Quote: (04-18-2019 11:36 AM)Pride male Wrote:
I am the only one who feels like Jordan talks a lot but actually says nothing. At least Owen agrees with me.
Maybe. But I don't think so. I think he uses a lot of language for accessibility, accuracy, and applicability that can make individual points and answers seem long-winded and full of fluff.
One of the main appeals of Peterson is the way he articulates cliches and ancient wisdom in a manner that does not seem cliche. He's scientifically literate and while his strengths lie more on verbal than math (probably why Vox Day incorrectly assesses Peterson's IQ as being in the 120 range), he's good enough to understand most of the necessary math certainly better than most people you see talking about social-religious principles. He's had extensive background in a clinical practice actually working hard to help people in the real world solve real problems and many of his insights clearly come from this background.
Peterson is able to talk about religious or at least quasi-religious and philosophical concepts in a way that is meaningful to modern atheist, agnostic, and otherwise non-religious people. He can speak their language in a way most preachers and philosophers cannot. Even if a preacher who doesn't outright deny evolution nevertheless typically lack a solid understanding of modern science and psychology so the messages are often rejected. Philosophers get so hung up on logical consistency, intellectual rigor, and the 2000-year view of advancing moral understanding that their ideas and messages wind up impractical in present day and often lead to obvious conflicts with intuitive moral values.
In way he's like C.S. Lewis. Lewis was an atheist who became Christian and was able to argue Christianity with atheists because he knew how to speak their language. He knew what Christianity looked like to outsiders, he understood the arguments against it very well, so his points would be informed by those arguments. So it is with Peterson, able to sell the cliches of the past in the language of modern people.
And one of the consequences is that Peterson spends a lot of time establishing frames of reference, using examples and analogies, and repeatedly tying in relevant principles (eg Order vs Chaos or Pareto principle), which can get tedious if you've heard it before or don't need to be sold on it and just want the answer to the question.