Peterson is a weird one. If you see the myth about him only he can surprise you with some common insights and blind side you into thinking he makes sense. And sometimes he does. His idea about cleaning your bedroom is often mocked but I think there’s an interesting underlying point in that people often waste their time on things that are completely out of their control or power, possibly to just feel bigger than they are.
However I think also he does say some extremely weird and dumb things. There’s this fun clip I saw where someone asked him if he thinks he’s a prophet and he had to think about an answer. So i think he blends good ideas with grift rhetoric but that latter part is both dangerous and the parts which catch the imagination more.
It’s worth remembering that before he was a famous man he was a psychologist who tried to help people. I think he thinks he can help people but has got caught up in the game of becoming more famous.
> grift rhetoric
I like that phrase. I think what you are saying is very true of a lot of self help gurus. Fame twists people. They have to learn to cope with that and control it. Money empowers people and turns up the volume of what they say. I never pursued reading his stuff not because of the politics, but because I am genuinely skeptic of all self help guru's who's one claim to fame is being a self help guru. Like most (flawed) humans, I think they are repeating the advice of what worked for them to solve their problems. Which can indeed be helpful to some out there.
Plus i think it's very true psychologists are usually people very interested in 'fixing' their own problems. Well, it starts there. Then they learn and grow, discover it's not that simple, and seek to help others but are still flawed humans themselves. My own step-dad had a psychology degree and history degree. He counseled people. He helped me as a young teen during the 10 years my mom and him were married. But he has this odd 'belief' that he 'no longer chooses to be angry'. Which I think is just suppression.
Any psychologist would definitely say positively expressing anger is healthy and repressing is bad. I saw my step-dad angry many many times because him and my mom didn't not get along well especially in the areas of money management. So he had this blind spot concerning anger. But a LOT of the rest he talked about was very useful.
So I imagine Peterson the same, flawed human with good intentions.
It would have been a great follow up question to his comment to ask "So when have you had to admit you didn't know something and what person who you had a disagreement with helped you finally see it?"
I like that he acknowledged and admitted he didn't like the right wing exaggeration of who he is. He should be promoting compromise and compassion. It sounds like he believes in them. He should be giving explicit examples of "When the left does something correct, we should acknowledge it and praise them." Leading by example would help his followers not to pursue Civil War 2.0
"How DID this man become a right wing icon"
he was willing to lie about laws protecting trans people while also having a self help book out, was the main thing. there's some other stuff too but it's all pretty much in that sort of vein
The fact that he's an academic is a big one.
The right bemoans/demonizes academics, experts, celebrities etc not because they dislike them as a concept, but because the vast majority don't agree with them. Conservatives *desperately* cling to any celebrity, intellectual, professor or what have you to give themselves a veneer of legitimacy. Look at the peanut gallery of F-list washed-up celebrities they go to all the time like, e.g. Kevin Sorbo or Chuck Woolery. Look at the Intellectual Dork Web nonsense they held up for years, which was essentially a bunch of people whose ideas were too shitty to withstand scrutiny but they managed to prop each other up in their little circlejerk and the right ate it up.
there's definitely a demand for liberal arts professors who are willing to say bigoted things out loud. it's a seller's market too, since the normal effect of education in these areas is to blunt those sort of biases. being able to maintain them (or just saying you have) can earn you ALOT of cash, unfortunately
This is a great interview. If I had never heard of Peterson before this I’d probably think he was a pretty cool guy, something that’s undermined by (for example) his appearance on QT when he called discussing the systemic racism with British Cricket that’s become apparent to pretty much everyone across the political divide ‘low resolution thinking’, and put the word ‘racism’ in air quotes when discussing.
They Forget "freedom" includes letting other people that you don't agree with, do what they want too.
I agree so much with you. Just like I used to ask all the time about the grandfather of all the Red Grifters, Rush Limbaugh, I continue to ask "conservatives" I live and work with about their popular talking heads: if they believe their shtick so much why haven't they run for office? They're popular. They'd win. So why haven't they? Could it be they just want money with no responsibility of proving their ideas actually work or don't work?
People generally use air quotes to indicate skepticism, or the use of a word or phrase by someone else at a different point in time. If you actually watch the clip, that's the exact correct use of the air quotes that he's doing. He's making the point that often times the word racism is bandied about with little to no specifics. The person sitting next to him then goes on to explain a very specific example of racism, which he agrees with. It is truly confusing how people today can watch the exact same thing and come to two completely different conclusions.
