast system. If an individual in the US is born into poverty with a high IQ, they have opportunities to climb the ladder of education and become successful and get out of poverty. This foundation of education for all was laid down by the Calvanists since the New England colonies and is what makes the US unique.
This is almost the only fair critique of Peterson I've ever seen. Well-done.
I knoooowww
I'm not sure what the point of it was. Shouldn't it have been more of an analysis for a psychological understanding channel? I understand the Dr didn't want to go into specific details, but in doing so it didn't address some of the main critiques of Peterson, particularly on giving out "vacuous" self help advice and being the equivalent of a "Rorsach test" where wholly competing views can find their own meaning in what he says. Plus, Peterson's divisive sociological political views are kinda the point. Might have been better to do it, say, from a standpoint of - is this narcissistic behavior? Or something similar.
Anthony Miesel here’s a few other ones about his views on Marxism & Postmodernism. Really educational
ruclips.net/video/V2hhrUHSD6o/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/cU1LhcEh8Ms/видео.html
@mike gallimore Ya - any grandparent can give you that advice??? Prob say it better tho...
@mike gallimore ha ha😊... sassy comeback & I do appreciate your facetious parley, BUT... to expound on xyzz Doe's point which is the crux to your comment: 1) As a proclaimed "Self-Help" guru w/ books titled "Maps of Meaning" & "12 Rules..." the ire the Dr.'s ideas invoke in academic & intellectual circles is well deserved. His ideas: often hackneyed, using superfluous verbosity to exclaim the obvious. When Bill Maher exclaimed, "Why do I feel what this guy says is just common sense?" it's bc that's precisely his m.o. & that extends to almost all he spouts (esp. "Life advice") put under a scrutinous microscope. And the mental acrobats the reader (listener) has to perform to make sense of the Dr.'s long-winded, hifalutin proclamations leaves one (groupies) to acquiesce an undeserved appeal to authority. 2) Since the Dr. has been a constant critic of Marxist/Communist/Socialist philosophies to then flee to Russia in search of some rehab not available in the "post-modern" west is unabashedly hypocritical. Your anecdote about a fitness instructor is spot-on 👍(better than my ethical commitee politician recently found cheating analogy). His personal trails are inconsequential to his ideas & conclusions, (like dismissing Nietzsche due to his mental dissipation) & to hastily claim, "Well look how many people he's helped!" is an unwarranted appeal to emotion to the issues he's espousing. Taken on their own, his precepts & "Rules" (at face value) may seem wise, but held to any exegesis are found invalid & lacking integrity. ( Like advice to mimick the hierarchy of male lobsters? One may as well take Meine Kampf arguments about the master race seriously, ergo the Nazi comparisons among other radically conservative stances.) This can't be overstated enough esp. for someone called the "Intellectual of our Time" & who has been undeservedly crowned a "Messiah" in the Pscho/Self-help community. If there's any argument that we are not in the realm of the Bizarro - well here we are folks! And as far as our grandparents are concerned Mike G.😉, when they complain about the latest medication they've been prescribed, change the subject to one of the most meaningful events in their life & listen humbly.
I think this is a very fair critique of Mr Peterson. Well done Dr Grande.
hilarious
sorry to hear that you have lost the ability to think. "12 rules for life is rules for how young men should act" -clear bias before he even begins teh actual critique
@@immortalwombat10 ok
Why do you call him Mr.?
@@immortalwombat10 Peterson has said that the rules don't just apply to men but everyone. A list to become a better person. A guide to moral fortitude, and a foundation grounded in strong basic ethics
As a single mother of adolescent boys, Dr P has been invaluable to us.i love his realistic, yet uplifting approach. 😀
I hope your boys do not listen to his views on women in the workplace. He’s a sexist. Be careful.
@@_letstartariot good thanks for your opinion
@@_letstartariot He isn't but well....
@@_letstartariot no, he's not. You however probably are.
@@_letstartariot oh, yeah. I just posted about his views on women, in general
"Either I'm not smart enough to understand what he is saying, or some of them just don't make sense"... I am glad you said that! I too had the exact same thought. Given, his popularity, I assumed my inability to comprehend some of his thinking was likely be a flaw in my intellect too ... I think this actually made me more curious and willing to listen to what he had to say in hindsight. The goal was to understand this "great mind" ... then after a while I started to think he is sometimes more concernced with gaining attention and causing controversy rather than speaking the truth.
What's an example of something you have a hard time following? I have never felt this way listening to JP, but it certainly helps if you are a bit knowledgeable in the areas he's covering
@@tyson6857 I don't have a particular example off the top of my head as I haven't listened to him for a while. I do have a degree in Psychology and have continued to read and consume psychology content after graduating (basically over 20 years of interest/ study in a wide range of areas)... this isn't an "appeal to authority" this is just me saying I do have more knowledge in the area than most.
@@rc198028 JP draws parallels across a multitude of fields, so if one has gaps in their knowledge, for example in mythology, while JP very quickly connects and arranges different dots, it probably is understandable that one could get lost.
🐷 no he is merely a canary in a coalmine and brave for spreading truth
I am not sure Peterson aims to be ‘entertaining’ 😐 at all. His rambling style seems to be actually his natural thought process.
A lot of people ‘gets’ him. A lot of people don’t.
Peterson is quite the fan of Carl Jung, and among the things Jung has talked about are "archetypes" which are basically images and motifs Jung thought were some sort of innate knowledge all humans have in some form such as the archetype of the hero or the father, etc. This is particularly relevant for storytelling, and Peterson has said he does aim to tell stories and keep people interested. From there I would say he does intend to be entertaining in the sense of keeping attention on him when he's trying to convey whatever thoughts he has.
@@jackalopegaming4948 i think that everyone that is teaching something should aim to be entretaining, without detriement of the knowleadge itself of course
Yes he does, he admitted such to Russel Brand
Sometimes people associate the word ‘entertaining’ to evoking extreme emotions or reactions or to performing clownish acts. I think Peterson’s style evokes curiosity and thought. I think he’s entertaining in that manner.
@@jackalopegaming4948 to further that, a lot of the theorised interpretations of archetypes focus on how an archetype (Great Father, Anima/Animus, etc) can be of merit for humans in explaining. Peterson follows Jung to a high degree, so I feel he takes influence from Jung in this sense. He isn't afraid to enter the realm of storytelling in an educational setting because he sees the utulity in it from a Jungian theoretical standpoint.
So happy to have both of you accessible on RUclips. I have learned a lot from both you and Dr Peterson. This was fun to watch.
Me and my gf found his book very useful in our lives. We may have been both not been living our best lives, I think that's who he appeals too most. The forgotten people of this world.
Summary
+ A good debater: he's polite and listens carefully and generously to the views of his conversation partners. He's speaks articulately, precisely and deliberately. He doesn't let people put words in his mouth.
+ He's intelligent and productive and has thought very deeply about his opinions and conclusions.
+ His mix of subject areas makes him interesting and knowledgeable.
+ His conclusions are interesting and engaging.
- Many academics consider his 12 rules to be "simplistic and obvious."
- He often "moves a little too far beyond" what his evidence supports when making a conclusion. He arrives at those stretched conclusions via experience and personal opinion without explicitly stating he's doing so, giving him an undeserved air of validity. The example given is a time he gave a conclusion that defied an accepted medical definition without explicitly stating he was doing so.
- Some of his lectures, especially some philosophy ones, are too abstract and removed from his source literature to make sense or to have a coherent meaning.
- He is hard to follow.
- He rarely makes it clear when he is crossing the line between philosophy (opinion) and science.
Unsubstantiated criticisms
1. He has rude mannerisms: Todd thinks that's just his deliberate and attentive style.
2. He is unqualified to speak about politics: no one should be barred from political discussion, and JP backs up his views with subjects he is well versed on.
3. He's "ambiguous, murky, and unfocused.": Todd believes this is a product of his multiple subject areas. Though I'm personally not convinced it provides an excuse for it.
Very good and interesting summary, thank you.
thats one grip I've had with listening to JP he seemed to be a bit vague or beat about the bush somewhat, maybe I'm being ignorant but its just how I feel.
Why are you passing off your personal opinions as a 'summary'?
Please deconflate and repost.
@@Jorpando Anything that attempts to bridge academic philosophy and/or psychology and everyday life application and experience, will be criticised from both sides.
