nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Jordan Peterson

Fox_In_Socks

I've looked at a few of his lectures on youtube and what got me into watching him, were the "sort yourself out and clean your room!" snippets of self-help, that had been isolated from some of his lectures where he's diverted on a tangent and tells his audience how to deal with someone who needs structure in their lives to get them going again.

I like him and how articulate he is, how many of the ideas he has talked about, I would have found stupid in the past but compelling now. Like, the idea of the archetypes (which I dismissed as fanciful when I tried to read Jung), his rants about where nihilism and lack of meaning comes from (which I can relate to) and how intolerance of free speech could give rise to totalitarianism.

I'm not a philosophy student and I know little enough in any depth about it, but can anyone point out some of the bad points and shortcomings his ideas have?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Fathom

Reviewing 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (2018) by Peterson. First, his definitions of "Being" and "Chaos" were unclear. Second, his writing appears to rely heavily upon Jung and Freud. Third, he associates "chaos" with feminine perspectives and behavior. Fourth, Christian paternalism was associated with order opposing "chaos." Fifth, it falls into the self-help genre like his earlier Maps. Sixth, his writing probably appeals more to men than women.

nozzferrahhtoo

July 14th apparently Harris and Peterson will be coming to Dublin.

nozzferrahhtoo

I think I am not impressed by concerns over the loss of a higher power mainly because I recognize there was no reason to think we had it in the first place. It was all just us as individuals being us as individuals and projecting that onto an imaginary higher power. So couching discussion on it in terms of "loss" seems to be little more than a category error to me. We have lost nothing, but gained. Gained an understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. Gained an understanding of our propensity towards things like narrative and pathetic fallacy and hyper active agency detection and the intentional stance.

It just seems wrong to me therefore to speak of any of that in terms of loss and new burdens as nothing was lost and the burdens were always there. We have not "lost" anything. We have gained.

I also think there is a "higher power" we can appeal to, even if describing it in that term is not helpful. And that is things like human discourse, human relationships (on the small end of things like couples, up to the larger end of societies as a whole) and human interactions all of which have a "more than the sum of their parts" aspect that is our "higher power".

I was incomplete in my description of Harris' views on the moral continuum. At one end sure he imagines the worst of all possible universes, and argues that acknowledgement that any step away from that, big or small, admits instantly of a continuum. But he of course establishes the other end of that continuum too. The best of all possible universes that maximizes the most amount of well being for the most amount of agents. And the moment one admits of such a continuum is the moment morality becomes little more than a navigation problem where there is instantly right and wrong moves one can make on that continuum. And that is all the foundation one needs to build a moral foundation or framework.

I am unsure where you think our evolution comes into this specifically. You refer to it in general but without specifics. I know when he is not reaching the intellectual heights of name calling people "pricks" or "son of a bitch" and telling them he wants to "slap" them and how he has no respect for people who would never want to fight him.... or that he feels that with women the ability to fight them is "forbidden to me"............. or that feminists "unconsciously long for masculine dominance".............. Peterson does seem to claim that biology and evolution dictate gender roles and behavior. But I have not dug deeply on what he and/or you might mean by things like that.

I think science can not be ignored, and is in the center of the table, when discussing morality. And evolution is certainly included in that. But when it is referred to specifically I merely become justifiably cautious. Because all too often people appeal to evolution to suggest some moral or societal precept they hold to is somehow "objective" or "meant to be" because of some variable or other that evolution has produced. Gender Roles is only an example and I do not want to derail this thread into a gender debate...... but the difference should be recognized between allowing the evolution of things like gender to inform our debate.... which is a good thing......... and people who want to widen the separation between the genders to keep men and/or women in their place/role...... and appealing to "because evolution" as a retrospective justification for that..... which is not a good thing at all.

Certainly all evolution "wants" is the fecundity of it's genes. And any standard of morality based on the agendas of evolution would be an awful one. We should be aware of our evolutionary past when discussing morality, but we should be equally aware that we have, and hopefully continue to, shake off it's shackles and agendas while we do so.

Torakx

I think you are correct about interpretations.
I would probably be best fitted into the category of an agnostic atheist and I found much meaning in life while acknowledging it is most likely objectively meaningless overall.
What I mean and I believe Nietzsche too, is that society overall as a collective can be heavily effected by the loss of a higher power.
The burden of existence is dropped on the individual much more than when there was a God.
This is great, in that it's a call to responsibility to the individual. But maybe too dangerous for the collective without some kind of common ground.

This doesn't mean that many individuals will not be able to find meaning. Just that the "crowd" while transition from a higher power to self empowered, will often suffer the negative effects of nihilism in between.
I've went on this journey myself passing from extreme religious beliefs to self destructive nihilism, to philosophy.
But not all will study as I have to grow in this direction and this is where I still find some value in Jordan Peterson's views on religion for the masses.

There may be a bridge needed to reach Sam Harris's view or morality, for the average person.

On your final point.
I am still unsure about these ideas overall.
There is a lot to consider, in relation to our evolution with regards to morality and sentient thought.

