Holy Sh** Jordan Peterson Of All People?!?!?!

[INT]

INT, can you please give examples of where he describes women as irrational creatures?

Can you give examples where he says its not men's fault they're unhappy but society's?

Peterson advocates personal responsibility. That is one of his key teachings. He believes in taking accountability for your life, and not blaming others. I know this because I have studied a lot of his lectures. Although he may say some blunt things about feminism and post-modernist theory, he is not mysogenistic nor does he represent the kind of sub-section of men that you are implying follow him.

What he does do is talk about a lot of interesting ideas that captivate people. He introduces philosophy and ideas from figures like Nietzsche and Carl Jung. I don't listen to him because of his views on women, whatever they apparently are. I am more interested on his take on self-improvement and his take on some of his favorite philosophers and how their teachings can be applied in daily life. Peterson is doing well to generate a higher standard of public debate about a number of interesting topics.

He doesn't sugar coat what he says or panda to the mainstream liberal elite, and that makes him dangerous. You would do well to read more of what Peterson advocates and talks about before coming up with the above stories on him. It sounds like you haven't even done any direct research on him, merely you were informed by a liberal media source and decided to take a standpoint because that's the acceptable thing to do without even knowing what he truly stands for.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself first and you might actually find he is an extremely interesting person to read and listen to.

I never said that he is not interesting. I guess you could say that in many ways I am thankful that because of him more people are now familiar with the work of Nietzsche and Jung.

Regarding the examples you ask for: Sure these are not literal quotes but if you have studied his lectures and his interviews like I have done, you can definitely see that he tends to lean towards one specific group of men at the expense of feminism, the sexual free market and well... women in general.

I do not agree that he advocates personal responsibility. How can someone that points his finger so often to others have personal responsibility as one of his key teachings? What is the saying again? If you point a finger at someone else you have three fingers pointing at yourself?

Why do all Peterson supporters always fall back to the ''you have been brainwashed by the liberal media" fallacy when you critique the man? Just because my opinion is not the same as yourse does not mean I don't know what he 'truly stands for'.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

I was alerted to this thread by a couple of users and seeing my comment on the first page - point still stands. The transplant is really not remarkable, especially when you consider his starting point as a Norwood 3 with reasonable thickness.


View attachment 97342

I think it's definitely a failure of the surgeon in terms of hairline design but Peterson himself is just a hard case too. Massive high forehead,really long face, old and not good looking. The transplant doesn't look convincing if you look at it cosmetically, it's see through in the transplanted areas and behind the areas too, even in moderate lighting. The high straight line just creates an unaesthetic unnatural look too. Despite sometimes showing his white hair which matches the skin the diffuse look is apparent. He has a lot of donor and probably needs another go, dense pack and with a better surgeon.

Important to comment that it's more than good enough for his age and I doubt there is much difference to his look before and after surgery in terms of impact. No temple points either. I believe idealforehead also pointed this out and several other users. But Peterson would admit himself, he was never aesthetic and purely an academic so that's that.

View attachment 97343

It's harder to look good as a guy in his mid 50s but Peterson will get the "ageing well even if not attractive" tag which is still something. Even through that, as an ordinary guy he would remain somewhat relevant to women and a little younger perhaps. His skin is not in great shape either and looks weak.

As an older man to stand out in your age group and much below, you really need your looks to hold (assuming they were there to begin with), decent body, no hair loss (unless you're black) and excellent skin. Also adapting the hair colour for an appropriate age look or slightly younger.

David Easter is still playing roles with girls half his age in soaps and is around Peterson's age. Scott Maslen is a decade younger than both of them but hard to imagine he'll age like that.

View attachment 97345

View attachment 97344

His hairline looking so goddamn unnatural being his main fault. No one irl looks like that.

My density isn't great (NW4.5-5~ was my starting point) but at least no one irl can tell I had a transplant.

This is why having a good surgeon is crucial.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

I just looked at him and thought, shaving off the sideburns would instantly improve him. They just make him look older and his transplant stand out more, in a bad way.

 

[swingline747]

I never said that he is not interesting. I guess you could say that in many ways I am thankful that because of him more people are now familiar with the work of Nietzsche and Jung.

Regarding the examples you ask for: Sure these are not literal quotes but if you have studied his lectures and his interviews like I have done, you can definitely see that he tends to lean towards one specific group of men at the expense of feminism, the sexual free market and well... women in general.

I do not agree that he advocates personal responsibility. How can someone that points his finger so often to others have personal responsibility as one of his key teachings? What is the saying again? If you point a finger at someone else you have three fingers pointing at yourself?

Why do all Peterson supporters always fall back to the ''you have been brainwashed by the liberal media" fallacy when you critique the man? Just because my opinion is not the same as yourse does not mean I don't know what he 'truly stands for'.