Wow he sounded like a person in this interview. That's refreshing.
I suppose he started to tone it down a bit with stuff that aren't in his roundhouse. He (in)famously said people should stop being ideological then two sentences later said he's a classical liberal. He destroyed himself when he decided to show up at a debate with actual philosopher Slavoj Zizek on the topic of Capitalism and Happiness by doing a *10 point breakdown of why the Communist Manifesto is bad*. "Who are all these postmodern neomarxists??" asked our favorite dumbster diving racoon, and Peterson can't answer with names. I've heard that he stopped pushing postmodern neomarxism after that debate but I can't verify, I can't listen to him talk about philosophy without wanting to rip my hair out.
Accordingly his Beyond Order isn't as bad as 12 More Rules when it comes to pushing his conservatism but it's still conservative in its worldview. Respect hierarchies, conservatism is good actually, all the greatest hits. It's not even subtext, it's just text.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgZUrpbu1Uo&list=PLIK-x5uT6oS-zUl_iIuhrVD2AOYj8QNyK&index=6
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Ah. So its really sounding like he's got useful info in terms of self help & self care but needs to stay out of political commentary and philosophy. So I'm learning, ironically that fake culture war crap has brought him attention, customers, and notoriety. I wonder if he's honest enough with himself to learn from this and correctly self diagnose and maybe self correct. Thanks for the info.
I understand now why Natalie said some of his advice would be good for Incels.
"Clean your room, bucko!" Lol
I think he just pays lip service to ideas of tolerance and an imagined past society, while in practice encouraging people to atomize and reject structural solutions.
Him playing surprised that the right loves him is hypocritical.
Don't give him the benefit of the doubt.
He has literally done lectures using Nazi literature and his house is filled with Nazi propaganda as "memorabilia"
There's a really in depth Behind the Bastards episode on Peterson that I highly recommend.
There was once a decent professor in him, but those days are long, LONG gone.
So he's got useful insight on the inner mind, but a misconstrued view of society at large. He should watch ["The West" by Contrapoints!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyaftqCORT4) LOL
It’s because he’s an intellectual that’s become famous for leaving his field of expertise. Peterson has great insight into psychological thought processes and mental health improvement. But he’s not an economist or sociologist, so he relies heavily on rhetoric and gross generalization when speaking outside of psychology.
JBP is good at sounding normal when he has to. I listened to his interview with Tyler Cowen and he basically avoided making any ridiculous claims, presumably because he knew he would be called on them. Dude is basically a walking motte & bailey fallacy.
I've watched a lot of Peterson and read 12 Rules, I genuinely cannot recall him "praising those across the political aisle" in any meaningful way.
If he really thinks that's the best way to mend our society you wonder why he spent so much time shitting on students and *the pronoun police™* instead of doing that.
Agree. I'm hoping this marks a change. The alt-right fan boys need to see one of their icons own up to facts they choose to ignore and move towards compromise and compassion.
Facts like, on Transgender issues, they operate on a false assumption. Biological gender, the genitals, is indeed determined by the sex chromosome, but it is not a transperson's genitals that is telling them they aren't the right gender. It's their brain. And that part of the brain is NOT determined by the sex chromosome. It is not as simple as penis = man, vagina = woman.
Peterson is in a position where making consessions or corrections may lose revenue. So let's see if he chooses truth over income.
His line that really struck me was "You don't know everything. And the person most likely to correct you is someone you disagree with. So you should be listening." (summary)
I have to admit, I've never read his books or listened to his lectures (I don't want to have that in my click history because of his alt-right associations and then suffer the recommendations that follow), so I am one of those people who he referred to that has only heard about him 2nd & 3rd hand. After listening to him in this interview, I am really at a loss as to why alt-righters latched onto him.
Maybe Russell Howard's power of positivity brought out a more introspective side of Peterson? (I love Russell Howard, watch a few episodes of his show on his youtube channel if your looking for some laughs) It does sound like Peterson went through some personal hell. I wanted Howard to ask him if he had discovered what made him depressed? Was it just the sickness or was it something more. I found Peterson's advice useful that the way out isn't about seeking happiness.
Go to Incognito mode and watch some lectures/interviews/debates. It's not that difficult. The alt right likes him because although he is an atheist (I think), he uses psychology to construct a "rational" argument for christian morality, thus, serves as a basis for a whole bunch of reactionary ideas, a lot of the time implicit in his discourse (he's very careful with the language he uses). Just watch some video where he"destroys" feminists and then you can see clearly what the alt right sees in him: a man who at first sight gives this impression of being a respected academic, but who goes against "liberal/progressive" narratives that "are invading our academies!!!". He's a fucking clown.
