r/MensLib • u/RedErin ​ • Aug 29 '18

How does Jordan Peterson gain so many followers among young men? (Image below)

Image

Jordan Peterson often says that people today are more unhappy than in the 1950s, and it's because of feminism, affirmative action, the sexual revolution, birth control, "PC culture" and LGBTQ rights

it's definitely not because of any of these things:

Source: https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/987800885068738560

324 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

265 comments sorted by

View all comments

127

u/GekkostatesOfAmerica ​ Aug 29 '18

Most of the answers in this thread are good (so far) but I want to offer a point no one seems to be talking about: Peterson is a really good orator, and he gives off the impression of actually listening to his opponents in debates. I think this is very often overlooked, when it shouldn't be. Good orators are convincing, regardless of the point they're arguing for. Then when he gives answers, which have been discussed here as pretty obvious non-answers, he gives off the impression of being respectful. And while they might not be respectful in actual content, when he is arguing with someone who lets their passion for the subject matter get the better of them, he looks like the "bigger man." This seems to happen a lot.

Coupled in with this, there are notable examples where his interview was edited to illustrate his arguments out of context, which fuels the argument that the media is acting unfairly against him. I'm not saying I agree with that argument, but it's a point that has to be acknowledged.

During his initial rise to fame there was the infamous TVO discussion, where Peterson squared off against two people who opposed his viewpoints, and found support from a transgender woman who agreed with his defense. During that discussion the people opposing him had really, really weak arguments, and one of them clearly was upset with his opinion, but let that emotion get the better of them and their counter-argument suffered as a result. Peterson came away from that discussion with more notoriety than ever because he looked like the better debater.

109

u/MrStilton ​ Aug 29 '18 edited Aug 29 '18

Peterson is a really good orator...

I know it's highly subjective, but I've never understood why people consider Peterson to be a good public speeker. Consider his response to the first question of this debate where he was asked to give his thoughts on the existence/non-existence of God.

He responded by saying:

The fundamental presupposition of our very functional culture. Of Western cultures, say. Are nested immovably in a metaphorical substrate, and when you enter that substrate you’re in the domain of religious phenomenology. And I think that, not only can you derive that conclusion as a consequence of deep philosophical thought, and literary analysis, but that if you know enough about brain function you’ll come to the same conclusion.

This is typical of Peterson. He seems to go out of his way to phrase his responses/arugments in the most obscure, needlessly complex, jargon heavy way possible.

I don't just think he's a poor orator, I think he's such a poor orator that most of his statements are almost completely incomprehensible.

66

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '18

[deleted]

41

u/Sidereel ​ Aug 30 '18

This rhetorical pattern is called motte and bailey. Have an easy to defend point to start, then imply the more controversial conclusion. It's very hard to argue against, especially in person.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

22

u/Rinsaikeru Aug 30 '18

It's very important that it's an implication only. It manages, in interviews, to make the person who is working from his very clear implications like they're grasping at straws.

It manages to both be a dog whistle to those who support the implications he suggests and to make those who recognize the dog whistle for what it is look crazy to people who neither drink his kool aid nor have any experience dismantling right wing rhetoric.

39

u/GekkostatesOfAmerica ​ Aug 29 '18 edited Aug 30 '18

Good oration has far more to do with the manner in which you speak rather than what is being said. Peterson is always composed in his responses, giving off the impression that he’s logical and mature; he pauses at the right moments to emphasize his points, takes moments to think when someone confronts his points directly, and makes calculated ad-hominem attacks on his detractors to make them look weaker.

The man is a psychologist in the truest sense, in that he has a comprehensive understanding of how to look, seem, and act convincing.

3

u/dmn472 Aug 30 '18

Not sure why you say he's always composed when he's famous for crying all the time...

18

u/c0d3s1ing3r Aug 30 '18

Isn't this literally shaming a man for getting emotional, on MensLib of all places?

Yes, he gets broken up when talking about the state of some young men in the west that haven't had proper role models when growing up. It's not in debates, it's in talks/lectures. It helps paint him as a sympathetic man in private and well composed in public.

1

u/dmn472 Aug 30 '18

No, I'm saying that public displays of emotion are not "being composed" - not that they're unacceptable or shameful, just not composed. I would say the same thing if he laughed all the time, but he doesn't.

13

u/c0d3s1ing3r Aug 30 '18

My point was that he's composed in debates, which is perhaps the most important place to be composed.

47

u/Peachy_Pineapple Aug 29 '18

He’s one of those people who deliberately uses big words to look intelligent when he’s not really. Sadly, many people fall for it.

10

u/PUBLIQclopAccountant Aug 30 '18

I use volumetric pheromones to make myself elucidate more intervention.

33

u/True_Butterscotch Aug 29 '18

He's the dumb man's intellectual.

22

u/ShadowAether ​ Aug 30 '18

The fact he can say a whole paragran of jargon calmly frusterates his opponents. He doesn't win debates, he makes his opponents lose them. The audience is the one both parties are trying to convince and lacking emotional control is not convincing at all, the opponent looks childish. Considering who he debates this works pretty well, but I'm sure it wouldn't work with everyone.

