my feelings about him are mixed to say the least.

He's great when confronted with a poorly-made argument (as so many New Lib arguments are).

But damn, his 12 Rules book is rambling, woolly and boring in long stretches. And this is the "reader friendly" boil down of the academic version, which was nearly impossible to read (I tried). Every freaking thought and linking thought that hits his brain had to be written down. It was like James Joyce stream of consciousness without the poetry.

It's great that archetypes and primitive pathways are getting new attention -- they're part of our psyche and a big driver of what we actually do and how we think. Whether it's as clearcut as order and chaos = m/f . . . well, sure -- if you find the right examples, and ignore the wrong ones.

To call it science is misleading. He's storytelling as much as the myths were.

As to this new anti-censorship channel he's setting up with Jocko of all people -- welp, that will be interesting. I give it eight months before the founders' egos and audiences blow it apart.

He strikes me as one of those people who says a lot without really saying much at all.

Especially when he's trying to defend his positions that fall at the more pseudosciency end of things (e.g. religion).

Not that he doesn't have some valid points but I find the above detracts a great deal.

Bingo. I've always found him to come off as a reasonably smart guy who is dying for the really smart people to accept him as one of their own. He uses 80 words where 8 will do, and he seems to get excited over points that have been laid to rest decades ago as if he just thought them up.

Watch a debate with him sometime and watch his body language. If he has a chair that'll allow it, he'll slouch so far back into the chair that he's almost lying down in an attempt to project a sense of relaxed calm, but at the same time he will unconsciously fidget with his wedding ring in a sign he's actually nervous. He has a million little mannerisms like that that suggest he wants what he says to have more weight than it actually does.

Fortunately, he's polite, so no harm to the world.

I only really know him from his Joe Rogan interview. I thought he made a lot of good points in the interview. I don't know much more than that.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Something of a non-sequitur, but I read an interview of a former FBI profiler who says those "pop culture" tells (folded arms = lying; covering up the mouth when talking = lying; fidgeting = lack of confidence; etc.) are almost all BS. Yes, people have tells, but those aren't the ones to be looking for.

---

War is god

Also unrelated, Dr. Phil (whom I'm not a fan of, but I do think he knows what he's talking about on this subject) gave an example of figuring out if someone is lying.

In short, he said that a liar always has to think quickly to come up with new lies to cover himself, so you ask them simple uestions that should have simple quick answers. If it takes them too long to answer, then they are lying.

Example:

"Did you rob the warehouse?"
"No."
"What if I was to tell you that the janitor saw you hanging around the door on his shift last night?"
(short pause) "Well he must have seen someone who looks like me."

He did say that all you can get from that is knowing that they are lying. Its still not enough to prosecute them.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I am not sure what the heck the article is saying other than they don't like Peterson. It is a rambling more designed to impress than clearly communicate an idea. Not sure what Peterson is about. He is a good debater beyond that I don't have much to say.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Did you read it or just let the nybooks article tell you what to think about it?

Yes. Not all of it yet as it quite painful to read. He says the same thing using different metaphors in just about every sentence over the course of 3 to 4 pages at times.

Never read the book but I find his lectures on YouTube to be very interesting. I like his multi-disciplined approach psychology, looking at it from the perspectives of biology, evolutionary biology (why certain things evolved the way they did), history, culture, etc and then trying to weave them all together. Having a professor like that in college would have been a treat.

when JP is up against a trained atheist (ie Sam Harris), he can put up a decent fight, but his position is untenable and he ultimately falters.

I’ve only watched a couple of his interviews/debates. I prefer to watch his lectures.