Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Brian?

SterlingArcher wrote: »

It is fair to say from your posts you dislike Peterson. You read the media around him, post here, and watch his videos. Why? Why would you invest so much energy into someone you clearly dislike.

Yet with all this time and effort you are putting in ,still cannot confidently put forward good arguments why others should not like or listen to him.

And you ask me what is the point.

Actually, I neither like nor dislike Peterson. I just think he’s wrong. I’ve said this repeatedly. I have confidently put forward many reasons he’s wrong. Like/dislike is irrelevant.

Zubeneschamali

That's when the law enforces it that he has a problem.

Hypocritical then for him to be threatening others with lawyers over their speech when it is about him.

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

When you combine a social science with philosophy and then bring a god into the equation, you’re multiplying the variables. It becomes very difficult to tell it apart from complete gobbledygook. You acknowledged you can’t tell how close to correct Peterson’s hypothesise are.

No, you said I can't tell if they are correct or not. (not "close to correct")

Hypotheses and theories are never proven correct or not, some may have stronger evidence than others, but they are not facts.

Since JP deals in sciences where (as you acknowledge) it is very difficult to prove one thing or another, it can't be stated that this one is wrong, or that one is correct, and it's even more nonsensical to demand that listeners (however academic) tell whether that particular theory is correct or this hypothesis is wrong.

Sure he himself doesn't categorically say he's correct about things. He seems more confident about some things than others, but the fact that he engages in discussions such as the one with Sam Harris for example, illustrates how he is open to challenge and further investigation.

The steel manning at the start of the discussions above shows this well : Sam Harris saying "JP thinks that ... according to him... his idea is that...", and then JP doing the exact same thing : "Sam is of the opinion that... Sam's theory is that ... Sam's point of view is that..."

How can you still ask how a listener should decide one thing is correct or not in Sam Harris, or Jordan Peterson's, or other academics' discussions or lectures ?

It just doesn't make sense.

I can attempt to judge (for myself) which theory or which hypothesis is the strongest, in my opinion.
I simply cannot tell whether it is correct, as neither of them (academics) can.

I definitely did ask how you knew if he was correct or not or which bits are correct or closer to correct. I did it to cover however literally you took the question. To clarify I’m asking how you rate the verisimilitude of Peterson’s sermons. The ‘truth likeness’

Long reply but no answer. Reading between the lines, You make up your own mind based on the very limited information available to you.

I imagine you will probably say that’s what we do about all subjects where we’re not experts. But you’ll also declare Peterson a genius even though you don’t have a clue about how to tell how good/likely/close to truth his hypotheses are.

Mountainsandh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I definitely did ask how you knew if he was correct or not or which bits are correct or closer to correct. I did it to cover however literally you took the question. To clarify I’m asking how you rate the verisimilitude of Peterson’s sermons. The ‘truth likeness’

Long reply but no answer. Reading between the lines, You make up your own mind based on the very limited information available to you.

I imagine you will probably say that’s what we do about all subjects where we’re not experts. But you’ll also declare Peterson a genius even though you don’t have a clue about how to tell how good/likely/close to truth his hypotheses are.

Ok whatever. You are doing nicely conversing with yourself above so I'll let you to it

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Ok whatever. You are doing nicely conversing with yourself above so I'll let you to it

Ah. That's poor.

I've asked you a few times and in a few different ways how you can tell if Peterson's talking rubbish or not. You sometimes admit you can't actually know if it's rubbish or not because you would need to do a load of research which you haven't done. But you're willing to declare Peterson a genius and then not discuss it. And then you get annoyed when I say that back to you.

Mountainsandh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah. That's poor.

I've asked you a few times and in a few different ways how you can tell if Peterson's talking rubbish or not. You sometimes admit you can't actually know if it's rubbish or not because you would need to do a load of research which you haven't done. But you're willing to declare Peterson a genius and then not discuss it. And then you get annoyed when I say that back to you.

I have explained multiple times my point of view. I'm not willing to rephrase and paraphrase myself over and over again. You don't agree, or get my point of view, fine. We're not going to go on and on like that.

I think the guy has a wealth of knowledge, and his arguments and lectures are interesting, just deal with it.
You are trying to argue ad infinitum that a guy who's got multiple credentials and qualifications to his name is really conning people and would people ever wake up to it.

Jeebus, off you go tell that to Toronto University, Harvard, and all the prestigious platforms he has been spreading his lies to, all these people he has fooled up until now, El D, in all your great wisdom and knowledge.