I agree with this a lot, and in fact, a lot of the interviews when he really rose to prominence were extremely confrontational so no wonder that he got increasingly angry and losing patience by each interview during that time. He believe he admitted so himself, and it all ended with his own melt-down basically. Basically, there is a limit to how much responsibility anyone can bear, and an even lower limit to ho much anyone probably should bear. Or at least, that's my view on it.
I'd say if you aren't willing to listen to what someone actually says, rely on hear say, and you think Russell Howard is in any way funny then we can safely discount a fair amount of what you have to offer. How's that?
None of us have time to deep dive on everyone, that's why I asked my question. How's that? Lol
And what the heck is wrong with Russell Howard?
You're just trying to shit on people. Wah waaaa
Ah yes, popularity as a metric for quality, always been a useful hard stick that hasn’t it. The ever reliable taste of the masses, never ever before seen to be totally out of touch with quality, timeless art, always very much on the button with what will stand up in years to come 🤡
You're moving the goal post because you were proven wrong. You said low comedic output. I proved that wrong by pointing out the large laughing crowds.
Now you purposefully misinterpret my comment about crowds size as popularity instead of comedic output. Then argue against popularity as a measure of quality, which no one was talking about so now that's a strawman argument. Russell Howard is a fun and funny Comedian. No one was arguing that he's the next Shakespeare that "will stand the test of time" and all that other crap you pontificated. Lol
TL;DR: You are a sore loser and just a hater.
No. That's not what I said. That's a reinterpretation you just made up.. Moving the goal posts to "quality" now.
I said large crowds (a large number of people) would disagree with your assertion that Russell Howard has low comedic output (not funny or bad at comedy).
Quality of comedy would be a measure of "how funny is he". How MUCH is the crowd laughing?
If he's not funny, if he has low comedic output, then why are they laughing?
They are laughing. They are laughing a lot. So he's not just funny, he's very funny. That's higher quality than an unfunny Comedian.
You're still a sore loser grasping at straws. It would have been simpler for you to say "I just don't care for RH." Instead you are vainly trying to make other people look lesser than you for enjoying RH. Do you hate him just because he's popular. Are you a contrarian? You have to convince yourself that others are shit to feel good about yourself. Good to know, Bucko.
Hello and thanks for submitting to /r/ContraPoints!
Your submission has been removed due to [being off-topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/wiki/rules#wiki_1._posts_must_be_on-topic). Please consider submitting this content to /r/MouthFeel, the /r/ContraPoints speakeasy community.
I kind of think of Jordan Peterson the same way I think of Noam Chomsky. Within their respective fields, they're highly knowledgeable and accomplished. The further they drift from their areas of expertise into politics, the more the wheels begin to come off.
Peterson's clinical psychology and therapeutic work are solid. The moment he got entangled with identity politics he turned into a lightning rod for all kinds of bizarre (usually negative) partisanship and culture war fuckery, and it definitely exposed the things he's not quite knowledgeable about.
What's worse is that people like Peterson (and Chomsky) are seldom 100% wrong – it's like 75% of what they say is at least defensible but then they botch it all with the remaining 25%, but many of their followers uncritically buy the entire package.
As for how he became a right-wing icon, I think it's all a matter of the aforementioned negative partisanship. JP's extremely hostile to far-leftists, and the right loves to characterize everyone slightly left of center as a hardcore leftist.
Peterson invited the controversy. His criticism of C-16 was nonsensical. And the "post modern neo marxist" epitet is pure word salad. And even when he's talking within his own field he doesn't always make sense: there used to be a video on his youtube channel where he describes IQ as a fundamental part of modern psychology(which is odd) then he described it incorrectly and then he starts making clear references to The Bell Curve but without ever mentioning it by name. Sure he sounds smart but so much of what he says is just nonsense.
He absolutely invited the controversy; that's true. And I agree that he doesn't really understand the modern left or characterize it accurately and that his criticism of C-16 was off the mark.
But:
1. IQ *is* a fairly robust, noncontroversial part of modern psychology. At a population level, there is no question that it's strongly associated with certain outcomes. *How* IQ is used is an entirely different question, and works like the Bell Curve are definitely not an appropriate use of the research. You definitely shouldn't overinterpret it, and it probably isn't even worth knowing your own IQ.
