He was just joking.
13 Likes
14 Likes
I suspect if you keep reading that wiki article you posted, you’ll find some incredibly damning criticism of Jungian archetypes.
One might say that this fundamentally refutes the basis of JP’s writings.
(See what I did there? I used the word correctly.)
12 Likes
Ordinarily, I’m against using definitions as an argument, but this particular ‘hamster wheel’ is a special exception.
Also, it gives me an excuse to post this again:
12 Likes
Even Peterson agrees we should bring back bullying. In his world the white boiis are the real persecuted ones because they’re so white and nerdy.
8 Likes
Just read the criticism section. Reads like the criticism section of any other psychological theory. Some people take varying interpretations, revised interpretations, and the occasional feminist critiques who claim that the male psychologist has stereotyped the feminine. But notice, dear ActuallyAtRegular, how the page never says that pyschologists universally reject it? Or even the majority?
Do me a favor, dear fellow, and go to Google Scholar, type in the phrase ‘Jungian archetypes’ and restrict results to everything that was published only after 2015. If you’d have never yet noticed, you’ll quickly realized Jungian archetypes are still significantly used and discussed in modern psychological theory today.
(See what I did there? I used the word correctly.)
Still don’t know what fundamental mythology is?
As for @tinoesroho. I’d hate to beat the dead horse, but after I flat out curbrefuted you on JP and the alt-right, you really go on to say this?
Even Peterson agrees we should bring back bullying. In his world the white boiis are the real persecuted ones because they’re so white and nerdy.
What ever will I do with these strawmen? Nothing at all, because it’s exactly these strawmen that prop up my movement. This is exactly why JP is so famous. His critics don’t want to actually contend with his theories, because they cannot address them, and so they just use misrepresentations and ad hominems. That perfectly characterized the Cathy Newman interview – guess how that turned out? Your comments remind me of PZ Myers response to JP. Enjoy this video as well 
:
13 Likes
u mad bro?
10 Likes
12 Likes
u mad bro
I’m mad enough to shoot a duck. Nah, jk. Anyways, I’m going off until tomorrow, there’s a stampede of comments here that I won’t be able to keep up with. I’d rather just read JP’s fantastic international bestseller … eheh …
Jungian archetypes = worst case of confirmation bias evar!
12 Likes
Jungian archetypes = worst case of confirmation bias evar!
Just realized this was bait right before trying to respond to it.
Yep. Every time I look up this guy’s writings, I find more and more stuff that’s just made up off the cuff and not supported by actual numbers.
(ETA: Really? The workforce doubled when women started working? So, when women joined the workforce, 100% of adult women started working, and it’s been that way since?? That’s just lazy rhetoric, at best.)
To say nothing of the criticism with Jungian archetypes not providing any way of making useful predictions.
14 Likes
No, I was quite serious, but you’d have to read all of my online posts back to 1973 or you’d be missing the context.
17 Likes
Wow. It’s usually bad news when Peterson goes outside his academic discipline, but when he tries to play an economist … just cringeworthy. And that’s not him being the public intellectual who panders to misogynists, but giving a lecture at the University of Toronto. It confirms my suspicion that he’s setting himself up for a glorious ragequit from that institution as soon as the Kochs ensure him a nice similarly tenured and better-paid chair at George Mason U.
12 Likes
Peterson is a million ants in a suit; the apotheosis of grain; a hivemind of zero individuals; the Great Defender of Western Individuality; a moron.
His claims have been addressed by far more patient and eloquent writers, in depth and at length. Whether it’s him banging on about how Jungian Archetypes are the key to mystic truths (see his rants about Egyptian artwork depicting a DNA helix) or his fundamentally unverifiable psycho-analytical meandering diagrams, to his vast conspiracy of Post Modern Neo Marxists coming to unleash the Chaos Dragon and destroy Western Civilization, everything he’s ever said has been dissected and debunked.
At some point, one has to ask: why do you feel obliged to defend him? Is there a primal need that blindly defending JeeP fulfils? Mayhaps, you secretly wish to tend house and bear children?
Like how women secretly want to be dominated by men? (bluuuuuuuuuuurggghhh)
You’ve JAQ’d off enough tonight.
16 Likes
But what about Post-postmodernist Neo-Classical Marxists? Are they okay?
9 Likes
he seems like a terrible therapist but since none of their works can be construed as proto-feminist, he considers it art instead of propaganda since there was no overt political points.*
*apart from being eurocentric and patriarchal as fuuuuck
EDIT:
More shit Peterson says
8 Likes
11 Likes
But we agree on the first two. Because opposing transgender equality under the law is by definition transphobic. As has been pointed out several times above- there were no free speech concerns in the legislation he opposed.
I hope we can agree that pressure for women to be part of sexual relationships is supporting coerced sex by definition.
I’m glad you didn’t even attempt to deny the misogyny. There’s hope.
12 Likes
