Still blows my mind that someone who's so against identity politics names "Postmodernist Marxism" (a self-contradictory, non-existent concept) as the enemy of modern society. For someone who hates...
Still blows my mind that someone who's so against identity politics names "Postmodernist Marxism" (a self-contradictory, non-existent concept) as the enemy of modern society. For someone who hates identity politics, he's one of the greatest perpetrators of it.
I think he kind of defeats his own argument in the same way somebody who repeatedly asserts how much they don't care about something does: if they did they wouldn't persist with it as a subject...
I think he kind of defeats his own argument in the same way somebody who repeatedly asserts how much they don't care about something does: if they did they wouldn't persist with it as a subject but simply talk past/ignore it. Peterson somehow needs to blame something or somebody for the proliferation of what he deems problematic so he has to play identity politics to some degree to point to a concrete cause by designating certain people as perpetrators.
I definitely consider myself on the left, but I have no problem saying that Jordan P. Makes a lot of good points and observations. I find the thing that is problematic, in reality is either...
I definitely consider myself on the left, but I have no problem saying that Jordan P. Makes a lot of good points and observations.
I find the thing that is problematic, in reality is either political sides inability to look further than their own ideologies and instead blatantly disregards anything that doesn't immediately fall within their respective established world views.
He also said a lot of horrendous things, for example he cited seriously and literally The Cosmic Serpent (a quite famous pseudo-scientific book about DNA). For a professor of psychology this is a...
He also said a lot of horrendous things, for example he cited seriously and literally The Cosmic Serpent (a quite famous pseudo-scientific book about DNA). For a professor of psychology this is a grievous fault, and in other circumstances (less famous) could have cost another professor his position.
His debate with Matt Dillahunty (from the Atheist Experience) is also cringeworthy ("Atheists are murderer!").
Personally I have zero tolerance for mixing bullshit with science. Doing politics is fine, but if you mix your scientific credentials with your ideology and add some crap on top you are done.
You are literally the first person I've heard attack him on anything but being a 'woman hater'. Absolutely, he fucking fucks up on the regular, but that doesn't mean he doesn't also make good...
You are literally the first person I've heard attack him on anything but being a 'woman hater'.
Absolutely, he fucking fucks up on the regular, but that doesn't mean he doesn't also make good point - Just like a good point doesn't make everything else you say a good point.
Another scary thing about him, or rather his fan base, is that he seems to fuel the 'red pill' fire, but I've also only been involved in debates locally in my country, so I don't know how his views are perceived elsewhere.
Sexism aside, he also terribly misrepresents/misquotes philosophers of the past to support his ideology. It shows that he generally cherry-picks evidence to avoid content within the exact same...
Sexism aside, he also terribly misrepresents/misquotes philosophers of the past to support his ideology. It shows that he generally cherry-picks evidence to avoid content within the exact same literature that would debase his entire argument.
But just like many misguided ideologies, it is typically sprinkled with insightful truth. Nothing novel, but helpful regardless.
That is exactly what irks me about otherwise sensible people who like Jordan Peterson. No matter how much evidence to the opposite you present them with, they will always backtrack to "but he says...
That is exactly what irks me about otherwise sensible people who like Jordan Peterson. No matter how much evidence to the opposite you present them with, they will always backtrack to "but he says some sensible things!" How much bullshit does he have to spew for them to realize that the guy is a complete quack? The whole situation reminds me of Elon Musk. I can only hope Peterson will have his "you're a pedo" moment some time in the near future.
A lot of good points on what is complete BS. About the 'cutoff point' for BS: For me, there is no hard cutoff. I try to find facts and base beliefs of true or false upon those and on more opinion...
A lot of good points on what is complete BS.
About the 'cutoff point' for BS: For me, there is no hard cutoff. I try to find facts and base beliefs of true or false upon those and on more opinion based topics I just try to take emotion out of it or place myself in different situations to try and see how something would affect me.
But this topic seems to get extremely hot extremely fast, so I think I'll stay out of it for a while longer.
I have major issues with him regarding his understanding and statements on matters of law. He's flat out wrong about everything he's said regarding Bill C-16 and yet his followers parrot his...
You are literally the first person I've heard attack him on anything but being a 'woman hater'.
I have major issues with him regarding his understanding and statements on matters of law. He's flat out wrong about everything he's said regarding Bill C-16 and yet his followers parrot his statements even though the very simple language of the law doesn't match up with their slippery slope.
"Red Pill" aside, what I'm really worried is how willing he seems to be to even question something as scientifically established as climate change or supporting a strictly carnivorous diet despite...
