Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, MigL said:

When did you, and the others, get your degree in Psychology ??

About 20 years ago

54 minutes ago, MigL said:

ou guys still insist he doesn't know what he is talking about.

I'm "insisting" nothing. I'm pointing out where he's very clearly wrong and full of manure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MigL said:

et when he discussess human behaviour, and our thinking/emotional state, an area where he is a prominent accredited expert, being a much published Psychologist,you guys still insist he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Well, the issue is even if I talk about biology but build my arguments based on stuff that I do not understand (say quantum mechanics) rather than from biological principles, my arguments are going to end up crap. If I am ultimately right, it is not due to the argument. And you will note that in much of the famous bits and pieces he is saying in his book and some of the interviews are not based on psychological sciences that much. 

This includes his ideas of human hierarchies (he tries to use biological principles), or the bill C-16 (where he shows insufficient legal understanding), or what he thinks neo-marxism is (which offends historians and philosophers in equal measure), or his recent objections to vaccinations, or when he tried to peddle meat diets. Even in areas that relate to psychology, in his discussion he mixes in things that are clearly outside of it. Such as why capitalism somehow is not a human development but kind of sortof a natural state? He then tries to frame that in terms of biological terms (adaptive responses) which shows that at least in his outward persona he does not stray on track in terms of expertise.

I suspect that his actual scholarly work is simply not that sensationalist and does not make money, so that is why it is not that high on his peddling list. But has found a way to start on a topic that he is comfortable with and then tries to connect it postmodernism, SJW or feminism in six steps or less. I would have zero issues if he was talking about his research more, but that is not what he is selling. 

And just to be clear, most of his work was on addiction and personality traits. I have not seen much that would point to studies of social interactions, dominance behaviour and related things in his scholarly work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

And just to be clear, most of his work was on addiction and personality traits. I have not seen much that would point to studies of social interactions, dominance behaviour and related things in his scholarly work. 

See, now I would think personality traits play a big role in social interactions, dominance behaviour and related things.
But what do I know, I'm a Physicist 
( ... is good for the gander, or biologist 🙂 )

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

About 20 years ago

Let me lay down on your couch and tell you about my childhood ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

See, now I would think personality traits play a big role in social interactions, dominance behaviour and related things.
But what do I know, I'm a Physicist 
( ... is good for the gander, or biologist 🙂 )

I know you are joking, but generally speaking everything is a specialty. I.e. research in how to establish personality types is different from looking at e.g. personality and drug use. Or personality type and relationship to status and so on. Which is why sweeping assertions tend to be ultimately wrong as few folks actually have the broad knowledge to do so (and which is why inter and multidisciplinary research as well as collaborations are so critical).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we criticize Peterson for his illiteracy of political theory and ideology, that he inaccurately criticizes, and espouses?
Post Modern NeoMarxism? Or shall we just move forward to "Cultural Marxism?" When Peterson directly shows his fanaticism for conservative anti-semitisms (no, I don't think he even knows about their origins... Yes, I think he's that illiterate), and a total lack of literacy on any of the subject matter?

Or do we attack him for his poor works involving his "credited expertise?"
Whereby he essentially writes books to defend and espouse conservative authoritarian views, and project them onto the unsuspecting inexperienced in need?
 


Would anybody who defends this charlatan ever both to reflect on a comprehensive analysis of his "great book?"
I think not! (To call Peterson anything else would be dishonest)

Many make bad arguments about how Peterson continues to move outside his own area of expertise, the problem is, that he is also a pile of steaming crap "in his area of expertise."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That assessment is your opinion; and you are entitled to it.
( as you haven't provided any evidence for your assertions )

All JP wants, is to be able to have his own opinion.
( and not be told what his opinion is, by others )

Why are you so offended by other's ideas ?
Cosmic horror ? Indifferent and hostile universe ?
Yeah, somebody's brain is broken ...

You see what I mean about Psychology not being a science, CharonY?
Does the garbage posted in this video have any scientific basis ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

You see what I mean about Psychology not being a science, CharonY?
Does the garbage posted in this video have any scientific basis ?

Honestly, I dislike discussing science via videos, especially in areas I have no expertise in. Fundamentally, there is often not a lot of information that you can provide with such a medium. Rather, I would like to read through relevant literature from that person and read perhaps one or two reviews on the topic in order to contextualize it. Of course, it would still be a very incomplete view in areas outside ones expertise, but I would bet that it would still be far superior than what I would gleam from an youtube viedeo. 

4 hours ago, BlightedFox said:

Many make bad arguments about how Peterson continues to move outside his own area of expertise, the problem is, that he is also a pile of steaming crap "in his area of expertise."

I don't think that the areas where is became (in)famous are inside his expertise, if you look at his peer-reviewed publication record. His self-help book are massive extrapolations from that particular viewpoint.

I.e. it is a bit like Dr. Oz and his health woo. I think he is a surgeon, so I am pretty sure that his surgical knowledge is at least alright. But his opinion and diet are oversimplification of the existing evidence with an added heap of unjustified confidence and guesswork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 5:40 PM, MigL said:

That assessment is your opinion; and you are entitled to it.
( as you haven't provided any evidence for your assertions )

All JP wants, is to be able to have his own opinion.
( and not be told what his opinion is, by others )

Why are you so offended by other's ideas ?
Cosmic horror ? Indifferent and hostile universe ?
Yeah, somebody's brain is broken ...

You see what I mean about Psychology not being a science, CharonY?
Does the garbage posted in this video have any scientific basis ?

Everybody has the right to an opinion, but not the right to expect everyone to listen or agree with it. 

JP has many ideas I agree with, he cites some ideas based on scientific study where the evidence is clear and undeniable. He also has ideas in areas outside his expertise that are very questionable, I don't see him claiming truth or fact on these matters, but rather asks you to consider them.

Another thing to consider is that when he talks about subjects his focus is at the extremes and how those extremes affect the middle ground. There seems to be some confusion on this. He is often mis-interpreted around this, but I think this is partly his own fault due to the way he flits around during discussions/explanations.  

The pro JP's will focus on the positives while the anti JP's will focus on the negatives, this is just politics.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 6:49 AM, MigL said:

I stand by my 'cruel' assessment of Psychology.
It is not quite a science.
The 'error bars' around these opinions are huge.

I did read somewhere with regards to Psychology and Psychiatry being classed as "soft sciences" rather then the "hard sciences" of Physics Cosmology etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity.[1][2][3] Roughly speaking, the natural sciences (e.g. physics, biology, astronomy) are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences (e.g. psychology, sociology, political science) are usually described as "soft".

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.