Jordan Peterson Event Report

[Brainster]

A friend of mine suggested this event, which was originally scheduled for April but had to be cancelled. I had encountered Peterson during the Covid year, while surfing through Youtube. I found him an interesting and entertaining lecturer/philosopher, and I was particularly struck by how thoughtful he was in the sense of thinking hard about what he was saying and attempting to be very precise in his language. I definitely found that it took several watchings to fully process the videos.

Tonight's event was at the Arizona Financial Theater, a 5000-seat venue that appeared to be nearly full. Seats were very cramped; this ain't like your local AMC. Fortunately we were in the nosebleeds and there was some space there so we could manspread a bit. Crowd was mostly male but a lot of girlfriends and wives, definitely mostly but not exclusively 20s-30s.

Event started with about twenty minutes of classical guitar by a Canadian artist whose name I forget. Not bad, but I've seen Al Di Meola so not likely to be impressed.

Peterson's wife came on to do the introduction but first some business about the apps that they are coming up with... and then Jordan himself enters.

Mostly standing ovation but not with roars or anything like that. Definitely a positive crowd. This is about 8:15 or so, about 45 minutes after I had hoped things would get started.

Jordan goes into a spiel about the new videos he's doing on Exodus (the chapter in the Old Testament). There were some interesting bits comparing totalitarian regimes like Ancient Egypt with Nazi Germany, but I think for the most part it fizzled, and seemed nothing like a lecture on the stated topic (Which Was 12 More Rules for Success) and more an ad for his next video. Still he is a spellbinding speaker and goes off onto wild and interesting tangents, so the 45 minutes devoted to the actual lecture went by fast.

And then we got to the Q&A and here Peterson became more interesting (and I hope less scripted although the format leaves the question quite open). His wife pulled upvoted questions off their app (a little cross-selling there), and the first one was how do you choose between the right wife and the hot wife. Much amusement in the crowd but Peterson riffed off the question brilliantly. First he went onto the obvious point that everybody wants their wife to be hot, but they'd prefer not them not to be so hot that everybody else is coming onto her, or she might realize she can do better. So their men will undercut them a bit--try to convince their girlfriend /wife that he is actually better than they deserve.

Peterson's suggestion: Don't try to convince your girlfriend that she doesn't deserve you because you are putting both of you down. If you really don't believe you deserve her, try upping your game. Roar of applause, and it's hard to argue he didn't hit the nail. OTOH, the whole answer took about 20 minutes because he went off onto this long tangent about how some men might balk at telling their wife how hot they look because they are worried this might be indulging their lust. My eyes definitely glazed over there.

One thing I should mention is that although it took place the night before election day there was virtually no mention of politics at the event. Peterson did mention something the Far Left believed but it was in the context of what several other groups believed and just an aside. Zero mention of the election, zero mention of Republican or Democrat although it's pretty obvious from the associations that he mentioned (Ben Shapiro's the Daily Wire is apparently hosting his series on Exodus) that he is on the right.

I will also say that although religion was a constant background theme it was not at all preachy despite the "12 More Rules" title. Peterson explained it more as learning to listen to your conscience when faced with difficult decisions in life. Not consult this psalm, or ask WWJD. Zero sense this was some sort of religious revival.

At about 9:30 his wife cut him off and the event was over.

[The Great Zaganza]

Sounds like a Cult gathering.

[Darat]

Or a promotional tour to sell his products.

[Darat]

I'll leave this here: https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-digested-read

A bit of fun about his 12 rules.

[smartcooky]

Jordan Peterson: Bellend as well as complete and utter wanker.

When he flounced from Twitter after other users took him to task for a misogynistic post were he criticized the appearance of a plus-size model, he hurled his rattle out of the cot and wailed like a baby. He is also obsessed with the idea of free speech, so long as the speaker is saying things he agrees with.

The only people who admire this total tosspot are other total tosspots!

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Jordan Peterson: Bellend as well as complete and utter wanker.

When he flounced from Twitter after other users took him to task for a misogynistic post were he criticized the appearance of a plus-size model, he hurled his rattle out of the cot and wailed like a baby. He is also obsessed with the idea of free speech, so long as the speaker is saying things he agrees with.

The only people who admire this total tosspot are other total tosspots!

The prophet of incels...

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Darat

Or a promotional tour to sell his products.

Has he added a Russian coma detox package yet?

[angrysoba]

Jordan Peterson is certainly a captivating speaker by most accounts, and he is good at weaving his areas of professional interest into broader themes of philosophy and religion.

That said, I think that much of what he does say often evades scrutiny because of his charisma (some people will deny he is charismatic or wonder how anyone can think he is, but charisma is an odd quality that doesn't affect everyone the same way). One of his former colleagues at the University of Toronto said that if he was at a party, people would gather round him to listen to him regardless of what he said.

