Jordan Peterson

[Dolan]

That's because they come from the same cringe colonial culture infested with guilt, privilege and resentment

[Dolan]

Show hidden quotes

Btw, that's also what European colonists did in Australia, New Zealand and North America. When they went there they were minorities.
Their populations grew so fast, also after the natives died from diseases brought by Euros, eventually Native Americans basically got 'replaced'.
It just happened naturally, there was no need for any plan or conspiracy theory.

very good faith comparison

I mean, it factually happened in history for a minority to replace a majority through demographic growth. Euro colonists were technically migrants.
Why do you think that's bad faith comparison

violent expansionist settler colonialism = immigration

Hm yeah, that's true. Though theoretically, natives could have had a chance. If they knew how to guard the coast and repel any incoming ships, maybe they could have kept their lands to this day.
And the initial colonists were not that much of a threat, most of the first ones (from Jamestown) died of starvation.
It's the difference in tech that flipped the situation in their favour. Once they brought gunpowder weapons, it was gg.
That's why it's important to guard those borders. ^^

[JKProwler]

You do realize that no one here(except maybe patrick) has expressed hating JP with a passion right? Thats just you projecting. Most people on here aren't really familiar with and don't really care about him, because we aren't incels( also explains why mr.bramboy has read his books).

And you don't think I was referring to Patrick? So how am I projecting?

It was called out that defending Peterson is being a fanboy and it made him uncomfortable.

I'm saying isn't it more uncomfortable to see a poster (patrick) hating a guy with a passion when they don't even really know the viewpoints about the guy

[gibson]

Well I would assume you weren't referring to patrick considering that he made 2 posts, 3 days ago and 7 pages ago. You also have 0 clue that patrick doesn't genuinely know what his viewpoints are, but you do feel comfortable strawmaning his position without having a single clue about why he believes what he believes simply because he believes something different from you. Another swing and a miss.

[Vinyanyérë]

Show hidden quotes

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.

Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

He has 100s of hours of his youtube lectures on YT before his rise in the spotlight, and there has been no clip to support the claims some posters have suggested.

It just shows how loosely ppl attach these type of labels to anybody now that it almost looses its meaning. Ppl say they hate cancel culture, but they can't see that these type of miss classifications is one of the drivers for cancel culture.

You still haven't given a convincing response to harcha. Your argument reads as "if you think that Jordan Peterson is a misogynist, then you have formed your opinion of him based on clickbait news/mainstream news articles".

This is not a good argument. As harcha says, you're committing the same error that you're accusing PatrickLFC of committing - i.e., you're saying that PatrickLFC assigned a number of inaccurate attributes (misogyny, white supremacy) to Jordan Peterson based on incomplete information, but you yourself are now making an assumption about attributes of PatrickLFC based on incomplete information.

As harcha (again) said, you should be asking PatrickLFC why they think Jordan Peterson is a misogynist rather than assuming that it is impossible for him to be a misogynist and then assuming that PatrickLFC's view could not possibly be formed from a reasonable consideration of evidence. Or, as Jordan Peterson would say, "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't."

The other reason's it's not a good argument is that there's no standardized definition of misogyny (white supremacy, and to some extent narcissism) that everyone uses and commonly understands when the word is used. Possibly you and PatrickLFC have different definitions of misogyny that lead to the two of you interpreting the same words/actions by Jordan Peterson differently. Perhaps you have similar definitions, but PatrickLFC has seen something Peterson's said that you haven't. You don't know yet because you haven't asked. But you certainly can't assume that you've seen a superset of what PatrickLFC has seen AND that PatrickLFC is using the same definition as you.

don't think Peterson is a misogynist btw (but he does have a lot of extremely bad takes btw)

My response to Patrick could have been nicer or I could have just ignored it.

In terms of making an assumption about Patrick's view about Peterson, this is not the first time I've come across someone with this same extreme view and everytime they have no valid points to back up the extreme view. It's akin to someone saying "the world is flat".

Being called misogyny or white supremacist is extreme, almost in the same level as being called a paedophile.

If Patrick has the incorrect definition of these terms then he should be called out since u should be very careful using these terms to label somebody.

