Jordan Peterson interview on C4

silverharp · 02-08-2018 11:50AM

20Cent wrote: »

....a claim that a meat only diet cured his depression and his daughters arthritis.

Proof he isn't rational or scientific.

whats wrong with that? Ive come across plenty of examples of people recovering from chronic or inflammatory conditions by generally cutting out grains and processed food.

TomSweeney · 02-08-2018 11:51AM

20Cent wrote: »

This week Peterson shared a climate change denial video and a claim that a meat only diet cured his depression and his daughters arthritis.

Proof he isn't rational or scientific.

Yeah and I would disagree with him on that, but people have a mix of opinions , I agree with some things others not.
I even agree with some stuff Chomsky says!!
So because he's off the mark on climate change he's totally wrong on the gender issues ?
We should accept there is 59+ genders, so we should be compelled to use xe/xir/xen/xsh ... etc...

Jimdagym · 02-08-2018 11:54AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you have a link to these?

He was on Joe Rogan two weeks ago talking about his carnivore diet helping him and his daughter.
He did stress multiple times that he is only stating that it worked for them and was not recommending it to anyone / is not an expert.

kubjones · 02-08-2018 11:55AM

20Cent wrote: »

This week Peterson shared a climate change denial video and a claim that a meat only diet cured his depression and his daughters arthritis.

Proof he isn't rational or scientific.

Haven't seen the climate change denial video thing, but he's right about the diet.

Diet can have an absolutely massive effect on a person's psyche. There are several studies to suggest that the food we consume has both direct and indirect affects to the way our brain operates.

There was a radiolabs podcast that actually went into it in detail. Was very helpful.

There have been several studies done on how sugar affects us. A few sources on psychologytoday about it if you're interested.

02-08-2018 12:00PM

silverharp wrote: »

whats wrong with that? Ive come across plenty of examples of people recovering from chronic or inflammatory conditions by generally cutting out grains and processed food.

But feminism is the cure - blindbag boathead told me

silverharp · 02-08-2018 12:13PM

Titan Wailing Backward wrote: »

But feminism is the cure - blindbag boathead told me

indeed meat is very patriarchal and the product of toxic masculinity , there are actually feminist "papers" on this I sht you not

Hande hoche! · 02-08-2018 12:27PM

20Cent wrote: »

This week Peterson shared a climate change denial video and a claim that a meat only diet cured his depression and his daughters arthritis.

Proof he isn't rational or scientific.

In fairness a meat heavy diet can have positive effects on certain autoimmune conditions. As can other diets (AIP or specific carbohydrate).

Akrasia · 02-08-2018 12:40PM

Jimdagym wrote: »

He was on Joe Rogan two weeks ago talking about his carnivore diet helping him and his daughter.
He did stress multiple times that he is only stating that it worked for them and was not recommending it to anyone / is not an expert.

Yeah I heard that. Joe asked him to send his blood work results on so he can check if they're improving. Haven't heard anything since

I want to know what climate change skeptic videos he was sharing?
Whatever about unproven diets, climate change denial is something there is no real excuse for if you claim to be an intellectual

20Cent · 02-08-2018 01:31PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah I heard that. Joe asked him to send his blood work results on so he can check if they're improving. Haven't heard anything since

I want to know what climate change skeptic videos he was sharing?
Whatever about unproven diets, climate change denial is something there is no real excuse for if you claim to be an intellectual

The meat only claim is from the joe Rogan podcast. His daughter has set up a patrion for diet advice 90 dollars to be told to only eat meat.

Climate change video is from a retired MIT prof whose colleagues disagree with.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?s=19

02-08-2018 02:08PM

20Cent wrote: »

The meat only claim is from the joe Rogan podcast. His daughter has set up a patrion for diet advice 90 dollars to be told to only eat meat.

Climate change video is from a retired MIT prof whose colleagues disagree with.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?s=19

I can imagine Peterson being accused of being a climate change denier and him responding, "... but I didn't say that".

No he didn't say that but it's heavily implied. Sometimes I feel like he's a troll with his language.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 02-08-2018 02:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I can imagine Peterson being accused of being a climate change denier and him responding, "... but I didn't say that".

No he didn't say that but it's heavily implied. Sometimes I feel like he's a troll with his language.

He's precise in his speech, and it frustrates you that you can't pin his alleged bigotry/racism/right-winger tag on him.

What's heavily implied by the video?

Taytoland · 02-08-2018 02:27PM

Shout bigot or racist if you simply can't understand the psychological arguments (many can't). I have never heard him ever say something which is just racist. It's pure reason and argument based on his field of psychology which is what he mostly talks about.

kubjones · 02-08-2018 02:52PM

Taytoland wrote: »

Shout bigot or racist if you simply can't understand the psychological arguments (many can't). I have never heard him ever say something which is just racist. It's pure reason and argument based on his field of psychology which is what he mostly talks about.

