What do you guys think of Jordan Peterson?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Not always true, the outcry has been with the research showing that men and woman are biologically different and excelling in different traits, for example men have traits that make them better at engineering and high level mathematics on average while woman on average are more agreeable and make better nurses for example

On average. You're talking about group differences with small effect sizes, relatively speaking. There is more overlap of traits between groups than there is difference. And, when most people quote this literature in the applied settings, they are generally trying to apply it to small n groups who are not representative of the mean. Therefore, far from accurate, and misleading. Using group statistics to define the individual is...not a good way of doing things.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ditto about the philosophy. I also think he does a great job of putting history back into psychology, too.

I was thinking about this on my walk to Starbucks this morning. This will probably stir the pot a little and be a little provocative, but I am using this example to discuss how inadequate my program, and I think this generalizes to many other programs, was at forming a cogent philosophical underpinnings of several things treated as gospel by modern psychology.

So here's the example: white privilege. My program never discussed the concept. It was a classic indoctrination approach. We were basically told to think about differences between groups in terms of power. And power differentials were always the result of some flavor of -ism or -ist thinking. If you thought that differences between individuals might result from competence or other factors than gender, race, sexuality, or socio-economic status, then you would be called a "racist."

Real question: How many people actually had a program where the concept of white privilege was not treated as gospel in the ethnic diversity courses?

I'm sure I am making heretical comments to many psychologists by even voicing concerns with white privilege. I also know many psychologists feel similarly but were unable to cogently explain their thoughts without being called racist. But, they intuitively know it's a concept with problems.

In fact, the first time I ever heard "white privilege" criticized was by Dr. Peterson. Put simply, his argument is thus: it is always wrong to hold individuals accountable based on group membership. It's not because white people do not hold some advantages - it just that it is wrong to target any ethnic group with a "collective crime" and then try to extrapolate that to individuals. The term "collective crime" is probably where JP and I lost some of y'all. But, he tends to examine everything through a historic lens that is critical of marxism and neo-marxism movements in psychology/academia (especially pointing a finger to the postmodernists).

But, c'mon, for my only exposure to a criticism of white privilege had to be through JP is frustrating. If the idea is good enough, then it should be able to withstand criticism. But, many professors, I think are way to afraid of getting called -ist. It would be an assault on how they were indoctrinated.

I mean some this stuff meets the textbook definition of indoctrination and I'm personally glad the people like JP, even though they make themselves a loud target, are there to counterbalance some of these trends.

But, he is also putting the individual back into psychology.
White privilege is merely the acknowledgment that your skin color has not disadvantaged you.

I never had to deal with any of this in undergrad but I didn't go into psychology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I dunno if they’re that small of an effect size. For example, on the conscientious personality trait, the top 85th percentile of men benchmark (absolute comparison) consciousness as 50th percentile female. That’s a pretty pronounced ES.

You're still simplifying this in a misleading way. For one thing, it is looking at it from a pure numbers standpoint, a 1 SD difference in your examnple, which is still more overlap than difference on average. But that's besides the point, because you'd still have to look at the clinically significant difference, if you will. At what point are these personality differences actually discernible and predictive of something. Also, age is a big moderator in some large studies that take it into account, these are not necessarily unmoving variables both within and between generational cohorts. The real problem is that people are still simply misusing the actual research to make some kind of political point on individual levels. It's just not accurate in the context where I've seen people try to use it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Playing devil's advocate: How does this idea work with the NAN committee "Women In Leadership"?

I am not a member of NAN, so I do not know this particular committee's position statement. My assumption is that it's to promote women gaining leadership positions in a general sense? If there is an under-representation per capita, I don't see how this is much of a problem. My problem is people misusing the research to advocate for genders to stay in certain occupations or positions within an occupation.
 
