Jordan Peterson

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 59
#31
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
sex, mating, sexual behaviour etc are enormous research fields, far bigger than what my limited experience can comment on. His claim iirc "females aren't happy because they, by their own volition settle for sub-optimal partners." The discussion was about females choosing poor partners and ending up disgruntled, evolution aside (because he doesn't give credence to evolution which your link is heavy on). I don't even think he'd believe that there is an evolutionary explanation for mating behaviour and psychology, despite all the strongest theories being evolutionary.

The pop psychology part is the happiness bit. A little known fact about psychology is that there is no unity within the field and each field of research tends to produce conflicting theories. Consequently it's safe to be highly skeptical of claims that marry different fields and claim things that don't have an intuitive link to each other. It's fine to claim that women want strong and capable partners, and it's also very easy to study. To claim that this is the source of the social issues that women face is completely bizarre and not supported. That sort of link can't even be tested. It's not science, but he acts like it is, and asserts it as if it were true! Sorry but no, I can't just buy it.

As for his musings on religion, I'm not familiar with his religious beliefs other than being an agnostic christian, which is a very common Australian identity coincidentally lol.

 
#32
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
evolution aside (because he doesn't give credence to evolution which your link is heavy on).

I'm starting to get the impression you aren't very familiar with Peterson. 


That whole video reinforces that he is a big proponent of evolution, not just the law of (micro)evolution, but the theory of (macro)evolution. 

"...you've been evolving 3.5 billion years" 

thats right off the bat and 3.5billion necessarily implies macroevolution. 

His claim iirc "females aren't happy because they, by their own volition settle for sub-optimal partners."
The only thing I'll amend is rather than *their own volition* substitute *have to settle for*. Settle in relation to "sub-optimal". One wants optimal, getting sub-optimal is settling in relative terms for less, for whatever reason.

The discussion was about females choosing poor partners and ending up disgruntled, evolution aside 

Not evolution aside, the discussion was in relation to feminism as a whole and more specifically post-modern feminism. Which holds many unique ideas that your empirical self i would presume to be skeptical of in turn. 

A particular characteristic of the aforementioned being "toxic masculinity" which often seeks to *suppress* undesired masculine traits as opposed to *channeling* them constructively. 

These points don't just happen in a vacuum. Like the aforementioned wage gap criticism that wasn't, this was actually in the same overarching topic of discussion, that being the(post-modern) feminism of today. 

And the views thereins such as *toxic masculinity* and the *suppression* of masculine characteristics instead of constructively *channeling* them. For example in the "wage gap" part, he references Scandinavian countries that have experienced heightened disproportionality in the realms of profession choice, in the face of the greatest efforts to achieve equal proportionality to these choices. 

This tying into the criticism of "(Post-Modern)Feminism of the present" part along with the current complaint regarding partner choice in marriage and issues therein that potentially arise. 

To claim that this is the source of the social issues that women face is completely bizarre and not supported. That sort of link can't even be tested. It's not science, but he acts like it is, and asserts it as if it were true! Sorry but no, I can't just buy it.

Good, now take this same criticism and apply it to what he is criticizing in (Post-Modern) Feminism today. Look at the forest, take a moment away from the trees. You are attacking someone for lacking empirical date in criticizing a doctrine that equally lacks empirical data as it is only recently widely surging in popularity and just starting to take a broader hold of the course of direction 🤔
#33
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
Thank you for the correction lol, I sourced that faulty info from another discussion about his climate change denial and if that was link to conservative Christianity. My fault for the poor research there.

In my opinion, views on post modernism don't require evidence in order to dismiss, as it's purely philosophy. Here it would be helpful to draw a distinction between real social issues (eg women's happiness) and feminism. When he critiques feminism, I wouldn't criticise him for anything as everything in philosophy is essentially fair game barring logical fallacy. If my criticism has attacked his views on feminism, then I'll concede the point, because I don't mean to attack him for what I'm effectively doing right here.

I agree with your point that these issues don't materialise from a vacuum and I think it's a very good point. The context of the discussion being about post modern feminism and it's implications is very fair, but I think he has given enough opinions on real, mechanical issues to warrent the criticism of how he approaches empirical issues.

