Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie

[Retireatee1]

Jordan Peterson was on Joe Rogan's podcast recently discussing the fantasy of retirement. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfDxjcC5Y_U

Peterson is a smart guy, but he resorts to a strawman argument here.  I don't think most of us would consider somebody who does nothing but drink on a tropical beach all day a model retiree. 

He does sing the praises of "the lifting of a worthwhile burden", which is valid.

A lot of the vague self-improvement rhetoric in the middle doesn't seem to be incompatible with retirement.

By the end of the video, Peterson has lost focus.  So he hasn't made his case that it is all a "lie" in my opinion.

[Chris Pascale]

MMM talked about this in a talk - about how some people fantasize about being in a big bed all day in a mansion. But having communal connection and something fulfilling is what we really need.

[Metalcat]

Jordan Peterson says a lot of shit.

ETA: I'm also really sick of wealthy middle aged white men in positions of significant power and autonomy, who do high level, highly influential work that garners enormous respect and dignity dictating to people that they should want to keep working their shitty, abusive, dehumanizing jobs where they have very little power over their own day to day existence.

Seriously, fuck right the fuck off with that noise.

[NaN]

Wow, just reading the wiki page on him. His views on masculinity and chaos being associated with feminism are pretty messed up.

[MudPuppy]

The names cited tell me everything I need to know about the content

[Sailor Sam]

By the end of the video, Peterson has lost focus. So he hasn't made his case that it is all a "lie" in my opinion.

I watched a lot of Jordan Peterson's videos while trying to understand his first premise(s). I sprawled all across the internet, reading up on postmodernism, and political correctness, so I had enough background to understand wtf Peterson was arguing against.

I finally realized that I couldn't grasp Peterson's baseline arguments, because he doesn't have any. He's just another reactionary jerkface, peering around the world and quivering about the asshole as he sees his sect losing their previously enjoyed hegemony.

Fuck that guy, for real.

[brandon1827]

Jordan Peterson says a lot of shit.

ETA: I'm also really sick of wealthy middle aged white men in positions of significant power and autonomy, who do high level, highly influential work that garners enormous respect and dignity dictating to people that they should want to keep working their shitty, abusive, dehumanizing jobs where they have very little power over their own day to day existence.

Seriously, fuck right the fuck off with that noise.

Not sure anyone could have said it better. These are my exact thoughts on him as well

[FINate]

I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.

It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.

[Sailor Sam]

It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.

Meh. There's nothing intrinsically more moral about a productive retirement. When I get extended time off I lay on the couch reading fan fiction, cook new and fun things, and take my dog out to experience his best life on a daily basis. Maybe in true retirement I'll start to find that constricting and will look for something new, but maybe that's my best life.

Philosophy aside, Jordan Peterson should still take a long fuck off a short donut.

[FINate]

Meh. There's nothing intrinsically more moral about a productive retirement. When I get extended time off I lay on the couch reading fan fiction, cook new and fun things, and take my dog out to experience his best life on a daily basis. Maybe in true retirement I'll start to find that constricting and will look for something new, but maybe that's my best life.

Huh, interesting. I didn't perceive his thoughts on this as moralistic. More philosophical, like what's more or less likely to result in positive outcomes. You know, kinda like https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/

[Sailor Sam]

Meh. There's nothing intrinsically more moral about a productive retirement. When I get extended time off I lay on the couch reading fan fiction, cook new and fun things, and take my dog out to experience his best life on a daily basis. Maybe in true retirement I'll start to find that constricting and will look for something new, but maybe that's my best life.

Huh, interesting. I didn't perceive his thoughts on this as moralistic. More philosophical, like what's more or less likely to result in positive outcomes. You know, kinda like https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/15/great-news-early-retirement-doesnt-mean-youll-stop-working/

Yup. The article states it pretty plain. The MMM dogma is centered around a "continuing desire to create," pushing someone towards what MMM/Peterson/Society have deemed pursuits worthy of giving someone life satisfaction. And the sequela that "drinking margaritas on the beach," is not a viable plan because it has zero ability to lead to life satisfaction.

Again, I say meh! A rousing, solid, meh. Grunting forth from the diaphragm.

I may end up with a "continuing desire to create," once I retire. I might not.  Either way I'll succeed because I have the ability and maturity to monitor my emotional well being, and adjust as necessary. Maybe margarita guy lacks the same maturity, but just assuming he doesn't, and basing that assumption on a rigid idea of what retirement "should be," is a paternalistic, and paternalism is always based in morals.

[Chris Pascale]

It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.

................Jordan Peterson should still take a long fuck off a short donut.

On behalf of donuts, back off!

[Samuel]

I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.

It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.

Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.

He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.

[FINate]

Yup. The article states it pretty plain. The MMM dogma is centered around a "continuing desire to create," pushing someone towards what MMM/Peterson/Society have deemed pursuits worthy of giving someone life satisfaction. And the sequela that "drinking margaritas on the beach," is not a viable plan because it has zero ability to lead to life satisfaction.

Again, I say meh! A rousing, solid, meh. Grunting forth from the diaphragm.

I may end up with a "continuing desire to create," once I retire. I might not.  Either way I'll succeed because I have the ability and maturity to monitor my emotional well being, and adjust as necessary. Maybe margarita guy lacks the same maturity, but just assuming he doesn't, and basing that assumption on a rigid idea of what retirement "should be," is a paternalistic, and paternalism is always based in morals.

Is it really paternalistic moralizing, or simply observation? Hedonic Adaptation applies broadly to the human experience. It's less about margarita guy being immature (or immoral), than not realizing that chasing the initial feeling of sitting on a beach getting inebriated is scientifically proven to fail* over the long term. Especially as diminishing returns kick in and negative health effects begin to dominate. I'm not against alcohol and drink in moderation, but it's hard to ignore the long history of related harm.

But I totally get if you just don't believe what I'm saying and you need to experience the post-FIRE life for yourself.

*By 'fail' I mean produce sustained happiness/satisfaction

[Chris Pascale]

I watched the video. I'm not a Jordan Peterson fan because, yes, he says a lot and rambles all over the place. But to be fair, in this video he's not saying retirement in general is bad even though the title implies otherwise. It starts with a coworkers vision of drinking margaritas on a beach in retirement, and he rightfully points out this isn't a plan, or at least not a good one. Nor did he imply that people should keep working shitty jobs, though perhaps that's one of his talking points I'm not familiar with? In any case, the idea of optimizing the common case and having something larger purpose to pursue seems very much in line with the rest of MMM.

It seems like this is just a case of a misleading title. The video description starts by asking "Dreaming about Lazy retirement?" ... a better tittle would be The Lazy Retirement Lie.

Yeah, someone snipped a section from a rambling podcast and slapped a silly title on it. This isn't really an argument about retirement at all.

He's basically saying that if you are seeking greater satisfaction in life you're more likely to find it by engaging in worthwhile tasks on behalf of the people around you rather than by simply sipping drinks in a trouble-free paradise. The latter is great once in a while but as a lifestyle it's likely a false utopia. Not sure this would be particularly controversial if it wasn't Jordan Peterson saying it.

Agreed. Also, if you're the type to FIRE, how long can you really sit on a beach?

I plan to retire from my current position in about 9 years, but retirement will be just as full as my working life - teaching and helping with grand kids, if there are any. If not, I'll have 4 adults that I'll (perhaps) have shifted from being a parent to being a peer.

There'll be added travel, maybe volunteering, or joining a sports league......there'll be stuff and some will include sitting on a beach here and there, but just like with meditating, it'll be great, but I'm going to want to get up and do something at some point.

[Retireatee1]

If and when I pull the FIRE trigger, I'm going to be margarita guy for at least a week in celebration.  Maybe longer.  I don't think that will get old after only one week.