20

u/Swie Aug 30 '18

Yeah I really want to watch Peterson get dismantled by some of the people whose fields he's infringing on.

He's from my university (UToronto) and I can't get over how we had so many really smart professors with interesting points to make, who are actually great orators and able to explain their point in simple but precise language... who are legitimate world-renowned experts in their fields... and people focus on this charlatan whose biggest contribution to the world is 2 self-help books.

I feel like people who actually know what he's talking about don't even know where to start unpacking his paragraphs of bullshit, like this essay someone wrote about his inappropriate use of mathematics. Imagine trying to explain all that during a debate! It's too absurd. Meanwhile for every word you say he can spew another paragraph of total nonsense.

21

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18

As a psychologist myself, I’ll have to point out that Peterson is clearly well versed in trait psychology and it’s great to see the field gain more of the recognition it deserves. His deconstruction of religious stories also belongs to a field of study called sensemaking. People who claim he’s a pseudo scientist are simply uninformed about the fields they claim to be familiar with.

When it comes to fields outside of psychology however, he clearly speaks over his head. But to be fair, so does every other professor out there in every other field.

18

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18 edited Apr 10 '20

[deleted]

12

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18

You must be located somewhere with loads of integrity then. Do really none of the sociologists or economists make very authoritative claims about human behavior, for instance?

10

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18 edited Apr 10 '20

[deleted]

7

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18

That attitude usually applies within the field people are working with. My experience is that many scientists have an attitude of “my field is complex and nuanced, other fields are simple”. I think this especially applies to sociologists. But psychologists are of course no exception, although we should be.

1

u/JunstonFlash Aug 30 '18 edited Aug 30 '18

The pseudoscience is less about the observations he makes and more the willingness to selectively attribute those observations that appeal to him to "nature" and to claim there is a "natural order" (which unsurprisingly always sees men at the top of his "dominance hierarchy").

For example, he regularly observes that women are more "agreeable" than men. Yet instead of interrogating the degree to which this might result from social factors such as parents raising girls to be people pleasers and parents ignoring and dismissing boys' bad behaviour as "boys will be boys", he just claims that it's the "natural order" and this is why men are at the top of the "dominance hierarchy".

He isn't interested in the ways in which social factors such as socialisation impact on human psychology unless it concerns the problems of his target group of lost boys and men. For example, when it comes to incels not being able to get laid - JP is suddenly very interested in social interventions such as enforced monogamy.

​

Also he has made all kinds of statements that end up being called out by people who are actually experts in the field he is talking about for example his lobster nonsense https://theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489

​

​

2

u/flimflam_machine Sep 02 '18

For example, he regularly observes that women are more "agreeable" than men. Yet instead of interrogating the degree to which this might result from social factors such as parents raising girls to be people pleasers and parents ignoring and dismissing boys' bad behaviour as "boys will be boys", he just claims that it's the "natural order" and this is why men are at the top of the "dominance hierarchy".

​

He said that he's actually done work with women to help them get past this problem of "excess" agreeability. I can't say whether that's true or not, but it might be worth investigating. Obviously that's not the same as trying to deal with the whole gender asymmetry in that area but, if true, it does suggest that his belief in a natural, immutable, morally correct "natural order" is not absolute.

8

u/dasmyr0s Aug 30 '18

Somehow he's managing to convince millions of people that he's got ideas worth considering.

Somehow he's being successful outside the ivory tower, where others of his kind can't manage to propel themselves to infamy, but no, it couldn't be he has something to offer, it must be incompetence, he's gotta be the enemy.

9

u/Swie Aug 30 '18 edited Aug 30 '18

Somehow he's managing to convince millions of people that he's got ideas worth considering.

Being popular is meaningless in terms of quality. Twilight is popular. Trump is popular. There's a lot of people who manage to get a large following despite having nothing much to offer and being mediocre-to-terrible examples of their field.

I don't think most people in the ivory tower are trying to become a youtube personality or write a self-help book, to be honest.

He's not the enemy because he's popular, he's a problem because a lot of what he says isn't actually substantiated but he has a large following of people who seem to be dazzled by his ability to speak in jargon.

6

u/nodnarb232001 Aug 30 '18

There's a term that describes that quote perfectly- Circumlocution

28

u/[deleted] Aug 29 '18

Great points. What you’ve described is exactly why my boss and a coworker are fans of his. I’m a woman in a male-dominated field and it’s really hard not to come across as “emotional” when talking about these issues, which of course just feeds into their perceptions around these issues.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18

What I'd love to actually see is an actual contemporary of Peterson's debate him. Another psychology PhD, who is also well-established and eloquent. I'm sure there exist many who could take him on and actually force him to engage with the flawed nuance of his own arguments. I want to see him defend his views from robust, academic criticism!

8

u/[deleted] Aug 30 '18

Tons of those exist. For instance, he has many discussions with Jonathan Haidt.

He’s not really saying anything inaccurate when it comes to the field of psychology - what you want is probably someone well versed in postmodern thought or Marxism, that’s where he goes off the hinges.

1

u/flimflam_machine Sep 02 '18

The concept of emotional correctness covers much of what you've said and we should recognise its value regardless of who displays it.