In my opinion, the clear pros outweigh the incredibly meticulous negative points
can you make an analysis of Oprah Winfrey? I mean PLEASE!!
Smiles
'A money making' MACHINE... :(
Chris Creaser misspelt sellout
A self centered narcissist
A grandiose nutjob who pushes snake oil salesmen through her show....who made a career turning suburban white women dumber and ended up being a 'Black Icon'. Okay she had to wear a sack to school and thats terrible but throughout her adult life she mostly distanced herself from pressing issues most black people in her country faced. She and her crew of quacks have to be taken off the pedestal
Bravo! Someone that is capable of a RESPECTFUL critique. Well done.
Meine Meinung du Falafel You’re right! Critique doesn’t have to be respectful, nice, politically or socially correct. Absolutely! Every other critique of Peterson’s work seems to be driven by ideological nonsense. I simply pointed out that this guy did not do that and what he did do, he did with class. So what point are you trying to make?
Hopefully Peterson never comes back to a world stage. He doesn't deserve a platform.
09BiGDylan He doesn’t deserve a platform? Can you explain why that is? Or is it simply that you are intimidated by someone who has opposing views to your own?
I am an orthodox Muslim with a BPD wife and I admire both of you.
@@09BiGDylan you don't get a "platform" because you deserve it, but instead because someone/somewhere wants to hear what you have to say. Your use of "deserve" implies you need permission, and in your case permission from a social Marxist and all that entails.
I thought that was a very fair and balanced overview of JP. I could watch him all day long! He’s taught me a lot by modelling HOW to think, not WHAT to think. It’s the mental process clear of emotion. Yet I get the impression he’s a very ethical and empathetic person too. Nice work Dr G!
Yess exactly, people who actually want to develop teach others how to filter and discuss what the good ideas are, not necessarily centered on what they think is best
Jordan Peterson seems to be much better when he's telling people how to think rather than what to think. Any one person will be filled with opinions that are right and wrong, and you shouldn't choose any one person to copy the beliefs of. Some of his beliefs are rather odd, controversial, and in my view, untrue, but a lot of what he teaches about how to go about forming beliefs is very wise.
The fact that his advice regarding how to think has actually led me to disagreeing with him goes to show that it really was good advice - instead of teaching us to think in a way that would make us automically agree with him, he wanted us to think for ourselves.
When I started with Jordan Peterson I was quite a fan. I genuinely have him to thank for improving my way of thinking and becoming more critical. Despite that, nowadays, I take him with a grain of salt. Again, he really is at his best when he's telling people how to think rather than what to think.
Peterson wants to be “Jung again.”
Looool
Well said!!
That sounds right if read in an Irish dialect.
🤣
Lou Alcaraz: but he's guilty of mass-Freud.
Honestly, his words did kickstart me improving my life. I wouldn't ever suggest putting your faith in a single person, though, and his behavior since in the political sphere is concerning and disappointing, especially considering how kind he comes off as.
I do feel you missed a very vital positive. Temperment. The ability to stay calm in some of the appearances where others have a very clear disdain or agenda is consistent and lends credence to be mindful of what you say.
So, what you’re saying is he doesn’t crumble under unintelligent interrogation?
And you believe that Jordan Peterson doesn't have an agenda?
@@jnagarya519 What agenda do you suppose that he has?
I agree, perhaps that is one of his greatest qualities: I wish I was at that level.
You don't know what all those words mean, do you @robert williams? Ironically, what you said brought my
mindful consideration to the idea of quality over quantity in language ( yours, because my temperament is what clinicians describe as "bitchy," and "logorrheic in occasional explosive bouts." Some of the pressure has been released, credible sources report.
What I love about Todd is that he’s always straightforward, honest and candid. There’s no nonsense with him.
That is Dr. Grande to you ;)
Deliberate.
We'll see.
Todd
There is some nonsense. An acceptable amount. He got jokes lol
Peterson speaks common sense, but in a time where common sense and reason are rare or even shunned, he sounds like a wise philosopher. Nothing Peterson has said I've found to be profound or life changing. He hasn't said anything I haven't read or heard before. He's not a bad guy, but I think he gets heaped with more praise than he likely deserves.
well here's the thing, everyone nowadays is being raised on false premises and rigid ideologies. they might feel like common or basic ideas but sometimes thats just what one need to really move foward. a reminder of basic, common sense truths. just like any boxer would say, you can't box on a high level if you didn't master the basics and you can't remain a high level boxer if you do not practice the basics on a daily basis. in that way, i believe that his carrying of these simple truths on the scale that he's doing it right now is deserving of some level of praise!
WAY MORE! I think he appeals to sexism, stereotyping, feeling jealous of people who are smarter, or better educated, or more popular or successful.
@@Mephistozenith Excuse me, but when you make a sweeping generalization like that, you are necessarily wrong. These are the kinds of things that can hinder communication with different generations. I'm very happy to be able to say l have pretty good communication with both my daughter and my grandchildren. I don't tell them what they're supposed to think.
@@AlicedeTocqueville jeez gurl calm down i don't even know you
@@Mephistozenith EEEK! What did I say?
If the relationship that ended was particularly abusive, one could indeed be leaving it with a case of PTSD.
Lynnie Lew I think so too.
@Hugh mungous Dildeaux yup, and said bad relationship may well be the reason for the breakup. Thus, as JP said, some people who have broken a relationship may have PTSD. That was my initial understanding when he said that.
I have no desire to offend, but I wonder what experience you have with people who are effected by PTSD? I was diagnosed with it ( combat vet ) and have found a lot of people have lose definitions of what the disorder is.
@@wotmot223 I have been diagnosed with both "regular" PTSD and Complex PTSD. Struggled with it for decades.
@@lylew7 Then you come from a place of understanding, I respect that. And for what it is worth I extend my best wishes and prayers to you.
“In one of his books he has 12 rules”
No free clout 😂😂
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu he taught hate? No way. He's far too understanding for that. White what? I'm brown and i have never seen that. Since you bring up race, what race are you?
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu If Dr. Peterson was a "white supremacist" why would he spend so much of his professional life warning people against those kinds of ideologies and the thinking that leads to them? Seems pretty counterproductive.
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu Lolololol you blind ideologue 😂 I'd ask for proof of any of these claims but I know you don't have any. Chances are you're just a left wing ideologue who assumes any logical/reasonable criticism of the left makes you a white supremacist when that makes you ironically as bigoted as the Nazis were. The man has said more than once he considers himself a centralist, he has said more than once that he despises the alt-right and that they despise him.. But that's not enough to convince you right? Doesn't fit your narrative.. I welcome you to prove me wrong
@Hana Ayo Alemayehu we should arrange our lives to mirror the lobster
LMFAOO
You both stimulate deeper thoughts within me & give me tools that can make me a better person and I feel blessed by that. It's too easy these days to say "if they can why can't I" mentality and at the end of the day you find that you like yourself so much less.
I hope you both continue with this free content you give us to make us all better people ❤️💯👍🏻
I greatly appreciate Dr. Grande's content, it's rational and objectively analytical. So many arguments I see today, both sides are perfectly valid and offer insight, but you're expected to pick one emotional and political extreme or the other, and view the world in black and white. It's frustrating, things tend to land somewhere in the gray area in between, and people attatch too much of their own individual identity to every opinion and idea that they have, and feel defensive and attacked by anyone who disagrees. It's increasingly rare and refreshing to hear basically a reasonable compromise regarding emotionally charged subjects and figures.
Jordan Peterson is a perfect example. Though I think I'd find myself agreeing with a lot of his viewpoints, I haven't seeked his material out, and only know him based on what others have said. But it's my understanding that he doesn't align himself with a certain political movement or idealogy, rather it's been applied to him after the fact. So now you have one side that views him as a cornerstone representative of their beliefs, and another side that automatically discredits or invalidates anything he says, while if it came from someone else, they'd most likely be in total agreement.
Unfortunately, given the nature of his videos, and having a more neutral character than someone like JP, this type of content won't ever find the same popularity. But know that it's still appreciated by someone! 👍
One danger area for smart people is that some of them may tend to overestimate how smart they are. This is understandable, as they are often the smartest person in the room. But they're not _always_ the smartest person in the room.
Thank goodness!!
Smart people tend to know their limits...
Jordan Peterson is just some dude who sells self-help books to a demographic that used to be reluctant to buy them...
