• Nelots@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve never really cared for his humor, but Some More News videos are always a good watch. I’ll have to watch this one later.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s hit and miss. It’s always a bit Juvenile and sometimes I find in a little detractive from the message. As in there are a lot of people I wouldn’t automatically show it to because of the humor despite how well researched and presented everything is. But I generally enjoy the schtick for what it is. This stuff would get rather dry an hard to get through without it sometimes.

      • gianni@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow what a fantastic video. I’m so glad I didn’t check the timecode.

    • Staccato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The article was a fun read, but for readers who don’t have time, I believe Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” describes the same problem with marginally fewer words. My favorite excerpt, though, really nails exactly the BS your article mentioned:

      Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

      I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

      Here it is in modern English:

      Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

      This is a parody, but not a very gross one.

      Peterson’s writings are worse than Orwell’s own parodies.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The philosopher of language Paul Grice introduced the concept in his pragmatic theory, argued such:

          Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.[1]: 45

          Oh the irony lol

      • gianni@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d not heard of this essay, I’ll have to check it out. Thank you for sharing.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pro tip, if you place > on the empty lines you’ll make one continuous quote.

        Like

        this.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Website. Also Jerboa does the same. I imagine Sync behaves that way because that’s what reddit did.

            I actually prefer this version, it allows you to separate quotes without having to put anything in between.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s a good article. I’ll admit that Jordan Peterson is a good psychologist and knows many words and stories, he can make many people feel smart or dumb through his incantations of nonsense. But that’s it, all the rest of it is bunk.

      His essays read like an anthology of writings someone made to finish a book report due tomorrow, after not sleeping for 3 days yet somehow feeling wide awake from the crazed panic.

      Also see this screenshot on Firefox Mobile (Est. reading time 63 - 81min). Readers will be well-advised to skim over the copious amount of Jordan Peterson excerpts. Lol.

    • Syrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      One more reason to hate the education system of rating stuff according to how lengthy it is.

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, I think we have to recognize that many people using this site are doing things like taking the train, using the bathroom, or waiting on something. That often necessitates browsing to be short.

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t mean it to be a jab at the users, but I might’ve written it too ambiguously.

          Obviously in most cases it’s better when something you read on the internet is short and concise: my gripe was with a lot of news sites (and, in this case Peterson) who do the exact opposite of that to seem smarter. The “joke” was that it’s a behavior learned in school, where the more you write the better, even if you could’ve expressed the same concept in a much shorter way.

      • gianni@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it has anything to do with the education system. It’s simply that the commitment involved in the request is much higher than normal. I don’t read every 50-page article or 2-hour video I come across. But I can be compelled to when the value proposition is higher than normal.

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think my comment was misunderstood: it was kind of a half-joke about Peterson’s writing.

          Everyone learned to make their concept as long as possible in school because they were better-received, and that’s what Peterson is doing: talking in the most convoluted way possible to make his otherwise bland ideas feel smart.

    • ChrisMcConnell@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Admittedly I don’t know much about Jordan Peterson, but if it does that, it wouldn’t change my perception of him at all.

      • gianni@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I completely disagree. Based off of your comment it seems that you did not absorb the article whatsoever.

        There are many good examples in the article of Peterson presenting opinion as indisputable fact and obscuring ideas with complex language. Particularly when he is challenged based on those ideas.

        Not to mention the examples of how he treats children and others. It is an absolutely wild read. Lengthy but eye-opening.

        Edit: it also exposes how the ideas that his core philosophy is built on are simplistic at best and often flat out wrong or intentionally disingenuous.

    • lowleveldata@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reading 12 Rules for Life recently and I’d agree that Jordan Peterson is not a good writer that he uses too much words for the ideas he’s trying to say. He’s also too religious for my taste. However it’s a exaggeration that “he has almost nothing of value to say”. There are some insights of value if you skim through his words and it appears to me that he genuinely meant good for the advice he gives. I think he just needs a better editor.

      • yata@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        You haven’t read the linked article, because the author does adress this. They point out that Peterson specifically does hide obvious and banal ideas in his sentences, so that when people finally find some blatant truths in his word salad, it makes it seem like the ideas are much more profound than the platitudes they actually are.

        Here is a quote from the article:

        The inflating of the obvious into the awe-inspiring is part of why Peterson can operate so successfully in the “self-help” genre. He can give people the most elementary fatherly life-advice (clean your room, stand up straight) while making it sound like Wisdom.

        And remember the author actually shows this with numerous in-depth examples from Peterson’s writings. A better editor would do nothing, because Peterson writes like that with intent, the intent being to disguise what a cultish hack he is.

        • lowleveldata@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I read the article and I agreed that Jordan Peterson used too much words as I said. I just don’t agree that “he has almost nothing of value to say” as I said.

          • JTode@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point that is being made, though, is that those things that do have value that exist in his writing, did not originate from him and are available elsewhere to the point of ubiquity. If you only heard about them from him, you should read more.

            • lowleveldata@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why does it matter if it’s “available” elsewhere? Do you complain when a restaurant provides food that is available elsewhere?

              • JTode@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I do my best, when I see an intellectual huckster, to point at it and call it what it is.

                Those who are taken in by hucksters have a tendency to dig in about it, and that’s not my business.

      • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve watched numerous interviews with Jordan Peterson over the years, that guy is completely full of shit

          • gianni@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            The article above does a good job of providing many examples and a breakdown. It’s long, but worth it.

            • lowleveldata@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The article was from 2018 and I also have not read “Maps of Meaning” (as it sounds boring as fuck) so I can’t really compare what I see with what the article is saying. I was hoping for more recent examples.