That idea of thinking of the worst case scenario and morality being a running away from that is a good point.
I see this as our morality evolving and as the place we found our prime directives.
But where we are going might be just as important.

Peterson has a good way of motivating people.
He says that we should imagine the worst case scenario to motivate us to action away from it, as well as a best case scenario to motivate us towards a better life.
An analogy or this might be hell and heaven. Two motivators to living a "good" life.

How might this fit into our conversation with regards to religion, morality in general and Sam Harris's views on objective morals?

nozzferrahhtoo

Torakx wrote: »

With Atheism came the age of nihilism.

I think one can connect atheism and nihilism only through a pedantic application of the dictionary definitions of the two. When one actually explores both with any intellectual rigor however they quickly diverge and I have yet to find any atheists, despite my working with a great number of them for some time, who can be described as, or who self identify as, remotely nihilistic.

When one pulls out a dictionary, rather than a philosophy text, about nihilism and reads something like "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless" then one can certainly map some of that onto atheism with the help of linguistic pedantry. But I see no real utility of forcing the square peg into the round hole really.

Further it is not like atheism suddenly came along and then nihilism came along as a causal effect. Atheism has been around pretty much the whole time since the first time(s) there was something to be atheistic about. When one looks at old religious texts like the Bible and others they already speak of the unbeliever and the doubters. They were always there.

I think a better approach that trying to link the two, or say that one brought about the other, is to realize that aspects of both are caused by a third factor. And that factor is nothing more than the practice of not accepting claims on insufficient (or in the case of religious notions like the existence of a god, absolutely no) evidence. Nothing more. And atheism certainly does not preclude finding meaning in life, it just suggests we have failed to find any objective inherent meaning in it. But we very much find out own and it is no less valid for it's subjectivity.

Torakx wrote: »

Meaning a danger to the overall direction humanity might take without a moral map.

I do not see it as a danger, but a safety. A moral map based on a fantasy, divorced from reality, is much more dangerous than a direction taken based on actual evidence..... and the ability to change the map when new data comes in..... compared to religious structures which are resistant to change especially in cases where it might suggest their perfect god was actually wrong on some moral question.

The danger comes from thinking there IS a map, and this map is revealed to us from a higher power. The safety from that danger comes from realizing we are the map makers, and there is no perfect map but one we simply strive to improve incrementally every time we use it. Mapping our way through new territories, and then modifying that map every time we use it to go back over those territories. Just like real people made real maps in the time before mapping technologies and satellites.

Torakx wrote: »

I can also agree that it may be possible to use empirical data to create moral frameworks.

I do not think it is "may" but "must". What is morality if not the structure by which we evaluate the right and wrong of our actions? And what is science if not the methodology by which to understand what the result of actions will be, and why? If one is based on judging the result of our actions, and one is based on understanding the result of actions, then they by definition become inextricably linked.

Torakx wrote: »

However underneath those frameworks a prime moral directive would be required, which is what I believe Peterson means by moral truth.

And I think a structure similar, if not identical, to what Harris suggests is more than enough to provide that. His way of articulating this is to imagine the worst of all possible universes and simply recognize that every aspect of morality and why we have morality is based on us making moves away from that scenario. The moment you recognize this you start to see a continuum, and a direction we want to move on that continuum. And that is while not a complete, certainly a foundation structure upon which to build "prime moral frameworks". To steal Harris' phrase here, this makes morality more a navigation problem than anything else. But while there is 1000 routes to 1000 pretty equal destinations, we still recognize we want to travel west not east overall.

[Deleted User]

As stated earlier, methinks Peterson seems to appeal more to men than women, and is more in the self-help genre than a modern or postmodern philosopher per se. If men find him helpful, grand. Scientifically, his old Maps book is very dated (e.g., left-right brain metaphor, etc.) from a cognitive science standpoint, and caution should be used when reading Maps accordingly.

I do consider him fair game from a debating standpoint when his videos or interviews drift off into recent gender-based comments, as some of his gender points appear very pre-1960's paternalistic from cultural and sociological viewpoints; i.e., his stated differences between men and women may better fit the "Ozzie and Harriet Age" than today.

Torakx

If you mean me, I didn't get through 4 hours so quickly

I've been binge watching/listening to these kinds of podcasts and lectures for a few years now.
I found Sam Harris through the Joe Rogan podcast.
Must be getting old, I can't seem to watch tv or films anymore.

Despite reading a lot of Nietzsche, the moral truth part didn't really sink in for me until JP spoke about in depth with Sam Harris. Then the overall picture clicked for me, bringing me back to Nietzsche's "God is dead, and we have killed him. What have we done..." Zarathustra speech.

Peterson is elaborating on Nietzsche's point about morality and the moral framework that has been holding up humanity for a very long time.
With Atheism came the age of nihilism.
Meaning a danger to the overall direction humanity might take without a moral map.

I can also agree that it may be possible to use empirical data to create moral frameworks.
However underneath those frameworks a prime moral directive would be required, which is what I believe Peterson means by moral truth.
Programming ethical AI might be a good example of it's use.

