Criticism of Jordan Peterson thread v3

[esdoornblad]

When it comes to JP's critics, there is a huge disconnect between the actual and claimed volume of his material that is (a) scientific (factual), (b) speculative but reasonable, (c) speculative but implausible, (d) nonscientific and implausible, (e) overtly racist and hateful.

Reasonable people -- especially those from the sciences and engineering who function and compete in a facts-based world -- sort a good deal of his material into categories (a) and (b). The irony is that he draws the ire of those who almost by definition reject category (a) as being a legitimate way to categorize knowledge (as in, maybe the facts themselves are white or male). There are certain concepts he discusses that definitely fit into the (c) and (d) categories: his ideas about the applicability of the Pareto distribution, Jung, religion, etc. But nothing he says fits into category (e). What I find so remarkable is that his critics try to imply that everything he says fits into (e) if you just read between the lines.

Herein lies the fatal flaw in these sorts of dishonest and vitriolic attacks: they convince nobody, and instead cause people on the fence (who know a dishonest attack when they see one) to jump over to JP's side.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, otherwise it is a term that has very little if any meaning.

By any reasonable definition identity politics is far more dominant on the right (the GOP has basically abandoned the traditional idea of arguing that the policies they support are better for the country), and defining "identity politics" simply as "left-wing identity politics" makes it harder to discuss the issue.

 

[m52nickerson]

By any reasonable definition identity politics is far more dominant on the right (the GOP has basically abandoned the traditional idea of arguing that the policies they support are better for the country), and defining "identity politics" simply as "left-wing identity politics" makes it harder to discuss the issue.

The right does play identity politics now. That has been clear since Trump showed that he could get away with giving groups like Whtie Nationalist a wink and a nod and still win. However, the right still argues that their policies are good for the country, often they are wrong. The far left is far more likely to argue that their policies help certain groups for more then the country as a whole.

 

[sangreporsangre]

The media has turned Peterson into such an Antichrist type figure that denouncing him is seen as a quick and easy way for a celebrity to signal their virtue. Here we see a liberal male feminist "ally" who was exposed as a total sleaze (like most, if not all, such "allies") trying to regain some progressive cred:



If you read through the replies, he doesn't seem to be fooling many people with this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The right does play identity politics now. That has been clear since Trump showed that he could get away with giving groups like Whtie Nationalist a wink and a nod and still win. However, the right still argues that their policies are good for the country, often they are wrong. The far left is far more likely to argue that their policies help certain groups for more then the country as a whole.

This couldn't possibly be more wrong. Identity politics has long been the dominant mode in the South, and it still is. The right rarely argues for common-good policies, while liberals almost by definition do.

 

[franklinstower]

I don't think that's really the case. Most academics, especially in the social sciences, being leftist means its harder to stand out as a leftist among them. Peterson is popular because he is one of the few academics from the social sciences with great credentials who has a message that is favorable to the right. He's tapping into an untapped market. There's risks to that but we've also seen the huge rewards of it too.

I think initially he did take a risk and put himself out there but once he found an audience that changed and I do get the sense he delivers some of his content with their preferences in mind. @Trotsky is right to point to his comments on Trump as an example of that. Trump has little to no regard for truth or decency, Peterson should be against such a person based on his principles but it seems he takes it easy on him. He must know there's a lot of MAGA people in his audience. In Peterson's defense, he hasn't sucked up to Trump beyond treating him with kid gloves when he's asked about him.

His support of Trump is totally incongruous with most of the non political content of his work. I dont get this guy at all.

 

[Phisher]

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Jordan Peterson speaks the truth.

it really depends on what he's talking about

 

[franklinstower]

Of course he has heard the argument before. I don't get the question here.

In public discourse it is often about talking points more than truth. He got caught here and will probably adjust his position in this particular area going foreword.

Jordan Peterson is not a detached academic in search of pure truth (who among us is all the time?) he is just a human being with positions opinions bias and weaknesses that cause him to make mis-statements.

