Chrysalis has been subjected to everypony Twilight Sparkle knows in order to get her to change her ways and adopt Friendship. But the former Queen of the Changelings has proven indifferent or worse to their best efforts. So Twilight brings in Dr. Jordan Peterson.
Set after Ending of the End. Sex and death tags only for references.
Disclaimer: I am not a clinical psychologist. I have no ties to Jordan Peterson, and make no claims that this is how he would treat/rehabilitate an individual. Also, be warned, the bonus chapter contains memes. Enjoy, for what it’s worth.
Chapters (2)
Oh, there has to be lobsters in any Jordan Peterson reference. Thank you.
I’m scared of what this may contain, but the dark power of memes compels me to read it soon.
10381760
FTFY
10381829
Both can work, though the gesture is appreciated.
I liked! Have favor and upvote.
Chrysalis struck me as somepony who cared most about the feeling of being important and that things she did had meaning (like that everything she did was for her hive). So I can totally buy her reformation based on that see a focus on doing things that matters for other creatures.
Wonderful story, almost makes me want to wish you did it in a series. It's silly and at the same time very compelling; I seriously believe that Chrysalis would find resonance with JBP's stories. I couldn't help but read it all in his own voice, which is always a good thing. I think I found one typo with "that that can be unbearable", although it might be stammering as he does a few times later on. As for the "keeping sheep" remark; ponies do actually keep sheep as cattle as seen in Sisterhooves Social. And lastly, I believe JBP's home province is Alberta, which would sound better than "home province of Canada". Regardless, excellent job!
10382027
Thanks! I wanted a deeper pursuit of Chrysalis' than just 'Power! Moar Power! And I think the ponies would focus more on the surface goals, and to use an iceberg, never really get past what was visible to what was underneath. And Chrysalis' acerbic personality wouldn't help matters, either. And if her later deeds make her more important to the ponies as well as show them up? Bonus.
10382064
You know, I was toying with the idea for the project I'm currently working on (stuck, some might say) in Growing Harmony. One of the arcs, that is, which would essentially be a continuation of this story. Chrysalis goes through a 'reformation', in that she gave love and transformed like the changelings do on show, except she's still the leader and now collectively have to find out what sort of meaning they want to pursue, what part of society they'll occupy. And, if she never loses her, let's say, authoritarian and changeling-centric policies, or her self-seeking views, they'll really struggle, and how would the MC convince her to change. And so I needed to flesh Chrysalis' character out more, give her better motivations, and a lot of that was used in this.
Thanks on the corrections; I'll use the Alberta one. I personally like the 'that that', same with the 'and and and' stutter he has earlier. I think both are valid.
Oh man I was worried there. I thought it was going to be some nonsense that is usually associated with Jordan Peterson. It turns out you're just ill-informed and have a weird fantasize version of Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual, a fool if you will, who speaks in cliches to make them sound right so the average person doesn't question him, as if cliches cover the entire span of the human mind all across the world. Have you actually seen him be challenged my people who are more qualified? Every time he goes up to someone that actually know what they are talking about, he flops around like a fish out of water, he can't handle it. He is used by reactionaries the validate themselves even though the Consensus, not just in his field, but groups like the Canadian bar association contradicts him at every point. He denies the existence of global warming and thinks woman can't work with men because of makeup. I suggest you watch his debate with Matt Dillahunty. He gets out class so hard.
10382104
And for an egoistical person as Chrysalis hearing that what she does can still matter in future is exactly what can push her into considering that she can change.
I also want to add that I loved your approach. You didn't let Twilight put Chrysalis on the spot and said, "Accept Friendship or else!", which I think is the worst possible way to do it. Instead of that, you had an unbiased third-party actor who said, "Ok let's take a deep breath and have a conversation like adults. Let's see where can get from here." and most importantly he didn't look at her a problem that needs to be solved, but as a somepony who can still do something meaningful with her life if pushed in the right direction
The main thing about Chrysalis's reformation for me is that I can totally buy Chrysalis playing for a Good Guys Team as long as she has plausible motivation. I can see that is Chrysalis trying to do a good for a selfish reason like feeling better about herself or to boost her ego. She sure as hell wouldn't be doing it for a greater good or for altruism
from the begging at least.
So, once again, brilliant work. Thanks for writing it
You made my day.
10382104
I like the stammering too, you should keep it in but I would suggest adding one or two commas to make it clear that this is intentional.
10382153
...Ho boy. Where to start.
I'm having a hard time putting together your first three sentences. Did I do a bad job of characterizing Jordan Peterson? Or you're saying that I, the author, am just as ill-informed as Peterson because I did an accurate job of portraying his views? (Because why would I want to portray his views except that I agree with them?) Is that close to what you are saying?
As far as cliches, the only way you could possibly cover the entire span of the human mind is with a cliche, because that's what they are, over-generalizations. Or you might term them as archetypes, or phrases that speak to the deeper meaning within all of us. Or, perhaps, I should take your comment the opposite way, and you're saying that Peterson speaks overly broadly and that not all of his rules would apply to all people, and that we should treat people as individuals. In which case, hey! We agree!
One of the places I felt I fell short on in the 'fic was that Chrysalis didn't do a good enough job arguing counterpoints, or really bringing them up. She accepts his definitions of a few key terms (God, truth) that Dillahunty gets caught up with. Or, maybe I should say, he argues that using them in the way Peterson does (which, granted, isn't the way most people would, but neither is it wrong to have a different definition) is disingenuous because people take his arguments with one definition (say, God is your highest moral; or, in this story, society more broadly) and then use it in a different context. Which, I'll agree, is wrong.
But that gets away from the point that Chrysalis doesn't argue the nihilistic point well, or (as Peterson might put it) Raskolnikov's atheistic point, that you should be able to justify actions based on a perceived cost/benefit analysis. Actually, I haven't considered how much of Chrysalis' life has actually been lived that way. Something to ponder, I guess.
You've inspired me to do one of these in the near future, the twist? I'm going to be using Bonut Bperator.
NEXT WEEK:
Kermet the Fog Attempts to Reform Chrysalis
Only on Ponie Ball ZED
Why so many dislikes? The story is not that terrible
So I know little about Jordan Peterson and saw this fic by chance on the "New Stories" pane, and morbid curiousity got me to read it. I finished it just now, and I did enjoy it.
The main thing that I liked about it is how it was a conversation about current and future goals, and also criticizing the whole "power of friendship!!" angle that Twilight always takes. I feel like there's some legit criticism regarding feeling "settled for life"/"always in the right" for ponies after getting their cutie mark and such, and that it's addressed and the idea tossed back and forth is really cool.
I think there was too much "MM"-ing from Mr. Peterson here, but perhaps that's just a verbal tic he has.
Good stuff though, keep it up!
10383346
Politics my good friend, politics.
10383346
First guess is the name in the title, the fact that he's often associated with memes (guilty, though I try to keep them contained to the bonus chapter), and/or 'bandwagoning' where I'm using a popular name in order to garner more views. All of which probably contain a kernel of truth. A more 'legitimate' complaint might be that Peterson doesn't have someone difficult to contend with, insofar as Chrysalis doesn't really 'contend' with him, like a Dillahunty or Harris or some post-modernist (falling rock stars brings this up, as far as I can tell, in as much as he has a complaint about my story in particular).
10383372
Thanks! I mostly got the 'Mm's' from his more casual interviews with, say, Joe Rogan, when he's asked a tough question and needs some sort of verbal tic to fill the void. 'That's a good question' fills a similar role.
10383376
Indeed.
You might not be a psychologist, but I think you wrote Dr. Peterson well. Probably from watching lots of videos with him and reading his book. I just have one question. Why (and how) is Chrysalis using her hoof to write with (and disassemble/reassemble) a pen and not her telekinesis?
10383505
Lots and lots of videos, yup.
She used her hoof because she's low on love (magic). Also, hoofwriting always felt more personal to me than hornwriting, and this is as personal as it gets. She does it the same way the rest of the ponies do - pure force of will
Very nice
10383404
No matter how much Kermit the Fraud rants about 'post-modernists', his own constant flow of deepities that are based on reliance on some 'stories that more true than truth' and redefining words on whim ('God is your guiding moral absolute') ironically makes him more of post-modernist than any modern figure of comparable publicity.
10384279
I agree with parts of that, just like I think Peterson has elements in common with post-modernists. But on questions like 'does free speech exist' he comes down firmly on the opposite side, that the purpose of free speech is the exchange of ideas rather than a power game between groups. So I think calling him a post-modernist is unfair, just like calling him alt-right. Although 'more post-modern than post-modern' is a humorous way of twisting 'more true than true'. I like that.
I remember him pulling out a list of what 'God' means during one of his talks with Sam Harris, and it was a dozen items long. And I could see where he was coming from on most/each of them, even as my definition of 'God' would be closer to 'a divine being, supernatural, existing outside of reality with the ability to interact with reality, creator', which most atheists would argue we have insufficient evidence to argue exists, or more specifically that specific denominations of religious claims don't have enough evidence to justify their versions. And so much of the debate hinges on definitions, and questions like 'does God exist even if all conscious beings die' are answered or sometimes obvious by the definition given/agreed upon. I see nothing wrong with him throwing his own definition into the ring, even as I wish there was a more precise word to use than 'true' or 'God'. They're too loose, and mean too many different things to different people.
10383505
My guess would be either she's doing it "properly" (as it were), and holding it under the lip of her hoof and holding it in place with the the soft fleshy part beneath at the center (I believe it's called the frog of the hoof), or, she's cheating and holding it in a conveniently sized hole in her hoof.
Also, it was a small line, so I can understand why it might be missed, but she's low on magic, which is primarily fueled by how much love-energy she has within her, of which she was low on, most likely due to the continued stoneings she has gotten and not being able to feed (much easier for Sparkle to keep under control if Chrysalis decides to try and escape or rampage). So that would be why she wouldn't be bothering with telekinesis, to save what little of her dwindling magic power she has for something of greater import than merely writing (even mocking the doctor was curtailed, and she loves to mock people).
10382274
So for starters that's a good point I don't know you and I shouldn't assume that I know your beliefs or what you were attempting to communicate. That was my bad and I'm sorry. As for the rest of it I think it still stance.
I actually like chrysalis and her understanding of nihilism, it was more toned down and the different nuances weren't there but there's more of a self-made philosophy and it made it more personal, it didn't seem like she was just reading off a textbook and I like that. It made me want to understand her more. That's what I sort of thought you were going for.
Look I'm not a writer so you're going to have to bear with me this will be a mess.So my real problem is with your portrayal of Jordan Peterson. I just don't think you understand what he is about. Time and time again he's proven that he is a big fan of the status quo. he understands that in the past we needed to make progress, but that progress should have stopped and everything was fine. Any change now is now degrading society. So it was odd reading this and not seeing him explain to chrysalis something like "there are biological components to IQ and cognitive functions, no one wants to hear that it's biological don't want to hear that it's inheritable they don't want to hear that it's permanent, and they don't want to hear that it's differs majorly between ethnicities." Oh wait a second, my bad that's him explaining to well-known, self-proclaimed white supremacist and Nazi lover, Stefan molyneux why white supremacy it's not racist, it's just a fact of life. Now I'm not saying he's alt-right and racist. I mean sure in that same interview, right after that sentence, he does go on saying how Jews have all the power and they have over radical representation, but that doesn't mean he alt-right because he ummm he said he wasn't. I'm getting off topic what does that mean, why did I bring it up? I mean it sort of contradicts the whole cost-benefit, self-determination thing he had going on. I mean he goes on a lot about people's biology and culture. How Muslims are mindless savages and that women are slaves to the biology, but all that doesn't matter because you can make choices in life and all that stuff is irrelevant because even though you're a complete control of outside influences your choices are the only thing that matters. Do you see the contradiction that he's always bringing up, that he is perpetually stuck in? Minorities aren't oppressed, they just make bad decisions. Also they can't make good decisions because it's the biology and it's their culture that makes them who they are. So what I expected him to say to chrysalis is that "Everything's your fault. You have no right to be Queen, because it wasn't preordained. Your place is at the bottom and the fact that you decided to be anywhere else and fight your natural place in the world is why you are suffering so much." And then some bull crap about how women can't be leaders. I remember one time he was asked in an interview if he believed in God. He didn't give a straight answer. He made the point that words have different meanings to different people because there is no universal way of constructing meaning. Meaning is just constructed by her own experiences. Which I thought was oddly profound from him. Then I realized hey that's post-modernism. which led to more questions like if someone hated post-modernism so much why would he use it? Doesn't that seem weird? Well, not really, because we know what he is. He's a religious zealot. It's like a modern-day manifest destiny. He works back from a conclusion which is, as a rich, white, Christian, male, all the power that he has is deserved and any change to that it's not just wrong, but it's evil. The status quo must be preserved at all cost. Jordan Peterson will just create a Frankenstein's monster of pseudoscience, actual science, religious, and philosophical nonsense to justify his beliefs, contradictions and logic be damned. He's a over hyped pampas grifter. And his grift is using that Frankenstein's monster to disguise bog-standard Christian conservatism to his millions of followers, that hang on his every word, and presents it as something worth believing in. I guess for everyone who doesn't know is Jordan Peterson is the fantasize version you wrote is fine but for me the whiplash is neck breaking. And like I touched on before I'm sure he said some profound stuff. Probably from smarter people, but I know it wasn't used in the way that they intended. It was probably just more justification for him being a racist or misogynist or just a plain a******.
10398943
I agree with you - that wall of text is a rambling mess! ;)
And we obviously have a very different idea of who Jordan Peterson is and what he stands for. Regardless, a good number of the points you mention, such as religious differences or biological ones, would have been awkward for Peterson to bring up in the story, to say the least. And likely not applicable, seeing as she isn't human, evolved (as far as he knows) or religious. (Except she might be the one creature that fits his definition of atheist!)
But they get away from his main point, and the reason I picked Peterson to reform Chrysalis instead of [pick your favorite self-help author]:
Peterson talks about, and I think understands, the darkness that resides in each of us. In his talks, he brings up the atrocities that we have inflicted on each other, and argues that each of us is capable of such deeds, no matter our professed disgust. And not just capable, but Cains who would intentionally make the world worse. And how important it is to recognize that fact, which then allows us to confront that darkness, that malevolence.
It's a point I think would resonate with Chrysalis, seeing as she perpetrated a few atrocities herself. I've always seen Chrysalis working for the betterment of her hive (and to the detriment of others) as opposed to being a nihilist; even during her last fight she wants a country to rule, not to burn. And so she would respond positively to a path that gives her a way forward, one more effective than the path she took before.
10398963
Okay If you didn't want to talk about it why didn't you just say something. I can't believe I'm responding because I hate wasting time but it could save me and you a lot of time if you would just been up front about it. If you didn't want to face reality that's fine I mean it's not fine but I wasn't going to make you. Next time just say "I don't want to talk politics. I don't want to confront Jordan Peterson's ideals and the implications they have on me." That would have been the end and I would have moved on. Oh and assuming chrysalis is a nihilist is the same as assuming she believes in a god they are assumptions. Why did you even bring that up? It doesn't matter if they aren't human, because they are written emotionally as humans.
10398963 I just kill all my problems!
And then they're not problems anymore! PURE LOGIC!!
This was interesting. Also 50th like fear me for I am all powerful! Anyways nice read if leaving me a little loss at some points.
Amazing work!
Jordan Peterson would not surviced the version of chysalis that can read emotion. Not after we see what he truly is.
A fucking weak-ass drug addict that called himself alpha male. At least he should hire a make up artist to hide his hollowed face if he still want to go with this narrative.