Be one of these people who record their own Youtube videos to vent out their anger at the man maybe, that might let a bit of that rancour out, and what with the comments and the likes, you might get the same validation as you seem to search for incessantly.

I'll return to my online lectures, and tend to my shrine.

Zubeneschamali

Mountainsandh wrote: »

You are trying to argue ad infinitum that a guy who's got multiple credentials and qualifications to his name is really conning people and would people ever wake up to it.

As I wrote upthread, he has a degree in psychology, a long career in lecturing and had a clinical practice. His first book was squarely in his area of expertise and no-one cared.


So now he talks about lobsters and ants (because that stuff works for Dawkins) and throws out philosophy (which his followers do not get but it sounds good), sprinkles in advice your mother could give you free (stand up straight and clean your room) and best of all, he tells middle class right wing white guys that people should shut up and make the best of things, advice they think everyone else should hear.



His credentials just let him sprinkle big words into it to impress.

El_Duderino 09

Mountainsandh wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah. That's poor.

I've asked you a few times and in a few different ways how you can tell if Peterson's talking rubbish or not. You sometimes admit you can't actually know if it's rubbish or not because you would need to do a load of research which you haven't done. But you're willing to declare Peterson a genius and then not discuss it. And then you get annoyed when I say that back to you.

I have explained multiple times my point of view. I'm not willing to rephrase and paraphrase myself over and over again. You don't agree, or get my point of view, fine. We're not going to go on and on like that.

I think the guy has a wealth of knowledge, and his arguments and lectures are interesting, just deal with it.
You are trying to argue ad infinitum that a guy who's got multiple credentials and qualifications to his name is really conning people and would people ever wake up to it.

Jeebus, off you go tell that to Toronto University, Harvard, and all the prestigious platforms he has been spreading his lies to, all these people he has fooled up until now, El D, in all your great wisdom and knowledge.

Be one of these people who record their own Youtube videos to vent out their anger at the man maybe, that might let a bit of that rancour out, and what with the comments and the likes, you might get the same validation as you seem to search for incessantly.

I'll return to my online lectures, and tend to my shrine.

No need to get snippy.

So you’re relying on his credentials and the research you haven’t done yet. It’s not a strong position to declare him a genius.

I asked a fairly simple question and the reason I keep asking is because you’ve answered it in so many different ways. I wonder if you’re keeping track so I’ll recap.

JP has lots of credentials - in psychology.

JP gives his sources which you might read one day but obviously you haven’t read them so far.

You’ll just have to make up your own mind based on the evidence-which you haven’t read yet.

It doesn’t matter if he’s correct in what he’s saying because you only use it as thought experiment.

The question doesn’t make sense.

El_Duderino 09

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As I wrote upthread, he has a degree in psychology, a long career in lecturing and had a clinical practice. His first book was squarely in his area of expertise and no-one cared.


So now he talks about lobsters and ants (because that stuff works for Dawkins) and throws out philosophy (which his followers do not get but it sounds good), sprinkles in advice your mother could give you free (stand up straight and clean your room) and best of all, he tells middle class right wing white guys that people should shut up and make the best of things, advice they think everyone else should hear.

His credentials just let him sprinkle big words into it to impress.

This is exactly it.

He’s qualified in psychology so when he talk about psychology his credentials will help him.

The philosophy is as good as free styling because none of his followers understand what he’s saying or have read the material to challenge/back up or offer an alternative interpretation.

So he mixes some psychology with philosophy, throws in some big words and lots of references which nobody will check. Then add a layer of right wing talking points about the left and the young which he could have gotten from Fox News, sprinkle on some requirements for a god and wrap it in good advice and he’s got a massive following.

The kernel at the centre is psychology in which he has credentials. The rest is added to make it sell.

WinnyThePoo

The inflated price of joining his patreon content why sir.

silverharp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As I wrote upthread, he has a degree in psychology, a long career in lecturing and had a clinical practice. His first book was squarely in his area of expertise and no-one cared.


So now he talks about lobsters and ants (because that stuff works for Dawkins) and throws out philosophy (which his followers do not get but it sounds good), sprinkles in advice your mother could give you free (stand up straight and clean your room) and best of all, he tells middle class right wing white guys that people should shut up and make the best of things, advice they think everyone else should hear.



His credentials just let him sprinkle big words into it to impress.

leaving aside from the fact most of his material is free, if your mother or father could tell them the same stuff then obviously they aren't or he wouldn't have an audience. As a father to a middle class white boy of indeterminate political views , I'd much rather Peterson over some unhappy leftist feminist explaining to him that he has the toxic masculinity and that everything about being male is wrong.

Zubeneschamali

silverharp wrote: »

As a father to a middle class white boy of indeterminate political views , I'd much rather Peterson over some unhappy leftist feminist explaining to him that he has the toxic masculinity and that everything about being male is wrong.

And there is Peterson's real audience in a nutshell.

His credentials in psychology don't matter, his shaky philosophy and theology don't matter: as long as he is tough on leftists and feminists, they will lap it up.

silverharp

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And there is Peterson's real audience in a nutshell.

His credentials in psychology don't matter, his shaky philosophy and theology don't matter: as long as he is tough on leftists and feminists, they will lap it up.

?? Where did I say his credentials don't matter? I mentioned in another post that I would have a higher esteem for someone like Peterson over a Tony Robins character. There is clearly a lot of anti male bashing in the media , on line , entertainment and in the US it gets into the school system. Then throw in a lot of kids growing up without their dads. Its obvious why Peterson hit a nerve with people

7aubzxk43m2sni

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And there is Peterson's real audience in a nutshell.

His credentials in psychology don't matter, his shaky philosophy and theology don't matter: as long as he is tough on leftists and feminists, they will lap it up.

That's not what the poster said. He said he'd prefer his son learn from Peterson than learn from a leftist or feminist.

Brian?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is exactly it.

He’s qualified in psychology so when he talk about psychology his credentials will help him.

The philosophy is as good as free styling because none of his followers understand what he’s saying or have read the material to challenge/back up or offer an alternative interpretation.

So he mixes some psychology with philosophy, throws in some big words and lots of references which nobody will check. Then add a layer of right wing talking points about the left and the young which he could have gotten from Fox News, sprinkle on some requirements for a god and wrap it in good advice and he’s got a massive following.

The kernel at the centre is psychology in which he has credentials. The rest is added to make it sell.

Ill tell you what I admire about Peterson, he’s a great salesman. He’s found his market and he’s doing a phenomenal job of satisfying the demand with content.

Brian?

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

That's not what the poster said. He said he'd prefer his son learn from Peterson than learn from a leftist or feminist.

He didn’t say why though. That’s the problem.

The position taken is that nothing leftists or feminists have to say has any inherent value. Completely ignoring that there is no such thing as a “leftist” and that there are a wide range of people claiming to be feminists.

Brian?

silverharp wrote: »

?? Where did I say his credentials don't matter? I mentioned in another post that I would have a higher esteem for someone like Peterson over a Tony Robins character. There is clearly a lot of anti male bashing in the media , on line , entertainment and in the US it gets into the school system. Then throw in a lot of kids growing up without their dads. Its obvious why Peterson hit a nerve with people

What did Tony Robins ever do to you?

silverharp

Brian? wrote: »

What did Tony Robins ever do to you?

Nothing , he comes across a little too much like a tele-evangelist but ill accept that as a personal bias where ive no interest in changing my initial impression of him , but in terms of this discussion Robbins has been doing his thing since he was 18 , everything about what he does is pure salesman. Peterson on the other hand has come at this from being a clinician and academic, it gives him more authenticity.

20Cent

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The bold bit is not accurate.
He is a proponent of free speech alright.
The pronouns issue is simply that a law was being passed forcing people to use certain words in certain circumstances.

He's opposed to such a law.

Let's imagine a similar situation here, where the law would enforce that any person who thinks they deserve it on grounds of say, education, should be called "your highness". This is law.
You now have to call your teachers, your doctors, anyone who claims they prefer it "your highness".

Never happened nothing about pronouns in that law. Peterson made the whole thing up. Canadian lawyers also say he is wrong. His whole career started with a spoof and is still going.

7aubzxk43m2sni

20Cent wrote: »

Never happened nothing about pronouns in that law. Peterson made the whole thing up. Canadian lawyers also say he is wrong. His whole career started with a spoof and is still going.

Source? You're so full of sh1t

Zubeneschamali

Here is an article explaining that Peterson is wrong on the pronouns bill.

Quote: Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.

The thing is – he is wrong.

Have a read - the bill does not mandate that anyone uses trans-friendly pronouns. It bans discrimination, hate crimes and genocide against people based on the pronouns ("gender identity and expression") they use, to join the people protected on the grounds of ethnicity, religion etc.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here is an article explaining that Peterson is wrong on the pronouns bill.

Quote: Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.

The thing is – he is wrong.

Have a read - the bill does not mandate that anyone uses trans-friendly pronouns. It bans discrimination, hate crimes and genocide against people based on the pronouns ("gender identity and expression") they use, to join the people protected on the grounds of ethnicity, religion etc.