[ChpBstrd]

The internet sucks because only the most outlandishly controversial people or ideas get replicated. Somewhere, there is someone advocating a rational, evidence-backed solution to each of life's issues, and they're talking to the crickets while we talk about a mysterious ramble by Jordan Peterson.

[Rural]

take a long fuck off a short donut.

I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."


...Now I want a donut.

[Zamboni]

Meh, I get the patronizing nature of "you'll just be bored if you are not working." Kind of a "don't get too big for your britches" vibe that a foreman overseeing day laborers has.

Otherwise I can't really hate on Jordan Peterson even though I don't always agree with him. Sometimes I think he's too literal and clearly he picks some of the wrong battles, but much of what he says is widely unpopular but also spot on.

[maizefolk]

If and when I pull the FIRE trigger, I'm going to be margarita guy for at least a week in celebration.  Maybe longer.  I don't think that will get old after only one week.

I'm not sure about the margarita, but for the right I'm right there with you. It's quite possible I'll get bored at some point and need to go do things.

But finding out how much lazying around in the sun it takes before it stops feeling good sounds for me specifically like a pretty worthy experiment in its own right.

[ixtap]

Seriously, I have to spend my Friday night running around town because another volunteer couldn't be bothered to answer emails to exchange the materials he needs to teach a class tonight. Dude, if I'd wanted to be there, I would have just taught the class myself!

[Sailor Sam]

take a long fuck off a short donut.

I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."

...Now I want a donut.

I enjoy the version that implies more splatting and death at the end.

[nereo]

take a long fuck off a short donut.

I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."


...Now I want a donut.

My only regret about not joining the service when I was younger is that my swearing had never fully developed. I bow to you @Sailor Sam   

[Rural]

take a long fuck off a short donut.

I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."

...Now I want a donut.

I enjoy the version that implies more splatting and death at the end.

I concede that point, but in my defense, I've always imagined the donut to be rolling on asphalt, so would assume he's likely to wish he were dead afterward.

[Sailor Sam]

Otherwise I can't really hate on Jordan Peterson even though I don't always agree with him. Sometimes I think he's too literal and clearly he picks some of the wrong battles, but much of what he says is widely unpopular but also spot on.

What parts are right?

[Kris]

Otherwise I can't really hate on Jordan Peterson even though I don't always agree with him. Sometimes I think he's too literal and clearly he picks some of the wrong battles, but much of what he says is widely unpopular but also spot on.

What parts are right?

Yeah, I would like to know this, too.

[Zamboni]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

[Sailor Sam]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

I asked in good faith.

ETA: as in, I’m legit curious which of his arguments you find correct. I’ve read his 12 Rules for Life, and I’ve watched his Identity Politics and the Lie of White Privledge video, plus a few of his debate videos - Slavoj Zizek, the Munk debate with Stephen Fry, and Cathy Newman.

He ended up on my radar because so many of my young men were reading his book, and watching him p’wnn! the internet. To me, he’s got two sets of arguments. The first is to take accountability, where his specific approach speaks to a very specific sect of young men. The second Peterson argument is that identity politics will eventually tear the world apart, which he can’t really back and uses big words to mask the weakness of his suppositions. So, I wondered which of his arguments, or sub-arguments you agreed with. 

[MudPuppy]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.

[FINate]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.

Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet.  I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.

[MudPuppy]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.

Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet.  I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.

You assume I woke up one day and decide that after consulting my numerology texts, the vibe of the name j-o-r-d-a-n p-e-t-e-r-s-o-n was too iffy?

[FINate]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.

Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet.  I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.

You assume I woke up one day and decide that after consulting my numerology texts, the vibe of the name j-o-r-d-a-n p-e-t-e-r-s-o-n was too iffy?

Please, tell me more about what I assumed :) I'm only going off of your implied assertion that anything he says should be considered suspect, including opinions on desserts. An ad hominem attack is far less interesting and useful than a substantive argument.

[MudPuppy]

I have neither interest nor inclination for a detailed essay. Overall, he isn’t a cool guy with interesting input. That is the summary of my review of him.

[Sailor Sam]

take a long fuck off a short donut.

I've always heard this one as "take a flying fuck at a rolling donut."


...Now I want a donut.

My only regret about not joining the service when I was younger is that my swearing had never fully developed. I bow to you @Sailor Sam

Thank you! It’s my one and only natural art.

[Zamboni]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.

Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet.  I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.

Yes, this is why I didn't bother with a more specific response. And I actually understand hating someone that much, because "everything he says and does is wrong" is exactly how I feel about Donald Trump.

But I don't feel that way about Jordan Peterson. Several of his videos (mostly his old psychology lectures) have given me advice and perspectives and insights that helped me a great deal with personal matters. And I'm not at all in a "very specific sect of young men," so I don't know what to make of that generalization.

I also understand disliking asshole know-it-all colleagues. I have plenty of those, lol. Just because someone has drawn some incorrect conclusions or comes off as a bit of a jerk in debates, that doesn't mean all of their work is completely flawed. For example, this Joe Rogan clip is fine.

Do you ever wonder how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were such good friends? It is actually possible to find common ground with someone even if you hold opposite viewpoints on many topics.

[MudPuppy]

He and I don’t work together, no need for me to deal with him in any way.

[ExitViaTheCashRamp]

It seems sadly common to consider everything 'the other side' has to say on any topic is suspect. Worse it seems these days if a person has ever said anything disagreeable then they are a witch and must be harassed, their means of income disrupted (e.g. attempting to shame their employers or for artists stop venues holding/publishing their works e.t.c.) and if they are female send them threats of violence, rape and even death.

 It was once said: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". It seems now to be "If I don't agree with what you say, I will do my best to ensure your life is hell."


For Mr Peterson, I've only seen the interview by Channel 4 news where the interviewer went in with a whole load of preconceived notions about his politics and her arguments were handily rebuffed. The interviewers lack of preparation *perhaps* made him appear far more convincing than another interviewer who had actually done their job beforehand. Some of the things he said did make a lot of sense to me, that men do need to stop whining about their lot in life, grow up and take responsibility. They have capacity to do good and well, to be competent in their lives and too many enter adult unready to do that. That doesn't seem to be such a terrible argument to make.

 Fact is a lot of people do follow the man, people around you are shaped by his views. You may not agree with them at all but closing your eyes and refusing to listen means a gulf is created that cannot be crossed. Putting different bits of humanity in silos of 'acceptable thoughts' and 'unacceptable thoughts who must never be listened to' doesn't seem like a great future for anyone.

 From the book of carl:
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

[Sailor Sam]

Lol, y'all really hate him so much that everything he utters is incorrect? That's really something. How much of his videos have you watched? Or what of his writings have you read?

Yeah honestly if he said “butter pecan ice cream is delicious,” I would think twice before eating it. I have no time for this trifling motherfucker.

Well that's disappointing. Responses like this (and other posts earlier) make it clear that this will not be a good faith discussion, aka poisoning the well. I don't follow him, but out of curiosity watched some videos/clips. My sense is that I disagree with him on many (most?) issues, yet he's provocative and well spoken, and certainly more thoughtful than most of the stuff on the internet.  I'd rather see people debate the merit of his ideas (and even a stopped watch is right twice a day) than make personal attacks.

Yes, this is why I didn't bother with a more specific response. And I actually understand hating someone that much, because "everything he says and does is wrong" is exactly how I feel about Donald Trump.

But I don't feel that way about Jordan Peterson. Several of his videos (mostly his old psychology lectures) have given me advice and perspectives and insights that helped me a great deal with personal matters. And I'm not at all in a "very specific sect of young men," so I don't know what to make of that generalization.

I also understand disliking asshole know-it-all colleagues. I have plenty of those, lol. Just because someone has drawn some incorrect conclusions or comes off as a bit of a jerk in debates, that doesn't mean all of their work is completely flawed. For example, this Joe Rogan clip is fine.

Do you ever wonder how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were such good friends? It is actually possible to find common ground with someone even if you hold opposite viewpoints on many topics.

Hwy now. I replied in good faith and explained what I was asking you when you had a little porcupine moment. And then you used part of my comment to do an SMH reply to somebody who agreed with you. So that’s a pretty dick move.

[MudPuppy]

I am under no obligation to kumbaya with this guy. I’ve heard plenty of his crap. I don’t like it and I don’t like him. You can take tsk about that all you want, but spare me the “cant we all get along” and appeals to the RBG/Scalia friendship. He spouts enough toxic stuff that encouraging others to give more of his content a chance on the tiiiiny possibility that it isn’t all objectionable is just silly, and possibly irresponsible. I won’t give him any view$.

[Zamboni]

^^Sailor Sam, not at all. I'm not a porcupine. I just am not going to justify "What parts are right?" The question alone implies that most of his work is wrong, so I must justify which specific parts are right, and that is not a question in good faith, in my opinion. I am highly practiced in the art of argument and critical reasoning, so I know how these types of exchanges will unfold.

And then you claim that my not bowing to your request to justify myself is a "dick move". Nope. I don't owe you anything. In fact, I answered with exactly which parts of his work that I have found to be helpful in the very response you find a dick move.

The fact that I agreed with and quoted someone else, who clearly understood that sometimes people on this board are just trying to pick a fight about stupid shit, does not make me a porcupine or a dick. On the flip side, name calling is perhaps the lowest form of argument (if it can even be elevated to the standards of making an argument.)

[Sailor Sam]

You read a tone into my reply that really didn’t exist. It’s a failure of textual conversation that I wish we could solve. Then again, technology is what’s gotten us to this particular cascade, so it’s not like increased technology would help. Maybe there’s no solution, and what we’re witnessing is just the limits of our mental evolution. Dunno.

You seem to have assumed that my primary motivation is to be an asshole, so I guess we won’t be seeing each other around. So cheers.

[Zamboni]

Perhaps we can all agree that Jordan Peterson is a guy who has spent a lot of time reading, thinking about stuff, and publishing his thoughts, and he is entitled to his opinions? Or not? It doesn't really matter. But there's nothing wrong with his assertion that sitting on a beach drinking margaritas for the rest of our waking hours is probably a lousy retirement plan for most people.

Jordan Peterson is famous for a reason. Some people really resonate with some of the things he has posted over the years, and have found aspects of his work helpful. People who have escaped from extremely authoritarian brutality tend to agree with his thoughts on compelled speech, for example. I think he picked the wrong public battle to make his point on that topic, and that he hurt a marginalized group of people he wasn't intending to hurt in the process. Certainly that wasn't the smartest thing he's ever done. On the flip side, some people really make it clear that they hate him for one reason or another. Is he a misogynist? A racist? Perhaps, but I am not so sure. He points out trends and facts and statistics and data from the psychology academic literature that people don't like . . . inconvenient facts.

Sailor Sam, I never called you a name . . . you called yourself that name on my behalf I guess? You asked me a question and I answered, attempting to clarify, by analogy, that we can have differences of opinion and still be friends. And I even pointed out how I understand disliking some public figure intensely to the point that is irrational (my feelings about Trump). Then you responded by calling me a dick and a porcupine. Then, when I replied to that, you said I must be assuming you are an asshole. Covering more body parts in the discussion, I guess, lol.

[MudPuppy]

he is entitled to his opinions? Or not? It doesn't really matter.

Opinions, if you want to toss another body part into the ring here, are like armpits


As far as inconvenient statistics, etc… he cherrypicks and ignores context to make his points.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Disclaimer: I haven't taken in a lot of JP's writing or podcasts so this assessment is mostly from osmosis

1) Peterson understands that a growing problem in the West, as it becomes more secular, is the lack of meaning in life (Peterson purports to be a Christian but is cagey if pushed on the exact extent and nature of his belief: e.g., on the question does God exist, he replied "No, but I’m afraid he probably exists")

2) For some reason his message resonates with men far more than women. Perhaps it's because of the many men living under ground by the glow of their video games. Someone needs to tell them to get up and make their beds, and that simple act may lead to an incipient feeling of agency which is a stepping stone on the way to meaning

3) To the extent he pulls neck-beard gamers out of their basements and into the world, he is being a force for good. If his message doesn't resonate with you, well, no big deal, right?

4) Since his severe illness and (so it seems) near-death, he does seem more humble and less antagonistic towards his ideological and intellectual rivals, though has not really retreated from his position otherwise (see this for example)

5) For anyone who's at all accustomed to his speaking style, this parody nails some of his more absurd qualities; the real JP can occasionally talk himself into ridiculous contortions

On balance, I'm far from captivated by him but I do believe he has a reasonable diagnosis of a couple of the pathologies in society. Weird how polarizing he can be, though, judging by this thread. Maybe someone can post some lobster memes to turn down the temperature.

[MudPuppy]

[Removed ginormous pic]

I offer a photo of two of my pets as reconciliation

[Zamboni]

This entire thread was worth it for that parody video, lost_in_the_endless_aisle

[meadow lark]

I find what he says about trans people… lacking in decency, lacking in kindness, lacking in maturity, lacking in humanity.  Certainly lacking in facts.  So if you think he is a deep thinker, well great, that’s not what I have seen.  Is that a personal attack?  IDK.  I’m not commenting on his hair or his marriage.  I am commenting on what he says, but I am judging him from a moral lens.

I’m not trying to destroy his life, burn his house down or torpedo his career.  I just don’t like him.  I think he is an arrogant asshole.  I couldn’t care less what he thinks.  Doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong. 

[Kris]

I find what he says about trans people… lacking in decency, lacking in kindness, lacking in maturity, lacking in humanity.  Certainly lacking in facts.  So if you think he is a deep thinker, well great, that’s not what I have seen.  Is that a personal attack?  IDK.  I’m not commenting on his hair or his marriage.  I am commenting on what he says, but I am judging him from a moral lens.

I’m not trying to destroy his life, burn his house down or torpedo his career.  I just don’t like him.  I think he is an arrogant asshole.  I couldn’t care less what he thinks.  Doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong.

Yeah, this is where I am, too. +1.

[Zamboni]

I watched his testimony and never saw him say he doesn't and wouldn't use preferred pronouns . . . instead his objection was to a law that, in his view, compelled speech. Was he being an idiot, doing that? Legal scholars say he was, and that the law change wouldn't actually compel speech. But maybe he's right, and it is a slippery slope?

That somehow launched him into stardom and, because he already had put tons of relatively obscure stuff like splices of his psychology class lectures into the public sphere for people to lap up, a cult-like following. Now he's loaded.

You can dislike him because of some of the conclusions that he draws. That doesn't make every single conclusion he has drawn wrong.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

I watched his testimony and never saw him say he doesn't and wouldn't use preferred pronouns . . . instead his objection was to a law that, in his view, compelled speech. Was he being an idiot, doing that? Legal scholars say he was, and that the law change wouldn't actually compel speech. But maybe he's right, and it is a slippery slope?

That somehow launched him into stardom and, because he already had put tons of relatively obscure stuff like splices of his psychology class lectures into the public sphere for people to lap up, a cult-like following. Now he's loaded.

You can dislike him because of some of the conclusions that he draws. That doesn't make every single conclusion he has drawn wrong.

Yeah, in one interview he uses preferred pronouns over what one might use as a default... His position is consistent with being entirely against compelled speech, rather than being against all pronouns contrary to XX or XY genetic disposition. Of course, I don't know every thing that he has said and can't and wouldn't defend all of it. Just know that he will use pronouns by request if not required as part of compelled speech.