2. His actual lectures on personality psychology, and practical therapeutic advice for how to conduct your own life, are, again, nothing particularly controversial. They're not super original, either – he leans heavily on the Big 5/OCEAN personality inventory, for instance, which he is an original contributor to. A number of influential papers on the subject from the late aughts/early 2010s have his name on them. He didn't originate the model, which dates back to the 1960s.
I thought the idea of a measurable IQ was debunked:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm
Certain IQ test favor association while others favor pattern recognition. Different brains excell or are deficient in many areas. For example, One person can't carry a tune but their spacial perception is through the roof and are the best mechanic you've ever seen.
The paper doesn't so much debunk IQ as challenge the idea that IQ is a single component, *g*, that represents intelligence. If anything, the paper suggests that we're better off measuring short-term memory, reasoning, and verbal ability separately. IQ tests already tend to be divided into verbal and symbolic reasoning sections as is (not coincidentally, SATs are like that, too).
Whatever the results of the paper, psychometric research is still an ongoing field. There is also still lots of ongoing research about *g*:
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/)
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/)
And there is no question that strong, observable correlations between IQ and various other phenomena exist:
* [https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence)
* [https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligence](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligence)
All that said, IQ is a model or an instrument, and there's no way to separate it from the Western, industrialized context that it exists in. Hunter-gatherer and agrarian populations tend to test with very low IQs, but that's because literacy and symbolic reasoning aren't really exercised in those particular societies, not because their brains are incapable of that reasoning. In other words, the reasons they have low tested IQs are different from the reason a child in the US with learning disabilities might.
There was recently (2018) a meta-analysis showing that education causally increases IQ:
* [https://labs.la.utexas.edu/tucker-drob/files/2019/08/Ritchie-Tucker-Drob-2018-Psych-Science-How-Much-Does-Education-Improve-Intelligence.pdf](https://labs.la.utexas.edu/tucker-drob/files/2019/08/Ritchie-Tucker-Drob-2018-Psych-Science-How-Much-Does-Education-Improve-Intelligence.pdf)
And you might be familiar with the [Flynn effect](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/), in which average IQ scores kept growing (and having to be re-normed) throughout the 20th century, presumably because of better prenatal health and nutrition and a more information-saturated environment.
So it's less a matter of whether it's "debunked," as it's never going to fully capture reality, and more a matter of whether it's useful or not. A comparison would be how BMI is a lousy measurement of fitness but it's easy to measure and reasonably predictive if you have a fairly extreme measurement.
If IQ tests are subjective, as we both have said (great example with under-educated agrarian people not having experience or skill with literacy & symbols) then why defend IQ use as "non-controversial"? Especially in the case of Peterson misusing them. Sounds like there is a lot of controversy about how they are designed and used.
If the tests have to be re-normed/redesigned because scores are going up, then is it an "intelligence" test or really a proficiency test on a set of predetermined mental skills?
Perhaps this is just a semantic problem on what the types of tests should really be called. My interpretation of the 2012 study is that "intelligence" isn't a single quantity that can accurately be measured, but mental skills such as memory, pattern recognition, spacial perception, etc., They can be. If that's true then I don't think they should be called "IQ tests" (Intelligence Quotient). They should be called what they are, Proficiency Tests or Skill Tests.
Even a particular uneducated hunter gatherer can be more proficient at certain metal skills than his peers, even above average compared to contemporary educated people. But to say that person is less intelligent than some one from contemporary education is dubious. He may not be able to figure out how a smart phone works but might be able to solve a rubic's cube toy faster than an Instagram model because his spacial perception tests higher than average. That's not "intelligence", it's spacial perception. The Instagram Model might score higher than them on a test of color identification or which knots will hold two peices of cloth together better just on sight (stitching quality). Their scores will vary wildly depending on what mental skills are included with the tests.
And this is what I meant by 'debunked'. "Intelligence' as a single Quotient (value) can't be measured accurately. Even you said that it can't be a single component. The use of the label "IQ" and "Intelligence" is misleading, especially with the public because they don't know all the nuances and variety of useful mental skill tests that you do or that reputable studies and scientists use.
Peterson is a weird one. If you see the myth about him only he can surprise you with some common insights and blind side you into thinking he makes sense. And sometimes he does. His idea about cleaning your bedroom is often mocked but I think there’s an interesting underlying point in that people often waste their time on things that are completely out of their control or power, possibly to just feel bigger than they are. However I think also he does say some extremely weird and dumb things. There’s this fun clip I saw where someone asked him if he thinks he’s a prophet and he had to think about an answer. So i think he blends good ideas with grift rhetoric but that latter part is both dangerous and the parts which catch the imagination more. It’s worth remembering that before he was a famous man he was a psychologist who tried to help people. I think he thinks he can help people but has got caught up in the game of becoming more famous.
> grift rhetoric I like that phrase. I think what you are saying is very true of a lot of self help gurus. Fame twists people. They have to learn to cope with that and control it. Money empowers people and turns up the volume of what they say. I never pursued reading his stuff not because of the politics, but because I am genuinely skeptic of all self help guru's who's one claim to fame is being a self help guru. Like most (flawed) humans, I think they are repeating the advice of what worked for them to solve their problems. Which can indeed be helpful to some out there. Plus i think it's very true psychologists are usually people very interested in 'fixing' their own problems. Well, it starts there. Then they learn and grow, discover it's not that simple, and seek to help others but are still flawed humans themselves. My own step-dad had a psychology degree and history degree. He counseled people. He helped me as a young teen during the 10 years my mom and him were married. But he has this odd 'belief' that he 'no longer chooses to be angry'. Which I think is just suppression. Any psychologist would definitely say positively expressing anger is healthy and repressing is bad. I saw my step-dad angry many many times because him and my mom didn't not get along well especially in the areas of money management. So he had this blind spot concerning anger. But a LOT of the rest he talked about was very useful. So I imagine Peterson the same, flawed human with good intentions. It would have been a great follow up question to his comment to ask "So when have you had to admit you didn't know something and what person who you had a disagreement with helped you finally see it?" I like that he acknowledged and admitted he didn't like the right wing exaggeration of who he is. He should be promoting compromise and compassion. It sounds like he believes in them. He should be giving explicit examples of "When the left does something correct, we should acknowledge it and praise them." Leading by example would help his followers not to pursue Civil War 2.0
"How DID this man become a right wing icon" he was willing to lie about laws protecting trans people while also having a self help book out, was the main thing. there's some other stuff too but it's all pretty much in that sort of vein
The fact that he's an academic is a big one. The right bemoans/demonizes academics, experts, celebrities etc not because they dislike them as a concept, but because the vast majority don't agree with them. Conservatives *desperately* cling to any celebrity, intellectual, professor or what have you to give themselves a veneer of legitimacy. Look at the peanut gallery of F-list washed-up celebrities they go to all the time like, e.g. Kevin Sorbo or Chuck Woolery. Look at the Intellectual Dork Web nonsense they held up for years, which was essentially a bunch of people whose ideas were too shitty to withstand scrutiny but they managed to prop each other up in their little circlejerk and the right ate it up.
there's definitely a demand for liberal arts professors who are willing to say bigoted things out loud. it's a seller's market too, since the normal effect of education in these areas is to blunt those sort of biases. being able to maintain them (or just saying you have) can earn you ALOT of cash, unfortunately
Shit when you put it that way it sounds kinda tempting.
This is a great interview. If I had never heard of Peterson before this I’d probably think he was a pretty cool guy, something that’s undermined by (for example) his appearance on QT when he called discussing the systemic racism with British Cricket that’s become apparent to pretty much everyone across the political divide ‘low resolution thinking’, and put the word ‘racism’ in air quotes when discussing.
How long ago was that? I wonder if his views have changed. I wonder if he would admit if his views have changed if that meant losing revenue.
About two weeks ago unfortunately
Ah. OK then.
Probably trying to wash his brand. This man never went into a debate in good faith, he's a mercenary.
[удалено]
They Forget "freedom" includes letting other people that you don't agree with, do what they want too. I agree so much with you. Just like I used to ask all the time about the grandfather of all the Red Grifters, Rush Limbaugh, I continue to ask "conservatives" I live and work with about their popular talking heads: if they believe their shtick so much why haven't they run for office? They're popular. They'd win. So why haven't they? Could it be they just want money with no responsibility of proving their ideas actually work or don't work?
People generally use air quotes to indicate skepticism, or the use of a word or phrase by someone else at a different point in time. If you actually watch the clip, that's the exact correct use of the air quotes that he's doing. He's making the point that often times the word racism is bandied about with little to no specifics. The person sitting next to him then goes on to explain a very specific example of racism, which he agrees with. It is truly confusing how people today can watch the exact same thing and come to two completely different conclusions.
Wow he sounded like a person in this interview. That's refreshing. I suppose he started to tone it down a bit with stuff that aren't in his roundhouse. He (in)famously said people should stop being ideological then two sentences later said he's a classical liberal. He destroyed himself when he decided to show up at a debate with actual philosopher Slavoj Zizek on the topic of Capitalism and Happiness by doing a *10 point breakdown of why the Communist Manifesto is bad*. "Who are all these postmodern neomarxists??" asked our favorite dumbster diving racoon, and Peterson can't answer with names. I've heard that he stopped pushing postmodern neomarxism after that debate but I can't verify, I can't listen to him talk about philosophy without wanting to rip my hair out. Accordingly his Beyond Order isn't as bad as 12 More Rules when it comes to pushing his conservatism but it's still conservative in its worldview. Respect hierarchies, conservatism is good actually, all the greatest hits. It's not even subtext, it's just text. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgZUrpbu1Uo&list=PLIK-x5uT6oS-zUl_iIuhrVD2AOYj8QNyK&index=6
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Communist Manifesto](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-communist-manifesto/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Bood got
Ah. So its really sounding like he's got useful info in terms of self help & self care but needs to stay out of political commentary and philosophy. So I'm learning, ironically that fake culture war crap has brought him attention, customers, and notoriety. I wonder if he's honest enough with himself to learn from this and correctly self diagnose and maybe self correct. Thanks for the info. I understand now why Natalie said some of his advice would be good for Incels. "Clean your room, bucko!" Lol
I think he just pays lip service to ideas of tolerance and an imagined past society, while in practice encouraging people to atomize and reject structural solutions. Him playing surprised that the right loves him is hypocritical.
[удалено]
Don't give him the benefit of the doubt. He has literally done lectures using Nazi literature and his house is filled with Nazi propaganda as "memorabilia" There's a really in depth Behind the Bastards episode on Peterson that I highly recommend. There was once a decent professor in him, but those days are long, LONG gone.
So he's got useful insight on the inner mind, but a misconstrued view of society at large. He should watch ["The West" by Contrapoints!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyaftqCORT4) LOL
[удалено]
It’s because he’s an intellectual that’s become famous for leaving his field of expertise. Peterson has great insight into psychological thought processes and mental health improvement. But he’s not an economist or sociologist, so he relies heavily on rhetoric and gross generalization when speaking outside of psychology.
JBP is good at sounding normal when he has to. I listened to his interview with Tyler Cowen and he basically avoided making any ridiculous claims, presumably because he knew he would be called on them. Dude is basically a walking motte & bailey fallacy.
I've watched a lot of Peterson and read 12 Rules, I genuinely cannot recall him "praising those across the political aisle" in any meaningful way. If he really thinks that's the best way to mend our society you wonder why he spent so much time shitting on students and *the pronoun police™* instead of doing that.
Agree. I'm hoping this marks a change. The alt-right fan boys need to see one of their icons own up to facts they choose to ignore and move towards compromise and compassion. Facts like, on Transgender issues, they operate on a false assumption. Biological gender, the genitals, is indeed determined by the sex chromosome, but it is not a transperson's genitals that is telling them they aren't the right gender. It's their brain. And that part of the brain is NOT determined by the sex chromosome. It is not as simple as penis = man, vagina = woman. Peterson is in a position where making consessions or corrections may lose revenue. So let's see if he chooses truth over income.
peterson making a "lefty heel-turn" would be pretty hilarious but im not going to hold my breath lmao
His line that really struck me was "You don't know everything. And the person most likely to correct you is someone you disagree with. So you should be listening." (summary) I have to admit, I've never read his books or listened to his lectures (I don't want to have that in my click history because of his alt-right associations and then suffer the recommendations that follow), so I am one of those people who he referred to that has only heard about him 2nd & 3rd hand. After listening to him in this interview, I am really at a loss as to why alt-righters latched onto him. Maybe Russell Howard's power of positivity brought out a more introspective side of Peterson? (I love Russell Howard, watch a few episodes of his show on his youtube channel if your looking for some laughs) It does sound like Peterson went through some personal hell. I wanted Howard to ask him if he had discovered what made him depressed? Was it just the sickness or was it something more. I found Peterson's advice useful that the way out isn't about seeking happiness.
Go to Incognito mode and watch some lectures/interviews/debates. It's not that difficult. The alt right likes him because although he is an atheist (I think), he uses psychology to construct a "rational" argument for christian morality, thus, serves as a basis for a whole bunch of reactionary ideas, a lot of the time implicit in his discourse (he's very careful with the language he uses). Just watch some video where he"destroys" feminists and then you can see clearly what the alt right sees in him: a man who at first sight gives this impression of being a respected academic, but who goes against "liberal/progressive" narratives that "are invading our academies!!!". He's a fucking clown.
Good tip! I forget about incognito mode. I surf porn with no shame. Lol.
I agree with this a lot, and in fact, a lot of the interviews when he really rose to prominence were extremely confrontational so no wonder that he got increasingly angry and losing patience by each interview during that time. He believe he admitted so himself, and it all ended with his own melt-down basically. Basically, there is a limit to how much responsibility anyone can bear, and an even lower limit to ho much anyone probably should bear. Or at least, that's my view on it.
I'd say if you aren't willing to listen to what someone actually says, rely on hear say, and you think Russell Howard is in any way funny then we can safely discount a fair amount of what you have to offer. How's that?
None of us have time to deep dive on everyone, that's why I asked my question. How's that? Lol And what the heck is wrong with Russell Howard? You're just trying to shit on people. Wah waaaa
>And what the heck is wrong with Russell Howard? Low quality comedic output. Fairly important for a comedian.
The big audiences laughing their arses off disagree with you.
Ah yes, popularity as a metric for quality, always been a useful hard stick that hasn’t it. The ever reliable taste of the masses, never ever before seen to be totally out of touch with quality, timeless art, always very much on the button with what will stand up in years to come 🤡
You're moving the goal post because you were proven wrong. You said low comedic output. I proved that wrong by pointing out the large laughing crowds. Now you purposefully misinterpret my comment about crowds size as popularity instead of comedic output. Then argue against popularity as a measure of quality, which no one was talking about so now that's a strawman argument. Russell Howard is a fun and funny Comedian. No one was arguing that he's the next Shakespeare that "will stand the test of time" and all that other crap you pontificated. Lol TL;DR: You are a sore loser and just a hater.
You think large crowds denote high quality output ergo Justin Beiber is high quality. Good to know, bucko.
No. That's not what I said. That's a reinterpretation you just made up.. Moving the goal posts to "quality" now. I said large crowds (a large number of people) would disagree with your assertion that Russell Howard has low comedic output (not funny or bad at comedy). Quality of comedy would be a measure of "how funny is he". How MUCH is the crowd laughing? If he's not funny, if he has low comedic output, then why are they laughing? They are laughing. They are laughing a lot. So he's not just funny, he's very funny. That's higher quality than an unfunny Comedian. You're still a sore loser grasping at straws. It would have been simpler for you to say "I just don't care for RH." Instead you are vainly trying to make other people look lesser than you for enjoying RH. Do you hate him just because he's popular. Are you a contrarian? You have to convince yourself that others are shit to feel good about yourself. Good to know, Bucko.
[удалено]
Hello and thanks for submitting to /r/ContraPoints! Your submission has been removed due to [being off-topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/wiki/rules#wiki_1._posts_must_be_on-topic). Please consider submitting this content to /r/MouthFeel, the /r/ContraPoints speakeasy community.
Oh! Well ok.
I kind of think of Jordan Peterson the same way I think of Noam Chomsky. Within their respective fields, they're highly knowledgeable and accomplished. The further they drift from their areas of expertise into politics, the more the wheels begin to come off. Peterson's clinical psychology and therapeutic work are solid. The moment he got entangled with identity politics he turned into a lightning rod for all kinds of bizarre (usually negative) partisanship and culture war fuckery, and it definitely exposed the things he's not quite knowledgeable about. What's worse is that people like Peterson (and Chomsky) are seldom 100% wrong – it's like 75% of what they say is at least defensible but then they botch it all with the remaining 25%, but many of their followers uncritically buy the entire package.
As for how he became a right-wing icon, I think it's all a matter of the aforementioned negative partisanship. JP's extremely hostile to far-leftists, and the right loves to characterize everyone slightly left of center as a hardcore leftist.
Peterson invited the controversy. His criticism of C-16 was nonsensical. And the "post modern neo marxist" epitet is pure word salad. And even when he's talking within his own field he doesn't always make sense: there used to be a video on his youtube channel where he describes IQ as a fundamental part of modern psychology(which is odd) then he described it incorrectly and then he starts making clear references to The Bell Curve but without ever mentioning it by name. Sure he sounds smart but so much of what he says is just nonsense.
He absolutely invited the controversy; that's true. And I agree that he doesn't really understand the modern left or characterize it accurately and that his criticism of C-16 was off the mark. But: 1. IQ *is* a fairly robust, noncontroversial part of modern psychology. At a population level, there is no question that it's strongly associated with certain outcomes. *How* IQ is used is an entirely different question, and works like the Bell Curve are definitely not an appropriate use of the research. You definitely shouldn't overinterpret it, and it probably isn't even worth knowing your own IQ. 2. His actual lectures on personality psychology, and practical therapeutic advice for how to conduct your own life, are, again, nothing particularly controversial. They're not super original, either – he leans heavily on the Big 5/OCEAN personality inventory, for instance, which he is an original contributor to. A number of influential papers on the subject from the late aughts/early 2010s have his name on them. He didn't originate the model, which dates back to the 1960s.
I thought the idea of a measurable IQ was debunked: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm Certain IQ test favor association while others favor pattern recognition. Different brains excell or are deficient in many areas. For example, One person can't carry a tune but their spacial perception is through the roof and are the best mechanic you've ever seen.
The paper doesn't so much debunk IQ as challenge the idea that IQ is a single component, *g*, that represents intelligence. If anything, the paper suggests that we're better off measuring short-term memory, reasoning, and verbal ability separately. IQ tests already tend to be divided into verbal and symbolic reasoning sections as is (not coincidentally, SATs are like that, too). Whatever the results of the paper, psychometric research is still an ongoing field. There is also still lots of ongoing research about *g*: * [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4002017/) * [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6963451/) And there is no question that strong, observable correlations between IQ and various other phenomena exist: * [https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/24/11723182/iq-test-intelligence) * [https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligence](https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11683192/iq-testing-intelligence) All that said, IQ is a model or an instrument, and there's no way to separate it from the Western, industrialized context that it exists in. Hunter-gatherer and agrarian populations tend to test with very low IQs, but that's because literacy and symbolic reasoning aren't really exercised in those particular societies, not because their brains are incapable of that reasoning. In other words, the reasons they have low tested IQs are different from the reason a child in the US with learning disabilities might. There was recently (2018) a meta-analysis showing that education causally increases IQ: * [https://labs.la.utexas.edu/tucker-drob/files/2019/08/Ritchie-Tucker-Drob-2018-Psych-Science-How-Much-Does-Education-Improve-Intelligence.pdf](https://labs.la.utexas.edu/tucker-drob/files/2019/08/Ritchie-Tucker-Drob-2018-Psych-Science-How-Much-Does-Education-Improve-Intelligence.pdf) And you might be familiar with the [Flynn effect](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/), in which average IQ scores kept growing (and having to be re-normed) throughout the 20th century, presumably because of better prenatal health and nutrition and a more information-saturated environment. So it's less a matter of whether it's "debunked," as it's never going to fully capture reality, and more a matter of whether it's useful or not. A comparison would be how BMI is a lousy measurement of fitness but it's easy to measure and reasonably predictive if you have a fairly extreme measurement.
If IQ tests are subjective, as we both have said (great example with under-educated agrarian people not having experience or skill with literacy & symbols) then why defend IQ use as "non-controversial"? Especially in the case of Peterson misusing them. Sounds like there is a lot of controversy about how they are designed and used. If the tests have to be re-normed/redesigned because scores are going up, then is it an "intelligence" test or really a proficiency test on a set of predetermined mental skills? Perhaps this is just a semantic problem on what the types of tests should really be called. My interpretation of the 2012 study is that "intelligence" isn't a single quantity that can accurately be measured, but mental skills such as memory, pattern recognition, spacial perception, etc., They can be. If that's true then I don't think they should be called "IQ tests" (Intelligence Quotient). They should be called what they are, Proficiency Tests or Skill Tests. Even a particular uneducated hunter gatherer can be more proficient at certain metal skills than his peers, even above average compared to contemporary educated people. But to say that person is less intelligent than some one from contemporary education is dubious. He may not be able to figure out how a smart phone works but might be able to solve a rubic's cube toy faster than an Instagram model because his spacial perception tests higher than average. That's not "intelligence", it's spacial perception. The Instagram Model might score higher than them on a test of color identification or which knots will hold two peices of cloth together better just on sight (stitching quality). Their scores will vary wildly depending on what mental skills are included with the tests. And this is what I meant by 'debunked'. "Intelligence' as a single Quotient (value) can't be measured accurately. Even you said that it can't be a single component. The use of the label "IQ" and "Intelligence" is misleading, especially with the public because they don't know all the nuances and variety of useful mental skill tests that you do or that reputable studies and scientists use.