Ive watched lots of his interviews and never heard anything about blaming anyone for anything. I hear his stances on modern feminism which I agree with but never anything about women being lesser than anyone.
Do you have any links to back up your statements? Not links to articles defending your points but actual interviews that are not edited and cherry picked out of context?

 

[Exodus2011]

Ive watched lots of his interviews and never heard anything about blaming anyone for anything. I hear his stances on modern feminism which I agree with but never anything about women being lesser than anyone.
Do you have any links to back up your statements? Not links to articles defending your points but actual interviews that are not edited and cherry picked out of context?

yea hes flat out called MGTOW "pathetic weasels". telling guys others are to blame is the literal opposite of what he does.

 

[INT]

Ive watched lots of his interviews and never heard anything about blaming anyone for anything. I hear his stances on modern feminism which I agree with but never anything about women being lesser than anyone.
Do you have any links to back up your statements? Not links to articles defending your points but actual interviews that are not edited and cherry picked out of context?

Oh boy, you really want me to do that for you? You honestly think I will not find anything?

PS: I think you forgot to add '(...) by the liberal media' to yourl last sentence. Or was that the other guy? I don't know... Most Peterson fans always use the battle cries in discussions.

 

[swingline747]

Oh boy, you really want me to do that for you? You honestly think I will not find anything?

PS: I think you forgot to add '(...) by the liberal media' to yourl last sentence. Or was that the other guy? I don't know... Most Peterson fans always use the battle cries in discussions.

Im not asking you to gather anything, my assumption would be that your statements would mean you already have access to something and I deliberately did NOT add any liberal media comments because I didnt want to make my comment sound stupid, which you did with yours by assuming it. I was asking a mature, honest question. You took it to the gutter.
You went on a defensive REALLY fast which means you really have nothing to back yourself up and are more than likely trolling

 

[Wolf Pack]

His hairline looking so goddamn unnatural being his main fault. No one irl looks like that.

My density isn't great (NW4.5-5~ was my starting point) but at least no one irl can tell I had a transplant.

This is why having a good surgeon is crucial.

It's not just because it's straight, though it's the final nail in the coffin. There are people who genetically have pretty straight hairlines and I am one, but it's in a natural location on a normal sized forehead with good density. In Peterson's case it's because it's straight AND all those other factors which make it look bad. Such as forehead height and shape, face shape, no temple points, diffusing badly, angulation of the hair grafts e.t.c. The surgeon didn't work with him and tailor his plan accordingly (all good drs should), he gave him a predetermined generic transplant. So it looks off and clearly plugs. Sounds like your surgeon made the result look natural and that's one of the foundations of surgery - working with the patient.

I have a feeling Peterson doesn't actually care for hair much though. He was perhaps comfortable being clearly balding prior to become prominent in public. Then he saw himself on tv and thought, damn those missing corners/combover really draws negative attention to the whole world. So he got it over and done with just to cover himself and take out that focus point. I think he knows it has made little difference in reality and he did that more because he had become a public figure. It's just my theory and maybe I'm wrong and he was deeply distressed over hair loss all his life. But that would mean he would feel bad about his strong diffuse loss but I don't think so.

A straight hairline should only be pursued if density is great throughout and bearing in mind the natural shape of forehead/face. A hairline usually begins at the tip of the vertical forehead (where it meets the horizontal scalp). Hair ideally shouldn't begin above this or lower than this. That's why lowering the hairline for those with a high/big forehead can work up to a point but then it looks weird when you have hair growing on your forehead on a flat plane which is obviously artificial. Though some natural cases of this exist for men, they are outliers and it still looks off.

Overall I'd say a having the 3 areas of the face in proportion looks the best (bar exceptions which of course exist).

Both below look perfectly natural and good with a straight hairline. But they would also look balanced with a mature hairline (1.5) or Norwood 2 due to their forehead being on point and density.

Far cry from this for many reasons.

 

[Exodus2011]

i never saw anything wrong or noticeable with petersons hairline lol. honestly his hairline looks more natural than reagans and that other dudes, their hairlines are noticeably lower than normal

 

[Wolf Pack]

i never saw anything wrong or noticeable with petersons hairline lol. honestly his hairline looks more natural than reagans and that other dudes, their hairlines are noticeably lower than normal

Agree to disagree, his forehead is above the average size and a more graceful hairline would be appropriate if it began there. A few other members on this page highlighted this too and I got the notification after my first page comments. It's a poor outcome based on the artistic skills that are currently available which is the key point. But it's definitely passable and as I wrote before, it's more than fine for his age and he would consider himself purely an academic anyway. On a guy in his 20s and from aesthetics pov, he would look off.