Saying that this isn't the first time you've come across someone with this view doesn't rebut my (and harcha's) point, it reinforces it. You're saying "a bunch of people who believe X arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y, so PatrickLFC who believes X must also have arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y". This is obviously not a valid chain of reasoning, but even if it was we could apply the same thing the other way: if PatrickLFC has encountered a bunch of people who say things that Jordan Peterson says and are also misogynists, then we'd also be able to conclude that Jordan Peterson, who says things that Jordan Peterson says, is a misogynist.

Also, when I say there's no standardized objective definition of misogyny, that means that PatrickLFC can't be using an "incorrect" definition of it. You could pull out a dictionary and define the word "misogyny" as an attempt to prove some standard definition, but this is ineffective because 1) there are multiple dictionaries and no single one is canonical and 2) dictionaries have a tendency to define words using other words which themselves have unclear meanings, so this just pushes the problem further out. Productive discussions require an agreed set of definitions to work from which you haven't attempted to create.

Sorry I dont have too much time to respond on my phone to 3 different posters at the same time. But read some of my other responses to understand where I'm coming from. I think some of it touches on some of your points.

Can you respond directly to me or link specific posts that you think are relevant? Saying things that "touch" on "some" of my points is not likely to be adequate.

[helln00]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

[JKProwler]

Well I would assume you weren't referring to patrick considering that he made 2 posts, 3 days ago and 7 pages ago. You also have 0 clue that patrick doesn't genuinely know what his viewpoints are, but you do feel comfortable strawmaning his position without having a single clue about why he believes what he believes simply because he believes something different from you. Another swing and a miss.

Considering most of my Peterson related responses were instigated and were regarding Patrick's post....I don't know why you couldn't think that?

Patrick's post was placing an extreme labelling on Peterson, and I do know a lot about Peterson the controversy surrounding him, so I am fairly adequate enough to call him out on it.

If someone says to you with a passion, that the earth was flat...wouldn't you call him out?

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I think this thread has gone off different topics several times.

Bottom line is regardless of your opinion on JP on certain topics (politics, religion etc..) or whatever tweets his done in the, calling him a white supremacist and a misogynist shows a lack of understanding about this person.

The guy has been married for 30+ years and has a daughter. Been a practising psychologist and a professor for decades at top academic institutions where his classes are generally multi ethnic and have a higher female to male ratio and the reviews from his past students have been generally favourable to him.

He has 100s of hours of his youtube lectures on YT before his rise in the spotlight, and there has been no clip to support the claims some posters have suggested.

It just shows how loosely ppl attach these type of labels to anybody now that it almost looses its meaning. Ppl say they hate cancel culture, but they can't see that these type of miss classifications is one of the drivers for cancel culture.

You still haven't given a convincing response to harcha. Your argument reads as "if you think that Jordan Peterson is a misogynist, then you have formed your opinion of him based on clickbait news/mainstream news articles".

This is not a good argument. As harcha says, you're committing the same error that you're accusing PatrickLFC of committing - i.e., you're saying that PatrickLFC assigned a number of inaccurate attributes (misogyny, white supremacy) to Jordan Peterson based on incomplete information, but you yourself are now making an assumption about attributes of PatrickLFC based on incomplete information.

As harcha (again) said, you should be asking PatrickLFC why they think Jordan Peterson is a misogynist rather than assuming that it is impossible for him to be a misogynist and then assuming that PatrickLFC's view could not possibly be formed from a reasonable consideration of evidence. Or, as Jordan Peterson would say, "Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't."

The other reason's it's not a good argument is that there's no standardized definition of misogyny (white supremacy, and to some extent narcissism) that everyone uses and commonly understands when the word is used. Possibly you and PatrickLFC have different definitions of misogyny that lead to the two of you interpreting the same words/actions by Jordan Peterson differently. Perhaps you have similar definitions, but PatrickLFC has seen something Peterson's said that you haven't. You don't know yet because you haven't asked. But you certainly can't assume that you've seen a superset of what PatrickLFC has seen AND that PatrickLFC is using the same definition as you.

don't think Peterson is a misogynist btw (but he does have a lot of extremely bad takes btw)

My response to Patrick could have been nicer or I could have just ignored it.

