Jordan peterson test free

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Outside the marquee at the Providence Performing Arts Center, a handful of grinning young men paused to take selfies, their faces positioned next to the image of the man they have come here to see. But there is no rock star inside, rather a Canadian psychologist in his sixth decade who will, when he takes the stage 45 minutes after show time, deliver a rambling lecture that touches on Fyodor Dostoevsky, David Hume, Richard Dawkins, post-modernism, privilege, victimhood and, most importantly, “the biblical corpus” of the Jewish and Christian traditions, which the lecturer believes offers the deepest and most relevant stories for the questions of human existence.Welcome to Jordan Peterson’s “We Who Wrestle With God” tour, which kicked off at 7:30 Sunday night in a sold-out auditorium in downtown Providence. (Peterson comes to the Delta Center in Salt Lake City March 5.) Part concert, part lecture, part family banter, the evening is not easily classified.In Providence, the event started with 20 minutes of music by classical guitarist David Cotter (who also toured with Peterson last year), then moved to a monologue by Peterson’s wife about family conflict and pain caused by the recent death of her father. Tammy Peterson herself has been in the news lately, because of publicity about her conversion to Roman Catholicism. It was 8:15 before Jordan Peterson strode in, wearing gray slacks and a multi-colored dreamcoat that would have made Joseph and his brothers envious. The crowd, many of whom had paid up to $100 for tickets, gave Peterson a standing ovation before he said anything. Peterson talked without notes for nearly an hour and a half, never directly addressing any of the topics, such as gender identity, that have made him a lightning rod for controversy on social media and so angered his peers in Canada that they want to strip him of his professional license.In fact, there was no evidence of controversy at all, save for the security officers stationed in front of the stage. What does Jordan Peterson say in his new show?Peterson has said the tour would be a discussion of ideas coming in a forthcoming book, entitled “We Who Wrestle With God,” for which a publication date has not been announced. But Sunday’s presentation seemed more a brainstorming session than an outline, with Peterson meandering from biblical discourse (an overhead screen projected passages from the first chapter of Genesis) to reflections on why human beings are so connected with movies. (They are not mere entertainment, as most people say, but expressions of a “hierarchy of values” that we relate to on deeper levels. And he only made it halfway through “Barbie,” he said, to laughter.)Continuing with Genesis, Peterson described the story of Cain and Abel as “20 of the most tightly written sentences ever penned” that comprise the template for every modern story in the “eternal battle of good versus evil.”“That’s your story, whether you know it or not,” Peterson said. The story of Cain and Abel hinges

Etc. The contradictions exposed became so anti-capitalist that pro-capitalist economists had to abandon the Classical frameworks (“DESTROYED”, lol). Today’s “Marxist” economists take much more seriously the Classical frameworks (from Michael Hudson to Anwar Shaikh). --I remember reading passages from Mises to my dad, about how “free market”/“free trade” (“cosmopolitan capitalism”) brings international peace/prosperity because both sides are voluntarily dependent and mutually benefiting. My dad’s response was basically “you should think about this some more”. Imagine trying to sell “free trade” to someone with the historical context of China, where the British sold “free trade” rhetoric along with chests of opium on gunboats, bringing the prosperity of the “Opium Wars”/“Unequal Treaties”/“Century of Humiliation” (where life expectancy in China fell to the 30’s). …Selling “freedom” through violence; note how it was easier for me to avoid the “War on Terror” freedom-and-democracy-bombs trap, but more difficult with the abstractions of “economics”. Amitav Ghosh artistically captures this in his trilogy on the Britain-India-China opium triangle that shifted the world-system from Asia to Europe: Bahram smiled to himself as he listened: the arguments were marvellously simple yet irrefutable. Really, there was no language like English for turning lies into legalisms. [River of Smoke]…On the nonfiction side: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World…See the comments below for the 2nd half of the review: “Part 2: Peterson vs. Peterson, an immanent critique”:“1) Peterson, the Lost Marxist?”“2) Peterson, the Disillusioned Sanderista?” “3) Peterson, the Red Scare boomer?”z-propaganda-liberalism z-propaganda-reactionary1,122 reviews47.3k followersJanuary 4, 2023There’s a lot of hate leveled at Jordan Peterson for things he has said in interviews and in his media work. He has been labelled many things. I don’t want to get into the correctness of these labels here, nor do I want to engage with his political views (because