For the philosophical side, I think it's irresponsible for any feminist to be a post modernist and on that I completely agree with his logic. Science is better at creating solutions than any other epistemology known to man. When a feminist blames a real social issue on the 'patriarchy,' they are hurting other women. The only real way to solve the issue is to explicitly identify what it is and design an effective intervention strategy. If a boss is deliberately blocking his female staff from promotions because he's a misogynist, that's a valid problem. A feminist seeing that, who blames the 'patriarchy' has immediately eliminated all hope of solving the problem, because there is nothing operation to work with in the term 'patriarchy.' They've taken the problem and hidden it behind an abstract concept, far removed from the reach of evidence based policy.

It's ironic that feminists are the most convinced that we can harm each other with our words, yet use terms that hurt their own cause. The irony returns.
#34
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
I do totally agree that he does often make non-empirical claims. From my total experience its often in realms where there isnt much empirical evidence to go around 🤔.

His claims deserve scrutiny as everything does, and I'm not trying to imply they don't. Despite his failings, he's still someone who nails alot of stuff fmpov 👏. 

That he is painted often as "Right-Wing", is absurd to me on an independent note. 


#35
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
-->
@Buddamoose
That he is painted often as "Right-Wing", is absurd to me on an independent note.
The left has gone so far to the left that even centrists like me are perceived as right wing. I'm actually left leaning, and it's endlessly hilarious that they're so far left I might as well be an alt-right nazi. 

I have a meme for this. 


#36
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Smithereens
"love and hope"

Sounds like so commie bullshit to me... oh wait, in this case it kinda is 🙃😂

241 days later

#37
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Danielle
JP has some okay views politically speaking.  But philosophically, he's a nut job.  He thinks atheists are serial killers and he goes out of his way to never actually define anything. 
#38
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
No way. His political views are worse or lack thereof. The problem his that he only makes prescriptive statements not descriptives which leaves a lot of people on the right to pretty much say would are more happier in the house. Even though JP denies that he doesn't say what ought be done with the data just states the data. 
#39
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That's his style, he doesn't like to explain things.  Also, he's not unreasonable, that's why he's so popular.  there's truth behind his madness.  To deny that makes you susceptible to it. 

#40
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
A style which eludes what he actually means behind his statements? If everyone followed his style we would have to assume everything about their political positions and it would change how people speak to one another. 

#41
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Ah! but why do we have to accept everything he says.  Can we not acknowledge a truth he speaks while denying the falsehoods? 


#42
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Can we not acknowledge a truth he speaks while denying the falsehoods? 
He spouts evidence already given to us by people more credible but he thinks they are required to be said by him. He makes no mention of his position so his work is credited by the right and disliked by the left. Peterson cultists are st*pid for following him. 
#43
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You're being too black and white about it.  Things can have net effects you know. 

I'm certainly not making a case for anybody to become a JP follower (please think for yourself), however, if we're not going to be honest about his real weak points, then we're doing ourselves a disserve by both misunderstanding and underestimating him.  You assume everyone on the left hates him for instance.  How do you know that?  Things are not this simple.  Political parties are not hive minds.  This is why I'm non partisan 
#44
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You're being too black and white about it.
Yeah I am asking too much when I want to know where he aligns politically (joke). I not asking too much.
Political parties are not hive minds.  This is why I'm non partisan 
I said that as a general statement to say who he attracts more and if he was on the left it would be a problem because people are on the right are seeing his message and re-affirming their political positions instead of looking at the left due to how incapable he is at making value statements. 
#45
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
"he goes out of his way to never actually define anything.   
 Following a defined set of step by steps could be doing it wrong depending on the context.  We just have to leave some things open ended when it comes to life and social relations.  A philosophy that doesn't account for that may necessitate a controlled environment, and that could get ugly, which if I understand is something that Jordan Peterson has had to confront from time to time.

#46
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
  He thinks atheists are serial killers
Could you elaborate on this?
#47
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Snoopy
Following a defined set of step by steps could be doing it wrong depending on the context.  We just have to leave some things open ended when it comes to life and social relations.  A philosophy that doesn't account for that may necessitate a controlled environment, and that could get ugly, which if I understand is something that Jordan Peterson has had to confront from time to time.

What does this have to do with him not defining things.  I've never met a philosopher that doesn't define their words.  When I say he doesn't define things.  I mean you ask him if god exist and he literally will not answer.  He'll say "that's a 4 hours answer"  on a yes or no question.  We didn't ask the reason why he believes yes or no.  We asked if and he still dodges.  Because he's not arguing for literal god but he wants people to think that he is. 

