@Moon@chjara@1iceloops123@fluffy oh, that guyrecently father watches his things a bit and then bought that fat book. he does seem a little bit actually dangerous because he's decently smart and comes to bad conclusions rather out of naivety, not having experienced many things in his life, but still speaks authoritatively about them in a way that seems to follow from that limited perspective, so other people who also haven't experienced certain things nod along with his argument and are misledand feel good when he "debates" people who are not as smart as him and say obviously incoherent things
@fluffy@1iceloops123@chjara he's basically Dr. Phil for young males. It's simultaneously why I deride him and why I don't consider him some kind of danger.
@Moon@chjara i think maybe people fear him because he is giving advice men relate to or this is what i am told. but if i wanted advice i would talk to my dad
@chjara the anti-peterson stuff is weird because it feels less like "this is dangerous" and more like "this is dangerous competition" I'm not even saying he's good or misunderstood, it's just a weird vibe I'm picking up on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81q-ZkfBm0the mercury symbol on her forehead looks, idk, weird, probably due to the application or lightingit's way too disturbing for something this minor
@Moon@chjara@1iceloops123@fluffy it seems a lot of people who get angry at him have a "this is obviously wrong" scoffing attitude to cover up for having no idea what he's actually saying. so people (a little bit naive guys usually) see that obviously disingenuity and are pushed towards siding with the skinny self-assured grey-hair man instead, who then says a few things that are actually reasonable and draws them along further to bad conclusions (that hurt people) in the end (conclusions it seems like he actually believes, which is worse because that sincerity can come throughtoo far outside his comfort zone and he does start babbling and saying dumb, incoherent stuff himself, but by that point people are likely to already be biased towards siding with him and not noticejust speaking about have seen happen here, with father and with people posting comments on videos etc
@Bajax@chjara@1iceloops123@Moon@fluffy that's self-rationalising, which is what i meant, mmm. and is something anyone can do without being very careful to avoid, so wouldn't call it intentional. try descartes or whoever and you find the sameand he's not *that* smart; around middlingly so
@shmibs@Moon@1iceloops123@chjara@fluffy >conclusions rather out of naivetyNo. It's worse than that. It's intentional ignorance. He'd phrase it differently, but I think he'd even agree with that assessment that it IS something he's doing.He has a common pattern if you read him carefully enough. He follows a line of logic almost to its conclusion, realizes that he doesn't *like* that conclusion, then walks it back and uses traditionalist platitudes to fill in the parts he's left blank.Naivety is not something I'd EVER accuse him of. This guy's formidable-- definitely one of the smartest people in the world (laugh if you want, lose respect for me but I absolutely stand by it). But to paraphrase something he himself said, being intelligent makes you able to think "bigger" thoughts, but it also gives you the power to convince yourself of your own bullshit. I don't think he thinks of what he's doing as lying or even really manipulative-- he sees it as him deferring to tradition where he doesn't feel able to come to an appropriately moral or non-destructive conclusion. But in so many places where I'd say that same criteria is met, he barrels on ahead heedlessly.