Jordan Peterson

cdgalwegian · 10-01-2020 3:51pm

To clarify the last words:
Jungianism is unscientific. He adapts it with a Christian twist.

10-01-2020 4:06pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Jungianism is unscientific. .

He says..In the philosophy forum..

cdgalwegian · 10-01-2020 4:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He says..In the philosophy forum..

Not a believer in context then, are you?
Besides, it has been questioned on this thread why Peterson is even in the philosophy section.

10-01-2020 4:11pm

He uses plenty of hard data as well,..

cdgalwegian · 10-01-2020 4:13pm

Which is what I had pointed out in several posts. Read my posts properly.

Black Swan · 10-01-2020 6:59pm

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Woof woof.

MOD: Please be advised that this is the Philosophy forum, and your two word comment offers no meaningful content to our discussion; and consequently, falls way below our standards. Further, such a comment in content and context appeared trollish. I would strongly recommend that you avoid such posting behavior in the future in this forum.

Now, back to our lively discussion. Apologies to our other members for this interruption.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 10-01-2020 7:14pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

As above, Chomsky deals in facts (which can be challenged). Peterson uses empirical studies, but incorporates them into his metaphysical narrative. The narrative he proposes- as the means to understanding and thereby living a better life - is superficially empirical; the underlying metaphysics is an adapted unscientific Jungianism.

You're making a good stab of trying to rationalize this, but I believe the reality has nothing to do with metaphysics, empiricism, or science.

The academic left embraces Chomsky because he says things they want to hear about US foreign policy, capitalism, and Israel.

The same academic left vilifies Peterson because he says things they don't want to hear about political correctness, identity politics, postmodernism, and various brands of neo-Marxist ideology — and, moreover, because he makes adherents of those dogmas look foolish.

Hence the backlash.

But ultimately, academia should be a space to debate and test different kinds of ideas. If Peterson has exposed one thing, it's that academia has become an uncomfortable echo chamber filled with people no longer used to having their beliefs questioned.

Fathom · 10-01-2020 10:25pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find nothing more discrediting or tedious nowadays than meaningless generalisations about some sort of mythical, homogeneous and tyrannical "left".

Plus, it's nominal, either/or categorization. The lowest, most imprecise measure in science. Subject to bias and confounding of individual differences. Too often lacking utility and exhibiting spuriousness. The bipolar left-right dimension also suffers from being a dichotomy, with all its Derridean limitations.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The most apt part might be the genuine nonsense that he's putting in young men's heads that they can cure mental illness by buying his daughter's miracle cure for depression.

Undermines Peterson's credibility of message.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

The same academic left vilifies Peterson because he says things they don't want to hear... But ultimately, academia should be a space to debate and test different kinds of ideas. If Peterson has exposed one thing, it's that academia has become an uncomfortable echo chamber filled with people no longer used to having their beliefs questioned.

I can't speak for all "academia." Only my university. The faculties and disciplines appear quite diverse in their expressions of ideas. Exhibiting differences within and between faculty, departments, and colleges. I get the impression that they aspire to John Henry Newman's "The Idea of a University." Capitalism is alive and well in our B-school. While the spirit of Jacques Derrida's post modern deconstruction haunts our philosophy department (Derrida had joint appointment until his 2004 death). Most of the science faculty I've taken classes from, and served on research teams with, don't bother or care about politics. We are too busy trying to discover something new. We are interested in the philosophy of science. Had a fun coffeehouse argument about applying Karl Popper's falsification to Darwin's theory of evolution last week.

Fathom · 10-01-2020 10:33pm

CQD wrote: »

He uses plenty of hard data as well,..

Can you specifically cite in Maps and 12 Rules where Peterson uses "plenty of hard data?" Include page numbers. So we can review them.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-01-2020 10:58am

Fathom wrote: »

Undermines Peterson's credibility of message.

You'd certainly think so. But you look at threads like this and see it hasn't even dented his credibility with some of his followers. As long as he keeps sticking if hi the man, it seems they're willing to overlook any kind of nonsense.