For example, we should create such and such a moral rule for society, because we want humans to have a purposeful and fulfilling life.
The former is the empirical truth that would rely on facts, the latter the moral truth underpinning the ethical application of said rules.

For these reasons I tend to agree with Peterson that moral truth should come before empirical truth.

I'm reminded of all the fantasy books I read years ago.
Many times I read phrases like " it was a true shot, right to the heart of the beast.." etc etc
I don't think they meant an empirically correct shot.
I'm pretty sure they meant a "good" shot, as intended for the target.

We could say this is semantics, but I think it again highlights the ambiguity we sometimes have with language and meaning.
Peterson and Harris I see had a conflict in language and definitions.
You could say that Peterson is coming from a right hemisphere way of thinking and Harris from a left way of thinking.

It's like two sides of our brain communicating.
One sees the bigger picture and is grounded in reality, the other focuses on logical in the moment tasks with a more positive perspective.

I tend to agree with both sides, but see their arguments are applicable in different areas or at different times.
The synthesis of both is probably what is the "real" truth.
A combination of moral and empirical.
What would we call such a truth?
Synthetic truth?!
I'm claiming that phrase by the way!

It sounds perfect for the plastic robotic future we are heading in to!

nozzferrahhtoo

Since Sam Harris came up and not everyone is behind Sam's Paywall I will give some more info there if it is interesting to someone. First the two are set to do a live talk event together in the coming months. Not sure if this is one talk or many, but all of it is in the US so probably not interesting to many here unless he streams the audio like he sometimes does.

I am not writing this word for word, so much as testing my short term memory ability to listen to a few minutes of audio and then write it from memory so apologies if anyone else is also behind the paywall and finds small errors in what I write here. My memory is good, but not perfect, for that number of sentences:

Questioner. For the last year I have been listening to a lot of Peterson's material and am in the process of finishing his program "Past and future authoring". Even though there is something about his material that does not feel right that I can not articulate.

Harris. I have these events coming up with Jordan where I will hash this out. Generally I see how much value people are finding in what he is saying. It is not a mystery to me why that would be. He is giving a very standard Self Help Curriculum with more moral and political urgency. There is a quasi religious undertone to it. I see why that would land with so many people. But I also see that there is a fair amount wrong with it, not grounded in a careful intellectually honest analysis of what we have good reason to believe, and reject. I will save my specific arguments for when we meet. I think he has exposed a hunger for meaning and structure in the secular community that I sensed was there, but never really saw this clearly. It is not a surprise to me that that is there, but it is a surprise how many people are willing to imbibe precisely what he is delivering without issue, because this is a kind of religious communication in the end. But I do think 90% of what he is saying is interesting, worthwhile, but it is being vitiated by the other 10%. It would be nice to strip that 10% out and have a truly honest and interesting conversation about meaning and values and profundity and the sacred. And even the utility of thinking in terms of myths, that could potentially be useful. But I think we have to be honest about what we think is true while we do that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes I too would be in favor of a moral system based strongly in actual real data. Certainly better than one based in imagining things that do not seem to be there in order to ground them. As such I am not really recognizing this distinction between "empirical truth" and "moral truth". In fact I am not all that clear what a "moral truth" even is.

But I have seen people try to claim something is true, because it being true validated some moral intuition (like being against homosexuality or incest) that they hold but have no arguments for. And that kind of top down, rather than bottom up, approach to reality I think can be quite harmful.

Kudos on getting through the entire 4 hours quickly though (assuming you just watched it after the recommendation you received above, and had not heard them before) as it took me three days to get through EACH podcast when they first came out myself.

Torakx

That was a great interview.
Sam Harris is another person with great depth in analysis.
On the intellectual conflict of truth between them in the first podcast interview:

Sam Harris was coming from the perspective of empirical truth.
Jordan Peterson understood this perspective, but wanted to approach some topics from the perspective of moral truth.
It seems that the issue was that Sam was unable entertain the moral truth perspective even as a devils advocate, while Jordan was able to accept both.
However being unable to speak at all from a moral truth perspective, Jordan found himself butting heads over and over with Sam whenever truth became a principle player.

I think Sam Harris has not read much Nietzsche.
He seems to be highly focused on empiricism nearly at all costs.
Also I believe he is more in favour of creating moral systems from empirical data; while Jordan Peterson believes moral systems from empiricism are lacking a fundamental part, that being a higher power, mythology, the framework that founded religious thinking in evolutionary terms.

[Deleted User]

For anyone interested there is not one but two very long interviews with Peterson on the Sam Harris Podcast.

Unfortunately the first of the two has been decried as the worst ever podcast Harris has done - even by his most core fans. Basically the majority of the entire 2 hour discussion got bogged down in a single disagreement over what it means for something to be "true". And I have to say it really did strike me as Peterson mostly talking complete nonsense. That one is here dare you wish to invest the time in it. But it is also on you tube if you are the type to listen to interviewes at 1.5x or 2x speeds.