I think most people do this to one degree or another. I have slowly outgrown it and all that means is I do it less than before and recognize how wrong it is. I try to always present the counter arguments to my points when having discussions with people (at least in person where it is quick and easy to do). The problem with Peterson is he now has a massive audience and is influencing the way many people think. IMO he is not ready for that position. I think it is a bit tragic that this explosion happened to him honestly.


Just one example. In petersons recent Rogan podcast Peterson equates Marxism with government implemented systematic extermination of people as his go to example of all ideas Marxist. That is profoundly dishonest.

 

[HomerThompson]

Besides being hilarious, Jefferies seems like a really sharp guy.

 

[Robbie Corleone]

it really depends on what he's talking about

What has he said that you disagree with?

 

[Bamboozled]

He tried to get him with a "gotchya!" and Peterson just went with it.

In reality he's dealing with a stupid hypothetical right? So why indulge it. It's typical of someone who doesn't think in the real world to give hypothetical problems instead of confront the ones that actually exist. I think it's absurd people don't get that the dude was a baker who would do wedding cakes for some people. It's not like the dude made wedding cakes and refused to sell them to the gay couple. I also don't see how being gay is the equivalent to being black.

 

[Phisher]

He tried to get him with a "gotchya!" and Peterson just went with it.

In reality he's dealing with a stupid hypothetical right? So why indulge it. It's typical of someone who doesn't think in the real world to give hypothetical problems instead of confront the ones that actually exist. I think it's absurd people don't get that the dude was a baker who would do wedding cakes for some people. It's not like the dude made wedding cakes and refused to sell them to the gay couple. I also don't see how being gay is the equivalent to being black.

No, he got "got" when he basically admitted that he thinks the civil rights movement was bunk as a response to the analogy about public accommodations for black customers.

Claiming that he may have been wrong was an escape hatch out of a tangent that would have gotten him a shitload of heat.

He'll have a better deflection the next time that the question comes up in a non-IDW forum.

 

[Phisher]

Of course he has heard the argument before. I don't get the question here.

In public discourse it is often about talking points more than truth. He got caught here and will probably adjust his position in this particular area going foreword.

Jordan Peterson is not a detached academic in search of pure truth (who among us is all the time?) he is just a human being with positions opinions bias and weaknesses that cause him to make mis-statements.

I think most people do this to one degree or another. I have slowly outgrown it and all that means is I do it less than before and recognize how wrong it is. I try to always present the counter arguments to my points when having discussions with people (at least in person where it is quick and easy to do). The problem with Peterson is he now has a massive audience and is influencing the way many people think. IMO he is not ready for that position. I think it is a bit tragic that this explosion happened to him honestly.


Just one example. In petersons recent Rogan podcast Peterson equates Marxism with government implemented systematic extermination of people as his go to example of all ideas Marxist. That is profoundly dishonest.

I just posted the video because it kept popping up in my Twitter feed yesterday.

I was actually shocked that so many people genuinely thought that Peterson was stumped there because of the analogy to racial discrimination.

I'm highly skeptical of Peterson, but I'm not jaded enough to think that there's any way in hell that he hasn't heard or contemplated that argument before.

IMO he realized that he fucked up because he admitted that he views the idea of civil rights and human rights laws preventing discrimination on the basis of race with the same contempt that he does similar laws preventing discrimination of the grounds of sexual/gender orientation.

He can play the religion card to justify holding the latter position. The former would get him roasted on social media and provoke a new round of critical op-eds. Pretending to concede the issue was a good way to change the subject.

 

[Bamboozled]

No, he got "got" when he basically admitted that he thinks the civil rights movement was bunk as a response to the analogy about public accommodations for black customers.

Claiming that he may have been wrong was an escape hatch out of a tangent that would have gotten him a shitload of heat.

He'll have a better deflection the next time that the question comes up in a non-IDW forum.

I don't understand what you're saying, maybe it's the lack of sleep. He didn't admit that he thinks civil rights =/= accommodations for black customers. He simply stated that Civil Rights were for all purposes necessary and good. That doesn't mean he thinks people should be able to discriminate. It's simplifying the issue and false equivalencies. It's a complex issue to talk about and you need to be careful what you say in this. Because he can say something that gets misconstrued and undermine his whole foundation.