Reminds me of Peter Popoff the religious prophet and conman. He was the guy who James randi caught using an earpiece to get "divine" information which was actually coming from his wife, back in the 80s. He was caught rotten and you'd think that's the end of him. But his followers just ignored the information and he started up a new scam after new scam including selling holy water.

Bottom line is that most people would see selling a miracle cure all beef diet as exactly what it is - a scam. But his followers won't apply reason to this particular situation and are happy to ignore it and treat the next thing Peterson says with credulity.

jackboy · 11-01-2020 11:14am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Bottom line is that most people would see selling a miracle cure all beef diet as exactly what it is - a scam. But his followers won't apply reason to this particular situation and are happy to ignore it and treat the next thing Peterson says with credulity.

Does that mean that individuals are either always correct or always wrong. You could make a similar argument against most people’s opinions. Should all people who believe in god be completely written off?

El_Duderino 09 · 11-01-2020 11:24am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You really are a hack.. you're completely proving JPs points about dealing with the ideologically possessed correct..

And his followers completely ignoring his scam would also be a good demonstration of the same thing, right? Or does it only apply to people who don't fawn over whatever PJ says?

11-01-2020 11:29am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And his followers completely ignoring his scam would also be a good demonstration of the same thing, right? Or does it only apply to people who don't fawn over whatever PJ says?

No..it probably does apply to some of his followers too..but it definitely applies to you..

cdgalwegian · 11-01-2020 11:42am

Vera Salty Pointlessly,
You’re barking up the wrong tree here. I started a line of inquiry with you, looking for context, (briefly) –

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

The professor, who teaches sociology at the University of Calgary, stated that any he would fail any student who cited Peterson as a source, period.

You then went on, complaining about:

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

the vilification and ostracism that academics direct at Peterson.

My point had been that this vilification and ostracism has been mainly on social media, rather than on campus:

cdgalwegian wrote: »

A lot of what is happening here, in terms of academia, is the recognition by academics of Peterson using his academic bona fides to peddle his metaphysical stuff as part and parcel of a scientific analysis of how to live our lives.

The ‘storm in a teacup’ relates mainly to social media. Out in the analog world, and in terms of academia, my argument- directly above- still holds, regardless of the mini-maelstrom on social media (which Peterson courts, and which I have only a passing interest in).
So, when you say:

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

The academic left embraces Chomsky because he says things they want to hear about US foreign policy, capitalism, and Israel.

The same academic left vilifies Peterson because he says things they don't want to hear about political correctness, identity politics, postmodernism, and various brands of neo-Marxist ideology — and, moreover, because he makes adherents of those dogmas look foolish.

Hence the backlash.

, I'd agree with you (though would point out he deliberately misconstrues much of this to his own end- separate in the argument about the pseudo-scientific material he espouses).

Your defense of Peteron’s empiricism/metaphysics meshing petred out, after which you switched back to something I agreed with, but which was only tangentially related to the point I was making.

Here's a quick example of the point I just came across before posting, by Massimo Pigliucci, one of my favourite philosopher's:

"The Stoics were great logicians. They believed that one has to make careful arguments based on empirical evidence in order to arrive at the best judgment a human being can muster. And arriving at good judgments is the whole point of one of Epictetus’ three disciplines, the discipline of assent. Here too Peterson fails miserably. I mentioned above his reliance on mythology, which he takes from Jung. One interviewer finally asked him why people should believe in myth. Here is his response (longer transcript in the article by Robinson linked below):

Well, what are you going to take seriously, then? You’re going to take nothing seriously. Well, good luck with that, because serious things are coming your way. If you’re not prepared for them by an equal metaphysical seriousness, they will flatten you.

This is an egregious example of really, really bad reasoning. Peterson is committing not one, but two logical fallacies that I train my students to spot and avoid. First, the idea that if one does not take myths seriously then one does not take anything seriously is an obvious non sequitur; it simply does not follow. Second, the suggestion that serious things are coming (which serious things, by the way?) is a red herring, a distraction. Sure, “serious” things may be coming (e.g., financial collapse, environmental catastrophe, nuclear war?), but that has nothing at all to do with whether it is sensible for people to take myths seriously or not."
https://modernstoicism.com/nope-jordan-peterson-aint-no-stoic-by-massimo-pigliucci/

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 11-01-2020 11:43am

Fathom wrote: »

I can't speak for all "academia." Only my university. The faculties and disciplines appear quite diverse in their expressions of ideas. Exhibiting differences within and between faculty, departments, and colleges. I get the impression that they aspire to John Henry Newman's "The Idea of a University."