But the fans of both Harris and Peterson demanded that they try again and by popular demand they did. The result of that one is here. And as the blurb says they discussed "science, religion, archetypes, mythology, and the perennial problem of finding meaning in life" and a lot on how Peterson fights against "political correctness". He was - both times however - the most requested guest Sam Harris has ever had from his fans.

My advice is listen to the 2nd one 1st and only then decide if you want to invest the time in the original.

Torakx

I've read through all the comments and wanted to add some thoughts, as well as reply to some points made during the course of this thread.
At least the ones that stood out enough for me to remember as I type this post.

I've been following his youtube videos from the beginning and for a good few years I think now. Having watched all his lectures and maybe all his videos, I have built up a fairly good picture of who he is and where he is coming from.

First of all we should acknowledge that JP(Jordan Peterson) has been working on, thinking about and doing his research for at least 2 decades.
He recently became well known after speaking out against attacks on freedom of speech(which he states is fundamental for thinking among/between groups/individuals respectively).
These attacks on freedom of speech were tangled up with the transgender issue due to "SJW" activists infiltrating government and universities(HR departments and social studies), while using trans people as the catalyst or weapon to shut down free speech relating to evidence and empirical data being spoken about regarding gender and sexuality.
This is where the battle between biological and social construction arguments appear.

The transgender thing is not JP's issue at all. He was concerned with free speech. The transgender issues became a platform where this battle over free speech became prominent because of the media and said infiltration of universities by "SWJ" philosophies.

I believe his data is well researched and if he was to brandish all the studies he has either run or referenced, his conversations would have no time to even begin.
For this reason it is difficult for him to have a conversation with people who have not watched most of his lectures. They will not understand where he is coming from in many cases.

I don't think making generalizations is problematic when you have very little time to make your point in an interview or lecture for that matter.
The body of work he is drawing from is huge and inaccessible to the lay person or college student. Hence the generalizations, which are mostly used to make a point that has to be simplified enough to be understood at the level of principles.

Left and Right brain myths
I saw mention about left and right brain myths.
I've been arguing against the idea that left and right brain theory is myth for at least 10 years, often getting a really bad reception in the psychology section of this site

I think that sticking too closely to studies and ignoring logic or observation can lead us astray for far longer than is necessary.

Not to say that things are so black and white, but there is obviously a big difference between the functionality of the left and right hemisphere and how this can effect personality and perspectives on reality among individuals.
For me it is a huge area of psychology that has been neglected to the detriment of all.

I could write pages on this topic, and have some interesting theories the last year or two about autism and dyslexia that is appearing to hold water after some recent studies.
Again science is a little behind what I would call open minded common sense. Which could better be translated as "Left brain judgement is a little behind right brain observations".
That translation is also loaded with hints on how the two relate to the world and each other.

Easier though is to share some videos that would quickly bring everyone up to date with more modern science and theories of the left and right hemisphere.

Please watch if you are in any way interested in human thinking, behaviour, psychology, philosophy etc.

Jordan Peterson and Iain McGilchrist in conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea4mEnsTv6Q

This video covers the basics of McGilchrist's research on the left and right hemispheres, as well as another taste of Jordan Peterson's views and thinking when speaking to someone more on his level with regards to neuro psychology/science.

Iain McGilchrist - "The Master and His Emissary"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRMiHwT0H4M

This is a nice presentation that goes more indepth on the right and left brain relationship in humans and animals.

[Deleted User]

Playboy wrote: »

Do you have an issue with reading comprehension?

As to your other points all I have to say is LOL. How arrogant must you be

It's a shame that people lack true critical faculties these days

MOD: Attack the post, not the poster. This is a standard throughout the site. If you need further clarification regarding this mod reminder, PM me. Do not discuss it here in-thread.

Playboy

Black Swan wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

It would be difficult for me to comment without understanding that statement within the overall context of the larger point he is making.

Maps of Meaning PDF file online. I gave page numbers when quoting. If you wish to further examine the context.

Fathom wrote: »

Knocks out his science. What's left? Peterson's highly subjective interpretations of superstitious myths? Religion?

Peterson's hero discussions in Maps of Meaning (1999) add nothing new to Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949) or Myths to Live By (1972).

With alll due respect why dont you make a point and support it? After a number of posts I still dont understand what you are trying to say.

Re Joseph Campbell, I have just reread The Hero with a Thousand Faces and I'm bemused by your assertion. Of course Peterson is influenced heavily by Campbell and Jung but it is far from a rehash of their work.

Playboy

Fathom wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

re Fathom

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this interjection?

Simply that Peterson frequents discussions on gender issues today. Contrary to what you stated earlier Playboy: "Peterson (from the little I know) doesn't seem overly concerned with Gender differences." Today Peterson's positions on gender has drawn scholars and media to challenge him. Doubtful he would be as well known today without these challenges. Hence Google trending last week: Today's gender arguments. Not the old 1999 Maps of Meaning.

Playboy wrote: »

Ok now look at the date of the study you referenced and then look at the date Maps of Meaning was written. Some of the science may be out of date.

Scanning Maps of Meaning now. It's online. Unquestionably out-of-date. Years of advancing cognitive science renders Maps of Meaning scientifically meaningless.