Furthermore, can you justify your claim that we should "leave knowledge open ended."  None of what you're telling me sounds like philosophy but rather the opposite actually. 

Could you elaborate on this
Yeah, he thinks that atheists are basically nihilist who will perform any evil act because they have every objective reason to do so.  Oh but don't worry, he doesn't think the actual atheists are atheists. He thinks they're just suppressing their need for the "God archetype". 
He'll claim he never met a real atheist while standing in front of one.  He has done it before.  He did it to Matt Dillahunty.  

HIs just a false Guru selling snake oil.  and he's good at it.  That's all the truth behind the JP experience. 
#48
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Okay, in one paragraph you are complaining about him not defining things, and the next you are bickering about his personal definition of "atheism".  I believe Jordan Peterson is a Christian or has a Christian background.  He is probably accustomed to using "atheism" in the theological sense commonly defined as a rejection of God rather than a position of ignorance.  Atheism means if I may know God, I still reject God.  Most of what people may refer to as "atheism" is really agnosticism. 
#49
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Snoopy
Just because he defines one word doesn't mean he defines the rest.  by the way.  He never actually defines atheist.  He "defines" it by comparing an atheist to a character from a novel who is a murderer.  

He might be using the suppression claim (which is fallacious by the way) but that doesn't change anything.  Telling somebody they're not an atheist when they are is just plain foolishness.  You might as well just say I'm a liar and that you don't want to debate me at that point. 

He might be a Christian, don't you find it troubling that we don't know the answer to that question?  Certainly nobody asks this question of other Christian apologists because they make it clear they believe in God.  

JP presents God as metaphorical truth.  Which is true, but then goes onto say that it's within our genes to believe in god which is false and his way of trying to smuggle god in.  

Do you really think that atheists "know god"  How stupid do you think we are?  Do you think I would risk my soul going to hell if I knew god existed?  Come on now.   If you really believe that then you need to open an epistemology book please.  I don't say that to be mean. I'm serious. 



#50
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
The idea that a position of ignorance is "atheism" is just idiotic colloquialism, and has no philosophical utility.  Atheism in any respectable sense, refers to a rejection of the very concept of God.

Atheism means if I may know God, I still reject God. 

#51
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Snoopy
a = without

the = god

ism = belief. 


It means without god belief.  That can be interpreted many ways. 


an agnostic for instance counts as an atheist and that's not a fallacious position to take.  

an antitheist (which is what you're talking about) also counts as an atheist and could be called a gnostic atheist as well, although the term antitheist gets conflated with people who are against religion so a lot of people avoid it because of this. 

You don't get to walk up to an atheist and tell them how they define their own word.  Even the word roots prove you wrong here and it's the fastest way to make yourself look like you don't know what you're talking about.  Nothing makes an atheist's eyes glaze over faster than the "suppressing atheism" argument.  It's so silly that arguing it should be illegal in all states. (joking about the illegal part obviously)







#52
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
To your way of thinking, how does "without God Belief" disprove "refers to rejection of the very concept of God"?   Agnosticism - I do not know, therefore.  Atheism - I am without, therefore.  

Agnosticism  is not a subset of atheism.  If I had to guess I would have to say you are making a false assumption "Atheism is the default position", equating atheism, a belief or system of thought, with a position of ignorance.

#53
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Snoopy
So much wrong. 


Agnosticism is to not know "something"  


I can be agnostic about if there is money in my pocket.  

I can be agnostic about if I will win the lottery when I play it. 



it has nothing to do with atheism what so ever. 


without god belief is pretty straight forward.  If you're not a theist, you're an atheist, there's no in between.  You either have god belief, or you're without it.  A rejection of god  COULD be atheism because it will leaves you "without god belief"  but it's gnostic atheism because gnostic implies to know. 


Honestly, this might be the last response you get because if this is all you have to say then you're just a troll.  
#54
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
So much wrong. 
Count out the number of things that are wrong for me so that I can understand what you are referring to

Agnosticism is to not know "something"  
 Hence, "I do not know, therefore "      Contrastly Gnosticism would be "I know, therefore"


I can be agnostic about if there is money in my pocket.  

