Young men love Peterson because they are perceiving a world that is increasingly insistent about the idea that we don’t want what they have to offer. And his solution is jungian in nature. Know yourself. Individualism and competency are the keystones to self determination and relevance.

He’s just a self help guy for guys (and gals) if you boil it down.

Don’t know why that’s “a problem” for you, but it is, and you come across all the more shrill and pathetic for having that opinion.

"his solution is jungian in nature"

HAHAHAHA. Say's who? Peterson?

I don't know how but I got suckered into buying one of his books. And it ended up precisely where they should. Abandoned in a Delta Skyclub lounge.

That guys peddles a vague, pseudo intellectual gobble-de-goo that mimics profundity so that dumb people can feel smart without actually having to do any work or thinking.

I mean, just nonsense like “Meaning is manifestation of the divine individual adaptive path” and “Meaning emerges from the interplay between the possibilities of the world and the value structure operating within that world.” Suuuuuure.

Hell. He doesn't even understand the philosophers he quotes. He clearly skimmed some Campbell juuuust enough to retrofit plagiarized versions of Campbel's "heroes journey" prose into his books.

Here parse this nonsense from Maps of Meaning:

"...When such antagonism arises, moral revaluation becomes necessary. As a consequence of such revaluation, behavioral options are brutally rank-ordered, or, less frequently, entire moral systems are devastated, reorganized and replaced. This organization and reorganization occurs as a consequence of “war,” in its concrete, abstract, intrapsychic, and interpersonal variants. In the most basic case, an individual is rendered subject to an intolerable conflict, as a consequence of the perceived (affective) incompatibility of two or more apprehended outcomes of a given behavioral procedure. In the purely intrapsychic sphere, such conflict often emerges when attainment of what is desired presently necessarily interferes with attainment of what is desired (or avoidance of what is feared) in the future. Permanent satisfactory resolution of such conflict (between temptation and “moral purity,” for example) requires the construction of an abstract moral system, powerful enough to allow what an occurrence signifies for the future to govern reaction to what it signifies now. Even that construction, however, is necessarily incomplete when considered only as an “intrapsychic” phenomena...

Uuuuh. What? How can anyone take this guys seriously?

This guy is so up his own ass. What he did is discover that Alt-Right mouth breathers on Reddit were desperate to claim any seeming fellow traveler as an intellectual. So here wades this guy whining about feminists and mean 'ol liberals that don't say mean things about his ideas on manly-men men.

So the Alt-right eat the blather up — though I doubt they actually read his bullshit — and as a result he gets "talked about" and gets on the podcast circuit.

Christ, that book has these senseless scribbled flow charts and drawings that mean absolutely NOTHING but for some combination of losers Man-Kabbalah and Rorschach test for sad, lonely idiots.

Peterson has his fifteen minutes, I guess. Or as Houman Barekat put it "a Messiah-cum-Surrogate-Dad for Gormless Dimwits."

The VA nominee sounds like he would be the perfect doctor for The Stranger's offices ;-)

But really, the glowing recommendation from the higher-ups of the various administrations is not at all surprising. I'm sure - especially based on his public rim job of trump - that he was the epitome of medical professionalism and decorum while in front of the people who did the reviewing (and the fact that he was the candy man didn't hurt). He just punched down, that's all. Haven't we all had bosses like that?

@2. You probably couldn’t understand Carl jung either. So much of what he wrote is dense, philosophical ideas revisited ad infinitum to parse out any trace of misunderstanding.

Philosophy is harder to read than your own prepackaged and reheated ideas, doc.

Try starting with the undiscovered self. If you like it, move on to the 4 archetypes. My guess would be Jung wouldn’t make you outraged enough to hold your interest.

Jordan Peterson's voice is valuable in the sense that it provides a counter point to some aspects of the cultural shift that we're currently experiencing. And his views seem to be logical and based on fact.

I understand why the alt-right loves the guy. He's the only person to express more traditional notions and values without being a total slimeball asshole (i.e. Milo, Steven Crowder, Been Shapiro, Dracula, Ted Bundy, etc...)

That being said, the cult of personality surrounding him is a bit silly.

@1

Where exactly does Jung say "know thyself", again?

And how, exactly, does individualism square with the Collective Unconscious? You know, Jung's main thesis?

I think you're thinking of Ayn Rand. Nice try, though.

@9. Was I quoting Jung somewhere? I thought I was describing Peterson’s self help schtick. Strawman much? Read “the undiscovered self” (or google it and read the blurb, that’s more in your wheelhouse) and get back to me with your updated assessment.

#2, Try reading the quote in the voice of Dennis Hopper's character from Apocalypse Now (or really any Dennis Hopper character).

Peterson is interesting though him, and everyone else with an internet cult following, should be taken with a grain of salt. I do like how he's defending traditional elements of masculinity (it's not all bad kids!) but his followers should understand that there is some sick shit being done in the name of traditional masculinity as well.

@10
Sure sounds to me like the two sentences that follow your claim "and his solutions are Jungian in nature" modify that claim.
If that was not your intent, i don't know what to tell you, but that's exactly how it reads.

I'm a little disappointed in the reporting Rich did on Jordan Peterson as it seems he looked at secondary material instead of primary: text, youtube videos, interviews, etc. Joe Rogan did a great job of interviewing him on his podcast and I picked up his audio book. Many of my friends, who come from all walks of life, have at least given him a shot. As a critical thinker it's understandable that Peterson would be against Social Justice Warriors and the Alt-Right, because they are extremes. Like Pharrell says in the hit LEMON: The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

Peterson's writing isn't misogynistic or homophobic. He's asking people to take charge of their lives and to put their lives in order so they can do so for others. White guys may feel they need this kick in the pants to get their life together. I do. I'm a cys white millenial woman living in a blue state. You're not entitled (white people) to a good life, you create that good life. Get to work.

Trade Mr Smith to the Majority Report; he'd be right at home there both with his views and his voice, which is a natural for all their gay-baiting.

Mr Savage should be capable of winning over straight young men. He's manifested compassion on frequent occasions. Does he just not want to? Does he think it would cost him a demographic he values higher? Does he think they should already be in his back pocket, the way he is for the Democratic party no matter how they treat him?

Mr Sanders gets a positive grade of execution.

I lack standing to pronounce on Professor P's putative misogyny, though I'll agree with Ms Valley he's not homophobic. As do so many of those who draw partially or heavily from deterministic wells, he ignores gays about as much as he can, or at least did in the two or three longish talks to which I listened mainly out of curiosity on that point. I don't mind an overlooking approach, but think it should be a bit more open.

Well said, Dril @15.

“The Republicans, this slogan goes, are the party of ‘corruption, cronyism, and incompetence.’ Who could argue with that one?”

Wouldn’t need to. R’s could just say, “Well, you are, too,” and people’d remember, oh, that’s right, they’re all shit, what’s the fucking point fuck this shit.

And 35 fucking percent of eligible We, the peeps even bother showing up.
Gee, who couldda seen that coming?

It’s not that hard to figure out what people want. The Dems’ Party seemingly just wants to lose. They’re getting really really good at it.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for comparing Peterson to the likes of Spencer and Bannon. Hitler too right? Intellectually dishonest and misleading. But, kudos to the host who represents Peterson fairly honestly when he summarizes the Peterson-Newman debate.

As a college educated, right-leaning young, married man who works a full time job and is heavily involved with the community, I would definitely let the "if you want a nerdy white guy to tell you what to think" and "get out from behind your keyboard!" go by the wayside if you are interested in having a real conversation with people of my ilk. Drop the hatred and contempt, guys. Im genuinely curious as to why you would have so much contempt for people with certain characteristics (white, straight, men). Sounds bigoted, to be honest.

People flock to Peterson because he genuinely wants to see people's lives improved. To oversimplify his message to men as "dominate!", is intellectually dishonest as well. His message is: life is rough, embrace it,and take responsibility for yourself. Doesn't sound too dangerous to me.