Peterson, Harris, etc....

Eboue said:
I literally found all of these (and more, there's a limit on tweets in one post) in 15 minutes when I originally posted them. If we are supposed to view someone as a public intellectual, it would help if he didn't constantly give us evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Not too sure what evidence you think you've provided...
 
Silva said:
I have, it's like Kermit was possessed by a a misogynistic character in a tolkien book. What would be the point in fleshing out an argument when simply quoting him verbatim does a better job of exposing that he's a charlatan.
Click to expand...

Its generally problematic to take someone like Peterson out of context because he tends to often clumsily meander in and out of points by going into bizarre rabbit holes that generally don't communicate well when a sentence here or there are plucked out and pasted into a tweet.
 
McUnited said:
Not too sure what evidence you think you've provided...
Click to expand...
that he is a charlatan who is mostly defended by other charlatans who believe fairy tales, i.e

McUnited said:
So, in your opinion, as long as the government recognised a same-sex union on the same terms as a marriage, that would be fine?
If so, we are in the same boat!
I just don't think it should be called marriage. It could be called something else - like parriage.
Click to expand...

McUnited said:
I'm curious to know whether you would strip marriage of all its religious connotations and how liberal you are. Would you, for example, be happy for people to be married wherever they wanted to, by whomever they wanted (their uncle/aunt), with no association to religious authority or dogma?
Click to expand...
 
hobbers said:
Peterson will no doubt be absolutely delighted that his twitter feed has so many of the righteous brand of intellectuals spitting fury and frothing at the mouth.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he's the sort who laughs off criticism to be honest. He seems to get pretty angry about it usually.
 
Raoul said:
Its generally problematic to take someone like Peterson out of context because he tends to often clumsily meander in and out of points by going into bizarre rabbit holes that generally don't communicate well when a sentence here or there are plucked out and pasted into a tweet.
Click to expand...
This is the guy who wrote a book where one of his central rules of living a good life was to speak clearly, not only that, the things we have posted were not always part of a longer meander - they were simple statement that mean exactly what they say on face value.

He is a charlatan that promotes regressive ideas about women and trans people. He peddles fairy tales and pseudoscience. There's nothing there to take seriously.
 
Raoul said:
Its generally problematic to take someone like Peterson out of context because he tends to often clumsily meander in and out of points by going into bizarre rabbit holes that generally don't communicate well when a sentence here or there are plucked out and pasted into a tweet.
Click to expand...

Tbf that’s been how he’s come across to me even when he’s given all the time and space he needs to get his point across. Did you see the video of his Oxford Union monologue earlier on in the thread? It’s fecking tortuous to listen to. Or have a listen to Sam Harris discussing the nature of truth with him on his podcast. If you dare.
 
Eboue said:
I literally found all of these (and more, there's a limit on tweets in one post) in 15 minutes when I originally posted them. If we are supposed to view someone as a public intellectual, it would help if he didn't constantly give us evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate why you think these particular tweets are so obviously stupid?
I think some of them raise interesting question (and literally nothing more).

I'm neither here nor there regarding Peterson, because I simply haven't looked at enough of his stuff to formulate a judgement.
 
flashback to the time Peterson pretended to be an expert in a courtroom


I will deal next with Dr. Peterson’s report entitled “Multiple rater response to play assessment description From Kawartha Family Court Assessment Service Report”. It is dated May 4, 2009. This is perhaps the most interesting of all of the reports that counsel for the respondent wishes the court to consider. It comes as close to “junk science” as anything that I have ever been asked to consider.
Click to expand...

The apparent but unfounded arrogance of Dr. Peterson found throughout this report [and for that matter in some of the other reports] is troubling and give rise to the question of whether his reports are not biased in more than one fashion. That there can be more than one type of bias when it comes to experts is explored by Professor David Paciocco in his article “Taking a ‘Goudge’ out of Bluster and Blarney: an ‘Evidence-Based Approach’ to Expert Testimony”.[9] On page 18 of his paper, Professor Paciocco lists and defines many possible types of bias, including: lack of independence bias; adversarial bias; selection bias; team bias; professional interest bias; association bias; and noble cause distortion bias. I venture the opinion that Dr. Peterson suffers from at least two, if not three, of those.
Click to expand...