"Red Pill" aside, what I'm really worried is how willing he seems to be to even question something as scientifically established as climate change or supporting a strictly carnivorous diet despite a lack literature proving it's effectiveness and serious concerns from nutritionists.
There's intellectually healthy skepticism, and then there's flying in the face of reason. And to me, aside from all his other fuck ups, Peterson's trend towards the latter gives me a lot of pause.
The occurrences that Peterson has ever said anything useful or true, except for the most obvious of introductory self-help advice, seems best described as a coincidences rather than innate to his...
The occurrences that Peterson has ever said anything useful or true, except for the most obvious of introductory self-help advice, seems best described as a coincidences rather than innate to his nature.
Yeah, that's the point. Why the tone trolling? Lots of little nuggets like that in this piece. No, he doesn't. He argues that the political solutions shouldn't apply to a population but to the...
By definition, there can be no coherent reason for anyone’s irrational hatred of anything.
Yeah, that's the point. Why the tone trolling? Lots of little nuggets like that in this piece.
Peterson argues that seeking political solutions to problems of identity-based oppression is futile
No, he doesn't. He argues that the political solutions shouldn't apply to a population but to the individuals. Peterson is very fond of the ideals of enlightenment which are a remedy against many, if not most, identity-based oppressions. "We must refuse everything to Jews as a nation and grant everything to Jews as individuals"
[for Peterson] the best society can do is to maintain free markets, where all individuals can seek to transcend their oppression by selling goods and services that other individuals wish to buy
One again the left wing fallacy of equating the government with the society.
it proceeds from the premise that it is impossible to draw a categorical distinction between oppressions that are rooted in race, gender, or class, and ineluctable misfortunes
He claims that one cannot make a meaningful distinction between oppressions, not that no distinction can be made at all.
A moment’s scrutiny reveals the absurdity of this idea.
I hope so because it's a straw man.
I'll stop here, this piece is trash. I dislike Peterson, he's just a little less crazy than the Time Cube guy (he thinks that the double helix of the DNA molecule is depicted in ancient Egyptian, Chinese, and Aboriginal art for example) and to defend his views against dishonest criticism is tiring.
I'm glad to see other people enjoy Three Arrows! I listen to that video on repeat just for the pure disdain in his voice when talking about Peterson's reliance on Jung.
I'm glad to see other people enjoy Three Arrows! I listen to that video on repeat just for the pure disdain in his voice when talking about Peterson's reliance on Jung.
I like some of his stuff, but yeah, he tends to wander off his area of expertise and spew bullshit ever so often. It's sad that he has to play a father-figure to a lot of people, but that's just...
I like some of his stuff, but yeah, he tends to wander off his area of expertise and spew bullshit ever so often. It's sad that he has to play a father-figure to a lot of people, but that's just the world we live in. I gotta say, I am very impress with tildes, because it's the first time I am seeing a nuanced approach to Peterson's character.
This seems to be the problem with a lot of people with scientific training: great in their field, trash outside it. For example: I really liked Neil DeGrasse Tyson's boosterism for space and how...
This seems to be the problem with a lot of people with scientific training: great in their field, trash outside it. For example: I really liked Neil DeGrasse Tyson's boosterism for space and how cool it can be, but damn if he wasn't really far off base in his comments once he started talking about fields he wasn't trained in.
I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but I completely understand the father-figure aspect: why he does it, and why people are drawn to it. I am drawn to that as well. Now to get a bit meta,...
I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but I completely understand the father-figure aspect: why he does it, and why people are drawn to it. I am drawn to that as well.
Now to get a bit meta, this thread that we are in gives me hope for humanity and great hope for Tildes.
Its refreshing to see an intelligible argument being made against Jordan Peterson. I'm a fan of his lectures and beliefs but this piece was still a good read as it pointed out a few flaws of...
Its refreshing to see an intelligible argument being made against Jordan Peterson. I'm a fan of his lectures and beliefs but this piece was still a good read as it pointed out a few flaws of thought. If you are going to confront an idea than arguments like these are the way to do it. Most people with an aversion to his ideas would rather attack on an ad-hominem level so its nice to finally see a piece that doesn't stoop to that level.
I've come around to the viewpoint that his views on character and self-help, shaped likely from his years of clinical practice, are worth listening to... but he gets in over his head when it comes...
I've come around to the viewpoint that his views on character and self-help, shaped likely from his years of clinical practice, are worth listening to... but he gets in over his head when it comes to politics and science.
He found a market, in directionless young men mostly, and is selling something very appealing and helpful to them. A lot of his advice would come naturally to anyone who's been raised in a semi-conservative or religious household. My wish is that he would stop courting the alt-right (by re-tweeting dodgy links and youtube accounts).