In terms of making an assumption about Patrick's view about Peterson, this is not the first time I've come across someone with this same extreme view and everytime they have no valid points to back up the extreme view. It's akin to someone saying "the world is flat".

Being called misogyny or white supremacist is extreme, almost in the same level as being called a paedophile.

If Patrick has the incorrect definition of these terms then he should be called out since u should be very careful using these terms to label somebody.

Saying that this isn't the first time you've come across someone with this view doesn't rebut my (and harcha's) point, it reinforces it. You're saying "a bunch of people who believe X arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y, so PatrickLFC who believes X must also have arrived at X because of bad reasoning Y". This is obviously not a valid chain of reasoning, but even if it was we could apply the same thing the other way: if PatrickLFC has encountered a bunch of people who say things that Jordan Peterson says and are also misogynists, then we'd also be able to conclude that Jordan Peterson, who says things that Jordan Peterson says, is a misogynist.

Also, when I say there's no standardized objective definition of misogyny, that means that PatrickLFC can't be using an "incorrect" definition of it. You could pull out a dictionary and define the word "misogyny" as an attempt to prove some standard definition, but this is ineffective because 1) there are multiple dictionaries and no single one is canonical and 2) dictionaries have a tendency to define words using other words which themselves have unclear meanings, so this just pushes the problem further out. Productive discussions require an agreed set of definitions to work from which you haven't attempted to create.

Sorry I dont have too much time to respond on my phone to 3 different posters at the same time. But read some of my other responses to understand where I'm coming from. I think some of it touches on some of your points.

Can you respond directly to me or link specific posts that you think are relevant? Saying things that "touch" on "some" of my points is not likely to be adequate.

There's a big difference between telling someone not to fall for click baits and to read more about that person before coming up with an extreme view of that person....to someone calling them white supremacist and a misogynist.

I know a lot about Peterson and the controversy around him, so I was adequate to call him out on it.

In regards to his definitions, playing loose with extreme labels is never a good idea and have negative ramifications....I don't want to go into detail about it again hence why I pointed you to my other responses

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

The only reason why his message is muddled up is because of the political embroilement.

As I said his message got muddled up and taken out of context.

Even by response, your reaching to make his use of ancient metaphorical representations as somehow sexist.

We have no problem in calling catastrophic natural event as "mother nature"...because everyone understands its just a metpahrocial representation.

In regards to IQ, I'll give you that he probably should be more careful on expressing the data and outcome of IQ across certain topics due to the political embroilement he was in.....but I personally think that interesting results from data like this should be openly discussed (with a certain care of course)

How else could we solve real life problems if certain data is hidden if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

With IQ for example, since it has a high correlation with certain type of success in the modern world...isnt it beneficial to look at the data and see the inequality of distribution so we can come up with a plan to tackle it?

Again a lot of the controversy around Peterson and IQ (which has been known well before Peterson) is mostly driven with the politic embroilment he was in.

Tbh, if hasn't embroiled in the political controversy, his book and viewpoints would have not bat anyone's eyelid. I mean his been teaching the same stuff in Harvard and Toronto for years and no one ever raised an issue.

[PatrickLFC]

Okay, I didn't want to get involved in this and personally I think a number of other posters have made some really good points - yet no one's mind has been changed, which kind of vindicates what I said right at the start, but I'll say a piece here anyway.

I don't believe you are coming from a bad place, I think we have different opinions though, and I would like to make it clear that I have not lazily formed an opinion about Peterson based on 'clickbait'. I have known who he is for a number of years and read quite a bit about him and have formed my opinion based on this.

I am not trying to say that every single thing he says or does is bad. However, there are a number of things which are problematic with the way he says and delivers things. He is at times openly misogynistic (we clearly have different definitions of what it means to be a misogynist, as evidenced by a number of previous posts pointing out things he has said and done not swaying your opinion on that front).

He is either actively or accidentally dog-whistling to incels, white supremacists and other far right extremists in many of the things he has said and done. If he is actively doing so, then he is (mostly) clever about it because he is able to create some plausible deniability (evidenced by many people not believing him to share the opinions of a significant proportion of his followers). If he is accidentally doing it then he is way, way less intelligent than he is given credit for. He's an academic, so I tend to think he probably knows what he is doing.

If he is genuinely not a misogynist, then he is either too greedy or too stupid to clarify much of what he says and does and actively denounce the beliefs of many of his followers. But he doesn't. He is much like Trump in his descriptors (e.g. the "good people" at Charlottesville protests vs the "thugs" protesting George Floyd's death) and this is a form of dog whistling, whether he realises it or not. What he does is extremely dangerous and by pretending (or believing) not to be so extreme, he turns himself into a kind of gateway into more extreme views. If he is really trying to "rescue lost young men", then he would surely be taking greater care than he currently does to distance himself from extreme views.

I sent a link to a New York Times article the other day, and I have no idea if you read it or not, but it's hard to see how you could have read it and concluded that he is not a misogynist. Here are two things to read which help to explain why some of what he does is so problematic (one of them is particularly careful not to brand him as someone with these views, but still makes the point that if he is really not of such extreme views and professes to want to save people from going down those paths, then he has a responsibility to be much more careful with what he says and does). The other one has a stupid cartoon at the top which I don't believe is necessary, but it is well-cited and is worth reading.

To loop back, not everything he says and does is problematic and I am sure that a lot of his advice about cleaning your room and bettering yourself etc is great. But you can get this kind of advice from sources that do not actively or accidentally dog whistle bigoted views as well - and many people who need this kind of advice are in the kind of situation where they can easily be led down a dark path, which he does not take enough care to avoid.

https://www.unikumnett.no/2019/10/12-re ... ver-again/

https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/socia ... -language/

[gibson]

Skimmed the wikipedia article about Jordan Peterson in about 30 seconds and realized very quickly that he is indeed a shitty person. "In the video, he stated that he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty". Now does him being a shitty person automatically mean everything he says should be dismissed? No, but given his clear lack of empathy(or massive ego), it doesn't seen unlikely that he might have misogynistic tendencies.

[helln00]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

The only reason why his message is muddled up is because of the political embroilement.

As I said his message got muddled up and taken out of context.

Even by response, your reaching to make his use of ancient metaphorical representations as somehow sexist.

We have no problem in calling catastrophic natural event as "mother nature"...because everyone understands its just a metpahrocial representation.

In regards to IQ, I'll give you that he probably should be more careful on expressing the data and outcome of IQ across certain topics due to the political embroilement he was in.....but I personally think that interesting results from data like this should be openly discussed (with a certain care of course)

How else could we solve real life problems if certain data is hidden if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

With IQ for example, since it has a high correlation with certain type of success in the modern world...isnt it beneficial to look at the data and see the inequality of distribution so we can come up with a plan to tackle it?

Again a lot of the controversy around Peterson and IQ (which has been known well before Peterson) is mostly driven with the politic embroilment he was in.

Tbh, if hasn't embroiled in the political controversy, his book and viewpoints would have not bat anyone's eyelid. I mean his been teaching the same stuff in Harvard and Toronto for years and no one ever raised an issue.

I never said anything about hiding data. I said it before, academics openly discusses group differentials with regards to a myriad of outcomes and IQ is part of that conversation, but its never the sole factor that people uses to build policies and argue for a scaled up worldview like how Peterson uses it. Its a minor limited view due to its shortcomings as a measure.

Countries argue about the data on tests scores all the time and those actually lead to policies like what happened in the US and PISA and I would also argue that it's also extremely shortsighted based on those numbers due to their shortcomings.

There are constant studies and policies being developed on how to improve situations and inequalities. It's already hard enough that scientist and economists are often bad communicators for good science.

Its like using outdated, incomplete and potentially invalid measures to make your policies, it makes for bad policies.

But as you say, it would be good if data can be used to address inequality, but Peterson also doesn't take that next step from talking about his ideas to then talking about ok what does this mean. He say we should be talking about it, ok, he is talking about, what are the implications and the next steps? thats why I said its a cop out.

And to the comment about mother nature. Just because we think its ok at this current point in time doesn't mean its not sexist. Like this is a difference I am seeing between how we see things but to me, just because society , a person or a group does X doesn't mean that the act itself isn't Y. If a person or even a group of people who maybe generally considered good does an action you considered think has a certain character, it doesnt change the character of that action right?

you think I am reaching but that is a logical end read of the diagram and of his argument, you can disagree with me that its not but then you need to give me a decent argument as to why its not.