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii80104/2009canlii80104.html



88] The situation here is even more remote. It is difficult to see how Dr. Peterson’s technique of assessing the personality of a person for his private consulting business satisfies the Daubert factors to make it admissible for a forensic purpose. Dr. Peterson provided no evidence that his technique of personality assessment has been properly tested for the purpose it is being used for here, detecting when an agreeable person may falsely confess to the police. All Dr. Peterson could say is he hired university students to try and fake the personality assessment and they couldn’t do it. That is not scientific validation. There has been no peer review of the technique of the Unfakeable Big Five. Dr. Peterson provided no rate of error or accepted deviations. In fact, he claimed, without any proof, that his assessment tool cannot be deceived while other personality assessment techniques can be. Finally, there is no evidence that the Unfakeable Big Five is generally accepted as a forensic tool. It was designed and is used for Dr. Peterson’s private consulting clients to hire employees.

[90] While not necessary to decide this appeal, I would close discussion of the judge’s ruling on Dr. Peterson’s proposed expert evidence by expressing concern about the decision to attempt to proffer Dr. Peterson as an expert witness on areas that he was clearly not qualified as he had no background whatsoever regarding police interrogations. This decision unnecessarily complicated and delayed this trial and is proof positive of the concern expressed in D.D. (at para. 56) of the detrimental impact on the justice system of attempting to use dubious expert opinion.
Click to expand...
https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/2014/2014mbca70/2014mbca70.html
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Tbf that’s been how he’s come across to me even when he’s given all the time and space he needs to get his point across. Did you see the video of his Oxford Union monologue earlier on in the thread? It’s fecking tortuous to listen to. Or have a listen to Sam Harris discussing the nature of truth with him on his podcast. If you dare.
Click to expand...

Haven't listened to the entire Oxford Union thing yet. As for Harris, I generally gravitate more to his atheism and free will material. He tends to himself go into philosophical tangents that take forever to unpack at which point I'm either bored or unimpressed (or both).
 
The tweets about women discriminating their choice of partner are regarding equity. In Brave New World turning someone down based on their preferences (sexist/lookist/ableist/ageist/racist) is seen as bad manners. He doesn't believe that women should have to sleep with whatever person wants to sleep with them.

He tweeted an interesting short story written by Kurt Vonnegut on equity that would tie in with this notion:

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

He doesn't believe that there are literal dragons (flying scaly monsters that breathe fire) living on the earth either.
 
do.ob said:
Could you please elaborate why you think these particular tweets are so obviously stupid?
I think some of them raise interesting question (and literally nothing more).

I'm neither here nor there regarding Peterson, because I simply haven't looked at enough of his stuff to formulate a judgement.
Click to expand...

choosing your sexual partner is discrimination?
feminists dont criticize islam (:lol:) and feminists long for male domination (:lol: :lol:)
islam already rules the world?
he thinks pepe is some sort of deep message?

and so on. i mean, they are all blatantly absurd. we can discuss a couple in particular if youd like
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Tbf that’s been how he’s come across to me even when he’s given all the time and space he needs to get his point across. Did you see the video of his Oxford Union monologue earlier on in the thread? It’s fecking tortuous to listen to. Or have a listen to Sam Harris discussing the nature of truth with him on his podcast. If you dare.
Click to expand...

Yeah, tried listening to a bit of him on YouTube etc once or twice and he tends to just endlessly ramble without actually getting to the fecking point. Twitter forces him to be more concise, and to me posting stuff he's said directly isn't taking his views out of context at all.
 
It's surely a fault to take philosophical/psychological/social positions based on works of fiction (Brave New World, for example); see Freud, Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex for details.
 
Raoul said:
Haven't listened to the entire Oxford Union thing yet. As for Harris, I generally gravitate more to his atheism and free will material. He tends to himself go into philosophical tangents that take forever to unpack at which point I'm either bored or unimpressed (or both).
Click to expand...

In a one on one with Peterson, Harris comes across as super concise and to the point by comparison.
 
SteveJ said:
It's surely a fault to take philosophical/psychological/social positions based on works of fiction (Brave New World, for example); see Freud, Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex for details.
Click to expand...
I see what you really did there.

bible6.jpg
 
SteveJ said:
It's surely a fault to take philosophical/psychological/social positions based on works of fiction (Brave New World, for example); see Freud, Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex for details.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. See previous comments re psychoanalytical psychotherapy. It’s always seemed absolutely fecking bonkers to me. Although there are lot of objectively smart psychiatrists/psychotherapists out there who seem to think it has some merit. So I wouldn’t dismiss them as “stupid” for buying into that stuff, no matter how bizarre it seems to me.

In the same way I don’t think all priests/rabbis/immans are stupid just because of the odd beliefs that they hold (also based on a work of fiction)
 
Eboue said:
choosing your sexual partner is discrimination?
feminists dont criticize islam (:lol:) and feminists long for male domination (:lol: :lol:)
islam already rules the world?
he thinks pepe is some sort of deep message?

and so on. i mean, they are all blatantly absurd. we can discuss a couple in particular if youd like
Click to expand...

A lot of people have a "type" or "no gos" when it comes to partners.

The feminist + islam + male domination tweet sounds crazy, but then it's also labeled as a provocative question.

Equating "being dangerous to criticise" with some form of ruling isn't exactly a stupid assumption. The bigger problem I have with that tweet is whether or not criticising actually is dangerous.

Pepe being a meme used by all sides of the spectrum to satirize each other is an interesting observation. I have no idea how meaningful he thinks that observation is, because he doesn't elaborate, but I don't see what's stupid about it either.

It looks to me like you want to see stupid, so you see stupid in everything that isn't as simple as 1+1=2.

Those court documents that were posted about him are criticism I can get behind and they definitely will make me more suspicious of things I read of/from him.
 
do.ob said:
The feminist + islam + male domination tweet sounds crazy, but then it's also labeled as a provocative question.
Click to expand...
You’ve never noticed that folks who label things as “intriguing questions” are just trying to mask that they actually think that themselves?
 
@do.ob

For a small example, this is a feminist group that has been recording feminist progress and reaction in Muslim countries for at least 20 years. Their dossier from the mid-90s is in my parents' house.
http://www.wluml.org/
It is offensively absurd to say that a supposed lack of criticism of Islam is due to male domination
 
Carolina Red said:
You’ve never noticed that folks who label things as “intriguing questions” are just trying to mask that they actually think that themselves?
Click to expand...

Sometimes it has a deep meaning, sometimes it's just to provoke. This sounds so absurd that I'm leaning to categorizing it into the second category.


berbatrick said:
@do.ob

For a small example, this is a feminist group that has been recording feminist progress and reaction in Muslim countries for at least 20 years. Their dossier from the mid-90s is in my parents' house.
http://www.wluml.org/
It is offensively absurd to say that a supposed lack of criticism of Islam is due to male domination
Click to expand...

In the post you're refering to I myself said that it sounds crazy, no need to convince me.
 
do.ob said:
Sometimes it has a deep meaning, sometimes it's just to provoke. This sounds so absurd that I'm leaning to categorizing it into the second category.
Click to expand...
Based on his priors, I’m gonna categorize it as what I said. He thinks it, and he’s tacitly trying to see who else agrees with him by masking his statement as a question.

If blowback happens, he can then claim “but I was just asking a “provocative” question!?!?” and claim the role of victim.
 
Carolina Red said:
Based on his priors, I’m gonna categorize it as what I said. He thinks it, and he’s tacitly trying to see who else agrees with him by masking his statement as a question.

If blowback happens, he can then claim “but I was just asking a “provocative” question!?!?” and claim the role of victim.
Click to expand...

Basically his entire approach.
 
Eboue said:
Well obviously but why would that be framed as discrimination?
Click to expand...

Because you in- or exclude people based on categories?

Carolina Red said:
Based on his priors, I’m gonna categorize it as what I said. He thinks it, and he’s tacitly trying to see who else agrees with him by masking his statement as a question.

If blowback happens, he can then claim “but I was just asking a “provocative” question!?!?” and claim the role of victim.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right I haven't watched him closely enough to see these patterns, but I'll keep them in mind.

Silva said:
welcome to the world of jordan dragons are real and women are chaos peterson
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem I have with this type of criticism, someone uses a metaphor and you call him stupid because you are apparently either unable or unwilling to follow them.
 
do.ob said:
See, that's the problem I have with this type of criticism, someone uses a metaphor and you call him stupid because you are apparently either unable or unwilling to follow them.
Click to expand...
You may say well dragons don’t exist. It’s, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category.

It absolutely exists. It’s a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious.
Click to expand...
metaphor
 
do.ob said:
He talks about witches and dragons as superordinate categories not as actually physically existing beings. Are you trying to prove my point?
Click to expand...
Pogue Mahone said:
Question. Do you honestly believe Jordan Peterson actually thinks that dragons (large, fire-breathing lizards) really exist? Because, if so, it’s kind of ironic that you’re the one calling him stupid.
Click to expand...
In fact, it really exists.
Click to expand...
 
do.ob said:
He talks about witches and dragons as superordinate categories not as actually physically existing beings. Are you trying to prove my point?
Click to expand...

I’ve already told him about Peterson’s fondness for archetypes, Jungian and otherwise. As is often the case in his contributions on here, he’s extremely selective with the points he does and does not listen to.

Or as he might describe someone else who did the same thing: stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.