Jordan Peterson

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 7:22pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561194#Comment_118561194

Sorry I wasn't saying that you were ranting I meant Peterson was ranting about 'climate is everything' and even if you're charitable and grant that he was making a reference to that Time cover art, it certainly wasn't very precise so violates his own rules for life

Mecanudo · 31-01-2022 7:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561376#Comment_118561376

It's a fact that he didn't come up with the phrase or the first to use it simply because the well publicised series of Time Magazine and articles with that title were all over social media. And those articles would have certainly gone a long way to popularise the phrase. "Climate is everything". I have certainly came across it long before the present Peterson debate. And no I'm not a fan of his either! But viewing that video I automatically presumes that's where he took it from. But maybe I'm wrong and it's just a coincidence

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 7:42pm

I just think Petersons logic contained such a fallacy that a philosopher or intellectual would see through it instantly

1st, It's entirely a straw man argument

He starts with 'There's no such thing as Climate', then he says Climate and everything are interchangeable words. Climate is not 'everything' so the models do not need to Include everything in order to be useful models

Secondly models do not need to be 100% accurate to be useful, - the impossible standards fallacy. - The question is actually a matter of are they reliable enough to be useful for a given purpose

Fathom · 31-01-2022 7:48pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561375#Comment_118561375

Point taken. One problematic source given earlier here was the Peterson podcast hosted by Rogan. Where Peterson challenges the meteorological models used to explain and predict climate change. Peterson claimed that climate change was so complex that it could not be modeled. This ignores the scientific suggestion of Robert Merton where grand theories may not yet have the analytical data methods today to lend conclusive support, but theories of the middle range (eg, models) can have enormous value towards an eventual grand theory of climate change. So unlike Peterson, let’s not toss out the models with the bath water.

El_Duderino 09 · 31-01-2022 8:05pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561496#Comment_118561496

Sure. And I've read Joe Rogan fans telling everyone about how smart and intellectually honest he is. So I wonder did Joe make any of the points you made above? Or was he muttering assent throughout the whole thing and agreeing with whatever Peterson said? I mean, If you listen to 2 guys agree with each other on everything for 4 hours, you might be forgiven for beginning to believe they're both super smart and right about everything.

The truth is that none of Petersons target audience will think about the points you just made. I'll be shocked if anyone tells me Rogan challenged him on any of the climate change denial stuff. So it's just a matter of Peterson saying it, Rogan agreeing, Peterson's target audience have their pre-existing belief that climate change is just a leftist conspiracy validated, Peterson's Patreon donations go up, people criticise Peterson and his profile is enhanced, Peterson's Patreon donations go up again, job's done, damage done, everyone's a winner.

Fathom · 31-01-2022 8:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561616#Comment_118561616

Rogan air time for Peterson. More air. More controversy. More book sales. Like the Huey Long King Fish maxim for attracting attention to building your rep. Good news is the best news. Bad news is the second best news. And no news is bad news for a politician, or in this case, for spokesman and author Peterson.

Akrasia · 31-01-2022 9:30pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561616#Comment_118561616

Joe Rogan did actually challenge Peterson on his definition that climate is everything, and pointed out that climate scientists were concerned with the human drivers that are causing the current warming. Peterson just ignored his point and went on to confuse climate with weather and asserted that the models will spiral out of control because of compounding errors. Joe Rogan tries a little bit to bring him back to reality but Peterson just bamboozled him with non sequitur about Chickens and discounting in a load of waffle that goes absolutely nowhere

He's such a frustrating person to listen to and he constantly contradicts his own positions. He spent ages saying we can't predict the future because the future is unpredictable and 2 minutes later he posits a theory that if we make everyone in the world rich as fast as possible this will save the planet. (A prediction, but its OK to make predictions when you're JP)

generic_throwaway · 31-01-2022 10:02pm

It's amazing that this pop psychologist is now not only a philospher but a climate scientist. And I thought all the Renaissance men were dead these 400 years.

mzungu · 31-01-2022 10:12pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118561525#Comment_118561525

This would reaffirm my belief that he does precious little research into any of the topics he talks about. For starters, mixing up climate and weather right at the beginning was a doozy. He struggled to get near any form of coherent thought after that.

Fathom · 31-01-2022 10:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562273#Comment_118562273

Makes me wonder if Peterson knows there’s a substantial difference between weather and climate in terms of how they are conceptually defined and operationally measured?

El_Duderino 09 · 01-02-2022 2:14am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118562392#Comment_118562392

Of course he does. But his target market wants to hear the kind of arguments they're used to, so he gives it to them.

I would be willing to bet that in the 4 hours he didn't say anything that challenges his target market's biases. Nothing that would upset or challenge the opinions of your average Fox News viewer.

He's selling "their truth" as the Americans say. Conflating climate with weather is a fairly common one on in climate change denial circles. "It's snowing in May, how do the leftist, climate change folk explain that? We could use some global warming round here, huh guys?" The usual shtick.

Fathom · 02-02-2022 5:32pm

Wonders to what extent Peterson uses the KISS principle during vids and interviews? An appeal to those who buy his lobster pseudo science claims in chapter 1 of his 12 Rules book?

ancapailldorcha · 02-02-2022 5:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571668#Comment_118571668

Whether one sees Peterson as a fascist apologist or as a grifter plugging books, the KISS strategy is essential to both groups. 12 Rules had the advantage of drawing upon what one might call "grandfather advice" to provide a veneer of legitimacy for Peterson's ramblings and inane ranting about this and that.

Now though, his problem is that he's fully embraced anti-science positions and has endorsed from his privileged position of safety the trucker protests in Canada knowing that any consequences won't apply to him.