As for if he wasn't infamous, his views won't bat an eye, sure it wouldn't. His work would for the most part be considered fringe by academic standards and out there, but thats a dime a dozen, there area lot more heterodox views in academia then people give credit for, even Marxism and like old school theology is taught in Universities. Economist in big schools are thought everything from Hayek to Marx and psychologist are taught things from Freud & Jung (works of whom are considered outadated by now) to more modern methods. So him give classes and lectures in universities would not be strange. You have to be a really out there like flat-eathers, homeopaths or other pseudosciences(even then they can still get invited) to be excluded.

[JKProwler]

Okay, I didn't want to get involved in this and personally I think a number of other posters have made some really good points - yet no one's mind has been changed, which kind of vindicates what I said right at the start, but I'll say a piece here anyway.

I don't believe you are coming from a bad place, I think we have different opinions though, and I would like to make it clear that I have not lazily formed an opinion about Peterson based on 'clickbait'. I have known who he is for a number of years and read quite a bit about him and have formed my opinion based on this.

I am not trying to say that every single thing he says or does is bad. However, there are a number of things which are problematic with the way he says and delivers things. He is at times openly misogynistic (we clearly have different definitions of what it means to be a misogynist, as evidenced by a number of previous posts pointing out things he has said and done not swaying your opinion on that front).

He is either actively or accidentally dog-whistling to incels, white supremacists and other far right extremists in many of the things he has said and done. If he is actively doing so, then he is (mostly) clever about it because he is able to create some plausible deniability (evidenced by many people not believing him to share the opinions of a significant proportion of his followers). If he is accidentally doing it then he is way, way less intelligent than he is given credit for. He's an academic, so I tend to think he probably knows what he is doing.

If he is genuinely not a misogynist, then he is either too greedy or too stupid to clarify much of what he says and does and actively denounce the beliefs of many of his followers. But he doesn't. He is much like Trump in his descriptors (e.g. the "good people" at Charlottesville protests vs the "thugs" protesting George Floyd's death) and this is a form of dog whistling, whether he realises it or not. What he does is extremely dangerous and by pretending (or believing) not to be so extreme, he turns himself into a kind of gateway into more extreme views. If he is really trying to "rescue lost young men", then he would surely be taking greater care than he currently does to distance himself from extreme views.

I sent a link to a New York Times article the other day, and I have no idea if you read it or not, but it's hard to see how you could have read it and concluded that he is not a misogynist. Here are two things to read which help to explain why some of what he does is so problematic (one of them is particularly careful not to brand him as someone with these views, but still makes the point that if he is really not of such extreme views and professes to want to save people from going down those paths, then he has a responsibility to be much more careful with what he says and does). The other one has a stupid cartoon at the top which I don't believe is necessary, but it is well-cited and is worth reading.

To loop back, not everything he says and does is problematic and I am sure that a lot of his advice about cleaning your room and bettering yourself etc is great. But you can get this kind of advice from sources that do not actively or accidentally dog whistle bigoted views as well - and many people who need this kind of advice are in the kind of situation where they can easily be led down a dark path, which he does not take enough care to avoid.

https://www.unikumnett.no/2019/10/12-re ... ver-again/

https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/socia ... -language/

I don't want to go into detail why playing loose with attaching extreme labels is dangerous..but here is the summary.

You used the words Misogynist and White Supremacist, labels you could probably agree are almost in the same level as a rapist and paedophile.

The misuse of these labels are often used to shut down any proper discourse to any challenges to your point of view which creates further divide and polarisation. It's also often used in today's cancel culture, to place a verdict without proper trial on someone's career or someone's right to voice there opinion.

In one statement, you basically have grouped Peterson with Brett Weinstein and David Duke. That not only downplays the acts of the real misogynist and white supremacist, it creates confusion to what actually constitutes these labels.

In terms of certain groups or individuals misuse of some of his material, its unfortunate collateral of the culture war that's happening at the moment due to his opposition to the compelled speech laws. One side sees his action as part of there agenda and the other doesn't, so they have either gone and rushed to quote him or go rush to attack him.

He has tried to clarify in so many different podcasts and interview about his views, but some ppls rash judgement and extreme labelling, they haven't bothered to find out exactly what his about.