I can be agnostic about if I will win the lottery when I play it. 



it has nothing to do with atheism what so ever. 
Agreed


without god belief is pretty straight forward.  If you're not a theist, you're an atheist, there's no in between.  You either have god belief, or you're without it.  A rejection of god  COULD be atheism because it will leaves you "without god belief"  but it's gnostic atheism because gnostic implies to know. 
All ists, actually connotate SOMETHING.  A lack of belief is nonexistent, nonsensical, and there is no philosophical utility.  It is nothing. 


Honestly, this might be the last response you get because if this is all you have to say then you're just a troll.

I think its relevant to trying to understand what Mr. Peterson is conveying, and ultimately being able to critique his philosophy.
#55
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
I think its relevant to trying to understand what Mr. Peterson is conveying, and ultimately being able to critique his philosophy.

If we're gonna interlock thought.  Then I'm gonna have to drop the atheist thing because I'm not going to argue something that's a matter of societal usage.  If you want to hang on to a 1,000 year old definition, that's your problem.  Moving on. 


So your above response, I say "what philosophy?" 


JP isn't a philosopher, he's a psychologist.  He doesn't know squat about philosophy accept for whatever he might have picked up in a side class in college.  

Real philosophers actually define things.  It doesn't matter what their field of philosophy is. 


I agree that we should try to understand what JP says.  That's the problem.  He's not speaking clearly.  He only makes sense to theists who's brains are already jumbled by confusing theist speech.(not talking about all theists) 


#56
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Snoopy
tag
#57
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If we're gonna interlock thought.  Then I'm gonna have to drop the atheist thing because I'm not going to argue something that's a matter of societal usage.  If you want to hang on to a 1,000 year old definition, that's your problem.  Moving on.

So your above response, I say "what philosophy?" 


JP isn't a philosopher, he's a psychologist.  He doesn't know squat about philosophy accept for whatever he might have picked up in a side class in college.  

Real philosophers actually define things.  It doesn't matter what their field of philosophy is. 


I agree that we should try to understand what JP says.  That's the problem.  He's not speaking clearly.  He only makes sense to theists who's brains are already jumbled by confusing theist speech.(not talking about all theists) 


The problem I am seeing here thus far has not proven that Mr. Peterson's speech is confusing.  Its been explained to you that the absurd colloquialism you prefer is insufficient for conferring thought when the rubber meets the road.  The issue in this case as has been demonstrated is that your brain is jumbled by confusing speech to the extent that you express sensibility as intolerable.  If you deem yourself unable to make sense in this simple context for the sake of conversation than it is unreasonable for you to assume that he is speaking unclearly.  In that respect, you should be able (technically) to begin solving whatever problems you are taking issue with, and as such they cannot be easily dismissed.  In this context it is also evident that you are not in a position to say that he does "not know squat" about philosophy at this time, even if that is not of his primary concern.
#58
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@Snoopy
Well he's admitted to not knowing much about philosophy.  You're merely asserting that his language is not confusing.  Even people who like his work tend to admit it's confusing so you saying I don't understand it because I have my own confusing language is just false.  If he was so easy to understand, then I should be able to whip out a dictionary and understand him, but that's not the case.  

Furthermore, it's not that I don't understand what he's saying, quite the opposite, I understand that when you take what he says to it's logical conclusion, it ends up with multiple possible meanings.  In philosophy, they call that equivocation.  It's something that everybody does, but people arguing for god almost always have to do it because it's the only way to smuggle god in.  When you really peel back what JP is saying.  He's not really saying anything at all.  He just defines god into existence and then implies that there are "hypothetical truths" then calls god an archetype "connecting him to hypothetical truths" then says we should live our lives by our archetypes "final step of smuggling in God".  But when you ask him if god exist, he won't answer that . Because he knows that if he says god is real, then he would have to drop his mumbo jumbo about hypothetical truths and deal with the same problems with the god claim that stop other apologists from proving it.  While it's clever on his part, it's also dishonest and ultimately vacuous.  

The only people who fall for this crap are people who don't understand what he's saying and theists who want to ride his wave because they need a good argument for god and don't have one. 


#59
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Well he's admitted to not knowing much about philosophy.  You're merely asserting that his language is not confusing.  Even people who like his work tend to admit it's confusing so you saying I don't understand it because I have my own confusing language is just false.
What type of fallacy is this, if there is only one?  


You're merely asserting that his language is not confusing.
"Has not proven" is not an assertion as you say, so in the absence of explicit information, how did you come to this conclusion?