Leave the career work to men (GFY). See…I waited all the way until the end to put in this comment. Kudos to me.Finally – and I mean it – finally:Is anyone curious as to why I’m referring to the author as Jordan?It’s because he’s misusing his credentials as a Clinical Psychologist (as you can see, he may be an expert clinical psychologist, but he’s way, waaaaay far out of his areas of expertise in this book). My goal is to highlight how much of this book is Jordan’s opinion – but he’s getting a bigger soap box because readers and journalists are conflating his degrees with expertise. Stop giving this author credit where it’s not due. Avoid this book – or like me – if you want to be able to respond to critics or discuss this work as a cultural force (which it is), rent it from the library.1,762 reviews8,925 followersJuly 26, 2019"Faulty tools produce faulty results."- Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for LifeI'm generally not a fan of self-help books and this one would have probably never hit my to-read shelf if a good friend of mine hadn't invited me to attend a live Jordan Peterson lecture in Phoenix a little over a week ago (June 1, 2018). The only other exposure I had to Peterson was a wave of seriously negative posts about him by some of my most liberal friends on FB. I was intrigued. Here I have some friends who found something of value from him, enough to want to share with me (also, we were using Peterson just as a reason to reconnect) AND other friends who absolutely abhorred the man. All of this fascinated me. I was relatively a tabula rasa on this guy. I hadn't even read some of the more negative

Reader Chris, knowing of my disdain for podcasts (and perhaps for Jordan Peterson as well), asked me to listen to at least 15 minutes of this long (1½-hour) discussion between Richard Dawkins and Peterson. All it did was confirm my disdain for Peterson, who seems remarkably self-absorbed and domineering (he doesn’t even let the moderator, Alex O’Connor, get a word in edgewise). And it made me admire Richard even more for his patience in dealing with cranks.I started listening at 17:23, and that’s where I started the video below. Or you can click on this time marker: (17:23) with the discussion of whether the biblical texts were divinely inspired or did they evolve over time in a secular way?What bothers me about Peterson is not only his logorrhea, but his unwillingness to answer questions straight, producing a word salad that barely makes sense.During the 15 minutes I listened (from 17:23 to about 33:00), Dawkins and Peterson discuss whether the Bible was divinely inspired, whether it contains any “truth” at all, and whether the concept of “sacrifice,” which Peterson says is the dominant motif of the Bible (it supposedly progresses from a primitive notion of sacrifice in the Old Testament to Jesus’s marvelous sacrifice made to redeem humanity) come from divine inspiration.A good example of Peterson’s word salad in this clip is his assertion that truth is unified, and the world of value and world of fact must “coincide in some manner we don’t yet understand.” He gives us a Hobson’s choice: “You either believe that the world of truth is unified or it’s not; either there’s contradiction between value and fact” or there is not. Peterson adds that he belives that “different sets of values can be brought into unity.” This to me seems deeply misguided. Values are not the same thing as facts, nor can all different sets of values, which at bottom reflect preferences, can be harmonized.Peterson repeatedly claims to be asking questions of Richard, but he never really finishes his questions because Peterson is so obsessed with talking nonstop. He is in love with his own thoughts and his own voice.However, Richard manages to get in one question for Peterson: “Did Jesus die for our sins?” That is a yes-or-no question, but Peterson waffles, saying that there are “Elements of the [Biblical] text he doesn’t understand:, but the more Peterson studies the bible, the more he understands. Peterson analogizes the Bible to quantum mechanics, saying that the more you study this mysterious subject, the more you understand. Richard responds by shutting Peterson down, saying that Biblical texts do not work in the same way as does quantum mechanics, in that quantum mechanics works—it generates predictions that lead to further truths about the world. The Bible, avers Richard, don’t have any credentials because it makes no predictions.In an attempt to corral Dawkins into Christianity, Peterson says that Dawkins’s claim that he was a “cultural Christian” proves that Dawkins “found something derived from Christianity that he had an affinity