Explaining the appeal of Jordan Peterson to young men

tl;dr, as provided by Nate Winchester: He’s YouTube Dad. Dad pill means a masculine figure whose answer to existential questions isn’t “kill yourself,” it’s “you can do better”.

The appeal of Jordan Peterson to young men comes down to two things.

1) He answers their most pressing question, which is “Why do anything?”

By redefining religious experience as highly compressed knowledge for practical application, he promises that engaging in practical application will be a religious experience. This has long-term ramifications, but short-term utility.

2) He doesn’t add to their despair with fatalistic judgments.

If you ask the Alt-West, for example, “why do anything?” their answer will effectively be a confused mashup of social competitor answers:
1 “If you have to ask, you deserve not to exist.”
2. “Find a robust, a priori reason like mine.” (This is the attitude of a Boomer, for example.)
3. “Motivate yourself into having motivation.”

Basically, the problem is that these kids are asking why they should work without pay. And everybody else says “Because otherwise we’ll call you lazy and then fire you. “But also, if you work hard and then don’t succeed we’ll call you lazy and fire you. And also, honestly we just fucking hate that you exist, and would you please just kill yourself to make room.”

This attitude is predicted by end-stage rat utopia.

“Within a few generations all such roles in all physical space available to the species are filled. At this time, the continuing high survival of many individuals to sexual and behavioural maturity culminates in the presence of many young adults capable of involvement in appropriate species-specific activities. However, there are few opportunities for fulfilling these potentialities. In seeking such fulfilment they compete for social role occupancy with the older established members of the community. This competition is so severe that it simultaneously leads to the nearly total breakdown of all normal behaviour by both the contestors and the established adults of both sexes. Normal social organization (i.e. ‘the establishment’) breaks down, it ‘dies’.”

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Explaining the appeal of Jordan Peterson to young men

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Your answer encapsulates mine. Good job.

      • Yeah and it’s not for nothing as the breakdown of families mean a lot of kids are missing dads.

        Vox’s reaction to JBP’s fans is ironic given that VD previously rebuked atheists about kicking out the crutch of religion from those that need it. Now here he is aiming to kick away other’s crutches…

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Good point. Further irony is that, like the atheists, he does this on the presumption that the crutch is damaging rather than helping because all delusion is costly.

          However I expect the entire debacle is due to an inability to grapple with the dichotomy of Christianity and malevolence toward enemies. Humanity in mass is effectively incapable of waging brutal war without dehumanizing the opposition, but Christ said to love your enemy. So either one must find a loving way to wage war (my position, using the same logic as screening pedos from babysitting for the sake of both the kids and the pedo), or one must restrict Christianity from the function of civic religion entirely (the separation of church and state argument).

  1. SirHamster says:

    I’ve listened to quite a few JP lectures. I was wondering why it resonated so well, and then I realized he was telling bedtime stories (at a college level). That’s why he’s daddy to so many fatherless men. He told them the myths that teach us at an emotional level that dragons can be slain and that our lives have meaning.

    Note for future fathering. Bedtime reading and storytelling are not optional.

    • “Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.”
      -G.K. Chesterton

      • Mocheirge says:

        Did y’all coordinate these two comments? Because wow — together they are perfect.

        Between this site and Vox Popoli, I’m getting a much clearer idea of how Millennials are a broken generation. The animosity between generations (Boomer, Gen X, and Millennial) really exacerbates all the problems.

        Has there always been this much antagonism between generations, or is this unique to our atomized individualist culture? Or have I answered my own question?

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          I expect it’s due rather more to the absolute segregation of generations so that cultural transmission is restricted to children being taught to imitate low-class daycare attendants.

        • SirHamster says:

          I was alluding to the quote Nate dug up. The joy of Internet collaboration.

          > Has there always been this much antagonism between generations
          Boomers did not invent abortion and child sacrifice, so I’m guessing no.

