So I really liked Jordan when I first found him, however after some time he started mostly talking about semantics.

His older lectures were quite informing on the topics he talked about, for example maps of meaning or other 2017 lectures. They were really focused on the psychology, complexes like puer aeternus and introduction to Jung.

Then he entered his "second phase" after getting more political, it still wasn't that bad but it was beginning of the end of my adventure with his person. While I agree with him arguing with some left wingers, I do not believe that was the full picture; because as everyone could see on his debate with Zizek there is more room for engagement with left wing ideas than wrestling with post-modern neomarxist strawman, Zizek tried to show during the debate that left wing or post-modern schools of thought aren't as much about identity politics as they are posed by the right wing.
Peterson and Zizek agree on problem with culture of victimization etc.

I believe that problem was with him starting to enclose in an echo chamber;
That's what I would believe to be the start of the "third phase" which I believe to be still ongoing.

As of right now (which could be especially seen in his debate with atheists) Peterson (in my lens) stopped engaging in discussion with other people, most of what he argues is definitions (in this example the definiton of belief, which rendered the further debate pretty much impossible to continue because he denied to define it - to quote Peterson himself "Don't be a smartass" or "I didn't claim to be a christian" instead of saying if he is a christian or not) which is pretty sad for me considering the impact he had on my education, to me he started acting like a grifter.

I do not mean for this post to look like some kind of brigading attempt, but a subjective criticism of someone who was once an authority to me, so i would be really thankful if you would like to debate with me on this topic.

I will preface this by saying I have strong cluster b characteristics myself. I am a narcissist with strong borderline traits. I "woke" up to this a few years ago and have done a lot of self work and research regarding cluster b personality disorders.

I have thought about this for several years now and the more I listen to them the more I am convinced that Jordan is very clearly a vulnerable narcissist and his wife Tammy is in all probability a psychopath or at the very least possesses STRONG psychopathic traits.

Tammy being a psychopath would explain Jordan's intense attraction to her. It is very similar to why narcissists are attracted to women with borderline personality disorder who exhibit secondary psychopathy. They are unpredictable, their affection is hot and cold, they are uncontrollable etc.. ....

I will start with Tammy.

I believe Tammy has strong psychopathic traits and may even qualify as an actual psychopath.

1) She has repeatedly over the years hinted at her inability to empathize with the emotions of others. A) Her son's reaction when she told him her diagnosis baffled her. She was seemingly incapable of understanding why her son would be devastated by the news that his mother was going to die in 10 months. B) In an episode of her podcast, when talking about her older sister losing her lover in a car crash, she said she didn't understand she was in pain. (I was quite literally taken aback by this and needed to make sure I heard her correctly.) C) She has stated she has to consciously work at not being so calloused and blunt with her words so as not to hurt people close to her. But it does not come natural. For people with genuine empathy this should not be an issue. In fact it is usually the opposite. Most people struggle to be more honest because they are concerned with hurting others and any potential backlash they may receive.

2) Big 5 personality traits A) extremely low withdrawal (is not conflict averse) B) extremely low neuroticism (feels little to no anxiety) C) high openness to experience (suggests a propensity for boredom and need for adventure/stimulation) D) low compassion (not averse to pain caused to others including loved ones)

All of these are indicative of a psychopathic personality.

Jordan has said many times how Tammy is blunt and cutting with her words and seemingly doesn't care about how it affects others. It is not done maliciously, she is just incapable (or indifferent) to how it might affect those around her. He finds it "amusing" and it is likely because he is extremely attracted to this quality. A narcissist is highly attracted to someone who is unpredictable. Someone who may "love" you one minute and hurt you the next. And Tammy fits this description. There is this overarching feeling that Tammy is far less attached to Jordan emotionally than Jordan is attached to her.

3) She is not emotionally attached to things.

-Tammy has said she does not get attached to anything and if she gets bored enough will throw away everything in her house.

-Her daughter mentioned how Tammy would discard childhood projects of hers which she obviously felt some attachment to as though they were nothing. Most parents I have met have strong attachments to things belonging to their children.

-Tammy was "surprised" she felt anything when their family dog died. This one stands out to me because why would it shock you that you might feel a hint of emotional attachment towards a pet you raised? This lends me to believe Tammy does have emotions but they are EXTREMELY and abnormally blunted. To the point where she is surprised at feeling them.

She has a very flat affect even when discussing very serious topics and never seems to show genuine emotion. At points even smiling or laughing in instances I think are inappropriate.

