Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. You’re, of course, correct. The last 32 pages of thread have been focused laser tight on what people think of Jordan Petersons views and NOBODY has been misrepresenting a law, saying people would go to jail for using wrong pronouns, and that people are losing jobs en masse despite a dearth of examples… nope. Totally correct. That conversation never happened. 

/sarcasm

The fact that you and a few others have misrepresented Bill 16 as a toothless guideline doesn't change the fact that other concerns and ideas of J Peterson have also been discussed.

But I know you mean well and likely overlooked them so all good.

Edited by J.C.MacSwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The fact that you and a few others have misrepresented Bill 16 as a toothless guideline doesn't

No one (well, but you) said the bill was just a guideline. Rather, the area to which it applies to is not what Peterson and others imagined. This notion is supported by actual lawyers and legal scholars. And I am pretty sure that has also been said a few times here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said 

5 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s an example of a professor one time somewhere in one place once resigning due to social backlash when she stuck her foot in her mouth.

To which I replied "No it isn't" and provided today's example, with a link.

You then said

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Which makes them worth F-all / exactly zero in this particular thread then, wouldn’t you say?

So why would you have brought it up in the first place ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not the one who claimed people are being thrown in jail for using the wrong pronouns.

I’m not the one who failed to provide even a single example of this actually happening.

I’m not the one who keeps misrepresenting this law despite repeated correction.

I’m not the one who claimed people are being involuntarily terminated from their jobs for using the wrong pronouns.

I’m not the one who claimed a lesbian professor was involuntarily terminated for her lack of respectful pronoun use.

I’m not the one who introduced this professor into the discussion when asked to provide even a single example of someone actually getting fired. 

I’m not the one who kept claiming she was involuntarily terminated for her views even after being repeatedly corrected that she resigned. She quit.  

I AM the one who suggested that this example was irrelevant to our discussion.

I AM the one who said this example wasn’t of equivalent scale to the issues being faced by the trans community even if it was somehow conceded as relevant. 

I AM the one who CORRECTLY framed her situation as resigning voluntarily as a result of the social backlash she faced for sticking her foot into her mouth.

And now…

I am the one saying that providing EVEN MORE examples of people facing social backlash on college campuses (not facing jail, not facing termination from employment, just some not positive social feedback for their approach to OTHER issues which aren’t even tangentially related to trans pronouns) has fuck all to do with this conversation. 


I hope this clarifies, and eagerly await on the edge of my seat with bated breath seeing how you will mischaracterize your next set of examples and where the goalposts get moved to next time. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add… MULTIPLE others have pointed out these same things, often in more detail and with more rigor than I did. I framed the above as I did since so many replies have focused on targeting me personally. 

I’m reminded of an old saying in politics: When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither the facts or law are on your side, pound the table… or on the character and integrity of me as iNow, in this case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what any of the other issues you feel strongly about, have to do with the fact that you brought up how the social backlash against the professor was just one isolated incident.
Then you, again, complained when I gave another example, indicating it isn't an isolated incident.
You opened the door; I walked in.

Please keep in mind that this is an ideological discussion, and it doesn't change the way either you or I live our lives..
If I, or others< should stress you out, go grab a beer and relax, knowing that I do use people's requested pronouns.
Our discussion isn't going to change the world one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only quickly checked whether that was the case (as I have wasted a ton of time already), so I might have missed it. But from my reading iNow's claim was not that social backlashes are isolated events. Rather that he was looking for support of the claim that many folks have lost their jobs originally due to use of wrong pronouns (remember, that definitely was your claim). 

On 10/11/2021 at 12:56 PM, MigL said:

So, no jail time.
But it can get you fired.
Even from a job ( such as a law/sociology/psychology professor ) where it is your job to present an opinion.

So at least so far getting fired does not appear to be happening. We had a separate discussion regarding social pressure but I feel that discussing that could require a new thread. After all, social pressures and shaming are not limited to pronoun use. In fact, I am fairly confident that it would be a miniscule element of what is going on. As such, it does not lend much to more OP-related discussion regarding whether Petersons assessment of the bill was accurate or not (as clearly an online mob is not a legal enforcement agency).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

you brought up how the social backlash against the professor was just one isolated incident.

In context of this thread, not social backlash more broadly.

For the sake of argument, I was simply saying… “Fine. The professors loss of job is now relevant. Okay. We’ll go with that. I don’t really think it is, but whatever. It’s still just ONE and not thousands of people losing their job over pronoun problems.”

I was NOT arguing that social backlash doesn’t happen. 