          But it is still horrifying when you see past the plastic smile.

          Mildly related, this was an eye-opening confrontation with an abortion doctor. Don’t go unarmed into spiritual war.

          • Brilliand says:

            Eye-opening? I think this guy’s joking.

            • SirHamster says:

              Do you think he’s funny?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              The crux is whether the abortion doctor thinks he was being funny. Though I’m personally holding judgment in abeyance, a case could be made that a guy who kills babies for a living and sells their body parts could naturally develop a twisted sense of humor far outside ordinary boundaries.

            • Heaviside says:

              You have to be really naive to think this is a demon.

            • SirHamster says:

              > The crux is whether the abortion doctor thinks he was being funny.

              Him thinking he’s funny or not is tangential to whether he is expressing a demonic spirit.

              > You have to be really naive to think this is a demon.

              Murdering babies for profit is already known to be demonic. This abortionist serves a demonic master in his profession. Even if he thinks he’s joking, his words express a demonic hatred of life and Jesus.

              Do you have a, “haha, he’s so comedic” reaction to the video? Or does it trigger a Danger/Keep Distance response?

              The default assumption of no spiritual influences is the naive view.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >Him thinking he’s funny or not is tangential to whether he is expressing a demonic spirit.

              It’s a possible alternative hypothesis. The question is whether it is plausible, and then whether it is the correct model.

              You’re muddling terms in general. It is not good to argue that demonic influence, inspiration, and possession are the same thing or interchangeable in practice because that is not true.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              To be clear, I’m emphasizing the importance of precise language here, not saying you’re incorrect in every possible sense.

            • Heaviside says:

              If you confuse a guy who is very upset with a protester and acts in a belligerently sarcastic manner with an actual demon you are cheapening the word.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >If you confuse a guy who is very upset with a protester and acts in a belligerently sarcastic manner with an actual demon you are cheapening the word.

              I think it would help if you were to characterize the qualities of proper demonic activity which are not seen in this example.

            • SirHamster says:

              > If you confuse a guy who is very upset with a protester and acts in a belligerently sarcastic manner with an actual demon you are cheapening the word.

              What is your concept of an “actual demon”?

              I linked the video as an exhibit of demonic influence – a man who enjoys his job of murdering babies. Coupled with the #PizzaGate and other #QAnon related reveals, there’s widespread evil going on behind the scenes, and there is definitely a spiritual component to all of this.

              Tangentially, re-watching it I am bothered that the man taking video tells the doctor to keep killing babies. Don’t encourage evil.

            • Heaviside says:

              >What is your concept of an “actual demon”?

              They are a variety of disincarnate beings that you can see in altered states of consciousness.

              >Coupled with the #PizzaGate and other #QAnon related reveals, there’s widespread evil going on behind the scenes, and there is definitely a spiritual component to all of this.

              People like Q are just going to keep you running in circles.

            • Heaviside says:

              “Well said, Goodman Brown! I have been as well acquainted with your family as with ever a one among the Puritans; and that’s no trifle to say. I helped your grandfather, the constable, when he lashed the Quaker woman so smartly through the streets of Salem; and it was I that brought your father a pitch-pine knot, kindled at my own hearth, to set fire to an Indian village, in King Philip’s war. They were my good friends, both; and many a pleasant walk have we had along this path, and returned merrily after midnight. I would fain be friends with you for their sake.”

            • Ø says:

              >Do you have a, “haha, he’s so comedic” reaction to the video? Or does it trigger a Danger/Keep Distance response?

              It definitely triggers the latter. Tense feeling welling up in the diaphragm, slightly elevated heartrate and slightly sharpened senses for me when watching it. Supernatural possession or not, that’s not a normal response to that type of interaction at all for anyone, let alone a medical professional on the job. If he was trying to be funny, he failed.

