This has been posted before (though I believe in a different community), but I do really appreciate her pointing out many of the problems that Peterson has with his rhetoric: 1. He never really...
This has been posted before (though I believe in a different community), but I do really appreciate her pointing out many of the problems that Peterson has with his rhetoric: 1. He never really says anything, only alludes to it. 2. He uses facts to assert his position without outright saying it (e.g. the "there are biological differences between men and women" response to a question about "why is there a disparity between men and women at the highest levels of leadership in politics and business" example). These two problems make it impossible to ever refute the things he clearly is implying, since he simply can claim "I never said that" in response to the things he clearly implies.
He additionally has problems others pointed out, where he will assert two different things that say a third thing, but they are separated by such distance that it's hard to realize he's saying this until later. For example, he might say something like "women are represented as agents of chaos and dishonest in ancient myths" then later, he might say something like "myths were not themselves true, but they conveyed truths about the human condition in them." So, putting 2+2 together, he asserts that "it is a fundamental truth of the human condition that women are agents of chaos and dishonest," but he has never explicitly said this, so you must do significantly more work to debunk his claim than for him to make it. He also will rely on things that are technically correct, to make a sort-of ship of Theseus argument that says something different (e.g. "if I don't pay the fine, I can be put in jail, so I can be put in jail for misgendering someone").
Finally, and most notably, he has the problem where he will say things, and then argue he did not say them minutes later (most notably seen in the Vice interview).
All in all, he's a snake oil salesman disguised as an "intellectual" and I'm glad Natalie called him on his bullshit. This is one of her best videos imo, and I don't say that lightly. All her videos are fabulous, though the production value has notably increased as time went on.
This has been posted before (though I believe in a different community), but I do really appreciate her pointing out many of the problems that Peterson has with his rhetoric: 1. He never really says anything, only alludes to it. 2. He uses facts to assert his position without outright saying it (e.g. the "there are biological differences between men and women" response to a question about "why is there a disparity between men and women at the highest levels of leadership in politics and business" example). These two problems make it impossible to ever refute the things he clearly is implying, since he simply can claim "I never said that" in response to the things he clearly implies.
He additionally has problems others pointed out, where he will assert two different things that say a third thing, but they are separated by such distance that it's hard to realize he's saying this until later. For example, he might say something like "women are represented as agents of chaos and dishonest in ancient myths" then later, he might say something like "myths were not themselves true, but they conveyed truths about the human condition in them." So, putting 2+2 together, he asserts that "it is a fundamental truth of the human condition that women are agents of chaos and dishonest," but he has never explicitly said this, so you must do significantly more work to debunk his claim than for him to make it. He also will rely on things that are technically correct, to make a sort-of ship of Theseus argument that says something different (e.g. "if I don't pay the fine, I can be put in jail, so I can be put in jail for misgendering someone").
Finally, and most notably, he has the problem where he will say things, and then argue he did not say them minutes later (most notably seen in the Vice interview).
All in all, he's a snake oil salesman disguised as an "intellectual" and I'm glad Natalie called him on his bullshit. This is one of her best videos imo, and I don't say that lightly. All her videos are fabulous, though the production value has notably increased as time went on.