He never has while being recorded anyway.

To say a man with such a reasonable position is racist or sexist boggles the mind.

02-08-2018 03:16PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

He's precise in his speech, and it frustrates you that you can't pin his alleged bigotry/racism/right-winger tag on him.

... I didn't say that.

What's heavily implied by the video?

Sharing that video implies that he's a climate change denier

Akrasia · 02-08-2018 03:30PM

20Cent wrote: »

The meat only claim is from the joe Rogan podcast. His daughter has set up a patrion for diet advice 90 dollars to be told to only eat meat.

Climate change video is from a retired MIT prof whose colleagues disagree with.

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1024870660022124544?s=19

PragerU
Dear god it's worse than I thought it would be.

Richard Lindzen is very far from a mainstream climate scientist. And his video that Peterson linked to is little more than propaganda.
Firstly He totally muddies the water by breaking scientists in the field into two groups, group 1, those who accept the consensus, and group 2, the scientists who think it's not a serious problem

This is misleading in lots of ways.
1. Group 1 outnumbers group 2 by 97 to 3
2. Group 2 includes lots of sub groups many of whom completely disagree with each other on key reasons why they don't accept the consensus of group 1.

It should really be
Group 1. Scientists that accept the IPCC consensus (97%)

The rest of the 3% is divided amongst
Group 2, 'Scientists' who think the best estimate of climate sensitivity is way too high
Group 3, 'Scientists' who think the real cause of climate change is related to the solar cycle or cosmic rays
Group 4, 'Scientists' who think the global average temperature hasn't been increasing because the records and measurements can't be trusted
Group 5, 'Scientists' who think natural cycles are the cause of the current warming
Group 6, 'Scientists' who think we're actually heading for an ice age
Group 7, 'Scientists' who think the planet is warming, but we should embrace it as it will be good for us
Group 8, 'Scientists' who don't accept any of the science because they think it's compromised by some kind of global conspiracy and skeptics are being silenced
(the reason why i have scientists in inverted commas here, is because many of these published contrarian papers are authored by people who are not climate scientists or who work primarily with 'think tanks' funded by industry lobby groups)

So lets have this debate that Lindzen wants. But not first between his group 1 and group 2. First lets get groups 2 - 8 to debate their positions and agree on why group 1 is wrong. When they've sorted this out and the 97% of scientists have a coherent opposing position, then we can talk. (that should be entertaining, those people would never agree on anything positive, only on their disagreement with the 97%

As for Lindzen's assertion that the debate about the veracity of Anthropogenic cimate change has been hijacked by media and environmentalists, that is only because the scientific debate has moved on, and the vast majority of scientists don't debate this anymore. The debate is now on what the impacts will be, and how we should mitigate and adapt.

Working scientists don't debate if climate change is real, or if evolution is real. Those debates are now held in the media and on message boards between people defending the science, and cranks and contrarians who insist they know more than the combined knowledge of the global scientific community.

Akrasia · 02-08-2018 03:34PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

He's precise in his speech, and it frustrates you that you can't pin his alleged bigotry/racism/right-winger tag on him.

What's heavily implied by the video?

That there is still an active scientific debate about climate change,that climate change isn't dangerous, everyone who says it is is an 'alarmist' and that the 'environmental activists' and the media and greedy politicians have 'hijacked' the discourse to make it look like climate change is worse than it is.

He's blowing a dog whistle to climate change deniers to say it's ok to deny climate change, and that it's only those (insert group they hate here) who are faking the data for their own ends.

That Lindzen video was horribly misleading. He made it look like scientists aren't alarmed by the evidence they have been uncovering and the potential for danger if climate change isn't addressed.
If you pick any prominent climate scientist amongst the 97% and go and watch them give a public lecture (many of them are on youtube) you'll see a universal concern amongst those who know the most about how dangerous this problem is

kubjones · 02-08-2018 03:44PM

Akrasia wrote: »

PragerU
Dear god it's worse than I thought it would be.

Richard Lindzen is very far from a mainstream climate scientist. And his video that Peterson linked to is little more than propaganda.
Firstly He totally muddies the water by breaking scientists in the field into two groups, group 1, those who accept the consensus, and group 2, the scientists who think it's not a serious problem

This is misleading in lots of ways.
1. Group 1 outnumbers group 2 by 97 to 3
2. Group 2 includes lots of sub groups many of whom completely disagree with each other on key reasons why they don't accept the consensus of group 1.