Hairline lowering is a big business so clearly frame robustness, naturalness and hair thickness matters if you tick the other boxes facially. On some individuals it can transform them. We've seen likes of shook, idealforehead and others benefit from it and write about it. Crux of the matter is if people could magically lower their hairline or sort their density, they would which shows the importance. It all depends where you're looking from and expectations too mate.

On another note, the complement "good hair" goes way beyond simply having a full head. It's to do with hairline location, forehead aesthetics, hair colour , characteristics - yet soft or thick hair can look equally good when styled accordingly. That's why a soft blonde surfer look and dark thick look can both stand out to girls.

 

[Exodus2011]

Agree to disagree, his forehead is above the average size and a more graceful hairline would be appropriate if it began there. A few other members on this page highlighted this too and I got the notification after my first page comments. It's a poor outcome based on the artistic skills that are currently available which is the key point. But it's definitely passable and as I wrote before, it's more than fine for his age and he would consider himself purely an academic anyway. On a guy in his 20s and from aesthetics pov, he would look off.

Hairline lowering is a big business so clearly frame robustness, naturalness and hair thickness matters if you tick the other boxes facially. On some individuals it can transform them. We've seen likes of shook, idealforehead and others benefit from it and write about it. Crux of the matter is if people could magically lower their hairline or sort their density, they would which shows the importance. It all depends where you're looking from and expectations too mate.

On another note, the complement "good hair" goes way beyond simply having a full head. It's to do with hairline location, forehead aesthetics, hair colour , characteristics - yet soft or thick hair can look equally good when styled accordingly. That's why a soft blonde surfer look and dark thick look can both stand out to girls.

yea thats what i meant. peterson looks totally normal. other people noting it doesnt mean anything. so much of this place is psycho BDD and thinks 1 mm of recession = norwood 7. and people taking transgender drugs for extremely minor hair loss lol.

but i mean you act like these super low hairlines are normal/expected lol. and you're coming off like you're subtly putting me down for my looks.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

It's not just because it's straight, though it's the final nail in the coffin. There are people who genetically have pretty straight hairlines and I am one, but it's in a natural location on a normal sized forehead with good density. In Peterson's case it's because it's straight AND all those other factors which make it look bad. Such as forehead height and shape, face shape, no temple points, diffusing badly, angulation of the hair grafts e.t.c. The surgeon didn't work with him and tailor his plan accordingly (all good drs should), he gave him a predetermined generic transplant. So it looks off and clearly plugs. Sounds like your surgeon made the result look natural and that's one of the foundations of surgery - working with the patient.

I have a feeling Peterson doesn't actually care for hair much though. He was perhaps comfortable being clearly balding prior to become prominent in public. Then he saw himself on tv and thought, damn those missing corners/combover really draws negative attention to the whole world. So he got it over and done with just to cover himself and take out that focus point. I think he knows it has made little difference in reality and he did that more because he had become a public figure. It's just my theory and maybe I'm wrong and he was deeply distressed over hair loss all his life. But that would mean he would feel bad about his strong diffuse loss but I don't think so.

A straight hairline should only be pursued if density is great throughout and bearing in mind the natural shape of forehead/face. A hairline usually begins at the tip of the vertical forehead (where it meets the horizontal scalp). Hair ideally shouldn't begin above this or lower than this. That's why lowering the hairline for those with a high/big forehead can work up to a point but then it looks weird when you have hair growing on your forehead on a flat plane which is obviously artificial. Though some natural cases of this exist for men, they are outliers and it still looks off.

Overall I'd say a having the 3 areas of the face in proportion looks the best (bar exceptions which of course exist).

Both below look perfectly natural and good with a straight hairline. But they would also look balanced with a mature hairline (1.5) or Norwood 2 due to their forehead being on point and density.

View attachment 97583

View attachment 97584


Far cry from this for many reasons.

View attachment 97585

I feel you. I don't like the angulation of his grafts in particular, nor his hair quality/texture but that might have more to do with his age and genetics than the actual transplant.

Well I just look like a natural NW2 with some thinning now. A lot of dudes in their late 20's look like this so it's cool.

As opposed to what most men here seem to think, having a somewhat robust forehead is actually dimorphic and attractive. See: Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Cooper, etc.

My hair will never look like the vids you posted and I'm fine with that because it looks too poshy for my liking and I have rugged facial features anyway.. so I'm just shooting for the "ruggedly handsome" look.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

yea thats what i meant. peterson looks totally normal. other people noting it doesnt mean anything. so much of this place is psycho BDD and thinks 1 mm of recession = norwood 7. and people taking transgender drugs for extremely minor hair loss lol.

but i mean you act like these super low hairlines are normal/expected lol. and you're coming off like you're subtly putting me down for my looks.