Without knowing what university this is, I can't comment specifically. That said, Newman's concept of a university as a intellectual community pursuing "the perfection or virtue of the intellect by the name of philosophy, philosophical knowledge, enlargement of mind, or illumination" would seem antiquated to many today.

Newman wrote that essay in 1852, when only the most elite members of society (the vast majority of them men) ever saw the inside of a university. Almost 170 years on, the role of the university has changed dramatically. Firstly, universities shifted their core purpose in the later 19th and 20th centuries, moving from imparting a traditional liberal education to becoming centers of research. Secondly, unprecedented numbers of young people go to university today, but many attend not because they seek "philosophical knowledge, enlargement of mind, or illumination," per Newman, but because they wish to acquire specific skills and qualifications that make them employable in a 21st century workplace. Many students today couldn't care less if they ever open a work of philosophy or literature en route to their degree (in fact, many in STEM fields openly sneer at "Arts students"). And thirdly, many university faculty since the 60s, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, have come to see the purpose of the university as social and cultural transformation. They have waged war on the "dead white male" thinkers who would have been staples of a liberal education in Newman's day in favor of identity politics based on race and gender.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 11-01-2020 12:12pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

My point had been that this vilification and ostracism has been mainly on social media, rather than on campus

I disagree. When Peterson has tried to speak on campuses, his appearances have often been met with hostile protests. Here's one of many examples:

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

In many cases, protesters have attempted to disrupt his lectures or otherwise prevent him from speaking. A teaching assistant was investigated and subjected to a lengthy inquisition for showing one of his videos in her class.

Your defense of Peteron’s empiricism/metaphysics meshing petred out, after which you switched back to something I agreed with, but which was only tangentially related to the point I was making.

I'm happy to defend Peterson's mode of inquiry — I am reading his book at the moment — but my larger point is that he isn't vilified over some abstract methodological debate about metaphysics and empiricism. The treatment of him has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with his criticisms of identity politics and neo-Marxist ideology.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-01-2020 2:01pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No..it probably does apply to some of his followers too..but it definitely applies to you..

Oh yeah not applies to any of his followers who can swallow him promoting his daughter's the beef diet scam without admitting it's a con trick. PJ presumes his fans won't even question it and... he's right. The evidence is clear to see in thread.

cdgalwegian · 11-01-2020 3:09pm

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I disagree. When Peterson has tried to speak on campuses, his appearances have often been met with hostile protests. Here's one of many examples:

In many cases, protesters have attempted to disrupt his lectures or otherwise prevent him from speaking. A teaching assistant was investigated and subjected to a lengthy inquisition for showing one of his videos in her class.

'On campus' was meant to convey 'in lecture halls, by lecturers and others in academia'. Specific cases of academia shutting down Peterson seem quite isolated.
So: The vilification against Peterson is mainly a social media thing, by 'SJWs' as Peterson calls them, and others. There is also many physical cases of them disrupting Peterson related events, almost entirely to do with identity politics etc, where Peterson has as much right as anyone else to stick his oar in.
My point, again, is this vilification (through social media) is rarely engaged with by academia proper. Instead, outside of social media i.e. in lecture halls and non social media platforms, academia rightly criticizes Peterson's use of pseudoscience.
So the criticism by academics that refutes Peterson's pseudoscience is separate from the SJW vilification of Peterson, but to say

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

he isn't vilified over some abstract methodological debate about metaphysics and empiricism. The treatment of him has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with his criticisms of identity politics and neo-Marxist ideology.

is plain wrong. Besides the social media stuff, there is no end to academics in many publications who excoriate Peterson's snake-oil salesman's admixture of metaphysical musings with empirical fact. That's my point in a nutshell.