I have a couple nits to pick with the author. One is the insistence the author has that Jordan Peterson has a lot of faith in the free market. I think economically, Jordan Peterson is best...
I have a couple nits to pick with the author.
One is the insistence the author has that Jordan Peterson has a lot of faith in the free market. I think economically, Jordan Peterson is best described as a Red Tory. He's advocated for wealth redistribution, and he's certainly not under any illusion that the free market gives everyone an equal shot. I would most concisely state his views in that he believes the free market is necessary to some degree, but it seriously needs to be moderated and constrained. (Of course he doesn't have a lot of plans for exactly how it needs correction)
The other nit I have is actually not about Jordan Peterson at all, but about the author themselves talking about distinguishing between different types of oppression. The author correctly says that government policy in the US treated black people unfairly and caused a lot of socioeconomic problems that continue to this day. The author also says that there has never been government policy in the US that has discriminated against short people. But then we're left with the idea that, because of this, it's rational to attack systemic racism in particular, and thus we can avoid Jordan Peterson's proposed problem of having an infinite number of different oppressions without any objective way of judging them or weighting them.
The source of oppression (whether there was government policy which exacerbated it) is maybe useful for determining how to correct that oppression, but it seems clear to me that it says nothing about whether it should be corrected. If we follow the author's line of logic, I think we're left with the unfortunate conclusion that racism against black people in Canada does not need to be addressed, nor does discrimination against fat people. After all, neither of these problems stemmed from Canadian government policy. To me, it seems clear that culturally-constructed oppression can be just as pernicious as government-constructed oppression.
Still blows my mind that someone who's so against identity politics names "Postmodernist Marxism" (a self-contradictory, non-existent concept) as the enemy of modern society. For someone who hates identity politics, he's one of the greatest perpetrators of it.
I think he kind of defeats his own argument in the same way somebody who repeatedly asserts how much they don't care about something does: if they did they wouldn't persist with it as a subject but simply talk past/ignore it. Peterson somehow needs to blame something or somebody for the proliferation of what he deems problematic so he has to play identity politics to some degree to point to a concrete cause by designating certain people as perpetrators.
I definitely consider myself on the left, but I have no problem saying that Jordan P. Makes a lot of good points and observations.
I find the thing that is problematic, in reality is either political sides inability to look further than their own ideologies and instead blatantly disregards anything that doesn't immediately fall within their respective established world views.
He also said a lot of horrendous things, for example he cited seriously and literally The Cosmic Serpent (a quite famous pseudo-scientific book about DNA). For a professor of psychology this is a grievous fault, and in other circumstances (less famous) could have cost another professor his position.
His debate with Matt Dillahunty (from the Atheist Experience) is also cringeworthy ("Atheists are murderer!").
Personally I have zero tolerance for mixing bullshit with science. Doing politics is fine, but if you mix your scientific credentials with your ideology and add some crap on top you are done.
You are literally the first person I've heard attack him on anything but being a 'woman hater'.
Absolutely, he fucking fucks up on the regular, but that doesn't mean he doesn't also make good point - Just like a good point doesn't make everything else you say a good point.
Another scary thing about him, or rather his fan base, is that he seems to fuel the 'red pill' fire, but I've also only been involved in debates locally in my country, so I don't know how his views are perceived elsewhere.
Sexism aside, he also terribly misrepresents/misquotes philosophers of the past to support his ideology. It shows that he generally cherry-picks evidence to avoid content within the exact same literature that would debase his entire argument.
But just like many misguided ideologies, it is typically sprinkled with insightful truth. Nothing novel, but helpful regardless.
That is exactly what irks me about otherwise sensible people who like Jordan Peterson. No matter how much evidence to the opposite you present them with, they will always backtrack to "but he says some sensible things!" How much bullshit does he have to spew for them to realize that the guy is a complete quack? The whole situation reminds me of Elon Musk. I can only hope Peterson will have his "you're a pedo" moment some time in the near future.
A lot of good points on what is complete BS.
About the 'cutoff point' for BS: For me, there is no hard cutoff. I try to find facts and base beliefs of true or false upon those and on more opinion based topics I just try to take emotion out of it or place myself in different situations to try and see how something would affect me.
But this topic seems to get extremely hot extremely fast, so I think I'll stay out of it for a while longer.
I have major issues with him regarding his understanding and statements on matters of law. He's flat out wrong about everything he's said regarding Bill C-16 and yet his followers parrot his statements even though the very simple language of the law doesn't match up with their slippery slope.
