Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Ulysses Gaze

Giraffe Box wrote: »

'Rightwing Professor', is that really 'clickbait'?

'Sex Dwarf Lures 100 Disco Dollies to a Life of Vice'...that's clickbait!

It's clickbait because it will lure in Peterson supporters in droves to defend him. It also lures in those that rail against him in to attack him.

alaimacerc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As someone who is usually dismissed a wooly liberal leftie, or whatever other adjectives are now in vogue, I find it fascinating to see another genuine left-winger, such as yourself, so quick to play the man and not the ball as soon as you encounter an opinion that is not in accordance with your own.

The trouble here is that JP is very apt to grab the ball, stuff it up his jersey, and wave his arms around yelling about how white males are being oppressed in their ball access. Ball-playing at this point becomes somewhat tricky, and indeed after a while the shtick is apt to make it unclear what sport we're even supposed to be playing. Beyond Cult of Me.

What sort of "issue" does he actually add more light than heat to? I'll grant you he's able to add syllables. (The bar for being a right-wing "public intellectual" is hardly especially high these days, especially given the collegial assessment of the education attainment of the Leader of the Free World.)

alaimacerc

flexcon wrote: »

They seem to always go back, that most people voted for Hilary - not Trump. Even if the USA took that number and Hilary was now the president, that's still 49.8% of the USA voted for Trump. It's like those individuals choose to ignore this.

Well, 46.1% of those that choose/were eligible/able to vote, to be a tad more accurate. Or as DJT would say, "a landslide".

But a marvel of mathematical precision, compared to JP's "our cousins the lobsters" factoid. (Hauling it back to the C4 interview, however fleetingly!)

flexcon

alaimacerc wrote: »

The trouble here is that JP is very apt to grab the ball, stuff it up his jersey, and wave his arms around yelling about how white males are being oppressed in their ball access.

Not sure why you get that impression.

He gets asked a question by the media and answers the questions.

I've read his latest book "12 rules to life" and on the balance of fairness I cannot remember one area where this was suggested. Not....once. Only in response to interviewers questions.

He often states that this idea that the ALL white males are tyrants and BAD is just wrong. Basically he detests that whenever he is confronted, it's always "all" or "everyone" rather than the use of "some"

I do find his way of describing life quite accessible and it's no doubt aided myself in understanding the people around myself much better. I am no right winger, and I suddenly won't be some crazy right lunatic from listening to his talks. What he has taught me though personally is "being a sheep in life is the best route for success in life. It's a lovely safe zone to be in"

flexcon

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, 46.1% of those that choose/were eligible/able to vote, to be a tad more accurate. Or as DJT would say, "a landslide".

But a marvel of mathematical precision, compared to JP's "our cousins the lobsters" factoid. (Hauling it back to the C4 interview, however fleetingly!)

He never said our cousins were lobsters.

And - You need to post a link that says we do not share this social attributes of a lobster. Otherwise it comes across that because you find the idea so insane, it must not be correct.

To add, when you search online you end up on some well known media outlets that suggest the same, that lobsters is an odd animal to use, that in fact, hierarchy is shown in lots of other species.

xckjoo

flexcon wrote: »

Not sure why you get that impression.

He gets asked a question by the media and answers the questions.

I've read his latest book "12 rules to life" and on the balance of fairness I cannot remember one area where this was suggested. Not....once. Only in response to interviewers questions.

He often states that this idea that the ALL white males are tyrants and BAD is just wrong. Basically he detests that whenever he is confronted, it's always "all" or "everyone" rather than the use of "some"

I do find his way of describing life quite accessible and it's no doubt aided myself in understanding the people around myself much better. I am no right winger, and I suddenly won't be some crazy right lunatic from listening to his talks. What he has taught me though personally is "being a sheep in life is the best route for success in life. It's a lovely safe zone to be in"

Which reminds me, isn't his whole shtick about taking personal responsibility for your own life? Doesn't seem compatible with the people saying that he's crying oppression of his white brethren.

johnp001

flexcon wrote: »

He never said our cousins were lobsters.

And - You need to post a link that says we do not share this social attributes of a lobster. Otherwise it comes across that because you find the idea so insane, it must not be correct.

To add, when you search online you end up on some well known media outlets that suggest the same, that lobsters is an odd animal to use, that in fact, hierarchy is shown in lots of other species.