Playboy wrote: »

I'm not saying everything in it is entirely correct (and he is prone to hypebole)

Throughout. Also rambles worse than Talcot Parsons. Run-on paragraphs.

Playboy wrote: »

even if everything he says isnt 100% supported by scientific evidence.

Knocks out his science. What's left? Peterson's highly subjective interpretations of superstitious myths? Religion?

Playboy wrote: »

I would point out that it is more of a philosophical work than a scientific work though.

Can you briefly summarize his philosophy?

Do you have an issue with reading comprehension? Before you try and 'win' it would be useful to listen to what is being said first. The comment I made re Gender Differences was directed at Black Swan and the context of it was contained within a previous post. I asked you to reread the post and I apologised for not being clear. I was discussing intellectual differences between the genders. Gender Identity is an entirely different topic of debate so I'm at a loss as to why you are interjecting to make that point. If you want to discuss Gender Identity then make a coherent point or start a new thread.

As to your other points all I have to say is LOL. How arrogant must you be to scan a work of that size and then just outright dismiss it? I'm sorry if Peterson doesn’t conform to your political bias so forgive me if I don’t put much faith in your ability to understand his work and make such a judgement. It's a shame that people lack true critical faculties these days due to their entrenched political views and their suspicion of anyone who diverts from the accepted narrative. Your extreme bias is pretty self evident from the way you are approaching the topic.

There is a good summary here if you care to read it
https://www.scribd.com/doc/276984986/Summary-and-Guide-to-Maps-of-Meaning-The-Architecture-of-Belief-by-Jordan-Peterson

It's not a scientific work; it's a philosophical/phenomenological work that draws on Neuropsychology and Evolutionary Psychology. Some of the science is out of date but that is no reason to dismiss the entire work. If we were to discard every work that contained some outdated science then we would be in a bit of a pickle epistemologically wouldn’t we?

[Deleted User]

Playboy wrote: »

It would be difficult for me to comment without understanding that statement within the overall context of the larger point he is making.

Maps of Meaning PDF file online. I gave page numbers when quoting. If you wish to further examine the context.

Fathom wrote: »

Knocks out his science. What's left? Peterson's highly subjective interpretations of superstitious myths? Religion?

Peterson's hero discussions in Maps of Meaning (1999) add nothing new to Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949) or Myths to Live By (1972).

Fathom

Playboy wrote: »

re Fathom I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this interjection?

Simply that Peterson frequents discussions on gender issues today. Contrary to what you stated earlier Playboy: "Peterson (from the little I know) doesn't seem overly concerned with Gender differences." Today Peterson's positions on gender has drawn scholars and media to challenge him. Doubtful he would be as well known today without these challenges. Hence Google trending last week: Today's gender arguments. Not the old 1999 Maps of Meaning.

Playboy wrote: »

Ok now look at the date of the study you referenced and then look at the date Maps of Meaning was written. Some of the science may be out of date.

Scanning Maps of Meaning now. It's online. Unquestionably out-of-date. Years of advancing cognitive science renders Maps of Meaning scientifically meaningless.

Playboy wrote: »

I'm not saying everything in it is entirely correct (and he is prone to hypebole)

Throughout. Also rambles worse than Talcot Parsons. Run-on paragraphs.

Playboy wrote: »

even if everything he says isnt 100% supported by scientific evidence.

Knocks out his science. What's left? Peterson's highly subjective interpretations of superstitious myths? Religion?

Playboy wrote: »

I would point out that it is more of a philosophical work than a scientific work though.

Can you briefly summarize his philosophy?

Playboy

Black Swan wrote: »

One of the videos listed by Fathom above showed Peterson asking for a show of hands by gender. He then noted that the vast majority of persons in his lecture audience were male. In reading almost 200 pages of Peterson's Maps of Meaning tonight, I found very little that would speak to, or benefit women. Perhaps that's why there were so few women in the audience? For example, on page 183 of his Maps of Meaning (ebook) Peterson affirmatively states, based upon his cherry picking from an assortment of myths, religion, psychiatry, and psychology (that selectively favour his world view in self-fulfilling fashion):

The properly structured patriarchal system fulfills the needs of the present, while “taking into account” those of the future

It would be difficult for me to comment without understanding that statement within the overall context of the larger point he is making. I'm sorry if you dont find much for women in the book, some thinkers just appeal to men more than women and vice versa, that doesnt mean they are sexist or misogynist (which is what the media is trying to potray him as). He definitely has some conservative views, plenty I dont agree with but I'm not going to dismiss him just because of that. He has a very interesting centrist position on many things at a time when the left/right debate is extremely polarised. I welcome that as a centrist myself who feels that views I agree with are being given very little air time these days. Everything seems to be drowned out by Alt-Right Tea Party loons or Far left Social Justice Warriors. It's not healthy for society imo.