Is this clear now, or shall I repeat myself 17 more times over the next 10 pages of thread before we can move to the next point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not to belabor the point, CharonY, but the passages are clearly and accurately quoted, 5 posts back, and 15 hours ago.

Oh I see. I overlooked it as I was looking for the broader context and missed that side aspect. But I think iNow has addressed his position on that matter. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it appears Peterson has thoughts on vaccines, too.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/11/14/jordan_peterson_i_got_the_damn_vaccine_and_the_government_still_wont_leave_my_the_fck_alone_stupid_me.html

Quote

"You know, Canadians who aren’t vaccinated now cannot leave the country," he reported. "What the hell? Why is that?"

"Look, I got vaccinated, and people took me to task for that. And I thought, 'All right, I’ll get the damn vaccine.' Here’s the deal, guys: I’ll get the vaccine, you f***ing leave me alone. And did that work? No. So, stupid me," he said.


"That’s how I feel about it. So, like, well, I have to get tested for COVID when I come back into Canada. I have to get tested before I leave Canada."

"That might be an issue with the Americans... but the restrictions to get back into Canada are even more stringent... Why did I get the vaccine then, if you’re not going to leave me alone?"

"And I don't think the argument that vaccinated people are less contagious is very compelling. So why are the unvaccinated all of a sudden a danger? And i certainly don't get the push to get children vaccinated."

There is a lot to unpack in terms what he fails to understand, but I think it is telling that he frames being vaccinated as a means to get left alone from (presumably) the government rather than a means to protect himself and folks around him. While this seems rather stupid and dangerous (as it might fuel vaccine reluctance), it is also possible that he is just too cowardly not to get vaccinated, but is unwilling not at least to try to pander to the anti-vax crowd, either.  It is especially a start contrast to the stoic manly behaviour he preaches vs whining about the requirement to get tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So it appears Peterson has thoughts on vaccines, too.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/11/14/jordan_peterson_i_got_the_damn_vaccine_and_the_government_still_wont_leave_my_the_fck_alone_stupid_me.html

There is a lot to unpack in terms what he fails to understand, but I think it is telling that he frames being vaccinated as a means to get left alone from (presumably) the government rather than a means to protect himself and folks around him. While this seems rather stupid and dangerous (as it might fuel vaccine reluctance), it is also possible that he is just too cowardly not to get vaccinated, but is unwilling not at least to try to pander to the anti-vax crowd, either.  It is especially a start contrast to the stoic manly behaviour he preaches vs whining about the requirement to get tested.

He's keeping himself in the news. Peaceful, nice talk doesn't grab attention and make money... ask Google, Facebook and Twitter what conflict does for their bottom line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

He's keeping himself in the news. Peaceful, nice talk doesn't grab attention and make money... ask Google, Facebook and Twitter what conflict does for their bottom line

I suspect that is what it is. I have read that he was out of the media for a bit because he went to rehab and was undergoing some experimental treatment a while ago. I suspect interest in his persona went down for a bit and now he found something else to attach himself to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could take the cynical view that he has found how to make large amounts of money by being controversial.
Or you might think that the Canadian Government is too controlling of people's lives.

In Canada ( Ontario ) we are required to show a double ( approved ) vaccination passport to dine in restaurants, attend sporting events/concerts, or have a drink in a bar.
If I cross into the US and stay longer than 72 hrs, I am required to get tested before entering the US, and again within 72 hrs of re-entry into Canada ( at my own expense for a PCR test ) even if doubly vaccinated, and having had Covid.
Things like this would undoubtedly lead to gun shootouts in the US, wouldn't they ?

I myself think the Government has every right to be controlling in public health matters, where your illness could affect many others who are unknowingly exposed to you.
The Government has every right to control what you DO.
They have no right to control what you THINK.
And should control what you SAY, only in cases where it can directly affect public health/safety.


In case I wasn't clear, I don't agree with his 'politics' on vaccinations/public health measures.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

I myself think the Government has every right to be controlling in public health matters, where your illness could affect many others who are unknowingly exposed to you.
The Government has every right to control what you DO.
They have no right to control what you THINK.

There is little to disagree here. In fact I would go further and say that one of the critical role of the government is to ensure public health. Similar to other large-scale needs of the population (e.g. infrastructure) it simply cannot be ensured without a central coordination. And obviously, we have seen that folks do not only think differently about things, but they do not even agree on the existence of clear and present dangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have been off work and isolating since recently contracting COVID. I've had my vaccinations but have still been quite ill (feeling a bit better now). Apparently I have contracted the Delta variant which is the one that is keeping the infected rates high where I live.