              I remember going to a lot of bars and clubs and stuff when I was younger (in college) and there’d be street preachers yelling at us throngs of drunken retards to repent and trying to evangelize to us and whatnot. I (and everybody else) would always kind of try to dodge them, avoid speaking with them or otherwise look the other way. If I did speak to one of them, I might take their pamphlet and have a brief, awkward exchange of words, then hurry off.

              That doctor’s response in this kind of interaction is extremely abnormal and offputting–but then again, so is murdering unborn infants for a living.

            • SirHamster says:

              > People like Q are just going to keep you running in circles.

              What circle am I am running in?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              “go/run around in circles. to keep doing or talking about the same thing without achieving anything: The discussion kept going around in circles.”

              dictionary.cambridge.org

            • Heaviside says:

              >I think it would help if you were to characterize the qualities of proper demonic activity which are not seen in this example.

              Apparitions and other metachoric phenomena.

            • Heaviside says:

              >What circle am I am running in?

              Let’s say you believe there is widespread sexual blackmail that is being used to control Congress. The right questions are the ones that will let you view the present in terms of the past; to see effects in light of their causes. What institutions might have a history of using sexual blackmail to control elected politicians? In what institutions might this activity organically grow out of their normal behaviour? Almost nobody who discusses “pizzagate” will ask questions along these lines, because their thinking begins and ends with the present, and that’s a circle.

            • SirHamster says:

              > Almost nobody who discusses “pizzagate” will ask questions along these lines, because their thinking begins and ends with the present, and that’s a circle.

              In other words, you don’t know that I am running in a circle or not. You’re just throwing things at the wall and seeing if anything sticks.

              Just checking if there was something interesting to glean from what I’ve actually said. I don’t care about your prejudice towards PizzaGate or Q.

              @Aeoli
              The nesting/ordering here is weird.

              > It’s a possible alternative hypothesis. The question is whether it is plausible, and then whether it is the correct model.

              It’s an overlapping hypothesis.

              A: He is just Agreeing and Amplifying.
              B: He thinks he is doing A, while the demonic is expressing itself.
              C: He is controlled by demon expressing itself.

              > You’re muddling terms in general. It is not good to argue that demonic influence, inspiration, and possession are the same thing or interchangeable in practice because that is not true.

              I haven’t argued they are the same. But any of the three are evidence of spiritual war.

              Are you treating scenario B as demonic inspiration and scenario C as possession?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Scenario C would be possession, but by inspiration I mean something more like a “ballistic movement” in neurology. The demon convinces a person of something, them the person acts in accordance with the belief. This is not “controlled” by the demon any more than a person’s trajectory is controlled after they are convinced to jump into the air. That’s what I would mean by “inspired”.

            • SirHamster says:

              > but by inspiration I mean something more like a “ballistic movement” in neurology. The demon convinces a person of something, them the person acts in accordance with the belief.

              Fair definition. When I use the Bible to test these models, it seems more likely that when Peter was rebuked by Jesus, that was inspiration rather than possession.

              Seems Judas falls under possession. (“Then Satan entered Judas …”)

              In the case of this doctor, with his vocal rejection of Jesus and choice of work, I think it leaves him open to possession, which the video may be a glimpse of. (unprotected person engaged in evil may create an autonomous puppet for demon. ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL).

              My choice of word of “express” is ambiguous with respect to inspiration/possession, which is intentional in that I don’t know. I can still judge the nature and evil of the expression despite my ignorance of the exact vehicle for it.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >Note for future fathering. Bedtime reading and storytelling are not optional.

      An unfortunate stat I got from Brian Tracy: the average working parent spends an average of thirty seconds a day talking to their kids. Five minutes of reading about talking lions apparently makes you a superhero.

  2. Jordy LaFrog Peterson's Fully Automated Mecha-Dragonslayer says:

    The only thing about Peterson that I found interesting was his tendency to analyze myths and stories in terms of psychology and evolutionary psychology, but I’m weird like that. Even his political stuff didn’t interest me that much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s