Jordan Peterson

Fox_In_Socks · 25-10-2017 3:24pm #1

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?

Black Swan · 26-10-2017 7:21am

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

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?

Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with the clinical psychology and philosophy of Jordan Peterson. Towards becoming a bit more familiar I recently watched the "Peterson Debate on Bill C-16 19th Nov 2016." I am assuming that this is the Peterson you wish to discuss in the video? If I am in error, please clarify.

Rather than discuss the contents of Bill C-16, let's focus on the content of Peterson's statements about gender. Peterson opened the debate claiming that there were deep, pronounced differences between genders in terms of intellect and creativity. Men were higher in intellect, and women were higher in esthetics, consequently men read more nonfiction and women read more fiction. He claimed that this gender divide was "natural," not as a social construction, but rather biological.

The profound intellectual gender difference claims made by Peterson appeared as givens, and not debatable. His claims were not stated consistent with the scientific method, where empirical results from the analysis of data "suggest," and are not "givens" or immutable truths. So long as data continues to support these suggestions, and not be refuted by contrary evidence, they continue to be held, but with caution.

I will have to read the recent scholarly literature and what empirical studies "suggest" about intellectual differences by gender. When time permits I will. Certainly those reading these posts may conduct their review and post their findings.

Greaney · 19-11-2017 10:34pm

People are quick to knock him at the moment because it's fashionable, also, for some weird reason he's been referred to as Alt right when he's clearly an old school liberal. On that matter, I'd advise you to watch some more of his stuff and make up your own mind. His bitchy resting face is a running joke too. But none of these are answering your question.

Look, I think he's very copped on, and brave and I'm no genius so knocking him would be a futile exercise in intellectual vanity on my part, but one of his weaknesses is also one of his strengths. He's very honest about when he is still figuring out where he stands on matters but isn't quiet sure. I like that, it has both an intellectual honesty, but also it's the attitude of a confident person who thinks it's okay to not have everything figured out just yet.

Fox_In_Socks · 20-11-2017 9:17pm

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.

Deary, Ian J.; Irwing, Paul; Der, Geoff; Bates, Timothy C. (2007). "Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979". Intelligence. 35 (5): 451–6.

I think he has a point with the recent trend of trying to make everything into a social construct. For instance, if a woman is breastfeeding her child and she lactates spontaneously when her child cries in a different room (which I’ve been told about by a friend of mine), is the description of her as a mother a social construction? What term should I use if she self identifies as a father? Is father or mother appropriate?

Obvious Otter · 21-11-2017 12:00am

Black Swan wrote: »

Admittedly, I am unfamiliar with the clinical psychology and philosophy of Jordan Peterson. Towards becoming a bit more familiar I recently watched the "Peterson Debate on Bill C-16 19th Nov 2016." I am assuming that this is the Peterson you wish to discuss in the video? If I am in error, please clarify.

Rather than discuss the contents of Bill C-16, let's focus on the content of Peterson's statements about gender. Peterson opened the debate claiming that there were deep, pronounced differences between genders in terms of intellect and creativity. Men were higher in intellect, and women were higher in esthetics, consequently men read more nonfiction and women read more fiction. He claimed that this gender divide was "natural," not as a social construction, but rather biological.

The profound intellectual gender difference claims made by Peterson appeared as givens, and not debatable. His claims were not stated consistent with the scientific method, where empirical results from the analysis of data "suggest," and are not "givens" or immutable truths. So long as data continues to support these suggestions, and not be refuted by contrary evidence, they continue to be held, but with caution.

I will have to read the recent scholarly literature and what empirical studies "suggest" about intellectual differences by gender. When time permits I will. Certainly those reading these posts may conduct their review and post their findings.

It depends on how you ultimately define intellect. 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 but generally you would also find that in IQ tests more men would feature at both the bottom and top than women. A lot of problem is the standard of social and humanities studies into this topic are generally biased.

Black Swan · 21-11-2017 12:45pm

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).

Greaney · 21-11-2017 5:55pm

Hello Black Swan, just read your reply there, wasn't commenting on you at all, it was with regard to feedback I've seen on other forums, I was answering the OP in case they were reading loads of derogatory remarks which I've noticed on youtube especially in the last couple of months.

Fox_In_Socks · 09-12-2017 11:42pm

TO Reply: I take on board what you say about him not referencing where he’s getting what he says are facts.