I am not a member of NAN, so I do not know this particular committee's position statement. My assumption is that it's to promote women gaining leadership positions in a general sense? If there is an under-representation per capita, I don't see how this is much of a problem. My problem is people misusing the research to advocate for genders to stay in certain occupations or positions within an occupation.
Another attempt at devil's advocacy...so reliable differences between men and women as regards interest/personality can't be a legitimate potential variable to study to see if it accounts for any of the variance in an other than 50/50 ratio observed in a particular field? If differences between men and women in interests/ personality don't explain the greater numbers of women (compared to men) in psychology...what does? Same for engineering or nursing fields.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Another attempt at devil's advocacy...so reliable differences between men and women as regards interest/personality can't be a legitimate potential variable to study to see if it accounts for any of the variance in an other than 50/50 ratio observed in a particular field? If differences between men and women in interests/ personality don't explain the greater numbers of women (compared to men) in psychology...what does? Same for engineering or nursing fields.

I'm all for the study of differences and what they mean/predict in a meaningful way, that was never the contention. It's applying those differences to the entirety of the group, despite the significant overlap of many of those traits. It's like trying to claim a neuropsychological profile of ADHD because we can find some group differences, but that profile falls apart psychometrically when we try to apply it diagnostically to the individual. So, let's study away, but let's also interpret the results genuinely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm all for the study of differences and what they mean/predict in a meaningful way, that was never the contention. It's applying those differences to the entirety of the group, despite the significant overlap of many of those traits. It's like trying to claim a neuropsychological profile of ADHD because we can find some group differences, but that profile falls apart psychometrically when we try to apply it diagnostically to the individual. So, let's study away, but let's also interpret the results genuinely.
I'm all for the study of differences and what they mean/predict in a meaningful way, that was never the contention. It's applying those differences to the entirety of the group, despite the significant overlap of many of those traits. It's like trying to claim a neuropsychological profile of ADHD because we can find some group differences, but that profile falls apart psychometrically when we try to apply it diagnostically to the individual. So, let's study away, but let's also interpret the results genuinely.
I agree. Individuals who happen to be a member of any particular group should not be judged (or pre-judged) based solely on group membership or observed differences/ covariance at the group level.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who embraces incel culture can't be that smart in my book.

Anyone who uses a term that is a readily available marginalizing heuristic that further divides and "others" people can't be a critical thinker in my book.

Having this quoted post as the top post in this thread is disheartening because it uses this quick term "INCEL" to further the labeling and oppression of a group. If we actually went to the source of the data, JP's youtube videos, you would see no such embracing of the traits implicitly associated with the term. The above quote appears to be a form of engaging in the very rhetoric and "manufactured crises" the aforementioned SDN user claims they are able to see through, and does the very same "pre-judgment" they later speak against by applying group-level assumptions to the individual.

How about we work to understand why certain subgroups, especially ones associated with "violent behavior", exist? That is our job as Psychologists. If an academic were to embrace a certain culture, it is our responsibility to ask why. What are the social circumstances giving rise to these groups?

Another previous poster identified the anecdotal rise of JP as a topic in their work with male clients in their private practice. I have seen the same in my clinical work. I do not agree with many of JP's points, a majority of which over time seem less and less based in empirically rigorous science. That said, it is clear that his success is allowing a subset of men to feel as if they have a voice in a society that is progressively stating that their voice needs to be quieted. Men who are labeled by the Toxic Masculinity movement as "stoic" and "unemotional" are anything but; men are emotional creatures, and being accused of the opposite is a vast misunderstanding. It appears that men are feeling understood by JP, whereas the mainstream narrative can sometimes appear to state that there is original sin by being born male.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Really, he fully advocated "enforced monogamy" at one point, practically a plank in the incel platform. He later backtracked and fed some bs about the "social enforcement" monogamy instead of government mandated, but he definitely believes that it's a real solution. I stand by my comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Really, he fully advocated "enforced monogamy" at one point, practically a plank in the incel platform. He later backtracked and fed some bs about the "social enforcement" monogamy instead of government mandated, but he definitely believes that it's a real solution. I stand by my comment.
How did he say it should be 'enforced,' out of curiosity? At the point of a gun? Criminalizing breaches in monogamy? A 'cheater tax?' I think he was observing that polygamous societies can tend to become destabilized and even violent. In a later Joe Rogan podcast he appears to clarify what he meant in the NY Times interview which was more along the lines of monogamy being widely recognized as a social norm in society. He seemed to be making the case that monogamy is good, for example, to maintain the family structure and is beneficial for raising children. It appears he was saying that it might be preferable to have societal and cultural norms that dissuade people from unbridled polygamy. He's engaging in meaningful discussion about a controversial topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He didn't go into too much detail initially, and later talked about the "social enforcement" aspect when someone asked him about it. Maybe I'm missing his more mainstream, coherent stuff, but his inflammatory/pseudoscientific stuff is hard to wade past to get to the good stuff, if it exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
But, his popularity is a reaction to modern identity politique and pc culture.
latest
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I've found the ideas in this talk useful in dealing with veterans who definitely have to contend with 'dark feelings' and resentment.