Fathom · 02-02-2022 6:08pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571821#Comment_118571821

When Peterson began his 12 Rules with the lobster pseudo scientific analogy, it became difficult to give any credibility to the remaining chapters.

arthursway · 02-02-2022 6:11pm

It is certainly a breath of fresh air listening to people with unconventional views like Jordan Peterson and I seem I am not alone as he has gathered quite the following it seems.

ancapailldorcha · 02-02-2022 6:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571876#Comment_118571876

It gets worse.

If you judge Peterson by the standard he himself set, ie that one should always be precise with one's words then he's essentially a supporter of right wing authoritarianism and tyranny. He endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) cites Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago as if it were unquestionable fact. He says little to nothing about the holocaust, fascism or antisemitism. I think much can be drawn from this. He constantly returns to the same few people, namely Jesus, Jung and Freud. I used to think 12 Rules was innocuous drivel but it's a bit worse than that and I think Peterson didn't say the quiet bits quietly enough.

Fathom · 02-02-2022 6:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571890#Comment_118571890

Not certain I would label Peterson’s views as unconventional. When reading Maps and 12 Rules it suggests to me that he wants us to believe and behave in ways consistent with the pre-1960’s conventions of thinking.

The old Ozzie and Harriet era comes to mind. When men were the traditional breadwinners and heads of households. Women were to be homemakers, and childcare domestics, standing behind their man. His biblical references in Maps about women’s roles suggests this. As does his pseudo scientific lobsters analogy about men’s and women’s biological behavior in 12 Rules.

Further, Peterson’s left and right brain dominance claims in Maps used to differentiate between the thinking of men and women had no significant scientific support. It was more paternal and old biblical than scientific. It was just a metaphor for light discussion purposes. Not factual as applied by Peterson.

Gareth Morgan in Imaginations cautioned about taking such metaphors literally. To do so was to adopt a distortion of reality. For example, to say king Richard was as ferocious as a lion, does not make him one literally. Peterson’s suggestion that men were more left brain than women was an attempt to go back to the old traditional gender roles, and not “unconventional.”

Furthermore, Peterson associates men’s behavior with order and “an anecdote to chaos,” and such chaos attributed to women’s behavior in 12 Rules. I was then expecting Peterson to say that men could not be hysterical, because men did not have a wandering womb.

Fathom · 18-03-2022 6:05pm

Peterson is once again attempting to trigger a controversy with his tweets about a list of philosophers he has labeled “postmodern NeoMarxists.” Of course he relies on Wikipedia and not scholarly sources to make his points.

Catherine McKinnon appears on his list. Humorously, she is noted for the essay Points Against Postmodernism.

Michel Foucault also appears on Peterson’s list. A philosopher associated with poststructuralism. Makes me wonder if Peterson knows the difference between postmodernism and poststructuralism?

More amusing. Peterson lists Robin DiAngelo as a NeoMarxist. Someone who has made their living as a consultant for several of capitalism’s large corporations.

Fathom · 10-06-2022 2:06pm

Peterson put a whole new spin on the body politic. Please excuse my poor attempted pun.

His “not beautiful” tweet about Yumi Nu, the Asian American curve model featured on 2022 annual swimsuit cover page of Sports Illustrated, was very telling.

Why body politic? Peterson added after his disparaging comment about a woman’s body: “And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.”

Peterson’s Maps and 12 Rules books fall into the self help genre. How helpful was his tweet about this woman’s body? How empathetic was his comment for the millions of women about the world who struggle with body image? And this comment from a person claiming to be educated and a practitioner of clinical psychology.

Or was this yet another attempt to draw attention to himself by making a controversial tweet?

ancapailldorcha · 10-06-2022 2:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119183844#Comment_119183844

Peterson is just another conservative hypocrite. Modern conservatism has detached somewhat from reality and is now based on perpetuating a singular and never ending culture war. The thing about culture war is that you need fresh outrages to replace the ones people become bored of.

Of course, Peterson is far from being either the first or the only person to start preaching about obesity. I think that this is just a cynical attempt to stay relevant for the sake of his Patreon income along with his new book.

Of course, he call loudly call out on this cynical move for what it was and then rushed to play the victim card and scurry away. He doesn't care about women or anyone else. He's even so desperate that he's an outright climate change denier. I've read some of what Jameela Jamil has written about body issues and I found that much more illuminating than Peterson boilerplate reactionist tattle.

Fathom · 10-06-2022 2:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119184022#Comment_119184022

Peterson attempts to ride on the tail of the so called culture war. The latest spin title of attention seekers.

ancapailldorcha · 10-06-2022 2:33pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119184075#Comment_119184075

He does. His shtick is to say enough to exploit it while pretending to be moderate and stressing his status as an academic. It's as cynical as it is transparent. Moderates of any sort are ill suited to such environments.

10-06-2022 2:35pm

Ye can just not watch his videos lads..

Fathom · 10-06-2022 2:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119184096#Comment_119184096

Why should we comment on social media about Peterson, or anything else? Furthermore, why should Peterson? Is this an existential question?

10-06-2022 3:57pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119184222#Comment_119184222

Well, that depends on what we mean by 'existential'..and what we mean by 'question'..

Fathom · 10-06-2022 9:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119184530#Comment_119184530

And to continue with an elaboration of the obvious, what do we mean by “comment?” Or more importantly, how is “what we mean” conceptualized; and how measured qualitatively and quantitatively, as guided by theories and philosophies accordingly?

Ironically speaking, was there a time consuming debate that went on for months during the impeachment trial of former US president Bill Clinton as to “what we mean” by the word “is?”

Then again, a new thread that addresses “what we mean” by “existential” would be welcome on our Philosophy forum, while at the same time not functioning to distract us from a discussion of Jordan Peterson.