I think dumber people more often overestimate :p
@@u1rtc7t5f64t157856v8 I think you need to research Jordan Peterson a little more. He's not just some "dude".
@@u1rtc7t5f64t157856v8 You're absolutely clueless to say such a thing -- absolutely clueless, beyond ignorant -- more like a threat to the gene pool.
I’m fascinated with this.. I typically agree with your evaluations and I have been binge watching for a while now..
I never heard of this man until recently on the YT shorts.. and I was absolutely CONFLICTED on how I felt about him.. initially I was totally on board with what I saw, but… after I saw several more clips… I was definitely brought back a step..
I’m really appreciating having your perspective on his material and output..
It’s a disservice to yourself to not watch his long form discussions. Snippets here and there do not do the man justice. Watch his Dr. Oz interview, compelling stuff with an interviewer that I figured would be a detractor initially. His interview with Russel Brand is also interesting, as they aren’t necessarily of the same opinion but the discussion is productive regardless. Dr. Peterson is a “liberal” by the classic definition, which turns off a lot of those that consider themselves “liberal” but don’t really know what that means.
Can you provide examples of what conflicting things you saw?
He's a dear fellow. Good heart. He doesn't fawn nor pretend to be nice, but that's what makes him a good man, not a _nice_ one. Honest and stout.
Follow your own instincts on J. Peterson
@@absolince I was instinctively a bit bored.
More than I learn about JP, I learned and appreciated how Dr G calmly, brilliantly, and fairly analyzed/critiqued JP. Too rare.
This was a fair, reasonable and accurate summary of Dr. Peterson. I am a huge fan of his, even though I don't always agree with some of his ideas and sources. I have been watching your stuff recently, and so far am quite impressed with your take on various topics and people.
I look at Jordan Peterson the way I kind of look at Joseph Campbell's relation to the power of myth. Both highly intellectual peoplewho try to put their entire philosophy under one umbrella of cohesive thought so to speak.because of the high intellectualism, they can manage to do this. It can be confusing sometimes. But I kind of like it. But then again, who the hell am I?
This channel deserves an award for content. 💯💯💯
Agreed
I found that Jordan Peterson has consistently provided meaningful paths in the forests of ambiguity. I think your unique, lucid take on his wanderings has a refreshing outlook that invites different ways to see them. Thanks
His willingness to have live debates with people who have an apparent desire to discredit him is stupendous. The fact he tends to come out unscathed is amazing to me.
So true
Maybe it's because he is able to decorate them with rarely used but beautiful sounded vocabularies, and avoid answering yes/no questions directly.
"Does he believe in god?", looked.for his videos, he never directly answer this, not even with "I'm not sure".
@@williampan29 I agree that he has a an excellent command of the lexicon, however he is very precise in his speech and generally uses the words that correctly defines the subject matter. Words are often nuanced in a way the words such say for instance dog, or pet, or even canine might reflect different ideas depending on context.
@mohammed mohiuddin he tries to follow them, also for a guy who dislikes him you certainly talk like him
@mohammed mohiuddin can you present evidence that he ever accepted an interview with him?
I don't necessarily agree a 100% with you, but I also love the fact that your points are so nuanced and qualified. I can't feel anything but respect for the way you analyze his work.
I find myself, simply, unprepared for Peterson's lectures especially with not knowing world history nearly as well as he does. With being a doctoral level psychotherapist and social scientist I can keep up with his mental health input but his social perspective and understanding on how history repeats itself is beyond phenomenal... I believe having a knowledge of history is pivotal in understanding his presentations
As someone with a PhD in history, I don't find his command of the subject very strong - although I haven't seen a great deal of his content. Similar to Todd's assessment of his use of Jung, to me Peterson seems to use history more as a rhetorical tool, rather than being too concerned with historical evidence. But, his books sell better than mine, so what do I know :'D
@@cuttingbored4195 you don't have you tube videos so your books aren't out for the general public to see
@@cuttingbored4195 is it possible to know a lot about history, yet lack the ability to apply lessons from the past to today's cultural decline?
Is it possible that Dr Peterson knows enough history facts to be able to draw useful conclusions to be applied to today's pressing issues.
Thank you for your fair and reasonable analysis of Jordan Peterson and criticisms surrounding him. I'm so glad you objectively viewed him without a certain bias. We need more therapists and thinkers like you.
Depends on what is meant by “relationship failure”. A relationship can break up because one or each grow apart.
But, a relationship can break up due to control: extreme emotional &/or physical/psychological abuse......and in that example,
I believe some /male and or female/ can and do , suffer PTSD.
It is entirely valid that someone would develop PTSD from a failed relationship. As JP would say: "The Devil is in the details."
Exactly right Paulina
You're right! Although Dr. Grande is correct, that the DSM has a strict definition that excludes emotional/psychological abuse and includes only physical (or the threat of it).....it also includes as the definition all of the symptoms that can arise, and definitely they all can happen from emotional trauma, including from relationship breakdown.
Breakups specifically do not cause PTSD, but the trauma within them, if they are an imminent threat to your life/wellbeing, can in fact cause PTSD. So yes it is a diagnostic overreach
What a relief! I was beginning to think JP was perfect - such a comfort to know he is only human like the rest of us. Joking aside this is a pretty good video so well done 👍
Nobody is perfect and to put someone on a pedestal just setting him and his fans for a dissapointment. It was heartbreaking when he came out with fighting drug addiction. I really loved that his followers were supportive.
@@SynnJynn It is not good to put anyone on a high pedestal and Jordan Peterson actually always encourages humility.
But it wasn't intentional drug addiction. So it wasn't very disappointing, but very sad indeed.
He was put on a very potent anti-anxiety medication to help cope with his emotions regarding his wife's deteriorating health.
He then experienced withdrawal symptoms (not drug addiction) when the doctors stopped his medications.
He loves his wife so much that he was anxious and feared for her health. Both he and his wife are making great recovery so far.
@@Selu2023 The way he defensively and angrily responds to criticism suggests he has a high opinion of himself. The opposite of humility!
How could anyone watch JP and think he's perfect?
That's worrying, frankly!
@@mdaddy775 Well he doesn’t get angry about criticisms. He gets super annoyed when people try to trap him putting words in his mouth and completely twisting everything he says to try and make him out to be the bad guy they imagine he is.
You sound exactly like those people 😂😂 Why wouldn’t anyone get mad at being purposefully defamed and taken out of context all the time 🤦♂️
I always appreciate Dr Grande's thoughtful analyses. I personally like Dr Peterson very much(I am a physician, so I support Dr Grande's observation!). I wonder if Dr Grande would consider another video discussion of Dr Peterson in regards to his anxiety disorder and clonazepam dependence.
I also would appreciate a video discussion about Dr. Peterson’s anxiety disorder. I also enjoy Dr.Peterson. I am a social worker.
I think he is hyperactive. He seems to be anxious all the time. I believe his brain moves faster than he can talk. I do find his opinions are too rigid and I am not sure if it's really science. I am glad that he has recovered from his medication problems.
This would have been more interesting than what appeared to be Dr. Grande remarking how intelligent Peterson was over and over again.
@@gentleeyes Don't be fooled - there is a good reason why Dr. Grande kept repeating that point. You have to be smart to understand that there are people smarter than you. Its a strange paradox that is documented by the Dunning-Kruger Effect (Google it). Peterson's IQ is at least 4 - and possibly 5 standard deviation's above the rest of us. That is essentially Einstein territory. I dont agree with everything Peterson says, but I have no doubt about his towering intellect.
Yes, please. That would be amazing
Mr. Grande, I hope you will always make sound and balanced critiques about people as you have done so far, without getting into fame trap many people have fallen. Have a healthy life. Thanks for your efforts.
Sorry. Dr Grande's critique of Peterson merely provides the semblance of being fair and balanced. It fails to be fair or balanced because it fails to engage with Peterson's atrocious standards of evidence (as exampled by his citation of Facebooks purported list of 70 different gender varieties, when the list contained potential identifications by gender or sexuality, and where those which were gender specific contained multiple repeats in the forms of variant spellings, capitalizations, abbreviations, and synonyms so that the actual number of gender identifications on the list was about five).
@@tom_curtis However, Dr. Grande did specifically say that Jordan Peterson had produced a very large body of work, on a variety of topics. He did reference some negatives/criticisms regarding his expressions of clarity between evidence and opinion. He was not attempting to drill down on any one particular subject that Jordan Peterson had lectured on...that would take days.
@@tracylove3937, the relationship between evidence and opinion in some of Jordan Peterson's work is similar to that found among flat earthers. Worse, it is the opinions in which the evidence is so lacking for which Peterson is most famous; and which are his most influential opinions. A fair and balanced critique of Jordan Peterson would make those issues central, while acknowledging his genuine expertise in psychology.
He’s a mixed bag for me. He doesn’t always get it right, but he does offer young people a lot of useful advice that works. His book 12 rules of life helped me a lot. He is like a father figure to those who didn’t have one.
"father figure" is an outdated concept. Humans can be taught raised by anyone. The sperm donor is not THAT important.
Compare it to the bible. Strikingly similar
I agree. Especially since he is mostly talking about stuff he understands. He gets that right. But he also talked about the NS dictatorship in Germany once. He made so many mistakes do to not knowing things. I really like his attribute towards honesty though. I somewhat modefied that and try to only speak the truth, beinv humble whenever I am wrong and never let anyone who is in my environment klaim false information as valide.
@@SinMore no,fathers are extremely important,even more now than before
@@Србомбоница86 true! I suffered from being a fatherless person.
He seems open to criticism and willing to take on difficult subjects. He gives unpopular opinions and has made himself a common target of those who think otherwise. I appreciate his integrity and wich more people shared his courage.
@dan saint amour l don't see any instances of his being open to criticism. But he certainly INVITES criticism. I personally think he does it on purpose, and that's not all wrong. We need to discuss the things that roil the tides of thought. But he's certainly aware by now that when he says something controversial, especially on gender issues, that a lot of people who have no education at all find validation and comfort in their sexism and racism from what he says. Read the responses to his little snippets and you'll see.
Lies are often unpopular
Quality critique. I have listend to another critique a while ago about Petsron where the personal bias was showing at every other sentence. This is fair and balanced and definitely gets a thumbs up from me.
Are you sure you know how to listen? Or how to think? Are you sure you're not just having knee-jerk responses without any thinking or education being involved when you consume with someone's claim that something Peterson is saying is "personal bias" -- maybe he has an authoritative command of science and facts that you have no concept whatsoever about. A lot of people not only don't how to listen these days, they don't how to think either. You might think I am slinging around negativity saying that, but I know to assess those two aspects of a person's speaking or writing. Based on your statement, I entirely doubt you have if you have much ability at all to listen or think. It is EXTREMELY unlikely you can match Peterson's intelligence, depth and width of education, depth of thought, and depth of experience in life. And he is famously careful about what he says, so you might be missing an opportunity to learn a lot from him. I would wonder if that sort of missing of opportunities to learn doesn't sum up your life and mind to date.
@@vancouverterry9142 I think that you misunderstood what PresidentScrooge was saying. He was talking about the person who was critiquing Peterson having personal biases not Peterson himself.
@@alexscott1257 I think your reading comprehension is below high school standards, at least the high school standards of my day. Any competent grade 8 or 9 reader in my day would realize that my words are clearly saying that the critique PresidentScrooge is saying IS "fair and balanced" (i.e., the critique by Grande) is NOT fair and balanced. I also say that if PresidentScrooge doesn't understand Peterson's work well enough to realize that Grande's critique is NOT fair and balanced then he, PresidentScrooge, isn't up to understanding Peterson, Peterson is over Scrooge's head, etc., etc., as I go to say. The tones of annoyance you see are based on my reaction to anyone thinking that Grande's critique here is "fair and balanced" in this particular review-- to my mind, the critique isn't, and any endorsement of it is, essentially, by necessary implication, an affront to Peterson's work, which deserves a lot more serious consideration and a lot more respect than Grande is deigning to give it here. You should take stock of the extent you have misunderstood rather clear statements and wonder how much you misunderstand things that you think you understand. There's an epidemic of incompetent listening and incompetent "thinking" among the younger generations. Spend some time reading long, multi-clause statements of progressive or probative reasoning such as philosophy, law, or some areas of math and science that are presented in text (as opposed to mathematical symbols) and perhaps you can get yourself out of the haze-thinking syndrome sooooooooo many younger people are in. Trust me, it's REALLY BAD, Man, and you don't want to be part of it. I do appreciate that your motivation seems to have been to clarify things for me, and that you weren't laying into me with any kind of hostility, whatsoever, etc., and in that, I SALUTE your intention to be fair and establish rationality to the dialogue, although it's taken things in an unexpected direction vis-a-vis where you're coming from. If you can tolerate my thorniness, the silver lining in all this is a good wake-up call to you. I am too old to get any particular jollies from calling younger people out -- I come across as thorny many a time, but I am usually just trying to wake up intellectually-incompetent individuals with the hope that the wake-up call will also wake up others. Sure, when people lay into me, or make unwarranted insults to others, I often respond in kind, sometimes savagely, but that too is ultimately an attempt to wake folks up. I simply don't how the younger intellectually-incompetent generations can be woken up other than having the bubble of haze they're living in popped with some sharp points. Better folk than I might be able to do it with some deft, compassionate magic touch, and, if so, I admit my limitations and defects in comparison. There's quite a problem now in modern society in that there is so much sloppy, sloppy, sloppy and under-educated thinking around that to do anything OTHER THAN pop the haze-filled bubbles younger people in the West are living in, there's no way to correct them. If you can get yourself into the game and do it better than I can, I will also salute you in that. Thank you for the original intention of your comment to me.
@@vancouverterry9142 Don't go away mad, just go away
@@rowdy7480 Oh my, such a comment from AB C ! Is that how you run your life and raise your kids, rather than going to school yourself or educating them?
Jordan Peterson is absolutely amazing. Some people probably have a hard time following him but you have to understand that he messed up college level lecturer so you almost do need at least a higher than average vocabulary and idea of concepts to understand him. But I find them to be amazing, even if I have to stop and re listen to what he said because what he says is so impactful and deep that it's like eating thick bread without milk sometimes
At times, that's what happens when you listen to a college graduate level work in any field of study. Listen (or read) more than once is what I tell my gifted high school students while studying Physics.
Great. Very unbiased and generalised. Not cherry picked
Peterson is a crook and a mountebank out for money of gullible young men.
Jordan Peterson had a huge positive impact in my life. Some of his lectures are over my head. It’s the same when I read Nietzsche.
I am a huge fan of Jordan...That should never mean someone just blindly believes or cant accept criticism.
I totally agree when someone says Jordan can be all over the place...But I also know Jordan is aware of this.
Many lectures he will flat out start talking and mention he is trying to figure something out on the spot...followed by speaking to those in attendance with his line of thinking and coming up with an answer.
I don't think anyone hasn't run into a problem where there line of thinking isn't jumping around trying to make the puzzle fit together....Part of the problem solving I know I at least personally use at times...Come out of left field etc and every once in a while gain some real incite from it.
In the end, negatives and positives, what matters to me most is he obviously cares and wants others to do better....That is the most important thing Imo.
Good video, not really much bad to say about him...if you are staying away from Politics...I will say that as far as the Fellow academics criticize him part....I personally think most (NOT ALL) of much of that is because those same academics criticizing him to the point of going overboard, are also on the opposite side of his political stance....Meaning they look for anything to take a stab...You said it yourself in a round about way...People try and TRAP HIM....WHY???
If he was flat out wrong then there would be no need for any traps....
And I have seen his IQ mentioned but only in response to someone asking him what it is....Not sure why people have an issue with it...Like you said, looking at his body of work etc...It falls in line with an IQ in that range.
I feel it is only contested by those who don't like him cause...reasons??
Act like the guy can only comprehend mopping floors lol
Appreciate your video.
His politics are centrist so it's funny you say academics are on the opposite side, but I understand what you mean. As a lifelong conservative, he has actually pulled me a bit to the left. His deep fusion of scientific insights into human nature combined with a healthy respect for many key insights rooted in the Judeo-Christian world view is extremely relevant to many people on a personal level. I hope he gets well soon.
I would like to say that I believe a failed relationship can cause PTSD. I had a long and serious relationship end very badly and it took a decade to get over it. It impacted everything in my life and changed me as a person.
Yes that’s true. Infidelity also. I was recently diagnosed with CPTSD, and part of my trauma was from infidelity in my intimate relationships. I would still have nightmares about them over a decade later.
