Conjecture: i believe that many contrapoints enjoyers are former jordan peterson fans. Contrapoints has an appeal to intellectually engaged people, many of whom have been in bubbles where contrapoints-aligned arguments and ideas are not so visible.


Definitely this. When I was a teenager, me and my buddies thought we were on the right path by following Jordan Peterson. I mean he seems smart, makes you ask good questions, and tells you that you are capable of wonderful things if you work hard enough. What's not to like? Then the door is opened to the trans hate and the rest of his ridiculous views on gender or free speech.


His "philosophy" strikes me as yet another attempt at making people focus on "working hard" while distracting them from the many external factors outside their control making said hard work needlessly harder and sometimes useless.


Yeah one facet of his belief system is a fairly traditional (and not wildly controversial) take that people are responsible for their fate. Natalie endorsed a very similar position in Envy with her call to action (something to the effect of “life sucks, but get up off the floor and make the most of it because crying about how much everything sucks isn’t going to make it better”). That being said, I disagree with both perspectives. No one chooses anything, neither the environmental or genetic factors that dictate how their life will unfold. Everything from your eye color to your favorite movie to the way you respond to trauma is set by predetermined molecular interactions. Telling people to “just change” is absurd. If they can they will, if they can’t they won’t. But I still appreciate Jp’s and Natalie’s perspectives, even though I disagree with their arguments, because they’ve given me lots of cool stuff to think about.


I feel like it’s a variant of the “Nobel disease” thing, like clearly he isn’t Nobel prize material, but I think he’s a great psychologist, but he has some odd fixations that don’t really cluster with the rest of his views (like the trans stuff👀). I feel like he got famous and thought he was an expert on everything, and all the negative feedback put him on the defense so he doubled down, then the health issues probably left him traumatized and caused some cognitive issues.


>I think he’s a great psychologist, Peterson is credited on very few publications, and those publications are not cited frequently, which indicates that he contributed very little to studies which were not impactful. I think he's leaned so hard into his new persona to assuage his ego over being a below-average academician.


I don’t know what you consider to be “few publications”, but he’s authored or co-authored over 100 academic papers. He’s also [been cited more than 18,000 times](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en). I can’t stand the man, but he had a pretty solid academic reputation.


I remember when I searched some years ago I only saw 5 publications with less than 1,000 total citations. I suppose I must have narrowed the search somehow.


Idk about strict psychology, but his theories on evolutionary psychology are pure bunk. I once watched one of his lectures on YouTube to see what the big deal with him was. He was presenting an ancient artwork of a male and female naga entwined as proof that humans have some innate form of genetic memory when it comes to sexuality by stating that this was a depiction of the DNA double-helix and that there was no other way that humans could understand that before science, and that there was no other way to explain this artwork. Now, you don't even need to know that DNA structure was only discovered and understood in the 1950's to disprove that claim, because a 1st year art student could debunk this. Humans have been finding inspiration in nature since the beginning of recorded history. Ever see a picture of 2 snakes mating? That artwork was a depiction of 2 snakes mating. Genetic memory and DNA had nothing to do with it. Whether or not JP is a good psychologist is irrelevant to some degree because the way he applies it ignores everything he doesn't agree with, including the simplest of explanations. His claims fall apart under any real scrutiny. But his fans don't really care about that too much because they're not there for the rigor, they're there for the shallow image of an academic that agrees with their views. And, that's all he needs from them to sell books.


That’s a really reductive and malevolent description, I don’t know if I’d feel comfortable making such general claims about a person and everyone who follows them based on what I gathered from *one* YouTube video. Like I’ve said in this thread, his views are pretty hit or miss for me. I’m not usually a fan of evolutionary psych, to me it actually seems like a branch of anthropology or sociology, and I’m not usually convinced by the speculation. Regardless, he has some cool things (evidence based things, from both empirical research and his clinical work) to say about other areas like abnormal, personality, and intelligence. I don’t get the need to disregard everything that someone has ever said just because some of their views are weird or wrong.


In the beginning of my embarrassing anti-woke phase, I remember watching some JBP videos about psychology and enjoying them. However, even in his old videos he always showed disdain for women, like me, who don't want kids (a trend that has been getting stronger and stronger ever since he got famous). Even as a clinical psychologist, it seems he couldn't help but express his low opinions on childfree/childless women. So I was quickly put off by it and by other things, like using evo psych to defend gender roles/essentialism, the incel-ish mentality, the conservative views that permeates his opinions on responsibility and success, the anti-woke obsession, etc... And then came the anti-trans stuff a few years ago, which was unsurprising but it finally made a lot of people realize what he's about. That said, the only good thing I got from him was being introduced to the Big 5 Personality stuff.


On top of that, there's probably a decent number of people who enjoy contra's stuff who go to subreddits like r/jordanpeterson to lurk or find things to screenshot.


>there's probably a decent number of people who enjoy contra's stuff who go to subreddits like r/jordanpeterson to lurk or find things to screenshot. \[M\] I found it interesting no one's mentioned this yet. As someone who comments there frequently, I've noticed there is a mix of right-wingers, centrists, libertarians, and even progressives. And yes, this *does* very often produce an oil and vinegar effect.


\[M\] I think one of the skills Natalie has is exposing the flaws in different viewpoints. As someone who appreciates both, that's something I feel she does far better than Peterson. I feel like she's very much more able to reconcile different perspectives, whether or not she holds those perspectives. *The Hunger* shows this dramatically. As someone who leans more right-wing, her representation of the right-winger in the closet is a masterful roast-- there's something at it's core that hits undeniably correct.