From the link:

Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a person’s self identified pronoun. The Ontario Human Rights Commission, for example, in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression states that gender harassment should include “ Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun”. In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them.

Ah ok, so you just lose your job.

What do you think happens if you don't pay a fine?

20Cent

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

Source? You're so full of sh1t

The Bill was passed two years ago.
Anyone been arrested for calling a trans person the wrong pronoun yet?

Here's the bill http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent search pronoun 0 results.

Canadian Bar Association supported the Bill https://www.cba.org/News-Media/News/2017/May/CBA-position-on-Bill-C-16

Experts say Petersons interpretation of is is full of s**t.

RandomName2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here is an article explaining that Peterson is wrong on the pronouns bill.

Quote: Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.

The thing is – he is wrong.

Have a read - the bill does not mandate that anyone uses trans-friendly pronouns. It bans discrimination, hate crimes and genocide against people based on the pronouns ("gender identity and expression") they use, to join the people protected on the grounds of ethnicity, religion etc.

Here's a more thorough assessment

https://litigationguy.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/bill-c-16-whats-the-big-deal/

20Cent wrote: »

The Bill was passed two years ago.
Anyone been arrested for calling a trans person the wrong pronoun yet?

When was the last time someone was prosecuted for homosexuality in India? Doesn't mean it it wasn't illegal until a couple of weeks ago.

How many people in Ireland have been prosecuted for breaking the abortion law? Northern Ireland is having its very first case ever in relation to the morning after pill.

That argument is a bit silly when the entire argument is about the chilling effect.

20Cent

RandomName2 wrote: »

When was the last time someone was prosecuted for homosexuality in India? Doesn't mean it it wasn't illegal until a couple of weeks ago.

How many people in Ireland have been prosecuted for breaking the abortion law? Northern Ireland is having its very first case ever in relation to the morning after pill.

That argument is a bit silly when the entire argument is about the chilling effect.

Bit silly arguing about a law that doesn't exist.

markodaly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Here is an article explaining that Peterson is wrong on the pronouns bill.

Quote: Psychology Professor Jordan Peterson has made headlines the last two weeks, claiming that the Bill before the federal House of Commons is an unprecedented attack on free speech. He has claimed that the new law will criminalize the failure to use individual’s preferred pronouns. In a rally at the University of Toronto last week, he went so far as to say that the bill is the most serious infringement of freedom of speech ever in Canada.

The thing is – he is wrong.

Have a read - the bill does not mandate that anyone uses trans-friendly pronouns. It bans discrimination, hate crimes and genocide against people based on the pronouns ("gender identity and expression") they use, to join the people protected on the grounds of ethnicity, religion etc.

Written by Brenda Cossman for the Mark S. Bonham Centre of Sexual Diversity Studies.
Yeap a very objective author there alright.

This is the same author who showed up on a panel debating Peterson himself on the issue, so yea, not surprising they she takes the opposite view.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

The Bill was passed two years ago.
Anyone been arrested for calling a trans person the wrong pronoun yet?

Ireland has a Blasphemy law on the Statue books, which we are voting on removing from the Constitution next month, despite the fact that no one has ever been prosecuted for it.

By your logic, we should leave it as is, as no one has been affected by it.

markodaly

On a side note, I am bewildered that this thread has carried on so long. I see it is the same 4-5 posters week after week debating the same tired old arguments. Obsession is not just an aftershave it seems.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

leaving aside from the fact most of his material is free, if your mother or father could tell them the same stuff then obviously they aren't or he wouldn't have an audience. As a father to a middle class white boy of indeterminate political views , I'd much rather Peterson over some unhappy leftist feminist explaining to him that he has the toxic masculinity and that everything about being male is wrong.

I remember asking you before whether you’d actually read or watched Peterson’s material and you said you hadn’t. You saw your son watching some Peterson videos on YouTube.

Maybe you’ve been studying up or maybe you’re on board the hype train.

He says things you’d lie to hear though like the anti-left, anti activism, and anti feminist if asked. So I imagine you’d I joy that message.

But if you’re not teaching your son to stand up straight, tidy his room and take responsibility, then why would you prefer to sublet that parenting to Peterson rather than teach him those things yourself?

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Ireland has a Blasphemy law on the Statue books, which we are voting on removing from the Constitution next month, despite the fact that no one has ever been prosecuted for it.

By your logic, we should leave it as is, as no one has been affected by it.

My argument is that the law doesn't exist not that it is being ignored or not enforced.