Black Swan · 11-01-2020 8:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You really are a hack..

MOD: Argumentum ad hominem. Both here in Philosophy and throughout the site you should not attack the poster personally; rather debate the contents of what they say. It is strongly recommended that you do not do this again.

This continues to be a lively discussion, and it is hoped that it will continue.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 11-01-2020 9:07pm

You say:

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Specific cases of academia shutting down Peterson seem quite isolated.

But then:

There is also many physical cases of them disrupting Peterson related events, almost entirely to do with identity politics etc

You can't separate the students who are protesting Peterson from the professors who are creating the ideological environment in which the students believe that it's entirely legitimate to prevent an invited speaker from presenting ideas that run contrary to the received neo-Marxist ideology. Here's another example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsi61OtkE4

So the criticism by academics that refutes Peterson's pseudoscience is separate from the SJW vilification of Peterson

How many academics were refuting Peterson's so-called "pseudoscience" five or even ten years ago? His work was apparently good enough to get him promoted to full professor at the University of Toronto, which is no mean feat.

Only after Peterson began criticizing identity politics and neo-Marxist ideology did academics circle the wagons and began looking for ways to discredit him. Now, if his detractors are to be believed, the same work that got him promoted to full professor is actually shoddy pseudoscience that should be disregarded.

I suspect that if Peterson were out there lecturing about toxic masculinity and the oppression of women, he would be feted by the academic left, would be welcomed with open arms onto any campus in the developed world, and his books would be praised to the skies. That's how this particular game works.

cdgalwegian · 11-01-2020 11:00pm

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

You can't separate the students who are protesting Peterson from the professors who are creating the ideological environment in which the students believe that it's entirely legitimate to prevent an invited speaker from presenting ideas that run contrary to the received neo-Marxist ideology.

Yes, you can. The former are students who are protesting Peterson. The latter are not. The former are much freer to express themselves than lecturers etc who have professional guidelines and strictures.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

How many academics were refuting Peterson's so-called "pseudoscience" five or even ten years ago? His work was apparently good enough to get him promoted to full professor at the University of Toronto, which is no mean feat.

Only after Peterson began criticizing identity politics and neo-Marxist ideology did academics circle the wagons and began looking for ways to discredit him.

I'll take your word for it; it sounds about right. (Though why take potshots at a nobody? Makes sense to do so with the Big Kahunas, for kudos etc. Once he had gained notoriety, he had moved into the latter category).

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Now, if his detractors are to be believed, the same work that got him promoted to full professor is actually shoddy pseudoscience that should be disregarded.

Peterson's clinical work and published papers are well respected. I have no idea (nor probably do you) if his extra-academic work had any positive, negative or neutral impact on his appointment. I would guess positive, coz it is well thought out (though unprovable because of its metaphysical basis) but that's just a guess.
I wouldn't describe pseudoscience as 'shoddy'; by its nature, it just has (should have) no place in science; thoroughly misleading (hence potentially dangerous)? (science can be shoddy, because the methodology used could be rubbish.)
His academic work (empirical) and his non-academic work (his empirical and pseudoscience admixture) are quite separate. This should be obvious.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

I suspect that if Peterson were out there lecturing about toxic masculinity and the oppression of women, he would be feted by the academic left, would be welcomed with open arms onto any campus in the developed world, and his books would be praised to the skies. That's how this particular game works.

I'd agree with you about the political stuff, because that's the just the way it is. In relation to the books though, these are not political- they are to do with well-being etc. I'm not sure they actually care about that, except where it could be co-opted to aid their agendas i.e politicised. That's the way humans work. So I'd agree, with qualification, there.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 12-01-2020 1:17pm

cdgalwegian wrote: »

His academic work (empirical) and his non-academic work (his empirical and pseudoscience admixture) are quite separate. This should be obvious.

It is entirely obvious — but you've also been trying to evaluate his non-academic work by scientific standards in an effort to discredit him, which seems disingenuous.