Anyhow this has given me the opportunity to watch more blogs, lectures, debates involving Jordan Peterson. I have concluded, in my own opinion that in general, he has some valid ideas formed and grounded from well researched scientific data. I appreciate that in his field of psychology interpretation plays a big factor in many studies. However, I haven't seen any evidence of bias born from any personal desire or gain. He (appears) from what I have seen to be sitting pretty much centre field and if does lean towards any particular side its certainly far from either extreme. In fact he is very adamant that both sides are required and a balance and unity should be maintained, that the extremes on both sides are damaging to society. 

Thus far I'd have to agree with this view and would cite myself to a similar stance. 

I do however disagree with some of the terms and language he uses, I think some of this though maybe unintended, promotes misunderstanding and mis-interpretation and actually fuels the ongoing backlash against him. I also don't necessarily agree with all his ideas or policies, some are overly paranoid and/or a bit dramatic and don't sit true for all people. Maybe this is the approach he adopts in an attempt to get people to notice, I can't comment on that.

In summary:

I think he is a very intelligent person who is obviously very knowledgeable and passionate about his speciality in phycology. I think he is passionate about things that sit outside his field of expertise, but I don't see him claiming to have all the answers or stating they are all strictly true. He has some good (in my opinion) ideas and I believe that he, in general, wants to make society better and believes his ideas, if adopted by most, would help to do this. I can't comment whether or not this would be the case, but I think most of the ideas he has proposed, would make some steps towards improvements. 

I don't believe is is racist, transphobic, sexist or any other of the bigoted terms used to characterise him. I think these are just used as decoys to misdirect people. So I think (my opinion) this is rather unfair. 

Conclusion:

Like him, hate him, be indifferent, agree or disagree... I believe the world needs people like JP in the public eye, to shake thinks up and make people at least stop and think about things, help them consider their own lives, ideas, actions... rather than blindly following or burying their heads.  

   

Edited by Intoscience
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I believe the world needs people like JP in the public eye, to shake thinks up and make people at least stop and think about things, help them consider their own lives, ideas, actions... rather than blindly following or burying their heads.

Completely agree. Nice post, overall. We need MORE debate and pushback on ideas, not less. Sadly, when said pushback and criticism comes, it's too often cast aside and dismissed as over-sensitive cancel culture. Those buzzwords like "cancel culture" are, in fact, being consistently themselves used to cancel cultural conversations. Thought for food... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says discussion is overrated ?
It only took 33 pages to realize we agree on more things than we disagree on.

Maybe we're just too passionate ( about certain things ) for our own good ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the spirit of debate, my assessment is a bit different, though I think watching his videos is misleading. The reason is that he is intelligent and he performs well in debates. However, the content is often either inaccurate or depends on narratives rather than data.

In other words, in many thinks (at least those he is most famous for) he appears to make a good argument, but if you dissect it, it is actually not based on research but more like anecdotal narratives. I think the reason why folks disagree on what he stands for, is simply because his arguments are often so vague that they are open to interpretation. Instead of laying down an argument which lead to a conclusion, he often veers of mid-argument so that you can take the first couple of sentence to argue for one thing and the last bit to argue the opposite. 

That is probably good sales and debated but really grates in sciences where it is important to lay out hypotheses that can then be investigated.

For that reason, I have looked into the book when I had to (as there are quite a few students liking him and bringing him up in class in the weirdest contexts). But his written style is if anything even less clear. The parts where I actually can comment on, is when he dips into biology (the famous lobster example) and clearly shows that he is using a simple technique. Find a story that kind of sounds like what you want to talk about and then extrapolate the living sh- feces out of it. As even a semi-academic work I find it lacking, as it really tries more to appeal to evoke ideas and emotions rather than relying on research and data. If he was coming from a discipline with less rigour I would probably be more amendable to simply dismiss him.

But strangely he seems to be very good in convicting folks that he actually knows what he is talking about, which is somewhat annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Well, he is a psychologist.

At the risk of offending some people, it is a fair stretch to call Psychology a science.

Well, I suppose it depends. However, I have worked a bit with clinical psychologists and I have been reviewing related projects and while there are areas who have less rigour, at least you generally understand what they are getting at and provide evidence for their claims. But I would agree that the whole Jungian Archetype thingy looks a lot like metaphysical woo. It looks strange to me that this would be part of clinical psychology to begin with, if I am honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The science I'm familiar with tests for repeatability.

A Psychologist can take any two subjects, and the same stimulus will produce differing results. The best outcome expected is a statistical correlation ( because it is almost impossible to isolate other variables ). 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

The science I'm familiar with tests for repeatability.

A Psychologist can take any two subjects, and the same stimulus will produce differing results. The best outcome expected is a statistical correlation ( because it is almost impossible to isolate other variables ). 
 

