The guy became popular due to his views about the left and then he monetized his fame by selling self-help books to men.
I can't believe UofT is paying this idiot a salary while he spends most of his time talking to media and writing stupid books.
J.Peterson makes almost a million a year
-
^ sure, but he's going too far. He's telling people how to live their lives in order to sell books and make some $$. It's pathetic. He's no better than the feminists. A lot of what he says cannot defended. It's just dogma. He starts with a bunch of assumptions about humankind and then makes recommendations. He annoys me.
-
He was good at the beginning. Now he's trying to expand his brand by talking about things he doesn't understand. I've analyzed his comments in the media and the guy is mostly clueless about a lot of things. He's just pandering to his base to make $$.
Hes great for UofT.
-
You can't get fame without appealing to tribal values. That's what makes Peterson so pathetic as a professor. To be honest, I don't think he ever wanted to be an academic. He's clearly a passive aggressive d-bag so couldn't work with other people.
I think J Peterson is a dummy, but more academics should be public intellectuals IMHO.
-
I actually think your read of Peterson is correct in that he found a "tribe" that he probably agreed with and exploited it, but the idea that you cant have anything worthwhile to say to the public as an academic without some base appeal to some subgroups prejudices makes you sound like a theorist who has gotten three citations in your whole life and can only take comfort in how that makes you intellectually pure.
You would also do well to remember that academics are a tribe with their own arbitrary an unjustifiable "values".
You can't get fame without appealing to tribal values. That's what makes Peterson so pathetic as a professor. To be honest, I don't think he ever wanted to be an academic. He's clearly a passive aggressive d-bag so couldn't work with other people.
I think J Peterson is a dummy, but more academics should be public intellectuals IMHO.
-
It's clear what his weakness is. He starts with dogmatic assumptions about human behavior and society and then goes on epic rants. I fully back his stance about free speech on campus, but he's extended his commentary beyond that topic and is venturing into the "I am very smart, I know what it wrong with people" territory. Remember that conversation he had with Sam Harris about religion and he got his ass handed to him.
-
So based on a few posts, you think I'm a theorist with 3 citations in my entire life? See a therapist.
I actually think your read of Peterson is correct in that he found a "tribe" that he probably agreed with and exploited it, but the idea that you cant have anything worthwhile to say to the public as an academic without some base appeal to some subgroups prejudices makes you sound like a theorist who has gotten three citations in your whole life and can only take comfort in how that makes you intellectually pure.
You would also do well to remember that academics are a tribe with their own arbitrary an unjustifiable "values".You can't get fame without appealing to tribal values. That's what makes Peterson so pathetic as a professor. To be honest, I don't think he ever wanted to be an academic. He's clearly a passive aggressive d-bag so couldn't work with other people.
I think J Peterson is a dummy, but more academics should be public intellectuals IMHO.
-
It's clear what his weakness is. He starts with dogmatic assumptions about human behavior and society and then goes on epic rants. I fully back his stance about free speech on campus, but he's extended his commentary beyond that topic and is venturing into the "I am very smart, I know what it wrong with people" territory. Remember that conversation he had with Sam Harris about religion and he got his ass handed to him.
You do know he is a psychologist, not an economist, right? What he says perfectly fits in his field of study.