Playboy

Black Swan wrote: »

Playboy wrote: »

re Black Swan's Post

I think you would be better served focusing on how this data influences his worldview or the point he is making. In order to do that maybe you should try his book Maps of Meaning

Jordan Peterson's (ebook) Maps of Meaning, bottom of page 37 states:

2.2. Neuropsychological Function: The Nature of the Mind

It is reasonable to regard the world, as forum for action, as a “place” – a place made up of the familiar, and the unfamiliar, in eternal juxtaposition. The brain is actually composed, in large part, of two subsystems, adapted for action in that place. The right hemisphere, broadly speaking, responds to novelty with caution, and rapid, global “hypothesis-formation. ”The left hemisphere, by contrast, tends to remain “in charge” when things – that is, explicitly categorized things – are unfolding according to plan. The right hemisphere draws rapid, global, valence-based “metaphorical” pictures of novel things; the left, with its greater capacity for detail, makes such pictures explicit and verbal.

The oversimplistic right and left hemisphere model of the brain as written by Jordan Peterson in the above quote is terribly misleading at best, and down right spurious at worst. See Christopher Wanjek, "Left Brain vs. Right: It's a Myth, Research Finds," Live Science, 3 September 2013.

Ok now look at the date of the study you referenced and then look at the date Maps of Meaning was written. Some of the science may be out of date. You do seem to be engaging in some sort of confirmation bias though? Are you reading that large book with the sole aim of proving yourself correct? Why dont you just enjoy it for what it is? I'm not saying everything in it is entirely correct (and he is prone to hypebole) but he is an interesting thinker even if everything he says isnt 100% supported by scientific evidence. I would point out that it is more of a philosophical work than a scientific work though.

Playboy

re Fathom

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with this interjection? Are you deliberately trying to muddy the waters? Look at the conversation I'm having with Black Swan and try and understand what I am saying. Peterson has a wide ranging set of views on many issues but he also has a core philosophy. The flatness of the IQ distribution between men and women is in no way at the centre of his philosophy and I pointed out to Black Swan that it was pretty pointless to focus on that when it has little to do with his philosophy. The prounouns debate or the gender pay gap are entirely different issues to what we are discussing. So apologies if I didnt restate exactly what I meant as I did in my first post but I do credit that people I'm speaking dont need me to repeat things.

[Deleted User]

One of the videos listed by Fathom above showed Peterson asking for a show of hands by gender. He then noted that the vast majority of persons in his lecture audience were male. In reading almost 200 pages of Peterson's Maps of Meaning tonight, I found very little that would speak to, or benefit women. Perhaps that's why there were so few women in the audience? For example, on page 183 of his Maps of Meaning (ebook) Peterson affirmatively states, based upon his cherry picking from an assortment of myths, religion, psychiatry, and psychology (that selectively favour his world view in self-fulfilling fashion):

The properly structured patriarchal system fulfills the needs of the present, while “taking into account” those of the future

[Deleted User]

Playboy wrote: »

re Black Swan's Post

I think you would be better served focusing on how this data influences his worldview or the point he is making. In order to do that maybe you should try his book Maps of Meaning

Jordan Peterson's (ebook) Maps of Meaning, bottom of page 37 states:

2.2. Neuropsychological Function: The Nature of the Mind

It is reasonable to regard the world, as forum for action, as a “place” – a place made up of the familiar, and the unfamiliar, in eternal juxtaposition. The brain is actually composed, in large part, of two subsystems, adapted for action in that place. The right hemisphere, broadly speaking, responds to novelty with caution, and rapid, global “hypothesis-formation. ”The left hemisphere, by contrast, tends to remain “in charge” when things – that is, explicitly categorized things – are unfolding according to plan. The right hemisphere draws rapid, global, valence-based “metaphorical” pictures of novel things; the left, with its greater capacity for detail, makes such pictures explicit and verbal.

The oversimplistic right and left hemisphere model of the brain as written by Jordan Peterson in the above quote is terribly misleading at best, and down right spurious at worst. See Christopher Wanjek, "Left Brain vs. Right: It's a Myth, Research Finds," Live Science, 3 September 2013.

Fathom

Playboy wrote: »

Peterson (from the little I know) doesn't seem overly concerned with Gender differences.

Playboy claims that Peterson is not "overly concerned with gender differences?" Just a few vids. There are many, many more not shown here. Peterson has been deeply involved in the gender debate going back years.

Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism
Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech
JB Peterson Debate on Bill C-16 19th Nov 2016 (launches with gender)
Gender Debate Gets HEATED When Apologist Accuses Jordan Peterson of Abuse
Heated debate on gender pronouns and free speech in Toronto
Jordan Peterson on why gender identity is not entirely subjective
Agenda Insight: Gender Forever
Jordan Peterson: "I'm not saying there are only 2 genders."
Gender Differences - Jordan Peterson Interviewed By Mark Steyn

Playboy

re Black Swan's Post

Apologies but I'm struggling to understand your point. You write a lot of text but you say very little. Maybe your affection for Derrida has influenced your communication style as him and Lacan were masters of that! Peterson (from the little I know) doesn't seem overly concerned with Gender differences. He acknowledges that differences between individuals are more significant than differences between groups but that doesn't mean we cant look at the differences between groups to analyse and understand trends (career choice by gender for instance). Yes he may be a little casual or careless at times but he is generally being interviewed on other topics with a limited amount of time available to have a discussion. I think you would be better served focusing on how this data influences his worldview or the point he is making. In order to do that maybe you should try his book Maps of Meaning or listen to some of his lectures. His views on James Damore and Bill C-16 are a divergence from the topics he seems to be really interested in.

Also I think Peterson has some very strong views on the Post Modernists and Derrida in particular. He would likely find it amusing to be the subject of a Derrida Lite deconstruction!

[Deleted User]

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

In my opinion, watching his lectures on YouTube are a way of introducing someone like me to philosophy and psychology. It’s a starting point and there is a lot about what he says that I would question (and therefore move closer to something that is truth)

Whatever draws you to examine these 2 disciplines is grand Fox. We can stumble along together.

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Contrast that with postmodernism where there is an infinite amount of ways to interpret something.

The only postmodernism that I am (somewhat) familiar with is Jacques Derrida's deconstruction, which is really not a philosophy, per se, but rather a method for the examination of various philosophical and theoretical positions.

Derrida had a faculty appointment at my university until his death in 2004, consequently we have a large archive of his works in library. Admittedly, Derrida is a hard read, but like you observed about postmodernism, Derrida does examine phenomena from a multivariate approach, which is consistent with his general criticism of dichotomies. Derrida frequently challenges either/or, nominal data level treatments, which often represent oversimplistic bivariate categorisations, with one given preferential treatment over the other in common practice, thereby distorting measurement and validity.

Unlike Peterson's popular and easy to understand approach, Derrida was very complex when deconstructing such things as dichotomies, etc., with such complexity sometimes discouraging many readers (If you are having trouble getting to sleep at night, just start reading the first chapter in Points).

dobman88

Not to be pedantic but his name isn't Jordan P Peterson. It's Jordan B Peterson.

B stands for Bernt.

Couldn't help myself when I saw the thread title. Carry on.

Fox_In_Socks

In my opinion, watching his lectures on YouTube are a way of introducing someone like me to philosophy and psychology. It’s a starting point and there is a lot about what he says that I would question (and therefore move closer to something that is truth)

Contrast that with postmodernism where there is an infinite amount of ways to interpret something. Therefore, you can’t move in any direction cause you didn’t start out anywhere. And there is nowhere to move to, as everything is equal to everything else. No values.

At least Peterson takes a position.

[Deleted User]

Playboy wrote: »

As far as I can glean from my modest review of his work, he does not address (in detail) the basis of his generalisations on this topic. I would point out that this is an aside though. Peterson does not seem to be overly concerned with the issue you seemed to focus on? Maybe that reveals an underlying bias you have, that from all of his available work you have zeroed in on intellectual differences between the sexes?

The video noted by Fathom above addressed gender differences by Peterson, as cited from his recent book by the interviewer; e.g., women not receiving equal pay at 9% average below males; only 7 women CEOs in the top 100 corporations; "barriers" for the advancement of women; etc. Peterson brought up gender differences in his book (and elsewhere in other Peterson videos I have seen), so to say discussing Peterson's positions on gender differences "reveals an underlying bias" is moot. Certainly Peterson has discussed other things, but his positions on gender have been quite provocative in past interviews or debates.

Playboy wrote: »

I would assume that as someone who is a practicing scientist he would understand that claims he makes on issues such as intellectual differences would be grounded in data.

To "assume" without question what Peterson says (based upon his interpretation of data) is not consistent with the scientific method; rather, it's an act of faith. Empirical results derived from the scientific method are to always be viewed with caution, which is a scientific protocol, when interpreting results "grounded in data." Furthermore, such empirical results only "suggest," and are held in merit so long as they continue to be supported by additional studies, and not challenged by significant contrary evidence. Peterson does not exhibit this "caution" when delivering his points, and needs to be called upon it.

Playboy wrote: »

More importantly what do you derive from the fact that he made a statement such as this, do you believe him to be a sexist

I do not find such labels (e.g., "sexist") very useful when reviewing the works of Peterson, or others in academic fields; rather, the Derridean deconstruction of his methods used, when examining the foundation for his arguments regarding gender (or any other concept) may be useful. Of course, my discussions contained within this thread have been Derridean-Lite, and caution should be used accordingly when reviewing my comments.

Playboy wrote: »

...point out that he is prone to generalisations?

To reiterate, Peterson frequently uses broad sweeping generalisations when making his points in several of the videos I've seen thus far, which are problematic indeed. For example, in the Fathom cited video above Peterson supported one of his points based upon an abnormal distribution curve, which, when called upon by the interviewer, he admitted that the distribution was somewhat "flat."

Playboy wrote: »

From what I have seen of the man he seems to be quite open minded and if evidence presented itself to contradict his statement then he would be open to changing his position.

The scientific method "suggests" such, and hopefully we all can be open to considering contrary evidence. ‎Henry David Thoreau made this point when critics challenged his integrity, after he had changed his mind (when confronted by a preponderance of contrary data).

Playboy

Black Swan wrote: »

Greaney wrote: »

People are quick to knock him at the moment because it's fashionable

Never reviewed Peterson's work until Fox_In_Socks opened this OP in Philosophy, so what's "fashionable" was moot in regards to my reply. Furthermore, I addressed Peterson from a scientific method standpoint, and not philosophical, and found him to be lacking accordingly.

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Well, from the lectures I’ve seen, he states that in terms of IQ, the genders are equal but the standard deviations of each is different. They average out in each case but there is a greater stretching of male intelligence. So a greater amount of below average intelligence/learning difficulties and then at the other end, more genius level types.

What do the typical IQ tests measure (e.g., WAIS; WISC; WPPSI; WJ; DAS; SB5; Otis-Lennon). If we treat the IQ test as an independent variable, and performance outcomes as dependent, what hypothesis has been most often suggested in the scholarly empirical literature? HR: The higher the IQ, the higher the future academic performance.

If this HR was both valid and reliable, should the empirical evidence suggest that if males score higher IQs than females, they should exceed female higher education enrollments and degrees; i.e., evidence higher academic performance?

In the United States there were about 20.4 million students enrolled in colleges and universities fall 2017. Females accounted for the majority with about 11.5 million (56.4%) compared to 8.9 million males (43.6%) per the National Center for Education Statistics. What does this suggest regarding "academic performance" by gender?

Bachelor degrees awarded may suggest yet another question regarding academic performance by gender historically. During the 1949-50 academic year 76.1% of college and university enrolled males earned a 4-year degree compared with only 23.9% of females enrolled per Statista.com. There was a dramatic shift by gender when comparing the 2016-17 academic year with 1949-50 graduations. In 2016-17 there were 57.15% females graduating with 4-year degrees compared with 42.85% males. Makes me wonder if there may or may not be some evidence suggesting "behavioural styles" of different time periods by gender in US history as opposed to intelligence by gender?

Does more recent history suggest a small be significant shift by gender in academic achievement by the number of doctorate degrees awarded in the US? During the 2004-2005 academic year males received 50.1% of doctors degrees compared with females receiving 49.9%, suggesting a somewhat equal balance between genders for this highest degree (i.e., academic achievement), per the National Center for Education Statistics. Yet when compared with the 2014-15 academic year females were awarded 52.4% of doctorates while males received 47.6%.

Obvious Otter wrote: »

It depends on how you ultimately define intellect.

How concept intelligence has been measured has been a major debate over past decades. Variable IQ may represent one independent measure, among a host of measures for dependent variable measures such as intelligent performance outcomes. Philosophically and methodologically (i.e. Deconstruction), Jacques Derrida cautioned us about oversimplifying natural phenomena. Methinks that relying only on IQ as the one independent measure exemplifies such oversimplifications in research and subsequent suggestions regarding gender differences.

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Men and women have slightly different brains but over a material and significant sample size you will tend to find that those differences are negligible

Hutt, C (1978) years ago in Biological bases of psychological sex differences, Am J Dis Child. 1978 Feb;132(2):170-7, suggested that sexual differentiation represented significant physiological and sensory-perceptual differences between males and females (i.e., nature; heredity), and these differences evolved over millions of years. She also suggested that these natural preexisting differences affected the salience of environmental factors for the two sexes (i.e., nurture), and that the observed "behavioral styles" were thus consequences of the transaction between environment and natural predispositions.

One additional question that emerges from this mention of behavioural styles was the exhibition of concept intelligence between sexes, and if style affected both the IQ definition and measurement, and may in turn confound both the validity and reliability of measurement?

Approaching 4AM Pacific I am uncertain what all this may mean, or if problematic intelligence definitions, or questionable IQ measurements, or changing gender enrollment and graduation statistics suggest anything, but I am a bit doubtful of Peterson's claim that "Men were higher in intellect" than women. Odds are I may have made a few logical errors when posting, but such errors failed to keep me from yawning (from over work and lack of sleep).

As far as I can glean from my modest review of his work, he does not address (in detail) the basis of his generalisations on this topic. I would point out that this is an aside though. Peterson does not seem to be overly concerned with the issue you seemed to focus on? Maybe that reveals an underlying bias you have, that from all of his available work you have zeroed in on intellectual differences between the sexes?

Peterson is very well cited clinical psychologist with a significant body of peer reviewed research. I would assume that as someone who is a practicing scientist he would understand that claims he makes on issues such as intellectual differences would be grounded in data. The fact that he has not had a debate on this very issue does not mean he is incorrect in his assessment. More importantly what do you derive from the fact that he made a statement such as this, do you believe him to be a sexist, incorrect or you just wanted to point out that he is prone to generalisations? From what I have seen of the man he seems to be quite open minded and if evidence presented itself to contradict his statement then he would be open to changing his position. It doesn't seem to me that this particular point has any bearing on his issue with Bill C-16. From what I can remember his issue with C-16 was with compelled speech and the introduction of a social constructionist view on gender into law

[Deleted User]

Manach wrote: »

I will buy his book as he does look to practice what he preaches.

Once you have read his book, perhaps you may wish to address some of the comments made in this thread, and elsewhere?