Again, it depends on the type of study. Note that in many areas, including biology we often are only able to get correlation. But if they are strong, predictions based on them still yield reproducible results. Much in medicine relies on empirical data pointing to strong correlations whereas the mechanisms can be only poorly understood. 

For example, one might want to see whether certain steroids alter certain aspects of mood. While one might argue that mood scales are not perfect, they at least capture something. If then blood levels of certain steroids seem to correlate with these measures, it points that they are at least somehow connected.

Then, a follow-up could conduct a double-blind placebo study where these steroids are provided in to modify blood levels and then inspect whether the mood changes in the predicted way. With sufficient rigour and large enough cohorts you can get reproducible results that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CharonY said:

In the spirit of debate, my assessment is a bit different, though I think watching his videos is misleading. The reason is that he is intelligent and he performs well in debates. However, the content is often either inaccurate or depends on narratives rather than data.

In other words, in many thinks (at least those he is most famous for) he appears to make a good argument, but if you dissect it, it is actually not based on research but more like anecdotal narratives. I think the reason why folks disagree on what he stands for, is simply because his arguments are often so vague that they are open to interpretation. Instead of laying down an argument which lead to a conclusion, he often veers of mid-argument so that you can take the first couple of sentence to argue for one thing and the last bit to argue the opposite. 

That is probably good sales and debated but really grates in sciences where it is important to lay out hypotheses that can then be investigated.

For that reason, I have looked into the book when I had to (as there are quite a few students liking him and bringing him up in class in the weirdest contexts). But his written style is if anything even less clear. The parts where I actually can comment on, is when he dips into biology (the famous lobster example) and clearly shows that he is using a simple technique. Find a story that kind of sounds like what you want to talk about and then extrapolate the living sh- feces out of it. As even a semi-academic work I find it lacking, as it really tries more to appeal to evoke ideas and emotions rather than relying on research and data. If he was coming from a discipline with less rigour I would probably be more amendable to simply dismiss him.

But strangely he seems to be very good in convicting folks that he actually knows what he is talking about, which is somewhat annoying.

Thank you CharonY that is a very interesting assessment. 

In part I agree with some of your comments.

To begin with I cannot comment on the biology side, this is my weakest subject in the sciences,(to be honest, my least interest, even though it is in some ways the most exciting and intriguing) though i wasn't convinced by JP's lobster example either .

I think though in his defence, there can be different methods of teaching, lecturing, studying and experimenting, especially dependent on your audience. For example, when faced with Uni students or other scientists over the general public.

To gain public interest you often have to use stories and anecdotes so people can relate to, or at least find an easier understanding. You see this quite often with popular scientists, even great well respected scientists like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking... used this technique and many still do today. Unfortunately, these stories often promote sensationalism, inaccuracies or even exaggerate facts... knowledgeable and professional scientists like yourself will easily pick these apart, and most likely not use this technique to teach your students. I'm not saying you are wrong to do so, JP does appear to have some of his "facts" out of place or lacking some credibility mainly in areas outside his expertise. 

I also agree that some of his arguments are vague and open to interpretation. I mentioned in my previous post that I think he often uses the wrong language and sometimes appears overly paranoid or dramatic. I'm not sure whether this is intended for reaction, or just a failing in his explanation and communication skills. I have seen him veer off at times, this can be annoying, agreed. But I think sometimes if you look beyond this, try and interpret the points he is attempting to make, they are quite often on the right track, or at least food for thought.

He is obviously intelligent and does perform well in debates, but isn't that a strength rather than a weakness? If he failed in his debates then he wouldn't gain the interest he does, and not ever be taken seriously, he would be totally dismissed by all as a fool, crackpot or worse, as he already often is by his opposition.

I think his "misleading" comes from  jumping around a bit/lot in his discussion/debates from subject to subject/context to context and maybe not being fully clear on the details, again maybe lacking in communication skills. He also dips his toe in areas that he lacks expertise in, though I have not seen him make any wild claims in such subjects . I don't feel he has any intentional sales tactics, rather its just the way his mind operates. One of my work colleagues operates in the same way, which is definitely not intentional but sometimes rather annoying.

Regarding the data, I don't agree with you. I think (in most arguments, but not all) he actually cites creditable data from many scientific studies taken, takes the data and forms a considerate opinion or idea.

Also as MigL pointed out,

15 hours ago, MigL said:

A Psychologist can take any two subjects, and the same stimulus will produce differing results. The best outcome expected is a statistical correlation ( because it is almost impossible to isolate other variables )

     

 

Edited by Intoscience
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.