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

Also, I have heard him say that he is extremely precise in his language, but I dispute that. As with the Jesus smuggling, I think he seems to be pushing ideas that he does not always want to be seen as endorsing. He has often claimed that he did not say what he clearly did say, and which he insisted he did say. Here are some examples:

On ancient art depicting DNA, claiming that he really believes that coiled snakes really represented DNA then denying he believed it when asked about it, then admitting it to Dawkins and saying he had taken a lot of drugs and really believes that people who do so can see DNA with their own eyes (no, seriously!)

When asked by a nervous student about him defending hierachies, etc... denying that he has ever done so, rudely dismissing the student's nervous responses "Okay" etc... "NOT OKAY!" before then saying he defends hierachy, etc...

Essentially arguing that Russia were right to invade Ukraine because it represents the degenerate West. Then sneering about how nobody knows about the Holomodor [sic] (he means Holodomor - he repeated this in another video suggesting he really doesn't know the name himself.)

The beef diet (which his daughter promotes even though he himself claimed he needs for his particular genetic disease - though his wife is now on it suggesting he genetic justification does not hold).

The benzo addiction. I don't want to be mean about this, but it is odd that someone who preaches standing up straight and self-reliance got himself hooked on these pills.

He claimed that the physician who performed surgery on Elliot Page was a criminal. Then in a video justifying this, doubled down on the criminal accusation (meaning metaphorically presumably) saying something about how Nazi doctors were not criminals in Nazi Germany but were criminals none the less...

He's claimed, in conversation with Bret Weinstein that medical science has killed more people than it is saved. He then pointed out he has no idea if it is true, and it may not be true, but it may not not be true (this is the language expert, Jordan Peterson!).

He also followed Weinstein somewhat down the anti-vax path that Weinstein slid down.

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

[The Great Zaganza]

I'll listen to Peterson once he's done what he preaches: deal with his own issues before poking his nose in other people's.

[Norman Alexander]

Did people pay to attend? If so, what sort of prices?

[casebro]

This thread is just as I suspected, divided along ideological lines.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by casebro

This thread is just as I suspected, divided along ideological lines.

That's the fault of the subject of the thread, who made a name for himself by blatantly lying about how woke policies threaten his freedom.

[shemp]

Over at SC, pillory is obsessed with Peterson and posts his videos. I think that's all one really needs to know.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by casebro

This thread is just as I suspected, divided along ideological lines.

In what way? I think I have given a pretty nuanced take on Peterson.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by casebro

This thread is just as I suspected, divided along ideological lines.

And...?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Susheel

The prophet of incels...

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

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

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Did people pay to attend? If so, what sort of prices?

What conclusions (or inferences) are you going to draw from the answer to that, what ever it may be?

[The Great Zaganza]

I would be very surprised if it was free.
But I would be curious to know how much a ticket costs, and what the range from First Row to Nosebleed is.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Did people pay to attend? If so, what sort of prices?

Could easily have been free, it's only a 5000 seat indoor venue, must be peanuts to book.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I would be very surprised if it was free.
But I would be curious to know how much a ticket costs, and what the range from First Row to Nosebleed is.

Why are you "curious"? I repeat the question to you; what conclusions are you hoping to draw?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I would be very surprised if it was free.
But I would be curious to know how much a ticket costs, and what the range from First Row to Nosebleed is.

He seems to be pretty much sold out for this tour, but there are a few seats going in Seattle in Feb for $75 - $180 depending on location.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Why are you "curious"? I repeat the question to you; what conclusions are you hoping to draw?

I've recently been to a concert, and was interested to compare prices.

You seem to be desperate to find ulterior motives - what conclusions had you already drawn from the answer you expected?

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

What conclusions (or inferences) are you going to draw from the answer to that, what ever it may be?

I can multiply.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I would be very surprised if it was free.
But I would be curious to know how much a ticket costs, and what the range from First Row to Nosebleed is.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

He seems to be pretty much sold out for this tour, but there are a few seats going in Seattle in Feb for $75 - $180 depending on location.

So say $100 on average. The 5000 seat venue would net him a cool half million dollars for that one event, less the cheap venue hire, of course.

How many events does he do in a week? A month? A year?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

I can multiply.



So say $100 on average. The 5000 seat venue would net him a cool half million dollars for that one event, less the cheap venue hire, of course.

How many events does he do in a week? A month? A year?

and at basically zero cost - no need to a big crew or stage equipment.

[plague311]

Isn't Jordan Peterson that whiney douche that broke down crying when Olivia Wilde called him an Incel Hero? That was absolutely awesome to watch.

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by plague311

Isn't Jordan Peterson that whiney douche that broke down crying when Olivia Wilde called him an Incel Hero? That was absolutely awesome to watch.

Equally, it's always fun watching all the betas here getting catty about some "nazi" or other.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Equally, it's always fun watching all the betas here getting catty about some "nazi" or other.

talking about alphas and betas is evidence of a very simplistic mindset.
Simple logic shows that everyone is a beta in almost every situation, because by definition there can be only one alpha - if wolf packs worked that way, which they don't.