Me being pedantic: Just because something is similar doesn't mean it's also congruent


I currently enjoy both! I definitely agree with much more of what Natalie has to say, but jp has some interesting takes. But I def agree, they share qualities that attract people. I feel like more than intellectual engagement we’re looking for explanations? Like they both explore how and why people are the way they are, just from (usually) very different perspectives.


What takes of his are interesting to you?


It’s pretty hit or miss, but I love everything he has to say about personality and intelligence, and the way they relate to fulfillment and success, however those are defined by the individual. He respects experimental design and statistical analysis in a way that lots of people in psych don’t, and I really appreciate that. I like the stuff about archetypes but haven’t read any of the research, tbh I don’t even know how much empirical support there is for those frameworks, but they’re fun to think about regardless. I like that he’s outspoken about personal freedoms and responsibilities, because I think those are important to talk about, I just think he’s often wrong and lets very specific personal biases influence his perspectives in those areas.


What has jp said that you thought was interesting and worthwhile?


I keep getting this suggestion and it makes me mad it's literally dragging ppl into that right wing cult by suggesting that sub to ppl the algorithm is fueld by rage


I think this probably makes sense on the surface to the algorithm or even someone who doesn't pay attention. Subs have a similar make up(young, political?, philosophical) similar keywords used all the time and so forth.


The opposite of love isn't hate, the opposite of love is indifference. So because JP is hated so much here, I assume at least a handful of brave souls feel the need to go over there and argue in the comments, thus telling the algorithm that there is an overlap in the username lager than expected by random chance


Same yesterday lol I just blocked it


You have people following it to keep track of what these maroons care about , converts who haven’t unfollowed (hopefully), and the lazy algo “you like philosophy” try this Redddit doesn’t know better unfortunately


I wonder if this means JP fans are getting recommendations to come here, or is it more likely they're getting directed to r/lobstersgonewild ?




How do you get that info? Do drag race next!


Are you using this stats? The number is indeed 1.33 but 1.33 is actually the probability of users in this sub posting in the JP sub compared to Reddit s average, rather than 1.33% of the members posting in JP's sub. https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/contrapoints For contrast, you'll find that users of Contrapoints are 41.43 more likely to post in VaushV's sub. I mean it is likely that some of us will post in that sub but I find 41.43% of r/contrapoints subs posting in vowsh's sub to be highly improbable.


To be fair both subreddits are places where people have lengthy (and at least partly) uninformed discussions while fawning over an internet personality in ways that exceed even the definition of parasocial.


I usually get r/shanedawson


idk if I would have shared that lmao


Is it based on search history then? I’ve no clue how it got there if so. /gen


I really have no idea. Some weird algorithm stuff I guess. Maybe it saw “ah yes, YouTuber. This person likes YouTubers. This subreddit is also for a YouTuber.”


I use old.reddit.com on desktop and m.reddit.com on mobile. I never see this bullshit.


Both are political online commentators. Their beliefs are very different, but they fall definitely in the same category.


Seems like reddit wants to incentivise people arguing in comment sections


\[M\] This was what I thought. *"Drives engagement."*


Out of curiosity... what does the " \[M\] " mean?


\[M\] I dissociate. Helps keep track of other parts of me.


Lmao it also happened to me yesterday. It’s somewhat funny and infuriating at the same time


Knowing "the other side" is beneficial. I lean one political direction but I have joined both subreddits in an effort to know both sides of the political spectrum. Staying in your comfort zone only increases the chance of creating an echo-chamber. So, I'd say "thank you reddit" instead but that is just me.




Unapologetic use of Alt-Right dog whistles.




That’s why I answered : )




Been many a year since I was in the rabbit hole. I can do some searchin later this arvo but you might find the same things by googling


Girl wat


We have this dogma that a platform cannot be responsible for spreading hate speach, because "algorithm". But an algorihm has intend. It is entirely possible the algorithm is titled AltRightSphere, that is, it's *intentionally* trying to spread fashy views. We don't know. I get suggested extremist views, despite not being extremists myself, but I never get suggested, say, Korean languaged subs, because the algorihm is designed not to throw random languages at people, or random craft subs. I feel that it at least warrent an explanation.


Gender centrism?


I went from centrist chode to NB leftist. But I still consume content the critiques that bullshit, so the algorithms keeps torturing me with who I used to be.


I've been getting a ton of these. An Andrew Tate thread was recommended because it was "like" Contrapoints. It's awful.


horse shoe theory or something


I can't the fact that reddit is saying JP is to straights and incels what CP is to gays and hoes


I thought that was the whole point of “breadtube.” To destabilize the right wing pipeline by showing up in similar tags and recommended sections.


Jordan Peterson is so fucking lucky, I wish I could get fucking shitripped on bennies then ramble incoherently and cry for an hour and get paid millions of dollars for it.


they’re more alike than they are different as far as youtube content is concerned