Is your condition not serious unless you have the ticket for the PTSD club? Since time immemorial breakups, cheating, and the like have caused that sort of issue. It really doesn't need to be compared to an extreme condition like PTSD.
@D4 C the idea is that just because something doesn’t fit into the definition of the DSM it doesn’t mean it’s untrue or that it doesn’t exist. As we know, things are still progressing and being changes so even what we now “know” in psychology is not absolute. That’s my opinion. It might not be official, but unofficially people might still display certain symptoms from situations that are not directly being recognized by science (yet). And yeah, the problem is, no, your problem isn’t serious enough in other people’s view unless they have a name and diagnosis. Same with medical staff or psychologists. A therapist once compared my problems with someone else’s saying “but they have serious issues, not like you” and I instantly lost trust in her because I still didn’t know “what” my problems were but all I knew was that they affected and continue to greatly negatively impact my day to day life. I’m still struggling by myself having to hide when that “something” begins to manifest. It might be mood related, or a personality related, but I don’t know. Because I don’t have capable and qualified people to tell me what’s happening. Yet it’s not being acknowledged by the people that are supposed to help people like me. So yeah. There you have it. You have to deal with it by yourself in that situation. See what the problem is here? Sometimes you have to go on a limb and treat patients that don’t necessarily fit the mould in the ways that the mould would indicate and see if the treatment works for them anyway.
It potentially could cause PTSD but the point is that it is not a criteria in the DSM. As a clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson would be acting irresponsibly and unethically if he started creating his own criteria for mental illness. He could, if he chose to, conduct the research required to challenge the existing criteria.
Yeah that's called CPTSD
JP is extremely knowledgeable without question and I do not discredit his intelligence. I am fairly simple and feel sometimes these perceived brilliant individuals can just be 'to smart for his own good" He handles keeping within his wheelhouse of expertise but when elaborating philosophical and or theoretical hypothesis can be a bit grandiose and his abilities in his own mind are beyond the scope of reality and it is very controversial. Then again this is an excellent way to stir the pot and provoke interesting and engaging conversations or debates. In conclusion, he is a very talented, intelligent and envelope pushing style that is intentional for the attention and recognition that will acquire the respect, approval and acceptance of his colleagues and even his critics. Basically, it sells. His approach is effective in what I think his goals are and how to achieve them regardless of outside support or critique. Overall, a very talented, insightful, and articulate with the addition of going above and beyond what he is actually capable of doing. Although it can be very convincing to many. Definitely a profound figure in his areas of expertise. I respect the man. I will just say I give him credit cause it is due to him. Right or wrong, we all are and that is no exception with JP. With that I personally cut the man some slack.
This was a very fair breakdown of Dr. Peterson in the most general sense and I enjoyed hearing your honest opinions and found them to be presented extremely reasonably.
Hey, Dr. Grande! Now please review Slavoj Zizek, but before April 19, and we will get the full set of reviews before their debate in Toronto. Zizek must be easy to review for a psychologist!
That is such a great idea! Thumbs up from me.
Another here who is interested in a critique of Slavoj Zizek :)
That sounds interesting
Ahh Žižek, from my tiny country! Proud. :)
@@Jasmian And quite justifiably so. I like Zizek, even though I am far from being a Marxist. He is just a real person, smart, and not a bulshitter (the latter quality is very valuable and very rare these days). BTW, I am a compatriot of Peterson, but I will keep an open mind in regards to their upcoming debate.
Peterson comes across to me as an intellectualised life coach.
There are millions of young men/ late teens who haven’t had an effective father figure or any father at all. Peterson has become a kind of ‘ Daddy ‘
substitute for guys who’ve reached a crossroads in life and crave a classic authority figure from the 1950s . With this in mind, it’s hard to deny the assertion that years of liberalism that took over from right wing conservative family values may be the root cause of a lot of teenage angst . Couple this with Peterson’s pragmatic approach to life, and you have a ready made audience to tap into. He’s a classic ‘ Daddy ‘ , the only thing missing is a tweed suit and a pipe !
@@stechriswillgil3686 I wouldn't like to be a young person today. The world was daunting enough when I was young. I wouldn't regard Peterson in having solutions though.
Clinical Psychologist - a life coach who knows what they're doing.
@@darthkek1953 Life coach who spent the last year in European hospitals and barely made while pretending to be a philosopher. WTF is that!?!?!
@@mahmomahmic9603 clinical psychologist who had a withdrawal reaction to proscribed medication is what.
The best thing about Jordan Peterson is that he has original, well reasoned, and well intentioned thought. He will explain and defend his stance so long as he thinks it’s reasonable.
I think he has identified that people need simplistic truths to live by in order to live, fulfilling, purposeful lives.
I think academia doesn’t like him generally, because he’s a threat to their general narrative. He’s a well-educated, well spoken, and seemingly authentic human being at a time when being both an authentic and good person is increasingly rare.
He explains his thought pattern as to why phenomenon are occurring and proposes solutions that makes sense to him.
I honestly believe that people hate him because he speaks that if you are downtrodden, you should empower yourself, and because he left it open ended as to who would be downtrodden, a bunch of young men who have been told they are toxic and patriarchal, and generally evil and privileged just by their existence, have gravitated towards him, and found truth and help in his words.
Everybody else seems to have messages of empowerment in society right now, and he stands against the grain and speaks the truth he has experienced.
Excelent review! You made a grate job staying in a quite objective perspective on such a character as Peterson. Your analysis are precise as Jordan's speech!
Thank you so much :)
@@DrGrande Thanks to you!
regards from Argentina Dr. Grande!
A Sin Verba en Argentina -- que buena observacion sobre la precision del lenguage de Dr. Grande tal como Dr. Peterson.... One of the many reasons I appreciate them both so much! From the "it takes one to know one" file.... [To borrow your disclaimer, I have never met Dr. P, so this is a long-distance reflection....] I don't think you (Dr. G) are "not smart enough" to understand JP (my text abbreviation -- we're not really on a nickname basis! 😄 ). However, there are folks whose brains have a particular kind of wiring or chemistry (or a combination -- no one really knows the full explanation) that inclines them to make lots of intuitive leaps -- to see connections among things that others perceive as unrelated. (Think John Nash's bulletin board in "A Beautiful Mind"....) If we do this within a certain limited range (and can manage the more difficult quirks of wiring/chemistry well enough to communicate effectively about our observations), the world chants -- "Genius!" (As it does with someone like Einstein -- whose personal struggles are less-known than his "thought experiments", and as it eventually did with Nash, once he made it back from his crisis into "the zone".) If we struggle with baseline functioning or communication too much to convey our useful insights (or if our wiring/ chemistry are so far off-center that our observations are not useful to others), the world clicks its collective tongue and calls the psych hospital! Most people's brains don't spend as much time in this "zone" as JP. (I suspect mine is of a similar type, which may be why I follow him easily through the weeds & often find him expressing "bizarre" thoughts I have had myself! 😊 ) It is my suspicion that IQ -- at least, as measurable by test performance -- is only somewhat related to this kind of brain function, and my personal experience is that it actually robs us of fluency in other (more practical!) areas. No one is good at everything, indeed. Some people, though, are better at connecting many things than at delving deeply into one -- I wonder whether JP may be more the former and yourself the latter - ? Thank God for you both -- the old proverb has wisdom: "It takes all kinds [to make a world]...."
@Elham A Agreed!
@@DrGrande
We love how you think, Dr. Grande!
Dr. Grande very gently says that Peterson often doesn't make sense. He gives Peterson an out by saying it could be because Dr. Grande is not smart enough to grasp the nonsensical lectures. This would beg the question that if someone as sharp as Grande finds the lectures nonsensical who the heck are they for? Around the 13:55 mark he notes a common criticism is that Peterson is "ambiguous, murky, and unfocused", which supports the original assertion. Somehow Grande doesn't make that connection and calls the criticism unfounded, despite that often being his personal experience as well.
Great video! I’d love to see you do more videos on popular psychologists. Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, Gad Sadd or Robert Sapolsky to name a few.
Daniel Miller ooh a Gad Sadd or Steven Pinker one would be brilliant!
i don't think all of those guys are psychologists....
I’m so glad you treated Jordan Peterson fairly in your review. He’s one of my favorite people on RUclips. The way he talks about personal responsibility and morality reminds me of Scott Peck, another one of my favorites from back in the day.
Roadless Traveled
@@sandracmyers Yes, Peck wrote The Road Less Travelled. It has been a favorite of mine for many years. And some of Jordan Peterson’s writing and speaking reminds me of some of the things Scott Peck had to say.
Personal responsibility? Like when Peterson lies about his opiate and benzo addiction and has to go to Russia to have himself put into an extended COMA because he was too much of a wimp to go through the withdrawal like everyone else does? You mean like when Peterson blames women for all men's problems?
Doesn't remind me of Scott Peck at all. Peck wasn't of the darkside..
@@tigerlilly5579 Compare it with Paulo Frere's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed".
I have learned some good things from him. I'm not expecting perfection. I appreciate that he does have good things to say and see no need to nit pick.
It would be very interesting to see something similar on Slavoj Zizek!
Zizek is an actual philosopher. You have to read a lot of books to understand what he says.
That would be great!
@@piranha5506 any advices on which books to read?😅
Žižek
These JP fanboys cant even see the mental hoops they jump through. All to protect a man that cant even sort himself out. Its hilarious
"I always get choked up when jbp gets choked up." That's what another commenter said on another video, on another channel. The man is exceptionally intelligent, but he also expresses his emotions. THAT is what I love about him.
@@vincentkeller4725 withdrawals possibly?
Does he berate people when JBP berates people?
Or greedily take people's money when JBP greedily takes people's money?
@@mdaddy775
I don't know. I've slept since then.
That is an element of propagandistic manipulation.
@@jnagarya519
Maybe, maybe not. Probably depend on the paranoia level of the person on the receiving end.
would love to see an update on your analysis of JP. he and or his content is a growing empire here in YT. maybe that angle? what are the second career options when one climbs out of the ivory tower?
Peterson demystifies areas of thought, teaches that people can think for themselves and that they should never be afraid to take responsibility for their own actions and thoughts.
Dr Grande it’s not just young men who watch and listen to his lectures.
I’m very happy to see his female audience making themselves known. His work is something I share with a lot of people.
It’s funny because I’m a college-aged woman in my twenties, and most of the other Peterson fans I know are also girls. A young woman I mentor got me 12 Rules for Life, and I’ve lent it out to like 5 or 6 other girls that I live with and am friends with. All my sisters also love Jordan Peterson. It always strikes me as odd to so strictly characterize his fans as young men. I understand that those are just the stats, but I can’t help but feel like it really isn’t representative of my own experience with Jordan’s work.
@@mcgheebentle1958 yeah
@@mcgheebentle1958 it's just another way to try and dismiss any relevancy he has. His detractors like to paint him as a Frankensteins monster made up of misogyny, racism, transphobia, patriarchy, far-alt-right sympathies, and so they say the only people who listen to him, and who he is also actively seeking and recruiting, are the ever dreaded "young straight white cis males"
@@cutebunny6690 Fuck yeah.
One of the areas where I appreciate Dr. Peterson's lectures; he always tells his audience to read what he covers. I often feel he also gets very emotionally invested in his topics of messaging thereby appearing unreasonable or emotionally expressive. I see him as a human being. His attempts to be personable and not interested in profit as he is on the message or topic. I would argue that anyone is capable of politics. He has struggled himself with much of what he discusses. He certainly has conviction. My concern is quite often with the placing of persons upon a pedestal when he really is just trying to be a teacher. I would argue that his teacher's heart is something that truly irritates his detractors. I also see that same desire, the teacher's heart, within you Dr. Grande.
you seriously believe that dude's just a teacher that wants to teach? not interested in profits?
THE ONLY SOURCE ANYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND HIM IS A THESAURUS!
he attempts to make profound statements & yet he gives nothing but pure PPBS (pseudo-profound bulls**t)
@@amybock6499 I'm betting you're one of those folks that thinks they're more intelligent than anyone else in the room, and you are sans a PhD. I didn't ask you what you thought. I don't give a shit about your feelings or your $0.02. In fact, your comment is what amounts to bullshit, so take your crazy somewhere else.
@@amybock6499I wouldn't argue he only offers PPBS, as you pointed out, but - the fact is - he is significantly more educated and much more knowledgeable than his audience.
In general, Americans are not avid readers, certainly not readers of Jung or Dostoyevsky, etc., even though JP encourages them to read them or anyone else he considers his source. Those are demanding books and take time and thought (!) to digest their contents.
Therefore the admiration for someone who has actually read such books and seems to understand them is kind of logical, and a critical assessment of his interpretation of the read content is almost impossible or at least very unbalanced.
How can anyone even judge whether JP interpreted the content (or anything else) correctly when those people didn't read the book because it was too difficult for them to read...?
Basically, only people with his level of intelligence and knowledge who understand what's going on can meaningfully judge him.
(Recognizing and distinguishing Socrates from sophists is difficult unless the person who tries to do it is not one of them.)
Regarding PTSD and relationship dissolution-... The nature and cucumstances of that ending can absolutely be traumatic. Particularly if there are existing comorbidities and previous trauma. I'm not a clinician, I'm a client. When my therapist suggested PTSD to me, I thought she was nuts and scoffed at the idea thinking about service men and women overseas fighting stupid wars and watching their friends step on an IED. After months of exploring the idea and disecting my marriage and divorce and events surrounding it, I saw how she got there and had to agree.
100% seconded. Marrying a narcissistic and psychopathic partner (ok, my own choice, but love was blind) can do so much crippling harm - such persons are indeed metaphorical landmines for unsuspecting INsignificant others. This is the one argument of Dr. Grande I have to disagree with from personal and witnessed experience.
the end of the relationship is a good thing. the relationship itself caused PTSD. i think one can also get PTSD being a caregiver for someone they love who has a terminal illness with multiple life threatening events before they die. like watching someone repeatedly step on landmines and having to take them to the hosptial or administer CPR on them yourself until the paramedics come. no one get out of life unscathed.
@@annesmith1491 I think really the criticism is a technical one:. PTSD coming from breakups is not in the DSM, so you can't call it that. Even if the patient has all the same symptoms. it's not officially PTSD. You have to call it "has symptoms similar to PTSD". It's just psychologist inside baseball. Not a critique that's important for mortals
A relationship failure due to extreme abuse can result in PTSD. When Peterson says could, he is being precise that there are extreme events that can cause the same result, other than war or surviving an environmental disaster.
Lol
@@ThatGuy-mj6jm This guy
Some marital or relationship endings are a matter of war. Complete with guns and hostages. Surely a source of PTSD.
@@IMWeira True.
@@IMWeira Amen to that - some take no prisoners, even if the other person is open to discussion, and clearly state that their goal is to annihilate the "adversary" until nothing of them is left (in my case in front of our daughter, and not only once -> the mission is not yet accomplished, but serriously under way *small violin*).
PTSD from relationship breakups is real, when it means that you lose your retirement funds to lawyers, and that you face homelessness because you are forced to sell your home to accomodate the wishes of the ex husband (yes, I am a woman - contrary to the hate propaganda that is delivered by many divorced men it is entirely possible for a wife to be ruined by her man).
When the breakup/ divorce shatters your whole life and all prospects for your future, especially if you are not a spring chicken any more, this is highly dangerous. On this topic I can not agree with Dr. Grande, out of my own life experience. I would appreciate if he were right.
I think Jordan rambles, split hairs to sound like he sees many views on one subject, pauses for the impression he's going to something profound, uses obscure words like hannity to put himself just a bit higher on the intelligence table and has yet to say something profound yet simple.
I never feel inclined to trust someone who brings up their IQ score.
Convince us you're intelligent by practical means, telling your audience they should listen to whatever you have to say because because you have an impressive IQ is playground nonsense. (This isn't a sentiment specific to Jordan Peterson, there are lots of internet pseudo-gurus who do this)
When asked in a 2004 interview with The New York Times what his IQ is, Stephen Hawking gave a curt reply: "I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers"
There is information and connections that can not be obtained without a high iq. Not everyone is created equal. That doesn't mean someone is worth less than others. Simply they aren't capable of as much intellectually than the more intelligent. People who brag about their iqs are arrogant assholes that look down on others. Those that use there intellectual capabilities to help others either in a selfish manner or altruistic manner are those we need to listen to and cling on to because while we might not understand completely, we do have the ability to obtain immeasurable knowledge. And if you think that is useless your a fool.