[Manger Douse]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

talking about alphas and betas is evidence of a very simplistic mindset.
Simple logic shows that everyone is a beta in almost every situation, because by definition there can be only one alpha - if wolf packs worked that way, which they don't.

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

[Darat]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

talking about alphas and betas is evidence of a very simplistic mindset.
Simple logic shows that everyone is a beta in almost every situation, because by definition there can be only one alpha - if wolf packs worked that way, which they don't.

And it is beyond non-scientific, literally into the land of urban fantasy.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

Equally, it's always fun watching all the betas here getting catty about some "nazi" or other.

A thinly veiled whataboutism?

I didn't know it got more "beta" than crying, publicly, over a slight by an actress. If he's so alpha why does he need you here defending him?

[The Great Zaganza]

I find it hilarious when right wingers say that they are "all Alphas".

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Jordan Peterson is certainly a captivating speaker by most accounts, and he is good at weaving his areas of professional interest into broader themes of philosophy and religion.

That said, I think that much of what he does say often evades scrutiny because of his charisma (some people will deny he is charismatic or wonder how anyone can think he is, but charisma is an odd quality that doesn't affect everyone the same way). One of his former colleagues at the University of Toronto said that if he was at a party, people would gather round him to listen to him regardless of what he said.

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

Also, I have heard him say that he is extremely precise in his language, but I dispute that. As with the Jesus smuggling, I think he seems to be pushing ideas that he does not always want to be seen as endorsing. He has often claimed that he did not say what he clearly did say, and which he insisted he did say. Here are some examples:

On ancient art depicting DNA, claiming that he really believes that coiled snakes really represented DNA then denying he believed it when asked about it, then admitting it to Dawkins and saying he had taken a lot of drugs and really believes that people who do so can see DNA with their own eyes (no, seriously!)

When asked by a nervous student about him defending hierachies, etc... denying that he has ever done so, rudely dismissing the student's nervous responses "Okay" etc... "NOT OKAY!" before then saying he defends hierachy, etc...

Essentially arguing that Russia were right to invade Ukraine because it represents the degenerate West. Then sneering about how nobody knows about the Holomodor [sic] (he means Holodomor - he repeated this in another video suggesting he really doesn't know the name himself.)

The beef diet (which his daughter promotes even though he himself claimed he needs for his particular genetic disease - though his wife is now on it suggesting he genetic justification does not hold).

The benzo addiction. I don't want to be mean about this, but it is odd that someone who preaches standing up straight and self-reliance got himself hooked on these pills.

He claimed that the physician who performed surgery on Elliot Page was a criminal. Then in a video justifying this, doubled down on the criminal accusation (meaning metaphorically presumably) saying something about how Nazi doctors were not criminals in Nazi Germany but were criminals none the less...

He's claimed, in conversation with Bret Weinstein that medical science has killed more people than it is saved. He then pointed out he has no idea if it is true, and it may not be true, but it may not not be true (this is the language expert, Jordan Peterson!).

He also followed Weinstein somewhat down the anti-vax path that Weinstein slid down.

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

Jordan Peterson was a respected if obscure outside his field who sold his respect and integrity to sell a line of far right bs to gain notoriety. Eventually he came to believe his bs.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Darat

And it is beyond non-scientific, literally into the land of urban fantasy.

My theory is that it's sublimated sexual fantasy. Men evaluating their sexual value in relation to other men? Maybe up to a point that's not gay, but after a point it becomes quite gay indeed. And very fetishy.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

My theory is that it's sublimated sexual fantasy. Men evaluating their sexual value in relation to other men? Maybe up to a point that's not gay, but after a point it becomes quite gay indeed. And very fetishy.

Yep, it's the idea that "you are first in line to female X, because you are the alpha, and the others can have her when you are done".
Never consider that 'female x' might have her own opinion on the matter.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Yep, it's the idea that "you are first in line to female X, because you are the alpha, and the others can have her when you are done".
Never consider that 'female x' might have her own opinion on the matter.

Oh, I didn't mean that. I was thinking more about the "beta" males turning their admiration of "alpha" males into practice. You can, uh, find quite a lot of, uh, explorations of this theme on the internet these days. In photographs and videos. You may need to log in and prove your age to see the best of it.

[IsThisTheLife]

Personally I've paid only as much attention to Peterson as is forced on me by certain algorithms (i.e. YT). He has nothing revelatory to offer as far as I'm concerned. Does he have "followers" in the sense that could be called 'cult like'? I think probably yes, but arguably that's true of anyone who can pull large audiences just to hear them talk.

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

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

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

similar sentiment here

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Susheel

The prophet of incels...

... or profit off incels.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

... or profit off incels.

shameless bid for Pith nomination.

Nominated.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Jordan Peterson was a respected if obscure outside his field who sold his respect and integrity to sell a line of far right bs to gain notoriety. Eventually he came to believe his bs.

The natural complement to another utter douchebag, Katie Hopkins.