so i mean, how may passes does a guy like that get

So he used a lackluster method for personality assessment?=

that is a bit reckless

that's from a murder trial i believe

he was thrown out as an expert witness

yup, murder trial

so imagine if he had conned his way to get his testimony admitted, somebody could have gone to jail or whatever

Best to just take his input it and draw your own conclusions, but that's not enough if you're an expert, I assume

to even insert yourself into a situation like that just shows what kind of person he is

What did he have to gain?

same shit he gained by getting invovled in c16

how much did his patreon make a month at one point?

70k a month?

Lots, like that

@Auspexel Like sh0t said before, ignore his commentary on philosophy and focus on his psychology. That's his expertise since he studies the field of course, I suggest picking up maps of meaning, that book is decent.

Me and Peterson differ greatly, I'm a collectivist whilst he is an individualist, so there isn't anything that I particularly like about him. His understanding of postmodern philosophy and marxism is very bad, as was shown in his debate with Zizek and highlighted in the reddit thread as well.

that debate with zizek was horrible, from both of them

It was bad.

i don't really consider peterson an individualist either

I would qualify as one, he ain't my kind

@Throttles Agreed

He definitely is one. He critiques a lot of collectivism on the left. You can also infer it from him being a classical liberal.

Jordan recalls us to ultimately rely on ourselves. That's good

his mission to edge people into working on themselves has a profound impact on society and in lost people

he has some good to what he is doing

And he's one heck of a communicator of that need to "clean our rooms". Shame that he likes to pretend he's good at other subjects, where he fails by reductionist viewpoints

but at least I get the gist of what he's trying to say

the c-16 thing might be fuzzy, but at least he pointed out that we must be careful not to let the basic liberty of speech slip away under some minority group's problem with dealing with reality

enforced marriage = not individualist, certainly not for the women involved in that

it's basically a scheme to redistribute the wahmin

assuming he has any good-faith statements to begin with. i see him as more of fortune teller, blowing with a lucrative wind

i'm being slightly facetious, but his vaunted stance for individualism doesn't really move me, especially when he talks about those bad people that deny reality and the reasons he gives for his definition of truth etc

```Some people experience decreased sex drive while taking clonazepam. ... One of the side effects of clonazepam may be increased salivation. This may cause some people to start coughing while taking clonazepam. Clonazepam may also cause anorexia and dry mouth.```

```He always presents his individualism in opposition to collectivism, and holds up the accomplishments of the West to the brutal collectivist regimes we have seen, such as in Communism nations. There are two problems here:

The great accomplishments of the West were not due to individualism. In fact, as individualism has increased in recent times, the greatness of the West has decreased. For example, compare the art of more traditional times to modern art, which is much more individual and subjective than the older forms.
The idea that there are only two modes (individualism and collectivism) is dishonest and ignores the fact that for most of Western Civilization, neither mode of organization was primary. This false dichotomy is very similar to the false dichotomy of capitalism/communism. Both of these fallacies are the product of modern barren minds.```

Hmm, ironically it devalues the centrist point of view, where an individual must have dignity and power, yet a certain cohesion with others and societal systems, which, ultimately, depend on his integrity

GG @Auspexel, you just advanced to level 3!

I like the Carrol Quigley argument: Sam Colt did it

my main beef with people like him, and i'm a hard core libertarian, is the use of 'cultural marxism', which is a literal oxymoron

the popularization of that phrase has destroyed the potential for so much good interaction between 'sides' because the poisioned side that uses it almost cannot be talked to about anything relating to what they THINK it means

I understand the idea, albeit I have a hard time finding a good explanation for it

so far my understanding of post-modernism, cultural marxism and the like

is that there is a movement of people in the left to use the philosophical concept of "everything is relative" to discount the importance of fundamental humanity values