 
An alternative perspective hopefully outside of the Jordan Peterson controversy... I think there is interesting and productive conversation to be had here. Whether real or imagined, there's a tendency for men to feel marginalized and uncomfortable in contemporary society. You can't work with veterans every day and not notice this. I think it's important to celebrate the positive aspects of masculinity while eschewing the 'Shadow Warrior' that this commentary describes.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is still a cool song/sentiment with nothing negative I can detect:
 
How long ago did you graduate because what you would consider the extremist postmodern types ARE academia at this point. It is taught as if it is objective reality when it's just another extremist ideology. I have been taught in every class that it could be snuck into the curriculum in any way that biology is purely a social construct. That is what doctoral level clinical psychology programs are teaching students... as if it is actual fact.

That part of Peterson's crusade is spot on.
I'm in my final semester and this does not remotely mirror my experience.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using SDN mobile
 
I don't believe you. Jordan Peterson isn't making it all up and neither am I nor all those who agree with me.

The postmodern type students usually do disagree though...

If you're in an actual science discipline I would believe you've been able to ignore it because it's hard to throw in the socialization of biology myth along with hard science curriculum, but if you're in psych. I'm calling bull**** all the way. Even in a STEM discipline you have to have blinders on to not see this crap everywhere but if I was in a STEM discipline I would have my blinders on just to stay sane.
I'm not saying it is made up. I don't doubt that is experience of some.

I guess the difference is I'd entertain that we may actually have had different experiences. Despite the risk of not sounding absolutionist enough for you, I assume that all of academia does not necessarily follow in the same path.

I did not deny that some postmodern principles were a portion of my training. However, according to your statement, extreme postmodernism and the denial of biology is apparently the resounding message of academia, and that does not fit with my experience nor does that seem cogent with theories and specialities that consider biology as a foundational principle.

Id actually have assumed your statement was hyperbolic, except it was in reply to and debating a balanced statement that closely aligns with my personal experience.




Sent from my SM-N950U1 using SDN mobile
 
And honesty is not absolutist and "balanced" statements are rarely honest. I am not of the feelings are more important than fact and politeness is more important than truth crowd, but you do you.

Nowhere have I indicated that feelings or politeness are pertinent to my perspective. I actually believe balanced statements often hold the most truth, because they consider the complexities that create any specific phenomena, especially when considering topics outside of hard science.
 
I don't believe you. Jordan Peterson isn't making it all up and neither am I nor all those who agree with me.

The postmodern type students usually do disagree though...

If you're in an actual science discipline I would believe you've been able to ignore it because it's hard to throw in the socialization of biology myth along with hard science curriculum, but if you're in psych. I'm calling bull**** all the way. Even in a STEM discipline you have to have blinders on to not see this crap everywhere but if I was in a STEM discipline I would have my blinders on just to stay sane.