@@Pizzahutbaby What if someone with a high iq tells you that high iq does not mean intelligence?
maybe he wrote the 12 rules because he realises his work is complex and meaningful but wanted to reach those who will struggle to get engaged in the work on that level. that book, in my understanding of it is full of compassion for those who have been left behind in society.
I m sure he wakes up saying what to state today! He thinks to much about power tricks with happenings he is way to mental!!! I go with Murphy laws
It tells you that you suck over and over again actually. That you have a shot at improving yourself if you follow his advice, but otherwise you suck. Not much compassion tbh, a lot of implying he knows better than you about everything, and confusing tangents about the Bible and archetypes from Jungian psychology. There's occasional decent advice like "compare yourself to your past self and not to others", but it's surrounded by a lot of weird tangents and shoehorning in of scientific research from fields outside of his own that he doesn't seem to understand very well.
Like, he says lobster brains essentially melt when they are beaten in a fight, but lobsters don't even have brains they have multiple ganglia, and the research isn't conclusive on what exactly goes on in lobster ganglia. He also brings up serotonin, because the winning lobsters have higher amounts of it, and implies that these mechanisms have some kind of implication for hierarchies throughout the animal kingdom, despite the fact that serotonin does different things in different areas of the human brain, never mind across species. Does this seem confusing and irrelevant to the discussion of hierarchy among humans? Yeah, it does to me too. The book's full of these unhelpful, point-obscuring tangents and assertions
7:10 Love your work Dr. G, but looking at this point that you raise, I'm of the opinion that PTSD (and CPTSD) in relationship breakdowns is quite prevalent when one looks at Narcissistic Abuse. (Obviously this is not all relationships, but possibly and surprisingly a significant number of relationships). Even if JP has not referenced this abuse aspect of relationships, I would envisage that this would be a factor in his thinking; as IMHO, there is an exponential & growing rise in Narcissistic Abuse/Traumatised individuals in society. If anything, then PTSD as a fallout (and as an exacerbation) of relationships, is quite a serious consideration if we wish to nurture a healthy society.
You are exactly correct about this. I personally have experience with this.
@@mikekrall6335 Snap :'(
That was a great analysis! It's refreshing to hear a balanced perspective that isn't either putting him on a pedestal or declaring him a complete moron ;)
I definitely see where you're coming from on most points, especially the ones about "edginess", philosophy theories and complexity.
I remember watching several debates of him and other people (of comparable intelligence) and, while everyone else was consistently easy to follow, he had moments of "drifting off" into things that made very little sense to me, honestly.
Now, I'm not a native English speaker, nor am I very well-read in philosophy/theology, so I definitely don't expect to understand every bit of every lecture, but I feel like in a debate/talk that is directed towards a broader audience, not professionals, it's generally a good tone to speak on a level that is understandable to most people, although of course he's not obligated to do so. I also have noticed from personal experience that people who understand some subject really well are generally able to explain it on almost any level of complexity, even if it's very basic and in simple words. So at times I'm not sure why he gets "carried away" so often compared to most intellectuals/speakers I've seen.
Personally I really enjoy some of Peterson's works, but overall his approach is sort of too "edgy" for me and also I just don't enjoy listening to his speaking style/voice too much (which is, of course, not a valid criticism whatsoever, just a personal preference), so I rarely seek his content; the drama that tends to surround him is a bit off-putting as well.
Lastly, I feel like some of the criticism that he gets is inspired not by JP himself, but rather by his "fanbase", so to speak, which (same as passionate fans of most things in the world, to be fair), are often a bit immature/cult-y and tend to belong to a very particular type of people. I feel like some "outsiders" conflate the fans' behaviour and opinions with Peterson's a bit, which skews his reputation to a degree. But that is just a guess on my part.
Thank you!
While I like the balanced style of Dr. Grande's video and your comment, I think that as sophisticated as Jordan Peterson is, as surprisingly simplistic are some of his views on gender roles, family, education and some other more mundane topics. There is a reason why he is - despite his apparent protest - so easily instrumentalized by the alt-right, incel, neo-fascist and young conservative mostly younger whiter and mal"er" groups. - He himself cites the finding that higher intelligence more often goes together with more openness to new ideas. His own aversion to what he calls "Marxist left" borders on irrational emotion. And I find little to no openness to new ideas there. That is just my opinion, though. Thank you very much for your video, Dr. Grande! And thank you very much for your very careful comment, Valeria Vagapova!
@@oksanaml9279 Yes to all of that!
my opinion on jordan peterson is that he is selectively reductive in the way he explains the topics he's engaging in for the sake of pushing a political narrative. i believe he is genuinely an intelligent person but he only uses that intelligence to expand on certain topics where it benefits his predisposed worldview. this isn't a major issue i suppose and i think most of us myself included fall victim to this issue but I think its worth pointing out. for examples i would point to his talks on most sociological issues where he seems to focus his interest entirely on individual actions rather than recognizing the systems and customs those individuals live within.
I agree with you. It is fundamentally a huge drawback to quite blatantly use your views to shape your arguments, when you’re supposed to be objective and factual.
Do you have a few examples of him "pushing a narrative for political views "?
Everything is an issue to you people, even living apperently, what you just described is being popular and doing what you want to do
Yeah, but who doesnt. Also, The system is the people and the people are the system. Its not seprate things. If the people in the system are doing the right thing the system wil be right. Your ability to seprerate the individuals from the system as seprate entities isnt based in reality. Might i add its very simular how conspiracy theorist think. Except the focus on shadow groups instead ofnthe system's. Did you know the laws that make up the system are passed by people. Im just not sure why your so wilfully gave up your logic for your polictical groups rhetoric.
@@regularstan6212 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
As usual I find your analysis fair, balanced and full of valuable insight! 👍🏻
I also witnessed JP getting a bit too “brainy” for his own good occasionally and annoying his guest with very open ended questions … but isn’t this is typical of individuals who have high IQ ?…. Of course, perhaps my own IQ wasn’t high enough to follow him either ….🤔😏😂
I used to think he was .........Now its mental health issues.
😂 He's done nothing to me but I basically don't like the guy....I guess I'm too thick!!!! I'm certainly 'stupid' enough not to believe in any God.... apparently!
Einsetien, Penrose, Schrodinger, etc, don't talk like Peterson at all. And they have astoungingly high IQs. Peterson is pedantic. He would describe walking across a street in a way that calls more importance to the process than it actually possesses. Look at his interview with Sir Roger Penrose on Consciousness. He has nothing to add to the conversation but stares it away with soliloquies disguised as questions. The co host however, builds upon what Penrose is saying by asking relevant questions that help Penrose build a model of the subject matter that the audience can understand.
@@VonJay This!!
Well not really, people who have high IQ generally put their statement in such a way that it is reachable and people can actually understand it.
I think the popularity of Dr. Phil and Dr. Peterson is their message of personal responsibility. Many people get stuck because they can't see their own behaviors as the basis of their problems and want to find someone or some thing to blame so they have an excuse for bad behavior. I am a big fan of people realizing that the only person they can change is themselves and they set about doing it.
responsibility=تكليف
Every one has their own opinions, but I hate the comparison of Dr.Phil to JP.. Peterson seems way more intelligent, honest, and learns from his mistakes. Phil seems like he's in it for the fame and money, doesn't actually care
The main problem with that idea is that if you acknowledge that slot of things a genuinely beyond someone's control it just becomes victim blaming. I'm mildly autistic, and no matter how hard I try I'm always going to be autistic, and always going to be at a disadvantage in social situations compared to others who aren't autistic. All I've gained from this idea is alot of self hatred for being the way I am.
@@dylanhaugen3739 he wasn't talking about special cases like you.
@@dylanhaugen3739, My son is also mildly Autistic. We taught him how to do things that didn't come naturally to him, such as shaking hands and eye contact. I totally understood how he felt but I stressed to him that although it wasn't his comfort zone, he would move easier through life making is a learned behavior. He just came for a long over due visit for his 31st birthday. Although he has made an unusual life for himself, he's self sufficient and has assured me he is content and doing well. I told him that he has taught me not to keep score in the usual ways and that his contentment and independence makes me proud.
I like how you pointed out that many of his references of Carl Jung aren't necessarily taken at face value (opinion), but treated as fact (empirical evidence). I have a very high opinion of Jordan Peterson myself, but this was a very important distinction that you made here. Subscribed, great job by the way, Dr. Grande!