It should really be
Group 1. Scientists that accept the IPCC consensus (97%)

The rest of the 3% is divided amongst
Group 2, 'Scientists' who think the best estimate of climate sensitivity is way too high
Group 3, 'Scientists' who think the real cause of climate change is related to the solar cycle or cosmic rays
Group 4, 'Scientists' who think the global average temperature hasn't been increasing because the records and measurements can't be trusted
Group 5, 'Scientists' who think natural cycles are the cause of the current warming
Group 6, 'Scientists' who think we're actually heading for an ice age
Group 7, 'Scientists' who think the planet is warming, but we should embrace it as it will be good for us
Group 8, 'Scientists' who don't accept any of the science because they think it's compromised by some kind of global conspiracy and skeptics are being silenced
(the reason why i have scientists in inverted commas here, is because many of these published contrarian papers are authored by people who are not climate scientists or who work primarily with 'think tanks' funded by industry lobby groups)

So lets have this debate that Lindzen wants. But not first between his group 1 and group 2. First lets get groups 2 - 8 to debate their positions and agree on why group 1 is wrong. When they've sorted this out and the 97% of scientists have a coherent opposing position, then we can talk. (that should be entertaining, those people would never agree on anything positive, only on their disagreement with the 97%

As for Lindzen's assertion that the debate about the veracity of Anthropogenic cimate change has been hijacked by media and environmentalists, that is only because the scientific debate has moved on, and the vast majority of scientists don't debate this anymore. The debate is now on what the impacts will be, and how we should mitigate and adapt.

Working scientists don't debate if climate change is real, or if evolution is real. Those debates are now held in the media and on message boards between people defending the science, and cranks and contrarians who insist they know more than the combined knowledge of the global scientific community.

Can I get some sauce on all of this?

Wherever you got these stats sounds like an interesting read.

Brian? · 02-08-2018 04:05PM

kubjones wrote: »

Can I get some sauce on all of this?

Wherever you got these stats sounds like an interesting read.

Curry sauce?

kunst nugget · 02-08-2018 04:10PM

kubjones wrote: »

Can I get some sauce on all of this?

Wherever you got these stats sounds like an interesting read.

More information in relation to the video

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/dick-lindzen-prager-u-and-the-art-of-lying-well/

Taytoland · 02-08-2018 05:19PM

kubjones wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Shout bigot or racist if you simply can't understand the psychological arguments (many can't). I have never heard him ever say something which is just racist. It's pure reason and argument based on his field of psychology which is what he mostly talks about.

He never has while being recorded anyway.

To say a man with such a reasonable position is racist or sexist boggles the mind.

It's just bizarre. If people can't actually understand the arguments they shouldn't comment.

DickSwiveller Returns · 02-08-2018 06:37PM

Akrasia wrote: »

PragerU
Dear god it's worse than I thought it would be.

Richard Lindzen is very far from a mainstream climate scientist.

Wasn't he a professor at MIT??

Akrasia · 02-08-2018 10:35PM

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

PragerU
Dear god it's worse than I thought it would be.

Richard Lindzen is very far from a mainstream climate scientist.

Wasn't he a professor at MIT??

Yes he was, but his position on climate change has long diverged from mainstream climate science and he has been a contrarian on this subject for more than 20 years.

He asked interesting questions of the science but he never backed up his questions with answers of his own. His own theories about the 'iris effect' have not passed the test of time but he still refuses to accept that he may have been wrong.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/infrared-iris-effect-negative-feedback.htm

(He is also very handsomely paid to not admit he was wrong and every now and then one of the other climate contrarians publishes something that allows the denial blogosphere to say he has been vindicated, but mainstream climate science has largely abandoned his theory for lack of theoretical plausibility and evidence that it exists)

Brian? · 02-08-2018 11:25PM

Parker Fat Ladyfinger wrote: »

He's precise in his speech, and it frustrates you that you can't pin his alleged bigotry/racism/right-winger tag on him.

What's heavily implied by the video?

Peterson isn’t precise in his speech at all. He rambles quite a lot. I’m not saying this is good or bad, it just is.

Sharing a video implies one agrees with said video, without the lack of a comment to the contrary. Wouldn’t you agree?

kubjones · 03-08-2018 09:06AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

More information in relation to the video

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/dick-lindzen-prager-u-and-the-art-of-lying-well/

Thank you for this.

You put me down a bit of a rabbit hole on this Dick Lindzen fellow (I couldn't fathom how anyone could deny human's impact on climate change) and it seems more like his argument isn't denying humans have had an impact, but more so the fact that he doesn't believe our impact will have as much of an impact on a cycle of warming and cooling that has been happening for thousands of years.

I'm no climatologist, so this is completely out of my comfort zone, but anyone here with a background in anything to do with this that could give me a bit more insight?

He argued his case well about cyclical changes in climate and I'm finding it hard to disagree with him.

Genuinely interested in knowing more, find the debate fascinating.

kunst nugget · 03-08-2018 10:12AM

kubjones wrote: »

Thank you for this.

You put me down a bit of a rabbit hole on this Dick Lindzen fellow (I couldn't fathom how anyone could deny human's impact on climate change) and it seems more like his argument isn't denying humans have had an impact, but more so the fact that he doesn't believe our impact will have as much of an impact on a cycle of warming and cooling that has been happening for thousands of years.