I'd wager a fair amount of this is program specific. I'm only a few years out and can't say I saw much at all of this in my program. Present in the university as a whole? Probably - likely moreso in humanities, but we have very little contact with that world. Perhaps a few individuals in my program espoused personal beliefs along those lines, but they were the exception rather than the rule. Clinical science program. Top journals in psychology aren't exactly publishing postmodern thought pieces, so they were more focused on us learning latent class analysis and debating the structure of models of psychopathology. Most my peers report similar experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You're still simplifying this in a misleading way. For one thing, it is looking at it from a pure numbers standpoint, a 1 SD difference in your examnple, which is still more overlap than difference on average. But that's besides the point, because you'd still have to look at the clinically significant difference, if you will. At what point are these personality differences actually discernible and predictive of something. Also, age is a big moderator in some large studies that take it into account, these are not necessarily unmoving variables both within and between generational cohorts. The real problem is that people are still simply misusing the actual research to make some kind of political point on individual levels. It's just not accurate in the context where I've seen people try to use it.

Most people (men or women) do not commit murder but 9/10 of individuals that do commit murder are men. So sure, when we look at the overall murder rates there is major overlap men and women, because most men and women don't commit murder, but it just so happens that on one of the extreme poles of the distribution, it is almost all men, and on the extreme pole (all women). Furthermore, it PRACTICALLY makes a difference in the real world if you are, I don't know a Psychologist? Criminologist? Police Officer? A planner? If we were building a prison, we surely wouldn't build one for more female prisoners. This same phenomenon is seen in a lot of areas (ie IQ research and when we compare personality traits).

Jordan Peterson, a lot of the time, is making his case based on these differences. He always acknowledges the overlap, and he clearly states that a personality trait or IQ is ONE factor that could explain some outcome but that it is ONE of MANY.

You can accuse Jordan of many things, but if you've watched his content a decent amount, you cannot accuse him of not understanding the multi-faceted nature of phenomena. In fact, his frustration with post-modernists is that they essentially believe that most phenomena can be explained by power dynamics. ONE FACTOR. And I am not being unfair by saying it is one factor. It is one factor because their whole pyramid falls if you don't accept the premise that powerful people create reality/truth, therefore truth is subjecting, and then all other ills stem from that (ie why people stay poor, etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You can accuse Jordan of many things, but if you've watched his content a decent amount, you cannot accuse him of not understanding the multi-faceted nature of phenomena

It's not necessarily that he misunderstands it. It's that he now oversimplifies it to appeal to the lowest common denominator of his new base, which has no understanding of it. Something he is most likely aware of and using to add to his popularity among certain groups.
 
It's not necessarily that he misunderstands it. It's that he now oversimplifies it to appeal to the lowest common denominator of his new base, which has no understanding of it. Something he is most likely aware of and using to add to his popularity among certain groups.
He doesn't simplify it. You just haven't seen his work. Are you saying that you have never simplified anything when talking to a general audience? ie friends of yours? ie a conference of some sort?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
He doesn't simplify it. You just haven't seen his work. Are you saying that you have never simplified anything when talking to a general audience? ie friends of yours? ie a conference of some sort?

I have seen some of his work, and it's pandering to the base for the most part from what I have seen. Maybe I'll try him out again at some point in the future when I'm bored, but it doesn't seem to be much worth my time as it's just more of the same politically motivated garbage as he's gravitated towards that base.
 
Germane to the topic, the apa is currently taking flak for asserting that masculinity is unhealthy and dangerous.

Eh, it's not quite as sensationalistic as the news is making it out. I saw the headlines and started to read the actual document. So far, from the first few chapters/guidelines, it's getting taken way out of context and extrapolated to an extreme degree.
 
I think that ContraPoints has made an excellent rebuttal to Jordan Peterson (more on the philosophy side than the psychology side)

 
Now, having read the preamble of the report (toxic masculinity issue from apa) there are ideological issues in its presentation. I can see why it garnered attention from conservative media.

I just went into the guidelines without the preamble. What part of it specifically are you objecting to?
 
I take issue with the majority of the references being theoretical (psydr, 2018).

PsyDr (2018). Referencing a theory does not support a separate theory. Journal of PsyDr. 9 (1), 1-12; doi: 66544541351435
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Yes. There’s a lot of parroting of gender studies type language. The privilege rhetoric is strongly represented. The unearned privilege is philosophically interesting applied to an individual.