You come across as really humble! My opinion on his work is a bit more harsh, so it was really nice to see you weighing your words carefully Thank you for the video.
You're a fair man..
Well balanced and a well skilled and honed intellect..
However..
The Michael Jackson critique, through the prism of the documentary, was outwardly prosaic.
The rest of your commentary is considerate and broad, straying from some polarising issues in areas, but you cannot redact the record by narrowly focusing solely on the documentary..
I'm sure, your intent and purpose was to specifically critique this documentary, but I feel there was so much more evidence of wrong doing on his behalf that was obfuscated by lens in which you chose to examine him.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the history of the man in its entirety. Well, at least as much as you did for JBP.
Thank you, huge fan..
Dr. Grande, I enjoy the entirety of your offerings and the way you present your content. I also want to tell you that your willingness to admit the possibility of being wrong is a refreshing trait in someone of your caliber and in your position. You approach "self-deprecating" without tarnishing your character and illustrate that a humble demeanor is nothing of which to be ashamed. Thank you for your example and educational content on all matters psychological and legal. Much Respect.
My take on Jordan Peterson is that he is intelligent, has interesting ideas and is becoming mentally ill. When he was younger he seemed normal but as he’s gotten older I see him being overly egotistical and disdainful of others to the point of seeming odd. His energy is so angry that it seems like he has unresolved issues that are spewing out on others. He’s got a very negative vibe, I don’t know how else to put it. I just can’t place any trust in someone who seems so out of whack.
you'd be angry too if you could see the state's deceptive tyranny with the clarity that he can. you might also claim Trump is a loud-mouthed buffoon but people tend to forget he was also the recipient of the most insidious and farcical political deception and the circus of our times - the Russian collusion hoax. How much of his outburst is reactive v. proactive? It's very common to see the harbingers of what was in the olden days basic common sense as "mentally ill" when the current mainstream is already way beyond anything sane.
Himanshu Sorout that’s one way of looking at it, but being unbalanced is being unbalanced. He needs to either pull himself together or get professional help.
@@chottochotto7112 Trump was a loudmouth vengeful buffoon long before anything came up about Russia.
Every time I watch Peterson on You Tube I always feel he could have easily condensed his lecture by about 80 or 90%. I guess being a college professor he feels he must talk for about a hour no matter what.
The challenge of teaching is to make listeners understand, not just hear. Otherwise teachers wouldn't be needed, they could just narrate a textbook in class.
I think he does that because he knows they're going to cut the interview for their political agenda. And if he leaves facts out it makes easier. Now he actually refuses to do interviews unless they are shown in entirety.
i really like that Peterson is flawed, its why im attracted to his lectures and writings. You can watch him actively questioning himself during a speech, when do you see anyone else in the mainstream taking pause. He's a very smart man that lead me to a lot of self improvement, he didn't fix my mental illness of depression, which isn't fair to expect, he's speaking to the masses, not me. BUT, he helped me reject my nihilist view points that amplified my depressive and suicidal thoughts, he provided me the tools I needed, not a personalized fix.
He's actively choosing words to obscure his flaws and to leave the plausible claim that you didn't understand open, there's a difference. He's a clown.
@@rustyshackleford735 he's actively choosing to disguise his own flaws? Can you elaborate, provide examples? Seems like a vacuous statement at best.
@@rustyshackleford735 criticism without evidence, sounds like the majority of his detractors
@@grant46n2 His views on ideology: he has constantly said that we should view things with the absence of an ideological lense. Meaning, literally viewing everything objectively. This is my biggest critique of him, because it is literally impossible to view things objectively without any sort of influence from ideology. He claims to do this…but has said multiple times he follows basic Judeo-Christian values- which are quite literally ideological. And even then, it is absurd to claim you can view things entirely objectively. If you exist, if you think, if you are alive- you view things subjectively all of the time. He does this in order to promote his views as being that of objective. And this, further perpetuates some of his very outdated, conservative views.
@@choblgobblrr1074
Um, you can view things objectively quite easily by arguing for and against that viewpoint simultaneously, and weighing the for and against.
This episode inspired me to request a segment defining PTSD, what can cause it. I see so many people who who claim it for everything in their lives.
Although it’s not one of the criteria in the DSM for PTSD imo it’s possible depending on the personality type of the individual experiencing the loss and the specific circumstances. Imagine how Denis Raider’s family felt. In Canada, the CPA consists of a hand full of Psychiatrists that receives heft research grants from the gov. It seems like a conflict of interest when it comes to many of the Senate bills they endorse. Just one example is Animal protection legislation written in 1876. Antiquated wording allows 99.97% of abuse/torture to go unprosecuted yet they endorsed it consistently.
I like Jordon Peterson, I started watching his lectures all the way in New Zealand before he was really that famous because I like when he talks about anthropology. I reckon you could be a Jordon Peterson type influencer doc!
Real great with that isn't he? Like saying in ancient china they already knew about the structure of DNA. Real solid anthropologist.
Michael-6 are you kidding or being sarcastic?
@Amanda Charlebois guess the troll has revealed itself. 😫😫😫
Amanda Charlebois you’re an idiot
@Amanda Charlebois you don't have a grasp of the facts, my dear.
As a fan of Peterson, I found this video to be completely fair, and even perhaps too flattering.
@@vancouverterry9142 Why?
@@vancouverterry9142 I think you should take your own advice and watch Jordan Peterson’s videos
@@vancouverterry9142 I think what your saying is that you don't like Peterson and that you don't think people should listen to his ideas.
Simpler to just say so and then why.
@@vancouverterry9142 What game? You're a fanatic getting flustered over a benign comment. I can only imagine how you would react of someone didn't straight up like Peterson.
@@vancouverterry9142 Ha
This came across like you were praising Jordan rather than analysing him. Almost as if you didn't want to do an in-depth analysis or critique him too much for fear of backlash.
Agreed
Maybe they just agree? They are peers trained in a similar discipline.
@@jamallabarge2665 Maybe. Or maybe he feared the backlash that would happen from critiquing someone like Jordan.
The entire point of this style of content is to critique the person in question so it doesn't matter if they agree or disagree.
@@MzMahoganyHoneyBrown Is it really necessary to be personal? Isn't it better to be professional?
Just because RUclips doesn't restrict positing to professionals does not excuse amateurish behavior. Right?
@@jamallabarge2665 Personal? I don't quite understand your response or how it relates to my comment.
correction; he didn`t write for young man his book is oftnen read by young man , as wel as his youtube chanel.
@Can Kaya who wrote? something is wrong with``Thats an obviuos point that was overlooked a long time``, check cathy newmas intervieuw and reflect.
I was confused about that too, I'm reading 12 rules for life and I haven't read anything gender specific so far
I have two major problems with Peterson. Firstly, the diet he and his daughter follow and encourage others to is incredibly restrictive, unbalanced and potentially dangerous.
Secondly- and somewhat linked, is his very poor understanding of biology. He’s made numerous bizarre statements on the subject and while I think some could be taken as symbolic, I don’t think all of them can.
Oh damn, I totally forgot about the diet thing... It's definitely quite troubling how some of his followers blindly adopt his questionable diet based mostly on a single anecdotal (and quite unusual) experience of his daughter. There simply isn't enough scientific evidence to support that diet, it might work for some people but it definitely shouldn't be recommended to most. I find it quite sketchy.
This aged pretty poorly, but I get why it may have been possible back then. An update would be great.
I find your criticism of Jordan Peterson to be really fair and reasonable. I've watched and read quite a lot of his work and I too noticed, that his conclusions are sometimes going beyond what is supportable by evidence or even logic. I noticed it the first time when he touched my field of expertise, which is linguistics. It wasn't too big of a deal and I'm aware of those patterns. His content is very valuable in my opinion, even with the need of that rare grain of salt, while listening to or reading him.
Great job! Regarding PSTD: the symptoms of PTS arise from an injury to the stress processing nervous system, the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS). Thus, if the end of a relationship is sudden or the result of betrayal that causes injury to the ANS, then that individual can be suffering from PTS, rather than exclusively loss and grief. This is an important distinction. Traditional types or supportive/insight psychotherapy can successfully treat simple or complex grief, but not PTS, not an injured and thus impaired nervous system. Peace all!
Wow, not a single 'er' or 'um' and a very fair minded analysis.
But a lot of "kinda"-s
2:13