 

[franklinstower]

I just posted the video because it kept popping up in my Twitter feed yesterday.

I was actually shocked that so many people genuinely thought that Peterson was stumped there because of the analogy to racial discrimination.

I'm highly skeptical of Peterson, but I'm not jaded enough to think that there's any way in hell that he hasn't heard or contemplated that argument before.

IMO he realized that he fucked up because he admitted that he views the idea of civil rights and human rights laws preventing discrimination on the basis of race with the same contempt that he does similar laws preventing discrimination of the grounds of sexual/gender orientation.

He can play the religion card to justify holding the latter position. The former would get him roasted on social media and provoke a new round of critical op-eds. Pretending to concede the issue was a good way to change the subject.

I hope my post did not.sound like trying to school you. I wasn't. I am also glad you posted that video wait shows really clearly a hole in his whole approach.

I am very Christian but I don't allow that to put me at odds with people who live differently than me. I was in Starbucks yesterday and a woman who worked there had a button stating what gender pronouns she would like people to use. They were he and him.

When I sat down I was thinking about the whole situation and I thought to myself. "I know I would never refer to her as a her if it it against her wishes.". "Not in her presence, and noting similar social or work circles.". On the other hand I would feel strange saying she was a he so I would just stick to using her name.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

What has he said that you disagree with?

pretty much anytime he talks about religion..... like saying that athiests have a moral compass because of some subconscious connection to religion through our western upbringing. Its utter nonsensical, religion had nothing to do with my moral compass.

also he is pretty naive politically. Everybody he disagrees with is a marxist(totally generalising lol)

 

[Bullitt68]

I posted the full segment in the other Jordan Peterson thread (which, given this thread's title, I guess we could refer to as the "praise of Jordan Peterson" thread ) and I think it's worth posting in here, too:

Jordan Peterson is not a detached academic in search of pure truth (who among us is all the time?) he is just a human being with positions opinions bias and weaknesses that cause him to make mis-statements [...] Just one example. In petersons recent Rogan podcast Peterson equates Marxism with government implemented systematic extermination of people as his go to example of all ideas Marxist. That is profoundly dishonest.

For the record, the only misstatement that I'm seeing is your statement of Peterson's position on Marxism. If you think that there's a portion of his JRE podcast appearance that supports this, then please post a time-stamped video (I remember watching that podcast appearance live but I can't recall specific arguments), but in terms of his general position, his argument is that "government implemented systematic extermination of people" is Marxism's/communism's logical conclusion. And not only is Peterson far from the first person to make that rather obvious observation but, given the "results" of the Marxism/communism "experiments" over the last century, it seems to me to be profoundly dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Besides being hilarious, Jefferies seems like a really sharp guy.

Oh, he clearly is. Surely you've seen his gun control bit from his stand-up special Bare. That bit is devastatingly logical and a hilariously brilliant argument against NRA-type lunacy.

Earlier in his career, when he'd literally do sets hammered, I wasn't a fan, but once he started taking shit seriously and started paying attention to the craft of stand-up, he immediately positioned himself as one of the sharpest comedians out there.

Claiming that he may have been wrong was an escape hatch out of a tangent that would have gotten him a shitload of heat.

Pretending to concede the issue was a good way to change the subject.

1) Conceding Jefferies' point wasn't "an escape hatch." He was brought to a contradiction and, as all rational people do, he took it as an indication of an error somewhere in his position, at which point he conceded that Jefferies' counterpoint had him beat. Someone like Ben Shapiro would've probably gone the "free market" route and tried to argue that, rather than the government telling business owners which (types of) people they are and aren't allowed to refuse service to, the government should leave it to consumers to decide whether or not discriminatory practice is reason enough to avoid a business, with the implication that, if consumers decide that it is, then the business will fail and the problem will be solved. But I don't think that Peterson is as far to the right as Shapiro, so, upon recognizing the logical conclusion to his argument, he backed off to reassess. Counterpoised to Cathy Newman-type ideological possession, that moment with Jefferies should be held up just as often as the Newman "gotcha" moment as evidence of Peterson's genuine commitment to reason and logic.

2) There was no "tangent." Jefferies chose the subject and initiated the discussion, likely intentionally to bring Peterson to precisely this point of contradiction, while Peterson, for his part, simply responded to Jefferies' questions as he asked them.

3) Where is the skepticism coming from in alleging that Peterson was only "pretending to concede the issue"? What evidence corroborates Peterson's allegedly disingenuous conduct here and/or elsewhere?

 

[franklinstower]

I posted the full segment in the other Jordan Peterson thread (which, given this thread's title, I guess we could refer to as the "praise of Jordan Peterson" thread ) and I think it's worth posting in here, too:





For the record, the only misstatement that I'm seeing is your statement of Peterson's position on Marxism. If you think that there's a portion of his JRE podcast appearance that supports this, then please post a time-stamped video (I remember watching that podcast appearance live but I can't recall specific arguments), but in terms of his general position, his argument is that "government implemented systematic extermination of people" is Marxism's/communism's logical conclusion. And not only is Peterson far from the first person to make that rather obvious observation but, given the "results" of the Marxism/communism "experiments" over the last century, it seems to me to be profoundly dishonest to pretend otherwise.



Oh, he clearly is. Surely you've seen his gun control bit from his stand-up special Bare. That bit is devastatingly logical and a hilariously brilliant argument against NRA-type lunacy.

Earlier in his career, when he'd literally do sets hammered, I wasn't a fan, but once he started taking shit seriously and started paying attention to the craft of stand-up, he immediately positioned himself as one of the sharpest comedians out there.





1) Conceding Jefferies' point wasn't "an escape hatch." He was brought to a contradiction and, as all rational people do, he took it as an indication of an error somewhere in his position, at which point he conceded that Jefferies' counterpoint had him beat. Someone like Ben Shapiro would've probably gone the "free market" route and tried to argue that, rather than the government telling business owners which (types of) people they are and aren't allowed to refuse service to, the government should leave it to consumers to decide whether or not discriminatory practice is reason enough to avoid a business, with the implication that, if consumers decide that it is, then the business will fail and the problem will be solved. But I don't think that Peterson is as far to the right as Shapiro, so, upon recognizing the logical conclusion to his argument, he backed off to reassess. Counterpoised to Cathy Newman-type ideological possession, that moment with Jefferies should be held up just as often as the Newman "gotcha" moment as evidence of Peterson's genuine commitment to reason and logic.

2) There was no "tangent." Jefferies chose the subject and initiated the discussion, likely intentionally to bring Peterson to precisely this point of contradiction, while Peterson, for his part, simply responded to Jefferies' questions as he asked them.

3) Where is the skepticism coming from in alleging that Peterson was only "pretending to concede the issue"? What evidence corroborates Peterson's allegedly disingenuous conduct here and/or elsewhere?

I expected some push back on the Marxism comment. Its because Peterson is a masterful manipulator who hides his political and social agendas expertly.

When he speaks of the left he seems to often make sure to conflate socialist leanings with Marxism communism and human extermination. His scholarly mind chooses to lose the ability to make accurate distinctions when speaking on these topics and the people who hold those ideas. He looses his sophistication willingly here but displays very high levels of sophistication when defending Christianity......

Just after speaking about mass human extermination by Marxist communists he said most professors are Marxists without taking the time to even address the levels at which these people hold those ideas and what combination of Marxism, socialism, capitalism etc these ideas are held in. ... Its a fear tactic and he does it perfectly. He hides the hook well.

Honestly I suppose its par form the course for people to do this BUT we must not.confuse his speech with that.of a detached scholar in search of propogating only the truth.


Sorry on phone with limited editing capacity.

 

[genecop]

I love the guy, not in a happy way....I just think he makes sense.