That a person is born in the us, to parents with high iqs (genetic lottery), encounters various random elements in their life that advantage them, etc...these are all unearned advantages. Freewill in general I think can be argued to be fairly limited. We only control a little bit.

There is a lot of power assigned to white male and disadvantage assigned to not. But, the tapestry for an individual is far more complicated than that. One person’s disadvantage can often be another’s advantage. I’m not sure what positive value skin color or gender “privilege” has in the national discourse much less in a clinical guideline for how to address individual patients.

I think you're addressing a core (and fatal flaw) with the whole 'privilege' and 'intersectionality' arguments. Namely, exactly HOW MANY (and which) dimensions are we going to take into account when determining an individual's 'privilege status?' Race/ethnicity? Sex/gender? IQ? Mental illness status? Age? Where they grew up? Social status (growing up)? Social status (now as an adult)? Fraternity/sorority membership status? Education level? You see, you can take an individual and rate them (in terms of 'privilege,' I suppose) along an infinite number of dimensions. EVERYONE is going to have some dimensions on which they are rated as 'privileged' (and, thus, an 'oppressor') as well as some (at least one) dimension on which they are rated as 'oppressed/disadvantaged.' Think of a black female (oppressed, oppressed) who is a medical doctor (privileged [social status], privileged [educated], privileged [financially secure]). Focusing on class membership tends to be inherently divisive, ignores the individual, and ends up being a situation in which ANYONE can be labeled as a 'victim' or a 'oppressor' depending on (arbitrarily) which group membership variable the person doing the judging wishes to focus on. Not to mention the fact that our field used to recognize the whole 'victim--persecutor--rescuer' triangle as being (clinically) inherently pathological. Remember the Gestalt therapy concept of 'Games People Play?' We've lost our minds lately as a profession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think that much of this rhetoric can be rooted in critical race theory. It’s arguably inherently anti-classical liberalism. It’s part of why I see it as political speech and not science. It’s an ideology.

I'm wondering what empirical evidence exists to support the notion that teaching men in therapy about their 'power,' their 'privilege,' their fundamental role as 'oppressors' and in 'the patriarchy' actually improves mental health outcomes. The new APA guidelines appear silent on that.

I tend to think that both 'traditional femininity' (whatever that is) and 'traditional masculinity' (whatever that is) have both positive and negative aspects.
I don't think that 'traditional masculinity' is predominantly dysfunctional, toxic, violent, or criminal.
I don't think that teaching young men to be 'less traditionally masculine' is any more healthy than teaching young women to be 'less traditionally feminine.' I think it's up to the INDIVIDUAL in therapy (man or woman) to figure that out for themselves and I don't think that I should, as a therapist, have an agenda to 'purge' my male clients of traditionally masculine traits or even discourage their expression in them.
I don't think that a focus on 'stoicism' or 'achievement' or 'competition' is necessarily or inherently pathological.
But that makes me a troglodyte.

Is the poem, 'If' by Rudyard Kipling an example of 'traditional masculinity?' Is it toxic?

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Okay, so here are a couple of passages (from the source documents) that are interesting to compare and contrast...first, a passage from the APA's 'Guidelines for Psychological Practice for Girls and Women:

"(p.951) Many symptoms associated with the aforementioned disorders have been conceptualized as exaggerations or stereotyping of traditional female gender roles and behaviors (as defined by mainstream culture; e.g., overreacting emotionially, attempting to sexually attract men and to preserve romantic relationships at all costs, and placating others by internalizing, denying, or inefficiently expressing anger). Misdiagnosis can also occur when a client's problem behaviors are inconsistent with societal expectations, such as when an Asian woman, assumed by stereotype to be meek, reacts to discrimination with anger."

So, when discussing the troubles that women encounter in society, women are portrayed as victims of stereotyping, misdiagnosis, and wrong-headed societal expectations. There's nothing about 'traditional femininity,' per se, that is criticized as being inherently toxic or pathological...it's society (presumably ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy) that's the problem that needs to be addressed. There's no mention of 'femininity ideology' or any such construct as a source of problems. Women are victims of society. Women don't need to change...society needs to change. Contrast this with a passage from the recently published guidelines for practicing with men and boys:

[p. 2-3] "Masculinity ideology is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive (sic) of cognitions about boys and men. Although there are differences in masculinity ideologies, there is a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology." The guideline authors locate the pathology within the man and urge the reader to help men change and reject this 'traditional masculiine' ideology. 'Masculine ideology' is the pathology in this model (and notice that 'feminine ideology' is not identified as a pathological construct in the 'sister' guidelines for practice with women and girls). Of course they critique 'masculine ideology' as it is present in society, as well, but the point is that it's 'masculinity' that's the problem, at a societal and individual level.

So, when men encounter problems in living, it's 'traditional masculine ideology' that's to blame. And, in contrast to the passage from the guidelines for women, the authors rattle off a string of traits/attitudes that they present as being quintessential representations of 'traditional masculinity,' :anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. Clearly, several of these are laden with pejorative (even criminal) connotations (namely, anti-femininity, risk, and violence). So, the authors are asserting that the pathology/problem lies with 'traditional masculinity' (or traditional qualities inherent in men themselves) and go on to (oddly) frame men as both the victims (of this ideology) and the perpetrators/purveyors of this ideology. Society's role is to 'fix men' and cure them of these 'traditionally masculine traits' (and I take issue with their particular list of traits in terms of what defines 'traditional masculinity' since they leave a lot of desirable traits out such as honor, justice, fairness, resilience, etc.).

If you can't see the asymmetry with respect to APA's manner of conceptualizing the problems of women and girls vs. men and boys in these guidelines, we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would LOVE to see some fair/impartial empirical tests of some of their assumptions of how it is best to approach men in therapy---particularly the part about lecturing them about their unearned privilege, oppression (of society), participation in the tyrannical patriarchy, and how they are anti-feminist, take too many risks, and are too focused on achivement. Pardon my French, but try that sh@# in the post-deployment clinic with bitter, cynical (mostly male) veterans suffering from PTSD, depression, alcoholism, homelessness, etc. It's challenging enough to utilize Socratic questions, the therapeutic relationship, and motivational interviewing to get them to take respoonsibiliy FOR THEIR OWN PROBLEMS...let alone trying to convince them that they are participating in a tyrannical oppressive patriarchy that is harmful to themselves, their fellow men/veterans and society. Give me a break. But...if you want to critically examiine your hypotheses...be my guest...set up an RTC comparing interventions with and without this component. Let's see what the data say.
 
Last edited:
I read most of the first page, didn't have the stamina to read all of the rest of the thread.

Just wanted to say that I like listening to JP. I take him with a grain of salt. Part of the problem with getting your impression second-hand is that he's actually a pretty nuanced/complicated person. Factoids about JP should be taken in context, which is lost when transmitted by second parties in shorthand.

What I like about him is that he frequently states that he's trying to figure things out. He's openly changed his mind on subjects in public.

There are a few intersecting spheres that he tends to focus on: there's JP the legit personality researcher; JP who has his own pseudo-self-help brand which is derived in part from some of his research (personality + future authoring), in other parts from behaviorism, and in other ways from his philosophical system; JP with a significant interest in figuring out how totalitarian states develop (this gives you context for why he stood up for free speech, the initial reason he gained notoriety); and then there's JP who is trying to figure out what constitutes "truth" which relates to the mythical and biological aspects of his lectures/writings.

---

For those who are doubting the existence of pretty extreme postmodernist faculties in some universities...





These events led to JP becoming somewhat associated with the Weinsteins and with L Sheperd. These are people who were/are all conventionally "liberal" but in a moderate sense. I think JP and the people he's associated with (aside from Ben Shapiro) are mostly just trying to advocate for rational moderation in politics.