"Red Pill" aside, what I'm really worried is how willing he seems to be to even question something as scientifically established as climate change or supporting a strictly carnivorous diet despite a lack literature proving it's effectiveness and serious concerns from nutritionists.
There's intellectually healthy skepticism, and then there's flying in the face of reason. And to me, aside from all his other fuck ups, Peterson's trend towards the latter gives me a lot of pause.
The occurrences that Peterson has ever said anything useful or true, except for the most obvious of introductory self-help advice, seems best described as a coincidences rather than innate to his nature.
Yeah, that's the point. Why the tone trolling? Lots of little nuggets like that in this piece.
No, he doesn't. He argues that the political solutions shouldn't apply to a population but to the individuals. Peterson is very fond of the ideals of enlightenment which are a remedy against many, if not most, identity-based oppressions. "We must refuse everything to Jews as a nation and grant everything to Jews as individuals"
One again the left wing fallacy of equating the government with the society.
He claims that one cannot make a meaningful distinction between oppressions, not that no distinction can be made at all.
I hope so because it's a straw man.
I'll stop here, this piece is trash. I dislike Peterson, he's just a little less crazy than the Time Cube guy (he thinks that the double helix of the DNA molecule is depicted in ancient Egyptian, Chinese, and Aboriginal art for example) and to defend his views against dishonest criticism is tiring.
A high quality criticism of the guy: Jordan Peterson Doesn't Understand: Nazism
I'm glad to see other people enjoy Three Arrows! I listen to that video on repeat just for the pure disdain in his voice when talking about Peterson's reliance on Jung.
I like some of his stuff, but yeah, he tends to wander off his area of expertise and spew bullshit ever so often. It's sad that he has to play a father-figure to a lot of people, but that's just the world we live in. I gotta say, I am very impress with tildes, because it's the first time I am seeing a nuanced approach to Peterson's character.
This seems to be the problem with a lot of people with scientific training: great in their field, trash outside it. For example: I really liked Neil DeGrasse Tyson's boosterism for space and how cool it can be, but damn if he wasn't really far off base in his comments once he started talking about fields he wasn't trained in.
Oh don't even remind me about him. To see someone respected in the field that I absolutely adored turn into a meme in a few years was an experience.
I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, but I completely understand the father-figure aspect: why he does it, and why people are drawn to it. I am drawn to that as well.
Now to get a bit meta, this thread that we are in gives me hope for humanity and great hope for Tildes.
Its refreshing to see an intelligible argument being made against Jordan Peterson. I'm a fan of his lectures and beliefs but this piece was still a good read as it pointed out a few flaws of thought. If you are going to confront an idea than arguments like these are the way to do it. Most people with an aversion to his ideas would rather attack on an ad-hominem level so its nice to finally see a piece that doesn't stoop to that level.
I've come around to the viewpoint that his views on character and self-help, shaped likely from his years of clinical practice, are worth listening to... but he gets in over his head when it comes to politics and science.
He found a market, in directionless young men mostly, and is selling something very appealing and helpful to them. A lot of his advice would come naturally to anyone who's been raised in a semi-conservative or religious household. My wish is that he would stop courting the alt-right (by re-tweeting dodgy links and youtube accounts).
I have a couple nits to pick with the author.
One is the insistence the author has that Jordan Peterson has a lot of faith in the free market. I think economically, Jordan Peterson is best described as a Red Tory. He's advocated for wealth redistribution, and he's certainly not under any illusion that the free market gives everyone an equal shot. I would most concisely state his views in that he believes the free market is necessary to some degree, but it seriously needs to be moderated and constrained. (Of course he doesn't have a lot of plans for exactly how it needs correction)
The other nit I have is actually not about Jordan Peterson at all, but about the author themselves talking about distinguishing between different types of oppression. The author correctly says that government policy in the US treated black people unfairly and caused a lot of socioeconomic problems that continue to this day. The author also says that there has never been government policy in the US that has discriminated against short people. But then we're left with the idea that, because of this, it's rational to attack systemic racism in particular, and thus we can avoid Jordan Peterson's proposed problem of having an infinite number of different oppressions without any objective way of judging them or weighting them.
The source of oppression (whether there was government policy which exacerbated it) is maybe useful for determining how to correct that oppression, but it seems clear to me that it says nothing about whether it should be corrected. If we follow the author's line of logic, I think we're left with the unfortunate conclusion that racism against black people in Canada does not need to be addressed, nor does discrimination against fat people. After all, neither of these problems stemmed from Canadian government policy. To me, it seems clear that culturally-constructed oppression can be just as pernicious as government-constructed oppression.