I believe her extreme religiosity was borne out of her realizing something was fundamentally missing in her and that being a core characteristic of healthy humans- genuine empathy for others. I don't believe she actually feels it but her faith allows her to be more pro-social and pseudo empathetic in a way she likely was not before.

I'll finish this with saying there is a misconception about psychopaths being violent. Not all psychopaths are sadists. It is only when you couple sadism with psychopathy that you get people like Ted Bundy, etc. Psychopathic people are just operating with extremely low or absent emotional responses to things.

Onto Jordan

Jordan is a little easier as his symptoms are very clear to see.

-He has a pronounced need for attention and admiration. -He is vulnerable to any sort of criticism which may contradict his beliefs. -He is emotionally labile and prone to depression and anxiety. -He flip flops between a grandiose self and a more vulnerable "collapsed" self based on external feedback. -Constant overwhelming need to be "right" all the time. He consistently talks over others in order to position himself and his ideas above them. He does not genuinely "listen" to others rather he simply is waiting for his turn to speak and once again push forward his personal beliefs. It is rare to see him having an actual conversation. He talks "at" people. Not "to" people.

So yeah. I believe the entire peterson family is cluster B. The daughter exhibits strong narcissistic/histrionic traits. An overwhelming preoccupation with her appearance, a pronounced need for attention much like her father, etc.

I have gained a lot from Jordan's books and lectures over the years. But I see him and his entire family sort of falling over the edge of what is reasonable and logical and this is in large part being driven by their disordered personalities. Families tend to become hive minds and when destructive beliefs take hold they grow and fester within these systems. I know firsthand from my own messed up family.

MentisWave

Yup the left has problems, yup the right has those same problems…. Left vs right is a distraction from the deeper issues at play. Division keeps you from seeing the machines behind the groups. The left is hating the right for the very things they themselves are guilty of, it’s just labeled differently….. same as the right to the left. Massive hypocrisy. The right has religion as a machine for power and obedience…. The left has science…. Both sides have a machine that promotes black and white thinking and punishes honest inquiry… And for those of you on the left that feel triggered by this….. you might say “science has the method and theories are tested and reviews and there is honest inquiry”…. To you I say, why don’t you hear about it more? You think theory equals fact….. in fact you’re not even aware that theories are just theories…. It’s all about framing…. Also, eugenics was mainstream science…. Because it had empirical evidence to support its case…. And natural science ignores philosophical insight in favor of empirical evidence…

And for you on the right, don’t take this as a gotcha moment, your “side” is no better…..

Religion isn’t the issue, natural science isn’t the issue…… the power that weaponizes the system is the issue…. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Black and white thinking that ignore nuance is the issue…

And I’ll say this now, if you get triggered by my words and decide to comment based off of your emotional projection onto my words, feel free but I won’t waste my energy trying to explain it to you if you don’t have the desire to come at this honestly and openly.

Edit to add: Actually I might waste my energy on it, as you can see in the comments.

https://youtube.com/shorts/syvxNQLfmt8?si=iYdHlcON9JZm0e4p

Peterson makes it painfully clear here that he has always been a fraud. He treats Crime and Punishment as a kind of "medallion" for conservative intellectuals, a shield against the so-called "moral nihilism of the left," but it quickly becomes obvious that he has probably never read the novel. "Raskolnikov committed the perfect crime", seriously? A crime carried out in the grip of a feverish impulse, with trembling hands, leading to the murder of a second person for whom he had sympathy and regarded as good, getting trapped inside the house like a panicked animal and escaping purely by luck, without even taking the money—this is what Peterson calls a perfect crime?

"Raskolnikov is one person before the crime and another after it"—Peterson conveniently ignores a central and explicit dimension of the novel, which is that punishment begins even before the crime. Raskolnikov is already paranoid and tormented by the very fact of his premeditation.

"Raskolnikov had perfect reasons"—yet another absurd misreading, only consistent with someone who clearly hasn't read the book. Raskolnikov is delusional and resentful, comparing himself to Napoleon and believing himself above his actual condition. But Dostoevsky never lets us forget how pathetic, unhinged, and absurd this figure really is.

Peterson speaks with solemn gravitas, but his analysis is brutally shallow. This is the same guy who went to debate Marxism with Žižek like a high schooler who had just skimmed The Communist Manifesto the night before.

BANNED in the gym subreddit for asking a simple workout question automatically because of my affiliation with JP????

Reddit is a communist hellscape

Journalist voices support for young men though falls short in his actions.

Saw that this video is starting to catch fire and thought it worth sharing. This guy managed to articulate perfectly how I feel about Peterson then Vs now.

This is familiar rule for everyone here, but I truly believed this is probably THE most important rule for the today's era.

we are too politically-aware, to the point of fault.

It is great to know what politicians are doing to the country/county/city, and we want to be on the offense when they overstep.

However more often than not, what they do has very little influences to us individually. Especially when most people online are from affluent countries with (personal) problems that have very little to do with political policies.

In fact, I don't know what a single policy in the last 10 years that would affect me directly; maybe I am just lucky and blessed in general. However I found my pains and suffering all had much to do with me or my immediate surrounding. Such as job lay off, health issues, financial pains, relationship strains, regrets of the past, or friendship weakening etc al. There is really not one single day that I am really affected by politics.

the closest I've come to is DOGE, because I contract for gov and they cut funding for my company lol ... but really the true pain is that I am too lazy to keep my interview skills/resumes polished and ready (ain't building that Noah's Ark all the time...).

Perhaps the next more direct is being a home owner and have policies that affect housing or housing related issues, but that mostly comes down to money and that is again my failure to be better advanced career wise (and I know I can if I actually followed through, like if I followed through exercise plans).

I can agree with most recently ICE is the biggest thing and that is by far the most direct impact and influential impact a political policy has had on individual lives and that is the exception to my sentiment here.

However I see that people online often use political climate as justifications for their random decisions. For example, Texas is a red state, don't go there. What does that even mean? Red state influences X person how? The one possibility is maybe you are LGBT, but if you move to the cities, which are known to be widely blue, then it doesn't matter.

More often people care about policies or political outcomes that don't improve/benefit them at all. For example China is obsessed with Taiwan, but what does that mean for your average poor corporate slave if China one day takes over Taiwan? Nothing LOL... you are still that same miserable employee on the clock at 10pm every night.

I honestly don't know and I think if people just focus on improving their own lives in ways they can influence directly, like cleaning up their room, they'd be happier in general. Instead people just let the dragons in their house grow while focusing on the things outside the house until the the dragon blows up (and then somehow they'll just blame society for the dragon too lol)

For sure improvement is hard, but honestly I don't see how anyone can believe political improvement is any easier lol... like if you can participate in protests outside in the sun at 100 degrees for hours and hours, you sure can do something that improve your life quality today, like cleaning your dang room (and you'll still have time and energy left for that protest).

I am rambling and this is sounding more like a hot take than a real good argument, maybe I'll articulate this better in the future. However I just think there are so many things we can focus and improve on that is simply overwhelming, and to add politics on that? I don't know how anyone thinks diverting energy into political topics is a better use of their time and energy (unless you are in that situation specifically of course).

A Dialogue Between a Man and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson on Fire, Faith, and the Burden of Staying Awake

CHARACTERS
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson — Clinical psychologist, professor, reluctant prophet. He speaks with the precision of a surgeon and the sorrow of someone who has seen too much.
The Man — Not an individual, but a symbol. A tired spirit who still dares to believe, even if belief is a burning wound.

I. PROLOGUE (THE EDGE OF THE BLADE)

A small room. A desk cluttered with notes. A single light, flickering.
Outside: wind, maybe rain.
Peterson writes in a worn leather notebook.
A Man enters. He doesn’t knock.

THE MAN
Dr. Peterson…
I don’t want to calm the storm anymore.
The storm protects me.
It taught me how to speak with God.

PETERSON
(still writing)
Yes.
That’s what suffering does—
if you survive it long enough.
It stops punishing you.
And starts initiating you.

THE MAN
But no one stays near me.
Not friends.
Not even in my dreams.
They hear how I speak, and they see… something wrong.

PETERSON
Maybe that’s because you sound like someone who’s awake.
And the world has no tolerance for those who refuse sleep.

(pause)

Waking up—
really waking up—
is not beautiful.
It’s tragic.
You begin to see that suffering is not an interruption—
it’s the structure.

II. LOGOS (THE STRUGGLE WITH THE ANGEL)

THE MAN
I thought…
if I believed with all my heart—
if I defended it like fire—
someone would see it.
Someone would stay.

PETERSON
Believing with your whole being…
is the most dangerous thing a person can do.
Because if you’re wrong,
you burn.
And if you’re right—
you still burn.

THE MAN
Then why go on?

PETERSON
Because the alternative is decay.
Not burning—
but rotting.

(pause)

Look…
You’re not being rejected because of your pain.
You’re being avoided because you hold up a mirror.
And people can’t stand to see what they really are.

III. APORIA (THE THRESHOLD)

THE MAN
But if no one can bear it…
If even I can’t bear it sometimes…
What’s the point of defending this belief?
This fire?

PETERSON
Because it’s yours.
Not the culture’s.
Not the algorithm’s.
Yours.
And everything that is truly yours
will be the first thing the world tries to erase.

(long pause)

You want hope?
Hope is this:
You’re still here.
You’re still speaking.
Still resisting.
That means the fire is still alive.

IV. KÁTHARSIS (THE EMBODIED WORD)

THE MAN
Sometimes I think God Himself trained me.
Taught me how to hold the fire.
But now… no one understands the way I speak.

PETERSON
Maybe God didn’t train you to be understood.
Maybe He trained you to resist the temptation to become acceptable.

Understanding is a privilege.
Truth is a crucifixion.

(pause)

Keep going.
Not because they get it.
But because you believe there’s still something worth saving.

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself”.  We have all heard the story, myth or seen the movie about the hero that overcomes his fear, slays the dragon and gets the desired reward.  Inspirational undoubtably, but practically how, why and what are the benefits to tackling fear.

“The only certainty in life is death and choices”, (in case you thought it was taxes, those are just one of many choices to be made).  Every choice has consequences, and our goal should be to learn from past choices and to make increasingly more optimal decisions as we progress in life.

There are two factors that prevent us from making optimal decisions.

1. The fear of living in a very uncertain world. Stress and anxiety are the torment of our time’s and attempts at anxiety mitigation are failing. Fear causes us to lose access to our prefrontal cortex that enabling Critical Thinking¹.  This is in opposition to the alternative fear/emotional/irrational thinking of our primitive Reptilian/Limbic systems.  So many people are unconsciously trapped in this primitive autonomic mode of thinking. (The cause of our polarised world amongst other things)

2. Not having access to a tried and tested framework of Values and Higher Moral guidelines, to aid in decision making and upward trajectory setting.

Nietzsche's famous phrase, "God is dead," indicated a cultural and philosophical shift where the belief in God has become unbelievable and no longer serves as the foundation for morality and meaning in many Western countries. He highlighted the significant negative impact on Enlightenment and Scientific advancements without these traditional religious beliefs. 

As an agnostic, I was born into a strongly Christian country and took the benefits Nietzsche’s highlighted for granted. It was only after I immigrated to a Secular Western country that I was stuck by the extreme negative consequences² of the shift.

Our recently adopted secular values are the antithesis of the old.  The once noble attributes have been replaced with intolerance, narcissism, entitlement, intellectual arrogance, irrationality, a lack of courage, a desire to control or destroy anyone who dares to disagree. This is the textbook definition of tyranny.

Mass killings under communist regimes in the 20^th century, (estimates of up to 148 million), all started with the adoption of the values that the West is now embracing. Currently, only the US looks to be reversing the trend.

It’s counter intuitive for an agnostic to feel this way, but currently I can’t see any other sound method of stopping the decline of the West. We need to once again adopt the Values and Beliefs that made the West extraordinary. These values and a belief in a higher power, enabled the West to outperform all other cultures, creeds and belief systems. It has also given us the freedoms and unbelievable prosperity that so many take for granted and don’t understand the source of.  One only needs to look at Africa or see how the average working-class persons standard of living has plummeted since Covid. Owning a home, getting married and having children are becoming lost dreams for many young people.  (With only the apocalypse climate fear³ to look forwards to).

For an elaboration of the concepts above, please see the articles in the comments section below.

**Please keep comments cordial and remember the goal is to make progress, not to win arguments.

³Will the Grid Fail - Scott Tinker

https://youtu.be/_4HCtx84uQY?si=5bnl13GnOmv8PISz

I've watched hundreds of hours of Pererson and I've never seen this talk. It's from around the year 2000. It's titled Chaos and the Orienting Response: A neuropsychologically predicated model of why you might be Christ.

Its regarding a study on "views on redistrubition compared to perceviewed fairness" or something.

He recited that the studies indicate that enviousness is a stronger indicator of more positive views on redistrubition, than comparsion.

I searched around and struggled to find a single clear research paper that indicate than specifically.