I think you're addressing a core (and fatal flaw) with the whole 'privilege' and 'intersectionality' arguments. Namely, exactly HOW MANY (and which) dimensions are we going to take into account when determining an individual's 'privilege status?' Race/ethnicity? Sex/gender? IQ? Mental illness status?
I'm not going to do proper service to this point but to say that accounting for all of the intersectional categories leaves you with an individual, the most vulnerable and important minority, but that is antithetical to the postmodernist argument.

adventure, risk, and violence
Labeled as criminal, associated with criminality, but also traits that should not be derided. (Violence could be instead be interpreted as an aggressive drive.) Risk and adventure beget progress.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think part of the issue is the blanket statements that you are assuming, but are not conveyed in the actual text. For example, I don't see the problem with the following line

"Although privilege has not applied to all boys and men in equal measure, in the aggregate, males experience a greater degree of social and economic power than girls and women in a patriarchal society (Flood & Pease, 2005)."

Pretty straightforward and historically accurate
 
I would LOVE to see some fair/impartial empirical tests of some of their assumptions of how it is best to approach men in therapy---particularly the part about lecturing them about their unearned privilege, oppression (of society), participation in the tyrannical patriarchy, and how they are anti-feminist, take too many risks, and are too focused on achivement. Pardon my French, but try that sh@# in the post-deployment clinic with bitter, cynical (mostly male) veterans suffering from PTSD, depression, alcoholism, homelessness, etc. It's challenging enough to utilize Socratic questions, the therapeutic relationship, and motivational interviewing to get them to take respoonsibiliy FOR THEIR OWN PROBLEMS...let alone trying to convince them that they are participating in a tyrannical oppressive patriarchy that is harmful to themselves, their fellow men/veterans and society. Give me a break. But...if you want to critically examiine your hypotheses...be my guest...set up an RTC comparing interventions with and without this component. Let's see what the data say.

I don't see where the guidelines advocate for lecturing people in therapy. Rather, being aware of certain issues and discussing them when developmentally appropriate within the setting and if it is an issue that is possibly contributing to the presenting problem. I guess people see what they want here, though.
 
I think part of the issue is the blanket statements that you are assuming, but are not conveyed in the actual text. For example, I don't see the problem with the following line

"Although privilege has not applied to all boys and men in equal measure, in the aggregate, males experience a greater degree of social and economic power than girls and women in a patriarchal society (Flood & Pease, 2005)."

Pretty straightforward and historically accurate

I don't see where the guidelines advocate for lecturing people in therapy. Rather, being aware of certain issues and discussing them when developmentally appropriate within the setting and if it is an issue that is possibly contributing to the presenting problem. I guess people see what they want here, though.
Fine...then let's challenge the authors of these guidelines to operationalize their 'advice' at the level of specificity of a treatment manual, therapist guide, client workbook, and/or treatment protocol. Then we can test their claims and consider alternate theories. Until then, these 'guidelines' are based on untested speculation.
 
in the aggregate, males experience a greater degree of social and economic power than girls and women in a patriarchal society (Flood & Pease, 2005)."

Pretty straightforward and historically accurate
Please explain. What is a patriarchical society? How can you tell? Whose are we referring to? Any men specifically or just "in aggregate"?
 
Fine...then let's challenge the authors of these guidelines to operationalize their 'advice' at the level of specificity of a treatment manual, therapist guide, client workbook, and/or treatment protocol. Then we can test their claims and consider alternate theories. Until then, these 'guidelines' are based on untested speculation.

I'm fine with that. Although these are more written in terms of cultural considerations taken within the context of treatment where appropriate, rather than a specific, targeted treatment. It'd be like saying that because we have guidelines in understanding cultural concepts related to work with Veterans, there needs to be a treatment manual specifically for Vet culture that needs to be in protocol form.
 
Please explain. What is a patriarchical society? How can you tell? Whose are we referring to? Any men specifically or just "in aggregate"?

Are you arguing that historically men and women had the same economic opportunities in this country for the past 150 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top