On that NYT article, I wouldn't place all my judgement based on one article, since things can be taken out of context or biasis from journalists slant content.

The right thing to do is actually find out if there were any clarifications made by the person who was quoted as saying it (which JP did who was upset that he was taken out of context by the journalist) and read other articles from the other before making extreme judgement on a person.

[JKProwler]

Skimmed the wikipedia article about Jordan Peterson in about 30 seconds and realized very quickly that he is indeed a shitty person. "In the video, he stated that he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty". Now does him being a shitty person automatically mean everything he says should be dismissed? No, but given his clear lack of empathy(or massive ego), it doesn't seen unlikely that he might have misogynistic tendencies.

Read more. He has said many times f a student asks him then he will because it's a nice thing to do.

He opposes government overreach where they can compel individuals speech. He thinks its dangerous if government can enforce what individuals have to say (which is worse than government enforcing what you can't say). That can lead to a dangerous path.

This guy studied the atrocities of Lenin and Mao Communist and Nazi Germany to understand from a psychological standpoint an individual can be complicit in these regimes and government compelling speech is a risk to free speech could once again lead down this path.

It has nothing to do with transgender or mispronouns at the root of it.

[gibson]

Skimmed the wikipedia article about Jordan Peterson in about 30 seconds and realized very quickly that he is indeed a shitty person. "In the video, he stated that he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty". Now does him being a shitty person automatically mean everything he says should be dismissed? No, but given his clear lack of empathy(or massive ego), it doesn't seen unlikely that he might have misogynistic tendencies.

Read more. He has said many times f a student asks him then he will because it's a nice thing to do.

He opposes government overreach where they can compel individuals speech. He thinks its dangerous if government can enforce what individuals have to say (which is worse than government enforcing what you can't say). That can lead to a dangerous path.

This guy studied the atrocities of Lenin and Mao Communist and Nazi Germany to understand from a psychological standpoint an individual can be complicit in these regimes and government compelling speech is a risk to free speech could once again lead down this path.

It has nothing to do with transgender or mispronouns at the root of it.

“I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.” This was 2016, but after about 2 minutes on google I couldn't find anything more recent he said contradicting that. Again, it just shows a major lack of empathy.

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

The only reason why his message is muddled up is because of the political embroilement.

As I said his message got muddled up and taken out of context.

Even by response, your reaching to make his use of ancient metaphorical representations as somehow sexist.

We have no problem in calling catastrophic natural event as "mother nature"...because everyone understands its just a metpahrocial representation.

In regards to IQ, I'll give you that he probably should be more careful on expressing the data and outcome of IQ across certain topics due to the political embroilement he was in.....but I personally think that interesting results from data like this should be openly discussed (with a certain care of course)

How else could we solve real life problems if certain data is hidden if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

With IQ for example, since it has a high correlation with certain type of success in the modern world...isnt it beneficial to look at the data and see the inequality of distribution so we can come up with a plan to tackle it?

Again a lot of the controversy around Peterson and IQ (which has been known well before Peterson) is mostly driven with the politic embroilment he was in.

Tbh, if hasn't embroiled in the political controversy, his book and viewpoints would have not bat anyone's eyelid. I mean his been teaching the same stuff in Harvard and Toronto for years and no one ever raised an issue.

I never said anything about hiding data. I said it before, academics openly discusses group differentials with regards to a myriad of outcomes and IQ is part of that conversation, but its never the sole factor that people uses to build policies and argue for a scaled up worldview like how Peterson uses it. Its a minor limited view due to its shortcomings as a measure.

Countries argue about the data on tests scores all the time and those actually lead to policies like what happened in the US and PISA and I would also argue that it's also extremely shortsighted based on those numbers due to their shortcomings.

There are constant studies and policies being developed on how to improve situations and inequalities. It's already hard enough that scientist and economists are often bad communicators for good science.

Its like using outdated, incomplete and potentially invalid measures to make your policies, it makes for bad policies.

But as you say, it would be good if data can be used to address inequality, but Peterson also doesn't take that next step from talking about his ideas to then talking about ok what does this mean. He say we should be talking about it, ok, he is talking about, what are the implications and the next steps? thats why I said its a cop out.