People here think that f*****g David Lynch is a hot man who can f*** young prime girls in his 70's solely because of his hair.

Meanwhile in reality none of his girlfriends was attractive and no girl ever thought of him as a sex icon.

This is not a jab at Wolf Pack by the way, because I agree with some of the points he made. Just an observation.

Most straight males can't estimate the attractiveness of a fellow guy..

 

[Wolf Pack]

yea thats what i meant. peterson looks totally normal. other people noting it doesnt mean anything. so much of this place is psycho BDD and thinks 1 mm of recession = norwood 7. and people taking transgender drugs for extremely minor hair loss lol.

but i mean you act like these super low hairlines are normal/expected lol. and you're coming off like you're subtly putting me down for my looks.

Well I am not BDD nor taking serious medications but I understand your point there about exaggerated perfection. Saying he is a normal looking is a simplistic view though. Bald is also normal. I'm not putting you down for your looks or baldness, it's irrelevant. Just said that you look at things from a different POV to me and this was further exemplified by your reply. If a patient receives a mechanical heart valve which works well but is 10 years behind the current technology, should he be happy? Many would be perhaps, others would be disappointed something outdated was used and would sue the Dr. Same principle applies here. I look at it in terms of what is the best someone can get now and Peterson's case is not it. It's not just me saying it, you can see many surgeons discuss other sub par work such as one of the videos I linked. It's not a case of the surgeons having BDD. Dr Rassman often shows sub par work in celebs too, that often they are lazy with their research.

You said the guys I linked in have low hairlines. Reagan yes but the other guy is actually normal. A 3-4 finger forehead generally looks the best and I see plenty of good looking guys in their 20s with this, like I said there are exceptions and a high forehead is also fine. If we're talking about getting pretty girls, then conventional looks matters, just have to see what people around me do.

People here think that f*****g David Lynch is a hot man who can f*** young prime girls in his 70's solely because of his hair.

Lol

I feel you. I don't like the angulation of his grafts in particular, nor his hair quality/texture but that might have more to do with his age and genetics than the actual transplant.

Well I just look like a natural NW2 with some thinning now. A lot of dudes in their late 20's look like this so it's cool.

As opposed to what most men here seem to think, having a somewhat robust forehead is actually dimorphic and attractive. See: Ryan Reynolds, Bradley Cooper, etc.

My hair will never look like the vids you posted and I'm fine with that because it looks too poshy for my liking and I have rugged facial features anyway.. so I'm just shooting for the "ruggedly handsome" look.

Good. There's nothing wrong in that in the sense it sounds like you had a transplant suited to your situation. That's all we can ask for and you were a candidate. A rugged look most definitely works with that hair and facial features you described.

 

[LastSamurai]

i never saw anything wrong or noticeable with petersons hairline lol. honestly his hairline looks more natural than reagans and that other dudes, their hairlines are noticeably lower than normal

Agreed, the average person he has hair. Grey and a bit receeded, but he has hair. He looks pretty good for his age.

Only to the obsessed on this forum he doesn't look good, but to the average non-bald/hair transplant spotter he looks fine.

 

[INT]

I think Petersons' transplant is not too bad. I would probably immediately sign to have his hair at his age.

It would do him a lot of favors if he would be congruent with his own principles and be transparant about it. That it the problem with liars. Once you know they lie about one thing, you automatically start to wonder what else they might be lying about...

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

I think Petersons' transplant is not too bad. I would probably immediately sign to have his hair at his age.

It would do him a lot of favors if he would be congruent with his own principles and be transparant about it. That it the problem with liars. Once you know they lie about one thing, you automatically start to wonder what else they might be lying about...

It’s not necessarily about his hairline, instead we are bewildered that such a rich person would not get a hair transplant that is absolutely perfect. I have seen way better hairlines from erdogan for a couple of thousand dollars.

On top of that, as you yourself recognized, it is bewildering that Peterson, who tries to paint himself as a emotionally deep intellectual, held up to the highest moral standards would not only get such a procedure but outright lie about it.

 

[Raphael13]

I'm actually surprised Jordan Peterson of all men had a hair transplant. Cause he is this super intelligent professor that speaks a lot for men, how to live, how to be more attractive to women, how to behave etc. To me, he was that super confident guy (maybe he always was even without transplant) that didn't care about looks because he had all this knowledge and a good self esteem. Plus he looked really good in his norwood 3..it really suited him well. So as I said, I'm very surprised he got a hair transplant of all people.

 

[Raphael13]

But on the other hand I can also understand it. If you are his age with that thick norwood 3, it woudn't hurt to pay a little cash and be a thick norwood 1 again. So it was not a massive step, he just filled in that norwood 3 gap, and he already had good density as well, so in that sense it's understandable.

 

[resu]

Very obvious here in his latest interview: