Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual

387 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=blerb;53130708]Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say he doesn't follow a scientific/holistic process? I've seen a few of his lectures on YT, and he does provide visuals for statistics that, I assume, he's collected in his time as a professor at UoT. That's not to say he follows a process for all of his hypotheses and points (or even a majority of them), but regarding particular fields (IE psychology), I imagine he [i]has[/i] to apply some kind of holistic process, right?[/QUOTE] Sorry, I meant he doesn't cite peer-reviewed papers or academic journals when he puts together ideas like 'all of nature follows this specific hiearchy I came up with'. Scientists and Academics work upon pre-existing proofs to come up with testable hypotheses which they then use to perform experiments and come up with conclusions using those experiments. Peterson's views are closer to philosophy except, unlike philosophy, he makes actual claims about the world to draw connections which aren't contained within the scientific process, and therefore cannot be [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability]falsified[/url]. Say, as an example, I was to say that black people are biologically inherently more violent than white people and as evidence I showed you a statistic that said that black people represent 52.5% of all homicide perpetrators and 47% of adult males incarcerated despite only making up 18% of the population. Now, even though I used statistics to back up my claim, there could be any number of alternate reasons why those percentages exist rather than that black people are biologically more violent than white people. There could be social factors, [url=https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Link-Between-Poverty-and-Crime]like if black people tended to be poorer and there was a proven casual relationship between poverty and crime[/url]. Or it could be that the perceived racism towards black people causes them to react with violence. It could be anything. See, Im not backing up what Im saying by performing an experiment or basing it on existing proofs. Im just ascerting something and then cherrypicking some statistic that, in the minds of people who dont have the expertise in the topic, could trick them into agreeing with me.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130518]Everything Jordan peterson says requires unpacking. That should be plainly obvious by now.[/QUOTE] Then he's an incredibly shitty public speaker and needs to up his fucking game and learn how to communicate like an effective adult if he wants credibility. Every time I see someone defending Peterson it's the same shit as with Trump: "What he [I]really[/I] means is..." The man can take three seconds out of his oh so important time to actually clearly explain what is going on in his head if he doesn't want people calling him a vapid ideologue spewing right-wing supporting documentation. [QUOTE=Crumpet;53130603]so basically you need to unpack his point down to the most vague interpretation so it effectively means nothing? the context of the argument was discussing patriarchy so if his point was that 'all animals organise socially in some way' (they don't) then he made a complete nothing argument in terms of supporting it.[/QUOTE] And then it turns out that when you unpack his point to the "required" degree you end up holding packing peanuts instead of an argument of substance, so that's pretty great, too. He should stop talking in dog whistles and actually elucidate what he means like a mature adult. The man is a respected psychologist but he communicates his thinking like a first-year English student. He'd probably cop bans on Facepunch for his obtuse method of tightly-packed and obscured arguments if he was a poster here.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53130603]so basically you need to unpack his point down to the most vague interpretation so it effectively means nothing? the context of the argument was discussing patriarchy so if his point was that 'all animals organise socially in some way' (they don't) then he made a complete nothing argument in terms of supporting it.[/QUOTE] It's called the motte and bailey btw. "lobsters show that we need oppression!" "Why don't we have these different systems from more closely related species then?" "Well actually that whole thing was about hierarchy and it's true, we all have hierarchies." "I'm leaving." ... ... "Lobsters show that we need oppression!"

[QUOTE=01271;53131346]It's called the motte and bailey btw. "lobsters show that we need oppression!" "Why don't we have these different systems from more closely related species then?" "Well actually that whole thing was about hierarchy and it's true, we all have hierarchies." [B]"I'm leaving."[/B] ... ... "Lobsters show that we need oppression!"[/QUOTE] Man, I just woke up, and luckily (?) it snowed today, so I'm staying home. I said I was going to bed man, give me a break. I'll spend the next 2 hours trying to reply, if that will stop you from strawmanning me into a hole. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] Also, I just wanna say, because I spent like half an hour gathering quotes and formatting a reply yesterday, I missed like a page of replies almost, so I'll try to backtrack and get to those too. Like, I have 5 people I am replying to and it is rather difficult to not miss a single point. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53130630]Then why bring it up at at all? It's not an argument anyone here is made and it's not the basis of the majority of people Peterson says he's against. Most feminists don't believe that all biological existence is based on a hierarchy of the patriarchy, I'm not even sure any do.[/quote] Are you asking me why I brought up lobsters? I didn't. I was replying to the criticisms of it on this thread, and I am giving an account of what JP says. The social constructionist view of society is essentially what he arguing against, and maybe there is a large group that subscribes to it, maybe there is no one, but that is the view he was addressing via the lobster line of reasoning, and, frankly, I still think you are being uncharitable to a ridiculous degree. [quote] This just indicates that neither you nor Peterson understand what each of you are arguing against. Peterson doesn't have the educational background to understand these topics. And you're coming up with your own interpretation on top of that which may not even match what he even believes. [/quote] This post just indicates that you are more interested in zinging me than addressing my previous points or laying out your own arguments in any more detail than "You're so wrong, and have a mental complex". Or maybe it doesn't, but perhaps you can reflect upon how antagonistic your posts have been versus the content they carry. Maybe, just maybe, I am doing my best and am not malicious or a an absolute idiot? [quote] Why should anyone take what you say seriously when it may not even match what Peterson believes, and he isn't taken seriously by any of the experts in each the respective fields he makes claims about?[/QUOTE] You really rolled with this line while I was asleep, huh? It's a pretty piece of rhetoric, but I don't think it is a fair characterization. The degree to which what I have presented is different from his views lies in the degree to which I have earnestly failed in understanding his words. Unless you can point to somewhere where my characterization of his position was wrong or misinformed, and I have not yet concede that point, then I will allow that maybe this is a problem. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Crumpet;53130632]No one was claiming the idea of hierarchical organisation was a sociological construct of western patriarchy in the first place, which was his point, which he then refutes by appealing to Lobster hierarchies. Can you not see that by 'unpacking' his point to something he literally didn't say, you've completely taken it out of the context of the argument that makes it retarded in the first place? You say he's simply pointing out that hierarchies are an ancient biological axiom, but is he? Why would he talk about serotonin [I]at all [/I]if he was making a point so simple? I'm not buying your interpretation here.[/QUOTE] He did say that though. He said that "Hierarchies of Authority" have existed forever, and to attempt to socially deconstruct or wish away that fact will probably not work. Also, I think to pretend that there isn't a large school of thought that pins most of society's problems of on what it assumes are purely socially constructed things is pretty intellectually dishonest at worst, and misinformed at best. I think you are the one imagining him spouting a bunch vaguely targeted things without having actually given him a fair read. He has a theory that he is working on regarding the biological essentialism of authority hierarchies, and to shit on him from the get-go without even addressing his sub-points is kindof uncharitable. I will talk more about lobsters, and address the earlier points if you wish. For now, I am just trying to get through this wall of dead-horse-kicks that got posted while I was trying to sleep. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53130639] Can people stop making vague quips/gotcha posts and just explain exactly what they mean? [/quote] That trap really riled your feathers didn't it? You still haven't addressed why you were seemingly insisting on what was obviously wrong, even though your reply indicated you were aware of the vitriolic content. I'll say this, my tactic to draw out the point that you are reacting more than replying maybe was a mean one, but I dare say it worked. If not, then explain to me why it didn't. Most if not all of your posts have been personal attacks and accusations of 'gotcha' or focusing on points conceded long ago. The effort I am putting in in engaging with every point made is seemingly being squashed by your insistence that I have been malicious planning my posts to make you look bad. I haven't, I've just been replying and attempting to draw out the things I think are pertinent. [quote] At the moment this whole thread is just a serious of posts like this: Poster 1: *vague quip/gotcha post accusing other posters of doing some vague bad thing Poster 2: I don't understand what you're saying, can you explain what the bad thing I've done is? Poster 1: Aha! The fact that you don't understand what I'm saying proves that you're just misinterpreting me, proving that I'm right and you just don't understand me! [/quote] So, pointing out that you basically knowingly (and continually) treated vitriol like it was light hearted criticism is a gotcha? I wasn't pointing out anything that needs to be understood, it's pretty plain from where I am standing. [quote] [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] There's like three levels of confusion going on here: 1. What Peterson says 2. What Peterson actually means (never clearly explained) 3. What people think he means 4. What other people think the number 3 people mean when they explain what he means 5. What the number 3 people say that the number 4 people mean And then we just go in circles because whenever somebody (crumpet, myself, other posters in this thread) try to pin down what 1 is, other people just deflect to 2, and then deflect to 3 and 4 when we try to pin down each in descending order, and then jump back to number 1. [/quote] See, here maybe we can agree. I think I have done a good job of presenting his views, but in the spirit of skepticism you may have a point. I will say then that my points pertain to 3 and that I use points from 1 (ie his videos and quotes) in order to support my beliefs of order rank 3. Rank 2 is closed to us, but that is true of any two humans. At this point, all it seems like you have done is create a situation where no matter what I say you will insist that rank 2 is filled with hate, and I can't prove you wrong. [quote] ^ It's really disappointing because I thought we were making real progress. I was trying to explain to Zenreon how he was misinterpreting what other people were saying in the same way he felt people were doing to him, but then he just deflects back to number 1 and 2, makes some vague quip about me doing some vague bad thing and starts talking about lobsters. [/quote] I replied to that point, and pointed out how my accusation of the uncharitable treatment of JP in this thread was based upon many posts. Maybe nazi is an extreme words, but, in this day and age, so too is racist, and homophobe. The man never says anything even vaguely fundamentalist, and yet some people seem convinced he hates group x y or z. [quote] So are you outright saying that you avoided clearly stating your argument so you could post it later as a 'gotcha' post in an attempt to trick me? What confuses me even more is that you say in the previous post: [/quote] Yeah, but it wasn't an attempt to trick you. It was an attempt to show that you glaze over what is inconvenient, and when I pressed you on it you still haven't replied why my wall of quotes isn't representative of a certain uncharitable attitude that I am referring to. [quote] So he's saying he recognizes that I'm not actually trying to trick him and I'm being honest and engaging in the argument, but then says he deliberately tried to trick me into making a false chess move (which I did, just like he hoped, muhuhahaha).[/QUOTE] I don't think you are trying to trick me. I think you are partially trying to convince me that JP is a bad person and that I am a bad person for arguing so vehemently.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130518]Everything Jordan peterson says requires unpacking. That should be plainly obvious by now.[/QUOTE] You realise you basically just admitted "everything Peterson says has to be reinterpreted" right? If you're having to "unpack" a so-called intellectuals statements to stop them from being surface level abominable, and somehow worse on the obvious intended meaning. Then that "intellectual" probably isn't very smart in the field they're forcing themselves into. A point should be clear and concise from the get-go. Not phrased carefully and surrounded with pretty words to make it seem more meaningful that it is, or to try and cover up the intended meaning.

When someone refuses to use clear language and everything requires listener interpretation, that's when you end up with situations where someone will claim "gas the kikes does not objectively mean gas the kikes". I'm starting a Gofundme to pay Jordan Peterson to attend Toastmasters for a year so he can learn proper communication skills.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53131547]You realise you basically just admitted "everything Peterson says has to be reinterpreted" right? If you're having to "unpack" a so-called intellectuals statements to stop them from being surface level abominable, and somehow worse on the obvious intended meaning. Then that "intellectual" probably isn't very smart in the field they're forcing themselves into. A point should be clear and concise from the get-go. Not phrased carefully and surrounded with pretty words to make it seem more meaningful that it is, or to try and cover up the intended meaning.[/QUOTE] If you let him talk for about half an hour to explain himself that is unpacking enough, and that breaks what I was saying. I didn't mean it as a hard law of nature. Like, just about anything stated as fact from scientific discovery or theory needs to be unpacked. What goes into it is a ridiculous amount of reasoning, justification, and observation, and that isn't something you can say in a 1 minute sound-bite. How about you help me out, since I am of such frail mind. Give me an example of a sentence or paragraph which he has flourished to the detriment of its understanding and which is not flanked by a 2 hour conversation on that very topic that draws out the various aspects of thought that relate to it. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53131556]When someone refuses to use clear language and everything requires listener interpretation, that's when you end up with situations where someone will claim "gas the kikes does not objectively mean gas the kikes". I'm starting a Gofundme to pay Jordan Peterson to attend Toastmasters for a year so he can learn proper communication skills.[/QUOTE] Yeah, cause JP totally says things like that, you got me.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53131562]Yeah, cause JP totally says things like that, you got me.[/QUOTE] How about you address my earlier post that addressed the same thing in a much less shitposty and more serious way instead of taking the easy shot? I know you slept through seven posts or whatever but you picked the wrong one out of my two to reply to.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53130671]I'm sorry if I came across that way, I try not to but it's difficult to not be curt when it feels like people are deliberately misinterpreting my posts. I would actually like Peterson to be more intellectualized, just not the kind of intellectualizing that he does currently where he uses overly superfluous smart-sounding words instead of being clear and using the correct scientific language and approach to referencing. The stereotypical idea of intellectual conversation, from whenever news programmes bring in an 'expert' to talk about a topic, is far from the way actual academics converse, which is specifically designed to be clear and heavily based on references to previous work from peer-reviewed sources. It means instead of having like 6 different levels of what Peterson actually means from what he says, what he means (that nobody knows except him), what people think he means, what people think the people who says what he means mean, and so on. You have scientific terms that can be looked up and have a specific and commonly agreed upon definition. This is why I don't recommend that people should take their views about the world from people like Peterson, because they don't follow the scientific process. I wouldn't even recommend people who agree with my political views if they don't follow a scientific or similar holistic process. Because, with human nature, it's so easy to get a biased/warped view of reality, even if you have really good intentions. That's why, for example, I tell people not to follow VOX as their primary source, because even when the stuff they follow is sourced it's presented in a very politically charged and one-sided way that means they only focus on things from one angle.[/QUOTE] Well, if you are talking about the rigorous method of exact definition, then pull up his actual papers and publications, and that is where he uses that language. Outside of that, he will use language that makes sense because that's what a good speaker does. He's not right on everything obviously, and he does get a lot wrong, but treating him like a -ist cult leader is uncharitable. [editline]asd[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53131577]How about you address my earlier post that addressed the same thing in a much less shitposty and more serious way instead of taking the easy shot? I know you slept through seven posts or whatever but you picked the wrong one out of my two to reply to.[/QUOTE] Ok!

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53131320]Then he's an incredibly shitty public speaker and needs to up his fucking game and learn how to communicate like an effective adult if he wants credibility.[/quote] Public speaking =/= teaching. One happens constantly as an action, the other is a process that takes time and unpacking. I can tell you E=Mc2, but, without unpacking, that is just a bunch of gobbledygook [quote]. Every time I see someone defending Peterson it's the same shit as with Trump: "What he [I]really[/I] means is..." The man can take three seconds out of his oh so important time to actually clearly explain what is going on in his head if he doesn't want people calling him a vapid ideologue spewing right-wing supporting documentation. [/quote] He does that alot? I mean, the guy just talks and writes almost all day. If you want him to explain himself on a topic, then either find the place where he explains himself and listen to that, or otherwise, if it doesn't exist, contact him like every other person and get him to answer a question on his Q&A or over email, or at one of his talks. I really don't see how you have this view of him. [quote] And then it turns out that when you unpack his point to the "required" degree you end up holding packing peanuts instead of an argument of substance, so that's pretty great, too. He should stop talking in dog whistles and actually elucidate what he means like a mature adult. The man is a respected psychologist but he communicates his thinking like a first-year English student. He'd probably cop bans on Facepunch for his obtuse method of tightly-packed and obscured arguments if he was a poster here.[/QUOTE] Except it doesn't. His point is about a biological basis for authority hierarchies being a refutation of the social constructionist view that many of societies problems, specifically pertaining to authority structure, can be socially deconstructed away. This is what I was wanting to talk about before the clock hit 2 am last night and I got a migraine.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53131547]You realise you basically just admitted "everything Peterson says has to be reinterpreted" right? If you're having to "unpack" a so-called intellectuals statements to stop them from being surface level abominable, and somehow worse on the obvious intended meaning. Then that "intellectual" probably isn't very smart in the field they're forcing themselves into. A point should be clear and concise from the get-go. Not phrased carefully and surrounded with pretty words to make it seem more meaningful that it is, or to try and cover up the intended meaning.[/QUOTE] Let's say a guy wrote 10 books on different subjects. He then went and did a 10 minute interview with each answer being a minute or two at most. I would argue that the only fair way to interpret the answers in that 10 minute interview would be in the context of those 10 in depth books. In the same way, Peterson has done an absolute TON of lecturing and talking on these subjects. To say that a single sentence phrase needs to be "unpacked" is just to say that it needs to be taken alongside the massive amount of other things he's said that give it context. To take that one short phrase or statement totally literally and at face value simply isn't a good way to get at the truth of what he's trying to say, and that applies to anybody, not just Peterson. You look at the consistent argument presented in their work, not individual phrases.

Like, here is a difficulty on my part: As I type this, there is probably a flood of people about to tell me why I'm wrong, which is great, but one or two of them will bring up another point like jungian achetypes, and that by itself needs a whole thread just to discuss.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53131617]Like, here is a difficulty on my part: As I type this, there is probably a flood of people about to tell me why I'm wrong, which is great, but one or two of them will bring up another point like jungian achetypes, and that by itself needs a whole thread just to discuss.[/QUOTE] Just pick one person and ignore the rest. It's the only real way to discuss these types of topics.

[QUOTE=cbb;53131629]It isn't that the information Peterson communicates is difficult to understand, it's that he speaks so broadly and generally that his speech becomes wildly interpretable. No one in this thread seems to be able to agree on what Jordan Peterson believes because he does not make himself clear.[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was "Difficult to understand". I asked if information that isn't readily and easily digestible shouldn't be dealt with. If someone says something that [B]COULD[/B] be seen as "offensive" but when broken down to it's component points means something more in depth, isn't that worth dissecting? Or is it just worthy of being covered by it's surface and not dealt with further? You didn't answer my question or point and just rephrased it like I fail to understand your problem with Peterson.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53131586]I don't get this argument frankly. How many complicated ideas are explained in sound byte levels of simplicity in an accurate way? Does info that fails to meet that highly digestible criteria just not deserve to be thought about[/QUOTE] The whole point of scientific writing and presentation is to present complex ideas and abstract things in concise, digestible ways with little room for interpretation. Peterson seems to style himself as a scientist what with his constant use of evolutionary biology, biology and clinical psychology being a basis of his arguments. He should be able to present an abstract of his ideas without any room for interpretation. Interpretation is a no-go in science for the obvious reasons; we need to be able to reproduce something with a definite outcome we can compare against. We need to be able to trace back an idea without having to think "how did they come to this conclusion?" at each step. Science with too much room for interpretation is generally garbage science.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53131636]I asked if information that isn't readily and easily digestible shouldn't be dealt with.[/QUOTE] All information should be dealt with but this is a false dilemna because Peterson is fully capable of broaching controversial topics without coming across as sexist, homophobic, or transphobic. The fact that his numerous statements continue to be interpreted as such shows that he is not conveying his positions clearly. [QUOTE]If someone says something that [B]COULD[/B] be seen as "offensive" but when broken down to it's component points means something more in depth, isn't that worth dissecting? Or is it just worthy of being covered by it's surface and not dealt with further? [/QUOTE] I would happily delve into Peterson's views on some of the topics that people in this thread are taking issue with but unfortunately I can't read Peterson's mind so his positions on certain topics will just have to remain a mystery.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53131676]The whole point of scientific writing and presentation is to present complex ideas and abstract things in concise, digestible ways with little room for interpretation. Peterson seems to style himself as a scientist what with his constant use of evolutionary biology, biology and clinical psychology being a basis of his arguments. He should be able to present an abstract of his ideas without any room for interpretation. Interpretation is a no-go in science for the obvious reasons; we need to be able to reproduce something with a definite outcome we can compare against. We need to be able to trace back an idea without having to think "how did they come to this conclusion?" at each step. Science with too much room for interpretation is generally garbage science.[/QUOTE] I see your point, maybe he would do better to more often summarize his stance in a short blurb, but I don't think it is the case that he is absolutely terrible at that. He does use scientific terminology for the most part, and does so, in my opinion, quite carefully. If you want to see his words in a purely dry scientific format, then go to the place where people write in that kind of format - in journals and publications. You can't expect him to talk about r values when he doesn't know how much his audience knows.

[quote]Fuck traditionalists who label anyone that doesn't agree with them as "cultural Marxists". Honestly, the fact he even throws that term around is a big indicator that he's not as smart as he likes to present himself, it's a literal fucking conspiracy theory from the far right.[/quote] It's not explicitly far-right territory anymore. The usage of the spirit of the phrase has seeped into conservatism, it is partly hysterical but they are not totally off because many things taken for granted are being changed or 'under attack' by modernity. I think the reasons this is happening are: a) critical theory and identity politics increasingly informs what is essentially the New Left 2.0, this is part of an ideological dodge for losing the economic argument and witnessing the final collapse of the Old Left or unionism in the 80s and the associated triumph of neoliberalism. At the same time conservatism slumps into a demographic and cultural crisis that demands such a re-invention of itself that it more or less just outright threatens its future. The left has broadly switched from class conflict to culture war and the politics of identity which almost appears anti-Western, this is especially feared because the middle class and its cross-racial, cross-class individualist civic identity is declining. I believe we saw the origins of this switch on the left following de-colonization and proxy conflict in the global south, when the USSR's whataboutery undermined the universalism of liberalism as 'imperialism' and 'white supremacy' while at the same time we struggled with Civil Rights and anti-war unrest at home. This kind of left and what the 60s represented could never exist outside of the West because unlike other countries we were historically able to reform, we are the purveyors of globalization through our historical colonialism and free trade ideas, and our liberalism lends to the spirit of equality and progressivism. This is why, despite communist history, a number of countries in Eastern Europe are turning back into bastions of conservatism that they generally always were. They were sheltered by the Iron Curtain from progressive liberalism and the prosperity and openness it depends on. Altogether, it means collectivism of left and right varieties are back and this is what motivates a center-right individualist opposed to both like JP and 'classical liberal' anti-SJWs. b) changing material conditions in the world, which we've never seen before in history and all of us are fortunate enough to be born in time to watch it, that have led to a displacement of age-old norms that can be argued as congruent with our nature and rooted in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglehart%E2%80%93Welzel_cultural_map_of_the_world]survival values or traditional values[/url], the sides of two axes shown here (and thanks to human history being a tale of scarcity, this is what we evolved with which would stipulate a limit on social engineering to correct for things that make us modern people look at human history as tragic). This is JP's view and is not unique to the alt-right, which is why I urge an end to this guilt by association that lumps together all backlash to the 'liberation from every social structure' philosophy that now grips postmodern liberalism, and is something even historical classic liberals would oppose. Regardless, some examples of these changing material conditions could be 1) technology's simplification of work meaning erosion of the connection between masculinity and labor, and therefore causing a degree of 'feminization' of society and altering of a balance of power in the sexual market (e.g. more women getting degrees than men = more pressure on men to earn more and be more educated than a white collar woman in order to be selected by her). 2) Growing wealth, freedom of movement, social liberalism, etc. indirectly means there's less focus on courtship culture and the family having a say in marriage partners, and marriage culture overall is suffering. 3) Globalization and its related class stratification altering the balance of power between city and countryside as well as between the nation-state and a global market. The market is eroding all sorts of now-arbitrary social divisions or structures that serve no economic purpose, but are quintessentially human. As a result, all sorts of traditional values related to masculinity, integral families and the conservative culture they tend to engender, homogeneity and social trust, localism and rootedness, and so on are having the economic carpet yanked out from under them. Following that and in the theme of the culture wars and spirit of progress the 60s unleashed, we are seeing (mostly middle or upper class) individuals on the left smelling blood in the water. They are clearly seeing new opportunity for their ideas following the election of the first black president, OWS and BLM, the women's march being one of the largest in US history, campuses being bastions of progressivism, millenials being awfully anti-capitalist, women earning more degrees and being more independent, borders being eroded and the free movement of labor catching up with the movement of goods/capital, world cities and the way of life they engender being more socially dominant, Western demographics changing, and so on. These changes are seen most in the heights of our society or where there is the most for a 'cutting edge' quality. So, those changes are not taking place in the red state 'heartland of America' or Middle America, which gives them an unpopular character. I can't think of something that epitomizes this class-based relationship than the gap between a Hollywood celebrity and a rust belt white working class family man. That unpopular character is then given an exaggerated label of cultural marxism, when in reality I think it's just the same kind of elitist Victorian-era relationship we saw between liberals in the 19th century and the more populist reactionaries coming from the countryside and middle class squeezed by industrialization. Slavoj Zizek, an unreformed communist who dissents with the Western left and is often tarred as an anti-identity politics brocialist, wrote this about Peterson today in the Independent: [quote]The wide popularity of Jordan Peterson, a once-obscure Canadian clinical psychologist and university professor who has become beloved of the alt-right, is a proof that the liberal-conservative “silent majority” finally found its voice. Peterson, who has said that the idea of white privilege is a "Marxist lie" and theorised that "radical feminists" don't speak out about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia because of "their unconscious wish for brutal male domination", is fast becoming a mainstream commentator. His advantages over the previous anti-LGBT+ star Milo Yiannopoulos are obvious. Yiannopoulos was witty, fast-talking, full of jokes and sarcasms, and openly gay – he resembled, in many features, the culture he was attacking. Peterson is his opposite: he combines a “common sense” approach and (the appearance of) cold scientific argumentation with a bitter rage at a threat to the liberal basics of our societies – his stance is: “Enough is enough! I cannot stand it anymore!” It is easy to discern the cracks in his advocacy of cold facts against “political correctness”: not only is he often relying on unverified theories, but the big problem is the paranoiac construct which he uses to interpret what he sees as facts. "Facts are facts," he likes to say, before going on to say that "the idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory" and that to conceive of gender as a social construct is "as bad as claiming the world is flat". Jacques Lacan wrote that, even if what a jealous husband claims about his wife (that she sleeps around with other men) is all true, his jealousy is still pathological: the pathological element is the husband's need for jealousy as the only way to retain his dignity, identity even. Along the same lines, one could say that, even if most of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true (they exploit Germans, they seduce German girls, and so on) – which they are not, of course – their anti-Semitism would still be (and was) a pathological phenomenon because it repressed the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism in order to sustain their ideological position. In the Nazi vision, their society is an organic whole of harmonious collaboration, so an external intruder is needed to account for divisions and antagonisms. The same holds for how, today, the anti-immigrant populists deal with the “problem” of the refugees: they approach it in the atmosphere of fear, of the incoming struggle against the “Islamification” of Europe, and they get caught in a series of obvious absurdities. For them, refugees who flee terror are equalised with the terrorists they are escaping from, oblivious to the obvious fact that, while there are probably among the refugees also terrorists, rapists, criminals and so on, the large majority are desperate people looking for a better life. In other words, the cause of problems which are immanent to today's global capitalism is projected onto an external intruder. Anti-immigrant racism and sexism is not dangerous because it lies; it is at its most dangerous when its lie is presented in the form of a (partial) factual truth. Unfortunately, the liberal, left-wing reaction to anti-immigrant populism is no better. Populism and leftie “political correctness” practice the two complementary forms of lying which follow the classic distinction between hysteria and obsessional neurosis: a hysteric tells the truth in the guise of a lie (what it says is literally not true, but the lie expresses in a false form an authentic complaint), while what an obsessional neurotic claims is literally true, but it is a truth which serves a lie. Populists and PC liberals resort to both strategies. First, they both resort to factual lies when they serve what populists perceive as the higher truth of their cause. Religious fundamentalists advocate “lying for Jesus” – say, in order to prevent the “horrible crime of abortion”, one is allowed to propagate false scientific “truths” about the lives of foetuses and the medical dangers of abortion; in order to support breast-feeding, one is allowed to present as a scientific fact that abstention from breast-feeding causes breast cancer, and so on. Common anti-immigrant populists shamelessly circulate non-verified stories about rapes and other crimes of the refugees in order to give credibility to their “insight” that refugees pose a threat to our way of life. All too often, PC liberals proceed in a similar way: they pass in silence over actual differences in the “ways of life” between refugees and Europeans since mentioning them may be seen to promote Eurocentrism. Recall the Rotherham sex abuse scandal, where the race of the perpetrators was downplayed in case anything in the case could be interpreted as racist. The opposite strategy – that of lying in the guise of truth – is also widely practiced on both poles. If anti-immigrant populists not only propagate factual lies but also cunningly use bits of factual truth with the aura of veracity to their racist lie, PC partisans also practice this “lying with truth”: in its fight against racism and sexism, it mostly quotes crucial facts, but it often gives them a wrong twist. The populist protest displaces onto the external enemy the authentic frustration and sense of loss, while the PC left uses its true points (detecting sexism and racism in language and so on) to reassert its moral superiority and thus prevent true social change. And this is why Peterson’s outbursts have such an effect. His crazy conspiracy theory about LGBT+ rights and #MeToo as the final offshoots of the Marxist project to destroy the West is, of course, ridiculous. It is totally blind for the inner antagonisms and inconsistencies of the liberal project itself: the tension between liberals who are ready to condone racist and sexist jokes on account of the freedom of speech and the PC regulators who want to censor them as an obstacle to the freedom and dignity of the victims of such jokes has nothing to do with the authentic left. Peterson addresses what many of us feel goes wrong in the PC universe of obsessive regulation – the problem with him does not reside in his theories but in the partial truths that sustain them. If the left is not able to address these limitations of its own project, it is fighting a lost battle.[/quote] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html[/url] Sorry about quoting the whole article but I think it's really good

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53131455]That trap really riled your feathers didn't it? You still haven't addressed why you were seemingly insisting on what was obviously wrong, even though your reply indicated you were aware of the vitriolic content. I'll say this, my tactic to draw out the point that you are reacting more than replying maybe was a mean one, but I dare say it worked. If not, then explain to me why it didn't. Most if not all of your posts have been personal attacks and accusations of 'gotcha' or focusing on points conceded long ago. The effort I am putting in in engaging with every point made is seemingly being squashed by your insistence that I have been malicious planning my posts to make you look bad. I haven't, I've just been replying and attempting to draw out the things I think are pertinent. ... So, pointing out that you basically knowingly (and continually) treated vitriol like it was light hearted criticism is a gotcha? I wasn't pointing out anything that needs to be understood, it's pretty plain from where I am standing. [/QUOTE] Why are you trying to 'trap' me in the first place? You've been extremely rude and unfair to me in this thread, and now you're acting like I'm the mean one when I point it out. I haven't personally attacked you or insulted you, I have not called you a bad person. [QUOTE]I don't think you are trying to trick me. I think you are partially trying to convince me that JP is a bad person and that I am a bad person for arguing so vehemently.[/QUOTE] If that's what you're getting from my posts, maybe you need to go back and read them again. I have never said that you are a bad person. I have never said that Peterson is a bad person. I've already explained how you view everything people say who argue against Peterson in a negative light. But this post really takes the cake in proving my point. You're arguing with a strawman. I've never stated anything close to you being a bad person. I've criticized your behavior and called you out for treating people in this thread unfairly. Frankly, you're melodramatic behavior is just proving my point. Anytime someone criticizes you or Peterson, you put words into their mouths and get extremely offended, like we're shooting your dog or something. You don't seem to be able to handle criticism very well. Which again, would be fine if you weren't also so unrestrained in participating in behavior like 'trapping' people, i.e. 'gotcha' posts, treating people in the exact same unfair way you keep complaining about other people doing to you. I've been extremely reasonable, as you say I haven't been trying to trick you and I've been participating in the discussion honestly. I don't understand why you cannot treat me with the same respect I've been treating you. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53131697]I see your point, maybe he would do better to more often summarize his stance in a short blurb, but I don't think it is the case that he is absolutely terrible at that. He does use scientific terminology for the most part, and does so, in my opinion, quite carefully. If you want to see his words in a purely dry scientific format, then go to the place where people write in that kind of format - in journals and publications. You can't expect him to talk about r values when he doesn't know how much his audience knows.[/QUOTE] Can you post these journals and publications? Specifically, I want to see a peer-reviewed paper that proves Peterson's 'natural hierarchy' hypothesis.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53132488]Why are you trying to 'trap' me in the first place? You've been extremely rude and unfair to me in this thread, and now you're acting like I'm the mean one when I point it out. I haven't personally attacked you or insulted you, I have not called you a bad person. If that's what you're getting from my posts, maybe you need to go back and read them again. I have never said that you are a bad person. I have never said that Peterson is a bad person. I've already explained how you view everything people say who argue against Peterson in a negative light. But this post really takes the cake in proving my point. You're arguing with a strawman. I've never stated anything close to you being a bad person. I've criticized your behavior and called you out for treating people in this thread unfairly. Frankly, you're melodramatic behavior is just proving my point. Anytime someone criticizes you or Peterson, you put words into their mouths and get extremely offended, like we're shooting your dog or something. You don't seem to be able to handle criticism very well. Which again, would be fine if you weren't also so unrestrained in participating in behavior like 'trapping' people, i.e. 'gotcha' posts, treating people in the exact same unfair way you keep complaining about other people doing to you. I've been extremely reasonable, as you say I haven't been trying to trick you and I've been participating in the discussion honestly. I don't understand why you cannot treat me with the same respect I've been treating you. [/quote] Man, this is exactly what I am talking about. You spent 6 paragraphs saying what you have already said and you STILL havent addressed the reason I did it, which I have now explained at least three times in response to your tirades. I get that you don't think you are doing that, but you are. You are concentrating on picking apart my behaviour in a way that can be interpreted as melodrama instead of answering my points like, for example, for the 4th time now; WHY do you think a post calling his views sexist mysoginist and him a scumbag is in any way describable by the way you characterized it in your rushed response to my long effortful post that drew out exactly what I am talking about in terms of the vitriol and uncharitable attitude shown to him. And before you makes this all about you, please keep in mind I am addressing the general tone as evidenced by the various posts i gathered. Honestly, I am so done talking about this underlying drama. Just drop it and address the actual points instead of continually trying to find out who is the butthurt one. [quote] Can you post the journals and publications which prove his arguments?[/QUOTE] Finally, a point I can actually respond to. Yes, gladly! Here is his work on the citation differences among the various fields in academia, and how they vary according to amounts of publications.: [url]https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/article/10.1007%2Fs11192-015-1807-z[/url] This ties into the fact that most of the publications of the social-constructionists he is against, while being highly numerous, are also next to never cited, and if they are then only by each other. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53132488] Specifically, I want to see a peer-reviewed paper that proves Peterson's 'natural hierarchy' hypothesis.[/QUOTE] For this, I'm pretty sure none exists given that he is the one doing the research now. What is not doing is telling his audience that THE SCIENCE IS DONE ITS ALL TRUE DONT WORRY THERES A PAPER OUT THERE SOMEWHERE. I never said the science is settled in his favor. My position has been that his position makes sense and is not far-fetched or just an ideological whim pulled out of his snake-oil encrusted ass. [editline]suh[/editline] Also, here, since you guys like posting Op-eds so much, heres one from me: [url]https://fee.org/articles/jordan-b-peterson-is-the-furthest-thing-from-the-alt-right/[/url]

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53132541]Man, this is exactly what I am talking about. You spent 6 paragraphs saying what you have already said and you STILL havent addressed the reason I did it, which I have now explained at least three times in response to your tirades. I get that you don't think you are doing that, but you are. You are concentrating on picking apart my behaviour in a way that can be interpreted as melodrama instead of answering my points like, for example, for the 4th time now; WHY do you think a post calling his views sexist mysoginist and him a scumbag is in any way describable by the way you characterized it in your rushed response to my long effortful post that drew out exactly what I am talking about in terms of the vitriol and uncharitable attitude shown to him. And before you makes this all about you, please keep in mind I am addressing the general tone as evidenced by the various posts i gathered.[/QUOTE] I understand why you did it, you believed you were proving a point by showing that I was merely reacting to what you were saying rather than understanding it. What I want to understand is why you feel it is acceptable for you to trick people and take their words out of context 'to prove a point' and not acceptable for other people to do the same. Why is it okay for you to change people's words from "-ist" into "nazi" or to change "I dislike your behaviour" into "I think you're a bad person". What you're effectively telling me is that you cannot make me or anyone else understand what it is Peterson actually believes except by putting words in people's mouths and attempting to trap or trick people by withholding information until you can use it in a 'gotcha' post. Why can't you just be honest and fair to the rest of us and explain your arguments in clear and reasonable language? That's what I've been doing, and yet you haven't been treating me with the same level of respect I've been treating you. [QUOTE]Finally, a point I can actually respond to. Yes, gladly! Here is his work on the citation differences among the various fields in academia: [url]https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.li...192-015-1807-z[/url] As it turns out, most of the publications of the social-constructionists he is against, while being highly numerous, are also next to never cited, and if they are then only by each other.[/QUOTE] I don't have access to that link, can you use another source with public access? [QUOTE]For this, I'm pretty sure none exists given that he is doing the research now. What is not doing is telling his audience that THE SCIENCE IS DONE ITS ALL TRUE DONT WORRY THERES A PAPER OUT THERE SOMEWHERE. I never said the science is settled in his favor. My position has been that his position makes sense and is not far-fetched or just an ideological whim pulled out of his snake-oil encrusted ass.[/QUOTE] If it makes sense, you should still be able to explain it to people without attempting to trick them or lie about anyone who disagrees with him as calling him a nazi. [QUOTE]WHY do you think a post calling his views sexist mysoginist and him a scumbag is in any way describable by the way you characterized it in your rushed response to my long effortful post that drew out exactly what I am talking about in terms of the vitriol and uncharitable attitude shown to him.[/QUOTE] You keep inventing words that people haven't said. Where has someone called Peterson a scumbag? Was it more than one occurance? I think you are still misrepresenting the arguments people have made against Peterson. I'll say it again, the problem is that his field of Clinical Psychology doesn't cover the things he talks about, so he tends to wander out of it and end up making false/misleading/batshit-insane claims about stuff because his field of expertise doesn't cover the areas he discusses. It's engineer sydrome. Because of that, the stuff he says gets taken advantage of by malicious third parties because it's vague and easily interpretable enough to reinforce their belief systems. The stuff he publishes with regards to Clinical Psychology is alright, because those papers follow the scientific method. If you also like his self-help stuff then that's fine too. But it's possible for someone to have knowledge in one area and not have knowledge in another area. And you can agree with some aspects of what a public figure believes and dislike other bits. I used Ben Carson as an example earlier. Ben Carson is a world renowned brain surgeon who has pioneered the field, being the first surgeon to separate cojoined twins joined at the head, the first successful brain surgery on a fetus, and many more. When it comes to brain surgery, he's probably the most experienced and knowledgeable person in the entire world that's alive today. But at the same time, he also believes that the pyramids were built by Jesus' father Joseph to act as grain silos. People are complex, and can be both simultaneously really, really smart and really, really dumb. That's what I've been saying this whole time. ^ I'm not calling you a bad person. I'm not calling Peterson a bad person. Please understand that I'm trying to be honest and as helpful as possible, but you're twisting my words and keep trying to trick and trap me, and I don't appreciate it when I'm being honest and trying to help you. Can you understand why I might feel that you're being a bit rude to me?

[QUOTE=Zyler;53132602]I understand why you did it, you believed you were proving a point by showing that I was merely reacting to what you were saying rather than understanding it. What I want to understand is why you feel it is acceptable for you to trick people and take their words out of context 'to prove a point' and not acceptable for other people to do the same. Why is it okay for you to change people's words from "-ist" into "nazi" or to change "I dislike your behaviour" into "I think you're a bad person". [/quote] First off, I don't think they're equivalent, I mean the tactic I used. I did not take anything out of context, but instead presented and argument that was at 95% to see if you would treat it charitably or not. You did not, nor have you said anything about your reaction to that other than to point to my own failings. If I were now to AGAIN concede that the 'nazi' perjorative for the collective '-ist' perjoratives wasn't alright, and to concede that I mixed my opponents by attributing the collective opinions of Rusty and one other user into you, would you drop this ridiculous moral hunt and instead just focus on the actual points at hand? If you want to start another thread about debate ettiquette that's alright, but my point was pertinent because it was about the charitability towards peterson and, by proxy, me. [quote] What you're effectively telling me is that you cannot make me or anyone else understand what it is Peterson actually believes except by putting words in people's mouths and attempting to trap or trick people by withholding information until you can use it in a 'gotcha' post. [/quote] No, you just aren't addressing my points that don't revolve around this now 3 page long thing you are upset about. If it will make you focus on the ideas instead of whatever conception you have of me, then I will apologize for the 'nazi' perjorative and for making you react emotionally. [quote] Why can't you just be honest and fair to the rest of us and explain your arguments in clear and reasonable language? That's what I've been doing, and yet you haven't been treating me with the same level of respect I've been treating you.[/quote] I have been making points all along but all you seem to see is this injustice you percieve I have done to you. You cannot accuse me of be uncharitable as I have concede points I thought were reasonable while you only continue to steamroll on this one irrelevant topic. [quote] I don't have access to that link, can you use another source with public access? [/quote] Uhh, I'm not sure how I would. I usually just use my university's access. Ill give you the title. "Quantifying the scientific output of new researchers using the zp-index" [quote] If it makes sense, you should still be able to explain it to people without attempting to trick them or lie about anyone who disagrees with him as calling him a nazi. [/quote] get over it and address the countless points ive made since then. [quote] You keep inventing words that people haven't said. Where has someone called Peterson a scumbag? Was it more than one occurance? I think you are still misrepresenting the arguments people have made against Peterson. [/quote] It was in that post you said you knew the context of when you attempted to rebut my list of examples of uncharitability in this thread. [quote] I'll say it again, the problem is that his field of Clinical Psychology doesn't cover the things he talks about, so he tends to wander out of it and end up making false/misleading/batshit-insane claims about stuff because his field of expertise doesn't cover the areas he discusses. It's engineer sydrome. Because of that, the stuff he says gets taken advantage of by malicious third parties because it's vague and easily interpretable enough to reinforce their belief systems. [/quote] You realize he isn't just a clinical psychologist, right? I mean, he is a pretty big name in the personality psychology sphere. [quote] The stuff he publishes with regards to Clinical Psychology is alright, because those papers follow the scientific method. If you also like his self-help stuff then that's fine too. But it's possible for someone to have knowledge in one area and not have knowledge in another area. And you can agree with some aspects of what a public figure believes and dislike other bits. That's what I've been saying this whole time.[/QUOTE] See, I never said he was right on everything, and I even explicitly stated the opposite. My contention is that points are reasonable, and that despite your contention, his experience in studying the differences in people is what qualifies him to talk on many of these topics.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53132541] Also, here, since you guys like posting Op-eds so much, heres one from me: [url]https://fee.org/articles/jordan-b-peterson-is-the-furthest-thing-from-the-alt-right/[/url][/QUOTE] Are you referring to Conscript posting a link to the independent? The tone of your post makes it sound like you're posting an op-ed as a rebuttal to his post, but his post was in agreement with yours.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53132630]Are you referring to Conscript posting a link to the independent? The tone of your post makes it sound like you're posting an op-ed as a rebuttal to his post, but his post was in agreement with yours.[/QUOTE] No, it's just that I honestly dislike op-eds, whether theyre for my position or otherwise. And If I recall it has been more than one. No tone was intended, apologies.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53132627]First off, I don't think they're equivalent, I mean the tactic I used. I did not take anything out of context, but instead presented and argument that was at 95% to see if you would treat it charitably or not. You did not, nor have you said anything about your reaction to that other than to point to my own failings. If I were now to AGAIN concede that the 'nazi' perjorative for the collective '-ist' perjoratives wasn't alright, and to concede that I mixed my opponents by attributing the collective opinions of Rusty and one other user into you, would you drop this ridiculous moral hunt and instead just focus on the actual points at hand? If you want to start another thread about debate ettiquette that's alright, but my point was pertinent because it was about the charitability towards peterson and, by proxy, me. [/QUOTE] But you didn't treat me charitability. By attempting to trap me, you demonstrated that you aren't willing to engage with me honestly in the same way I am doing with you. Moreover, you haven't demonstrated that I was not being of equal charitability to your posts as I was to others. Insofar as debate ettiquette goes, if you cannot engage with me honestly than there's no way we can actually have a discussion. Don't you want to convince me that Peterson is correct and that his arguments are solid? If so, why do you keep engaging in misdirection and manipulative tactics? That just makes me feel like you aren't being genuine. If your arguments are solid, then you shouldn't need to attempt to trap or trick me in order to prove a point. Your arguments should stand by themselves. As I've explained previously, I don't think you've fairly represented other peoples arguments or my own. Your whole argument thus far has been that people have been unfairly harsh towards Peterson, but your behaviour has demonstrated the same harshness towards others that you accuse other people of doing. I sense that you wish to hit the 'reset button' so to speak, on this conversation of your behavior in this thread. I appreciate that you've already conceded that accusing people of calling Peterson a nazi was wrongful. If you want to do push the 'reset button', all I ask is that you apologize for attempting to trap me and realize that in engaging dishonestly with me all you've done is harm your argument and cause this discussion to last several more pages. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53132627] Uhh, I'm not sure how I would. I usually just use my university's access. Ill give you the title. "Quantifying the scientific output of new researchers using the zp-index" [/QUOTE] Thanks, I found a link: [url]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-015-1807-z[/url] [QUOTE]Despite a high level of interest in quantifying the scientific output of established researchers, there has been less of a focus on quantifying the performance of junior researchers. The available metrics that quantify a scientist’s research output all utilize citation information, which often takes a number of years to accrue and thus would disadvantage newer researchers (e.g., graduate students, post-doctoral members, new professors). Based on this critical limitation of existing metrics, we created a new metric of scientific output, the zp-index, which remedies this issue by utilizing the journal quality rather than citation count in calculating an index of scientific output. Additionally, the zp-index also takes authorship position into account by allocating empirically derived weights to each authorship position, so that first authorship publications receive more credit than later authorship positions (Study 1). Furthermore, the zp-index has equal predictive validity as a measure of the number of publications but does a better job of discriminating researcher’s scientific output and may provide different information than the number of publications (Study 2). Therefore, use of the zp-index in conjunction with the number of publications can provide a more accurate assessment of a new scientist’s academic achievements.[/QUOTE] Could you explain how this relates to the idea of natural hiearchies? [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53132627] You realize he isn't just a clinical psychologist, right? I mean, he is a pretty big name in the personality psychology sphere.[/QUOTE] His doctorate and published papers are in clinical psychology. Nevertheless, he talks about stuff like biology, neurology, cognitive science and sociology which are outside of psychology altogether.

[QUOTE=Zyler;53132660]But you didn't treat me charitability. By attempting to trap me, you demonstrated that you aren't willing to engage with me honestly in the same way I am doing with you. Moreover, [B]you haven't demonstrated that I was not being of equal charitability to your posts as I was to others.[/B] [/QUOTE] Okay, so maybe I haven't made this clear, but the WHOLE POINT of the trap was to prove that you are being uncharitable. The fact that the trap worked, and you jumped on the weak argument and proceeded to treat the post it was in response to as not containing the vitriol of Wafflemonstr's post shows exactly how uncharitable you were being, atleast perhaps. Instead of seeing that post, and going "Hmm, yeah, maybe calling him a scumbag and an -ist is not neccesarily reasonable." You went "hey! I don't like this tactic! I'd better focus on that instead of the point at hand." I have already apologized in my other post, and will do so again, I am sorry for making you feel bad by attempting to see whether you would strawman or be charitable. To spell it out: You said this: [QUOTE=Zyler;53130551] For example, you interprete "That doesn't make it okay, people who saw that video and aren't familiar are now more likely to get introduced to, and indoctrinated by his lobster marxism." as "It's not okay to listen to JP, everything he says is wrong" when, in context, it could be positively interpreted as "([B]To Svinnk's post a la Peterson's appearance on a show was mostly a mix of reasonable advice and SJW bashing[/B]) that's still an issue because those specific videos are presented without nuance and context because it may lead to people getting the wrong idea about various issues" [/QUOTE] When the post you were actually talking about is this: [QUOTE=Vodkavia;53118865][QUOTE=Svinnik;53118858][QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53118844]Also on a side note, H3H3 have been pushing[B] this hack [/B]on their podcast from what I've heard, and that's very, very disturbing to me given the age of their audience(13-18 on average if I had to guess). These fucks are pushing [B]sexist, racist and other bigoted psychology onto a younger generation for a reason[/B], and we will see the repercussions of this within the next ten years at the latest.[/QUOTE] i listened to both episodes with Peterson on them, it was mostly SJW bashing circlejerk/Peterson giving reasonable life advice[/QUOTE] [B]That doesn't make it okay[/B], people who saw that video and aren't familiar are now more likely to get introduced to, and indoctrinated by his lobster marxism.[/QUOTE] So, my point was that part of this was saying its not okay to listen to JP. and you proceed to point to the intermediate response, and say "That's not what he's saying, you're making it sound too extreme!" as though it weren't in the context of accusations of -istry, which in this day and age are quite serious. [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zyler;53132660] Thanks, I found a link: [url]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-015-1807-z[/url] Could you explain how this relates to the idea of natural hiearchies? [/quote] I guess you didn't read my whole post? I said clearly that such studies are still under research by him and others and so I dont suspect to be able to find one published, but nevertheless I know it is part of him and his grad students' work. [quote] [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] His doctorate and published papers are in clinical psychology. Nevertheless, he talks about stuff like [B]biology, neurology, cognitive science and sociology[/B] which are outside of psychology altogether.[/QUOTE] uhhhhh you realize psychology takes from and contributes to a lot of those fields right? It's not just how to sit in an arm-chair 101.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53132691]Okay, so maybe I haven't made this clear, but the WHOLE POINT of the trap was to prove that you are being uncharitable. The fact that the trap worked, and you jumped on the weak argument and proceeded to treat the post it was in response to as not containing the vitriol of Wafflemonstr's post shows exactly how uncharitable you were being, atleast perhaps. Instead of seeing that post, and going "Hmm, yeah, maybe calling him a scumbag and an -ist is not neccesarily reasonable." You went "hey! I don't like this tactic! I'd better focus on that instead of the point at hand."[/QUOTE] What tactic don't I like? What point-at-hand am I not focusing on? I really don't understand what you're saying here. I already explained that this quote here is referring to the idea that this quote is refering to H3H3, because they are exposing potentially young viewers to misinformed/batshit-insane views that are used to reinforce the ideologies of malicious groups: "These fucks are pushing sexist, racist and other bigoted psychology onto a younger generation for a reason, and we will see the repercussions of this within the next ten years at the latest." If I'm understanding correctly, you swapped out one quote for another quote by two completely different people and then went "aha! gotcha!" because I said different things about two different posts by two different people? [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53132691] uhhhhh you realize psychology takes from and contributes to a lot of those fields right? It's not just how to sit in an arm-chair 101.[/QUOTE] No, they're very different fields with completely different concepts involved. Biology especially is the study of life, psychology is the study of human behaviour and doesn't involve any understanding of chemical processes. They are completely different fields. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] Okay, so here are the posts in question. I've screencapped them instead of quoting them so it would be a bit easier to format. [img]https://imgur.com/wmmJAGg.jpg[/img] In this post you say that the following quote is a representation of a post that essentially translates into "It's not okay to listen to Peterson" [img]https://imgur.com/iiexln8.jpg[/img] I respond to that point by saying that the post you used as a characterisation of "It's not okay to listen to Peterson" actually means "Those videos are not okay because they could mislead younger people into getting into malicious ideologies". [img]https://imgur.com/xAs92ex.jpg[/img] You respond to my post by saying that you deliberately hid another post by a different person (this one by wafflemonstr, the previous was by vodkavia) which says something different. Specifically you bolded the part that says "this hack" and "these fucks [h3h3] are putting sexist, racist and other bigoted psychology onto a younger generation for a reason" [img]https://imgur.com/vC36iaE.jpg[/img] I respond with this post, explaining, in the exact same way as the previous one. How this post actually means something different than what you say it means. My point is not to say unequivocably, that the way that I translate these posts is the ultimately correct one. But instead, I'm saying that, in the same way you need to 'unpack' what Peterson says in order to not make it seem hamfisted, you can 'unpack' these posts to mean something other than "I hate Peterson, I hate Zenreon, I think Peterson is a racist, misogynist, sexist nazi and Zenreon is a bad person for defending him". You are willing to 'unpack' what Peterson says in a charitable way, but you jump to the most cynical interpretation of what other people say, which is exactly what you're accusing other people of doing to Peterson. I don't think you're even wrong in your intepretations, per say. It's more that you're willing to attach more nuance to when Peterson says something crude or easily misinterpretated than you are when anyone else says something crude or easily misinterpretated. You've said as much in other posts: [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53130562]I see how JP can be inflammatory out of context, I mean, he can be pretty damn cold some times, but he isn't a racist, he isn't a mysogynist, he isn't a transphobe, and he isn't probably whatever next adjective I would come up with. His failures lie in his grasp on his own influence and the degree to which social media actions are acceptable[/QUOTE]

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.