I'm no climatologist, so this is completely out of my comfort zone, but anyone here with a background in anything to do with this that could give me a bit more insight?

He argued his case well about cyclical changes in climate and I'm finding it hard to disagree with him.

Genuinely interested in knowing more, find the debate fascinating.

I think the problem with someone like Lindzen is that he can put across a simple hypothesis about climate change that is easily digestible when the subject is anything but and then when anyone speaks out against it or tries to correct it, he says they are part of the establishment who are going along with the consensus purely to profit from it and so can't be trusted.

It's the 'we've had enough of experts' style of debate that was so effectively used in Brexit. The experts give a range of opinions that posited several different outcomes that could possibly happen but could not be confirmed as being exactly what would happen. They were dismissed out of hand as project fear and complex problems and possibilities were replaced with the simple message of regaining their sovereignty.

This is an article I read several years ago and it's stuck with me ever since. It's dealing mainly with the world of economics and business but the basic premise behind it I think applies to all areas of the sciences and government policy. We should be careful about simple solutions to complex problems.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/07/11/we-should-be-careful-about-simple-solutions-to-complex-problems/#1bf121722a22

Humans, whether ancient or modern, have an unfortunate tendency to confuse causes and effects. Go to Silicon Valley, meet a few software billionaires and it's easy to assume that everybody who is a billionaire is in the software business. Spend time in Russia and it becomes natural to think that anyone with money is corrupt.

A particularly interesting historical example are the cargo cults that emerged in the South Pacific after World War II. Many indigenous people saw soldiers build airstrips and soon after saw cargo planes appear. After the soldiers left, they built their own improvised air fields in the hopes that valuable cargo drop would from the sky for them too.

Logicians call these types fallacies affirming the consequent and they are devilishly hard to root out because they arise from genuine observations. Both software and corruption can result in wealth. Cargo really did appear at military airfields. But just because events coincide, doesn’t mean that they are inextricably linked.

Yet when business analysts look at data, they too often mistake correlation for causality. Just as it’s easy to assume that all billionaires made their money in high tech and all Russians are corrupt, they disregard the data that they can’t see. So, just like primitive tribes, they create myths based on incomplete data.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-08-2018 10:47AM

To be fair, Peterson stirring the pot on climate change should be one of the clear examples of how he’s just a character playing to his base.

He has absolutely no expertise in climate science but guess who he sided with. The same people he sides with on every topic. He’s creating content for his base. There’s nothing wrong with that as such. It would however be wrong to give his climate change opinion any more weight than that of a Fox News host. It’s his job to say things his audience will like

Who knows if he even believes it?

20Cent · 03-08-2018 11:05AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, Peterson stirring the pot on climate change should be one of the clear examples of how he’s just a character playing to his base.

He has absolutely no expertise in climate science but guess who he sided with. The same people he sides with on every topic. He’s creating content for his base. There’s nothing wrong with that as such. It would however be wrong to give his climate change opinion any more weight than that of a Fox News host. It’s his job to say things his audience will like

Who knows if he even believes it?

Also the way he worded the tweet. Anticapitalist environmentalists will hate this. Destroying the planet to own the libs.

El_Duderino 09 · 03-08-2018 11:18AM

20Cent wrote: »

Also the way he worded the tweet. Anticapitalist environmentalists will hate this. Destroying the planet to own the libs.

It’s simply throwing red meat to the base. They’d love that phrasing.

Plus he didn’t say he endorses it which is important too.

DickSwiveller Returns · 03-08-2018 11:22AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, Peterson stirring the pot on climate change should be one of the clear examples of how he’s just a character playing to his base.

He has absolutely no expertise in climate science but guess who he sided with. The same people he sides with on every topic. He’s creating content for his base. There’s nothing wrong with that as such. It would however be wrong to give his climate change opinion any more weight than that of a Fox News host. It’s his job to say things his audience will like

Who knows if he even believes it?

Most of the loudest voices who believe in the man made theory of climate change have no idea about climate science. What's your point?

ancapailldorcha · 03-08-2018 11:29AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair, Peterson stirring the pot on climate change should be one of the clear examples of how he’s just a character playing to his base.

He has absolutely no expertise in climate science but guess who he sided with. The same people he sides with on every topic. He’s creating content for his base. There’s nothing wrong with that as such. It would however be wrong to give his climate change opinion any more weight than that of a Fox News host. It’s his job to say things his audience will like

Who knows if he even believes it?

When I first started listening to him, I thought he was quite erudite and interesting. As time went on, I started seeing him side with the far right and Trump supporters on various issues for no apparent reason. Why does he even care about climate change? It's got nothing to do with his income or his popularity and he certainly is no expert on it.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments