Remarkably, those thinkers managed to share this insight without offending half the population in order to drive book sales and line their pockets.
tldr; there are better sources of this idea than Mr. Peterson.
This is worth quite a lot to someone like me. If you're trying to understand your enemy, you should understand just how powerful this is.
(Incidentally I've read The Road Less Traveled, didn't get much out of it, and find Peck to be much more sanctimonious than Peterson is.)
Have you ever actually read him? His main message is to sort out your own life, then, when that's in order, start improving things around you. It's the exact opposite of blaming others, it's taking responsibility for yourself. And finding meaning in this struggle, and the difference you can make, instead of through fleeting happiness.
This is a message that underperforming white men simply never hear anymore, and it's quite a startle to have it sink in, in my experience.
Does he argue that the dominance of men in society (in the sense that the small group of people with power are mostly men) is natural and thus acceptable?
I have not read his book; I’m asking you because it sounds like you have and you derived value from it.
20% of his audience is women, and that's not a small number, so it's probably better to ask one of them. He relays a lot of science about statistical sex differences, none of which has really been controversial in 40 years (in his own professional field) until recently becoming politicized. Just coming from the point of view that this is the reality you need to navigate.
Another message he sends is to be a lot more careful and respectful about sexual relationships than current social norms suggest.
> Does he argue that the dominance of men in society (in the sense that the small group of people with power are mostly men) is natural and thus acceptable?
In his own words, no, he is not saying that at all. :) He explains his position here pretty well in the Cathy Newman interview. It's much more nuanced than the common caricatures of him are.
The original poster was right, you don't need to look to someone like him hear a message as basic and timeless as "happiness is fleeting and some of your problems are your own fault."
Listen to him sincerely care about men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIQP_CbBRrQ
Seriously, I hadn't felt that way since Mister Rogers, that someone actually thought my betterment and well being was worth emotion.
No you clearly did not pay attention to them at all whatsoever and no one should listen to you. Jesus christ this repulsively ignorant commentary.
I'm not sure how you consider this professor an "idiot," useful or not. He has been spreading a similar message for decades, and continues to derive meaning from the world from a behavioral-psychological perspective. I see his desire to help people coming from his innate desire (being a clinical psychologist). I also find it hard to find flaws in the belief system he works from (not religion, but the perspective on our need for meaning).
It would be useful to give clear examples of where he is truly provoking for the sake of it and for the sake of book sales.
To say that he's saying nothing original is wholly wrong. And to lambaste someone for sourcing knowledge from a modern public source is ridiculous. How do you sort yourself out if you cannot proceed without knowing the true source of an idea?
Watch some of his lecturing that isn't about gender and see that he's passionate, engaging, knowledgable, human, visibly wants to help his students grow into better more considered people, and if "half the population" choose to take offense at one of his opinions that alone doesn't define him.
The idea may not be completely original but it is articulate of the current condition. And he provides a different context.
He is an established clinical psychologist, having counseled 1000's of patients, taught at Harvard and has thousands of citations to his published papers.
Knowing the baseline of troublesome thoughts, I find incredibly helpful. "Am I normal?" is a common thought of mine, but I have no frame of reference besides my immediate family.
The idea that insightful thoughts can't/won't be offensive is counter-productive to intellectual progression.
What point are you trying to make with this snide remark?
That sources should be disregarded if their ideas “offend” 50% of the population (a claim for which you provided no evidence)?
That sources should be disregarded if they made money from book sales? This would mean disregarding almost all sources.
That a commentary is "unoriginal" if someone in the past has "shared similar insights"? This is pure nonsense.
Not in any meaningful sense. Clearly the quote contains more than that. It's like saying "everything boils down to A = A" (Aristotle, Metaphysics), therefore anything following from that is an "unoriginal" idea.
Peterson gets a bad rap, by people sensationalizing his message and then labelling him as sexist and transphobic.