Academics routinely write books for popular audiences that are different in tone and substance from their peer-reviewed academic papers. Peterson's self-help book 12 Rules strives to offer a general readership some insights into how to live a better life; it is clearly not an academic monograph. So attacking it for being "metaphysical" or "unscientific" is entirely missing the point of the project.

cdgalwegian · 12-01-2020 3:05pm

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

It is entirely obvious — but you've also been trying to evaluate his non-academic work by scientific standards in an effort to discredit him, which seems disingenuous.

Like I've alluded to before, you can't evaluate the pseudoscience part of his non-academic work by scientific standards, which is why other academics have tried to discredit him. If Peterson hadn't tried to fold his pseudoscience into his empirical work- to pass it off as empirical- he would have been left alone (with regard to this aspect that is).

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

Academics routinely write books for popular audiences that are different in tone and substance from their peer-reviewed academic papers. Peterson's self-help book 12 Rules strives to offer a general readership some insights into how to live a better life; it is clearly not an academic monograph.

Again, like I've said myself. Except, see above; the reason for the ire by academics though, is it is launched on an unsuspecting and non-expertise public.

Vera Salty Pointlessly wrote: »

So attacking it for being "metaphysical" or "unscientific" is entirely missing the point of the project.

Giving well-being advice based on empirical findings is a worthy project, but trying to make metaphysical conjecture as solidifying empirical findings, and vice versa, is pseudoscience. As well as being highly dubious (well, invalid), it is that which is being disingenuous.

Pat D. Almighty · 28-01-2020 1:44am

His bible lectures were good.... ish.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-01-2020 10:07am

Pat D. Almighty wrote: »

His bible lectures were good.... ish.

And do you claim to have understood them? Honestly?

He says some uninteresting things followed by much bigger claims backed up by complete word-salad. It sounded like a real stretch to backfill reasons for his belief in god.

It’s much easier to find him clever than to actually know what he’s on about.

Fathom · 29-01-2020 3:28am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He says some uninteresting things followed by much bigger claims backed up by complete word-salad. It sounded like a real stretch to backfill reasons for his belief in god.

Peterson "word-salad" describes Maps. Dated or pseudo science, mixed with Campbell myths, a dash of clinical psych that's case study ridden and cannot be generalized to a population, all covered with Bible dressing.

El_Duderino 09 · 29-01-2020 9:02am

Fathom wrote: »

Peterson "word-salad" describes Maps. Dated or pseudo science, mixed with Campbell myths, a dash of clinical psych that's case study ridden and cannot be generalized to a population, all covered with Bible dressing.

He takes some of the Bible stories and blows their significance way out of proportion. The one about the guy who dreamed about wrestling with God and changed his name to Israel (which apparently means 'one who wrestles with god). He found huge significance in the idea of dreaming about wrestling with God. I couldn't help thinking he'll burst if he ever reads Irish fairytales.

I also remember him answering the question 'do you believe a God exists?'' (responding would be more accurate because he did his best to talk for 20 mins without answering)

He went all around the houses and in the end he redefined the term 'believe' to mean something completely different from the way it's used in any other context. Sneaky, but his followers will tell you it was clever.

Then he redefined the whole question to whether he lives as if god exists which acknowledges he did understand the question asked in the first case but chose to not answer it.

I'm sure his followers will tell you that was clever too. I think he mostly offers a cloak of cleverness which you don't have to understand, you just say you think he's clever and by extension hope people think you're clever because you understand him. I'm pretty sure most people who support him don't have a clue what he's saying when he serves up word salad.

But the homely advice like 'stand up straight' and 'tidy your room' are still sound, even if unremarkable advice, even if he's actually famous for all the other nonsense.

Fathom · 30-01-2020 10:13pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He went all around the houses and in the end he redefined the term 'believe' to mean something completely different from the way it's used in any other context.

Allows Peterson to say that he was misunderstood. Which he frequently does.

30-01-2020 10:24pm

Some people seem intent on misunderstanding him..

ancapailldorcha · 30-01-2020 10:58pm

Fathom wrote: »

Allows Peterson to say that he was misunderstood. Which he frequently does.

Taken out of context is the big one.

Jordan Peterson

Comments