And I totally agree with regard to the evidence of women outperforming men in every stage of education.

Maybe it’s my tendency towards getting enthusiastic about someone who I find articulate and an authority figure who seems to be able to make sense of things or intérprete things in a way that I can’t. Maybe if I watch these videos, then it means that I think I am smart or informed. I haven’t done the required reading of Piaget, Nietzsche, Solzhenitsyn, Kirkigaard etc because a lot of the time, I’m bored or unable to take it in. Or lazy.

And I can’t make sense of statistics so if someone references a study, then I don’t know whether it’s valid or not cause I can’t get my head around them. So I rely on experts to do this for me and tell me the outcome. So I get caught up on someone like Peterson who is compelling to listen to, and then others like Black swan point out his shortcomings

Fathom · 13-12-2017 5:24pm

Black Swan wrote: »

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?

Does Peterson control for different male and female behavioral styles when assessing gender intelligence?

Black Swan · 14-12-2017 7:46pm

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

So I get caught up on someone like Peterson who is compelling to listen to, and then others like Black swan point out his shortcomings

I would be cautious about accepting someone's point of view based upon their video presentation of self, including eloquent speaking skills. Just because they look the look, talk the talk, and walk the walk may or may not suggest that they are selling snake oil (i.e., a cleverly fashioned and popular view of human behavior, which may be misleading, and in some cases spurious).

Fathom wrote: »

Does Peterson control for different male and female behavioral styles when assessing gender intelligence?

Peterson appears to be caught up in 1950's Ozzie & Harriet gender stereotyping (i.e., Men were higher in intellect, and women were higher in esthetics). He then attempts to find support for his outdated views by cherry picking from recent empirical studies those suggestions that support his views, and ignoring contrary evidence, thereby exhibiting confirmation bias.

Fathom · 17-12-2017 4:35pm

Peterson's apparent gender bias. Overshadowed his message.

Black Swan · 20-12-2017 11:05pm

Peterson often fails to define a concept that he talks about, often assuming that everyone knows what he means, as a given. For example, the Peterson video "The Curse of Creativity" assumes such, without a specific definition of what he is talking about. Does everyone know and share the identical definition of what "creativity" is, and do they nod their heads as if there is universal understanding of this concept?

Black Swan · 17-01-2018 10:43am

Peterson's videos may be popular, but popularity does not ensure validity and reliability.

Fathom · 20-01-2018 12:05am

Black Swan wrote: »

Peterson's videos may be popular, but popularity does not ensure validity and reliability.

The philosophy of "common sense?"

Black Swan · 23-01-2018 5:05am

Fathom wrote: »

The philosophy of "common sense?"

Is "common sense" an oxymoron?

Fathom · 25-01-2018 4:59am

Fire Fox linked Peterson in browser trending opening page yesterday. Suggested he was misunderstood. Listened to vid. Provocative comments by both BBC interviewer and Peterson. Aggressive exchange. Peterson continues to make broad sweeping generalizations. Also relies on "givens" as if they were facts commonly accepted by all. Or accepted as facts by his discipline, not subject to contrary evidence. This critique repeats posts above.

Black Swan · 25-01-2018 9:14am

Fathom wrote: »

Fire Fox linked Peterson in browser trending opening page yesterday. Suggested he was misunderstood.

Viewed that FF Peterson link: Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying? As you noted in your post, he is prone to generalisations and "givens."

Manach · 25-01-2018 10:05am

Based on his now highly viewed channel 4 interview, on youtybe count, Mr Peterson has moved into to main stream consiousness. His way of focusing on the issues discussed and handling of the counter arguements showed someone sure of his message. I will buy his book as he does look to practice what he preaches.

Black Swan · 25-01-2018 10:18am

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?

Playboy · 25-01-2018 1:15pm

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

Black Swan · 25-01-2018 5:42pm

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).

Fox_In_Socks · 25-01-2018 8:16pm

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.

dobman88 · 25-01-2018 8:21pm

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.

Black Swan · 26-01-2018 12:57pm

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).

Playboy · 26-01-2018 5:12pm

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!

Fathom · 27-01-2018 4:42am

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

Black Swan · 27-01-2018 9:14am

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.

Black Swan · 27-01-2018 11:51am

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

Playboy · 27-01-2018 1:06pm

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.

Playboy · 27-01-2018 1:15pm

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 · 27-01-2018 1:22pm

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.

Jordan Peterson

Comments