I think the point of the lobster is that it exemplifies that hierarchy isn't a human invention. Conversely it is rooted in genetics that go back much further than our mammal ancestors. Hence hierarchy is found in lots of other species but the example of lobsters in this context makes the point more strongly than if apes or baboons were used as the example.

alaimacerc

flexcon wrote: »

He never said our cousins were lobsters.

I'm paraphrasing. But we are cousins of the lobster -- that's not the part he botched his factoid on.

He threw in a date for our most recent common ancestor, unasked and without much in the way of reason or context, and got it fairly wildly wrong. Just as well he doesn't bill himself as an "evolutionary psychologist", though the "right-wing just-so stories with no actual science" riff is otherwise rather similar.

alaimacerc

johnp001 wrote: »

Hence hierarchy is found in lots of other species but the example of lobsters in this context makes the point more strongly than if apes or baboons were used as the example.

"Strongly", as in implying a much stronger claim than he's actually able to stand up.

alaimacerc

xckjoo wrote: »

Which reminds me, isn't his whole shtick about taking personal responsibility for your own life? Doesn't seem compatible with the people saying that he's crying oppression of his white brethren.

I think it's entirely compatible. "Tidy up your room. Then you'll be entitled to whine that society hasn't 'enforced' your getting a girlfriend."

xckjoo

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think it's entirely compatible. "Tidy up your room. Then you'll be entitled to whine that society hasn't 'enforced' your getting a girlfriend."

Ah here. Is that your only reason for saying that? Because I already posted a link to his page where he talks about what he means by the enforced monogamy. Maybe you still don't agree with his opinion but you clearly haven't informed yourself on what it is first.


I think I'm going to cash out of this thread guys. Too many are only interested in feeling like they're the ones that can see the 'truth' without putting in the effort to find out what that truth is.



One quick question before I go. Did anything ever come of the tweet he made about climate change? Was there any follow up?

johnp001

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Strongly", as in implying a much stronger claim than he's actually able to stand up.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Please can you clarify what you mean?

7aubzxk43m2sni

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm paraphrasing. But we are cousins of the lobster -- that's not the part he botched his factoid on.

He threw in a date for our most recent common ancestor, unasked and without much in the way of reason or context, and got it fairly wildly wrong. Just as well he doesn't bill himself as an "evolutionary psychologist", though the "right-wing just-so stories with no actual science" riff is otherwise rather similar.

What are you talking about? This post is very confusing. Can you please attempt to clarify what you mean?

alaimacerc

xckjoo wrote: »

Ah here. Is that your only reason for saying that? Because I already posted a link to his page where he talks about what he means by the enforced monogamy. Maybe you still don't agree with his opinion but you clearly haven't informed yourself on what it is first.

"Clearly", eh? Why do you think I put in quotes? Enforced means "not enforced at all" when that suits him, and "actually enforced" when that does. It's either deliberate bait-and-switch on his part, or -- gasp! -- lamentably imprecise use of language.

I think I'm going to cash out of this thread guys. Too many are only interested in feeling like they're the ones that can see the 'truth' without putting in the effort to find out what that truth is.

It's a wise person that knows which those people actually are.

One quick question before I go. Did anything ever come of the tweet he made about climate change? Was there any follow up?

Why's this a "quick" question? Isn't "whole new can of worms" more apt?

If you want a "quick" summary, then what happened is that he pandered shamelessly to the usual right-wing suspects, the usual right-wing suspects loved it, everyone else with a lick of regard to scientific fact sighed wearily.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

One quick question before I go. Did anything ever come of the tweet he made about climate change? Was there any follow up?

I've gone back through his recent tweets but cannot find it. What was the tweet?

If he's some climate change denier, which I tend to suspect, that's sort of a /thread moment.

alaimacerc

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

What are you talking about? This post is very confusing. Can you please attempt to clarify what you mean?

Only if you make at least the slightest sign of a good-faith attempt at outlining what part you were confused regarding. "Say that all again, but entirely differently" smacks of time-wasting.

7aubzxk43m2sni

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've gone back through his recent tweets but cannot find it. What was the tweet?

If he's some climate change denier, which I tend to suspect, that's sort of a /thread moment.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?lang=en


I don't know where I stand on it. It seems a bit childish at best.

7aubzxk43m2sni

alaimacerc wrote: »

Only if you make at least the slightest sign of a good-faith attempt at outlining what part you were confused regarding. "Say that all again, but entirely differently" smacks of time-wasting.

Ok..

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, 46.1% of those that choose/were eligible/able to vote, to be a tad more accurate. Or as DJT would say, "a landslide".

But a marvel of mathematical precision, compared to JP's "our cousins the lobsters" factoid. (Hauling it back to the C4 interview, however fleetingly!)

So here you're saying ... nothing?

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm paraphrasing. But we are cousins of the lobster -- that's not the part he botched his factoid on.

He threw in a date for our most recent common ancestor, unasked and without much in the way of reason or context, and got it fairly wildly wrong. Just as well he doesn't bill himself as an "evolutionary psychologist", though the "right-wing just-so stories with no actual science" riff is otherwise rather similar.

When/ where did he "throw in a date", and what did he get wrong? In other words, what are you talking about?

flexcon

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Clearly", eh? Why do you think I put in quotes? Enforced means "not enforced at all" when that suits him, and "actually enforced" when that does. It's either deliberate bait-and-switch on his part, or -- gasp! -- lamentably imprecise use of language.


It's a wise person that knows which those people actually are.



Why's this a "quick" question? Isn't "whole new can of worms" more apt?

If you want a "quick" summary, then what happened is that he pandered shamelessly to the usual right-wing suspects, the usual right-wing suspects loved it, everyone else with a lick of regard to scientific fact sighed wearily.

Dude. I am no longer going to respond now. Well done.

If JP is a climate change denier, then as someone who listens intently to his expression - I don't agree with him.

Just kindly F*ck off with the usual phrases " Usual Right-wing suspects".

alaimacerc

johnp001 wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense to me. Please can you clarify what you mean?

He's setting up an argument where he's essentially pretending that Nasty Left-Wing Marxist Feminists Postmodernists supposedly claimed that there were no hierarchies ever before modern human societies, and uses the idiotic "lobsters!" example to knock down his own straw man. Then apparently seeks to imply that this someone means that hierarchies are not only not unprecedented -- which no-one disputed in the first place -- but effectively that they're inevitable and desirable.

I trust that made even less sense to you. At least you might realize you'd been better off before!

7aubzxk43m2sni

alaimacerc wrote: »

He's setting up an argument where he's essentially pretending that Nasty Left-Wing Marxist Feminists Postmodernists supposedly claimed that there were no hierarchies ever before modern human societies, and uses the idiotic "lobsters!" example to knock down his own straw man. Then apparently seeks to imply that this someone means that hierarchies are not only not unprecedented -- which no-one disputed in the first place -- but effectively that they're inevitable and desirable.

I trust that made even less sense to you. At least you might realize you'd been better off before!

If you listened to more than snippets and hit piece articles you might understand that acknowledging the existence of something, hierarchies in this example, does not defend them.

Yes, they're absolutely inevitable.

The problem with leftists / sjw's is that they assume that the existing structure until now has always been "the patriarchy", an inherently corrupt hierarchy designed by and for powerful rich white men.

besserwisser

Apologies if previously posted. Interesting opinion piece in the Toronto Star:-

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

Parker Fat Ladyfinger

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?lang=en


I don't know where I stand on it. It seems a bit childish at best.

I'm definitely not qualified to critique the views of an MIT professor, but it's clear that the majority scientific opinion, even within climate science, is against him.

I notice that on Lindzen's wikipedia page he relies on the fact that science has been wrong before, as being somehow supportive of the implication that science is wrong about climate change. That's a whopping great logical fallacy. Just because science was once incorrect about the geometry of the planet, doesn't mean that it's also wrong about every subsequent claim like atomic theory, evolution, or for that matter, climate change.

I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).

alaimacerc

flexcon wrote: »

Dude. I am no longer going to respond now. Well done.

There's not really a lot of "responding" going on this thread at the best of times., frankly.

If JP is a climate change denier, then as someone who listens intently to his expression - I don't agree with him.

I don't know for certain if he "identifies" as such. Perhaps another Operation Motte and Bailey exercise on his part. I wasn't entirely clear which tweet was being referred to by the other poster, but seemingly there's something of a track-record of at best snidey comments on the topic.

Just kindly F*ck off with the usual phrases " Usual Right-wing suspects".

Neither kindly nor unkindly, nope. If the glove doesn't fit, on whose behalf are you taking offence? His CC tweets very clearly went down well in the drill-baby-drill segment of the political market. My characterisation is accurate, and their reaction entirely unsurprising.

alaimacerc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).

Maybe he's not so much skeptical of the science, as attempting some sort of social-science critique of the people that do it, or care about the implications. Perhaps due to being "hysterical" about it, which is very much the sort of thing he'd say. (Generally while being high-pitched, animated, and emotive himself, mind you.)

alaimacerc

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Yes, they're absolutely inevitable.

Indeed? And do you find that there's continuity and a continuum between hierarchies in lobsters, and hierarchies in humans? And in hierarchies in every single other organism descended from their common ancestor?

I think you might find yourself trying -- and rapidly failing -- to defend the proposition that JP was trying hard not to have to.

The problem with leftists / sjw's is that they assume that the existing structure until now has always been "the patriarchy", an inherently corrupt hierarchy designed by and for powerful rich white men.

Yes, that's precisely the flawed argument I just pointed out the fallacy of. Do keep up.

7aubzxk43m2sni

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm definitely not qualified to critique the views of an MIT professor, but it's clear that the majority scientific opinion, even within climate science, is against him.

I notice that on Lindzen's wikipedia page he relies on the fact that science has been wrong before, as being somehow supportive of the implication that science is wrong about climate change. That's a whopping great logical fallacy. Just because science was once incorrect about the geometry of the planet, doesn't mean that it's also wrong about every subsequent claim like atomic theory, evolution, or for that matter, climate change.

I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).

Yeah, I feel pretty similar about it.

It might be technically true that we don't fully understand the climate, climate change and our influence on it, but it's pretty clear that the burning of fossil fuels, etc is bad, regardless of whether they are only slightly speeding up a natural process or not.

I see movements towards renewable energy as exclusively positive (are there cons I'm not seeing?). Given this, I see no reason to argue against efforts to reduce our "carbon footprint".

I do question his motive for posting it.

A) It's poking the bull to get another hysterical reaction from lefties/sjw's. (Childish)
He is a climate change denier. (Unlikely, but a blow to his credibility for sure)
C) Paid to tweet? Hard to know, but a horrible blow to his credibility too if that was the case.

xckjoo

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Clearly", eh? Why do you think I put in quotes? Enforced means "not enforced at all" when that suits him, and "actually enforced" when that does. It's either deliberate bait-and-switch on his part, or -- gasp! -- lamentably imprecise use of language.

I must have missed that class in English where they explained that usage of quotation marks. I'm surprised I haven't encountered it before but I suppose it is a very specific use case. It's quite involved too. If other people had questioned the clarity of your posts I'd be doing the same, but it's not like that's happening right?

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's a wise person that knows which those people actually are.

Flattery will get you everywhere

alaimacerc wrote: »

Why's this a "quick" question? Isn't "whole new can of worms" more apt?

If you want a "quick" summary, then what happened is that he pandered shamelessly to the usual right-wing suspects, the usual right-wing suspects loved it, everyone else with a lick of regard to scientific fact sighed wearily.

"Quick" because it has already been discussed at length in the thread but hasn't been mentioned in a while. So in your parlance, it's an "already open can of worms that's starting to go moldy". And here was me thinking you weren't doing any due diligence before you "post".

7aubzxk43m2sni

alaimacerc wrote: »

Indeed? And do you find that there's continuity and a continuum between hierarchies in lobsters, and hierarchies in humans? And in hierarchies in every single other organism descended from their common ancestor?

I think you might find yourself trying -- and rapidly failing -- to defend the proposition that JP was trying hard not to have to.



Yes, that's precisely the flawed argument I just pointed out the fallacy of. Do keep up.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the continuity question?

Regarding your second point, if I understand correctly, you don't believe that the premise for most sjw movements is the existence of the "patriarchy"?

xckjoo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm definitely not qualified to critique the views of an MIT professor, but it's clear that the majority scientific opinion, even within climate science, is against him.

I notice that on Lindzen's wikipedia page he relies on the fact that science has been wrong before, as being somehow supportive of the implication that science is wrong about climate change. That's a whopping great logical fallacy. Just because science was once incorrect about the geometry of the planet, doesn't mean that it's also wrong about every subsequent claim like atomic theory, evolution, or for that matter, climate change.

I've always gotten the impression that Jordan Peterson is reticent or even skeptical of man-made climate change and its implications, and to be honest, this seems like a blow to his credibility (and I'm on of those people who think the opposition to Jordan Peterson is generally hysterical and unfounded).

I'm not qualified either but Lindzen definitely seems like a quack. Akrasia has critiqued him heavily earlier in the thread and they seem to know what they're talking about.