And to the comment about mother nature. Just because we think its ok at this current point in time doesn't mean its not sexist. Like this is a difference I am seeing between how we see things but to me, just because society , a person or a group does X doesn't mean that the act itself isn't Y. If a person or even a group of people who maybe generally considered good does an action you considered think has a certain character, it doesnt change the character of that action right?

you think I am reaching but that is a logical end read of the diagram and of his argument, you can disagree with me that its not but then you need to give me a decent argument as to why its not.

As for if he wasn't infamous, his views won't bat an eye, sure it wouldn't. His work would for the most part be considered fringe by academic standards and out there, but thats a dime a dozen, there area lot more heterodox views in academia then people give credit for, even Marxism and like old school theology is taught in Universities. Economist in big schools are thought everything from Hayek to Marx and psychologist are taught things from Freud & Jung (works of whom are considered outadated by now) to more modern methods. So him give classes and lectures in universities would not be strange. You have to be a really out there like flat-eathers, homeopaths or other pseudosciences(even then they can still get invited) to be excluded.

Peterson never have claimed that things should be looked at or actioned in the lens of IQ. Not sure where your getting this.

His basically saying that there is a correlation of certain individual outcomes with IQ.

Also if you expect him to also solve world problems from his findings of IQ, then your expecting too much from him. Nor has he stated that IQ results can be used to solve world problems.

In terms of historical metophoric representing of gender...I think ppl are smart enough to differentiate (more than what your giving them credit for).

There has never been a problem until gender has become a political.

And this is what I mean by ppl using energy in 1st world problems (I.e. policing language) vs actually going out and solving real injustices

[JKProwler]

Skimmed the wikipedia article about Jordan Peterson in about 30 seconds and realized very quickly that he is indeed a shitty person. "In the video, he stated that he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty". Now does him being a shitty person automatically mean everything he says should be dismissed? No, but given his clear lack of empathy(or massive ego), it doesn't seen unlikely that he might have misogynistic tendencies.

Read more. He has said many times f a student asks him then he will because it's a nice thing to do.

He opposes government overreach where they can compel individuals speech. He thinks its dangerous if government can enforce what individuals have to say (which is worse than government enforcing what you can't say). That can lead to a dangerous path.

This guy studied the atrocities of Lenin and Mao Communist and Nazi Germany to understand from a psychological standpoint an individual can be complicit in these regimes and government compelling speech is a risk to free speech could once again lead down this path.

It has nothing to do with transgender or mispronouns at the root of it.

“I don’t recognize another person’s right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won’t do it.” This was 2016, but after about 2 minutes on google I couldn't find anything more recent he said contradicting that. Again, it just shows a major lack of empathy.

[helln00]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

The only reason why his message is muddled up is because of the political embroilement.

As I said his message got muddled up and taken out of context.

Even by response, your reaching to make his use of ancient metaphorical representations as somehow sexist.

We have no problem in calling catastrophic natural event as "mother nature"...because everyone understands its just a metpahrocial representation.

In regards to IQ, I'll give you that he probably should be more careful on expressing the data and outcome of IQ across certain topics due to the political embroilement he was in.....but I personally think that interesting results from data like this should be openly discussed (with a certain care of course)

How else could we solve real life problems if certain data is hidden if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

With IQ for example, since it has a high correlation with certain type of success in the modern world...isnt it beneficial to look at the data and see the inequality of distribution so we can come up with a plan to tackle it?

Again a lot of the controversy around Peterson and IQ (which has been known well before Peterson) is mostly driven with the politic embroilment he was in.

Tbh, if hasn't embroiled in the political controversy, his book and viewpoints would have not bat anyone's eyelid. I mean his been teaching the same stuff in Harvard and Toronto for years and no one ever raised an issue.

I never said anything about hiding data. I said it before, academics openly discusses group differentials with regards to a myriad of outcomes and IQ is part of that conversation, but its never the sole factor that people uses to build policies and argue for a scaled up worldview like how Peterson uses it. Its a minor limited view due to its shortcomings as a measure.

Countries argue about the data on tests scores all the time and those actually lead to policies like what happened in the US and PISA and I would also argue that it's also extremely shortsighted based on those numbers due to their shortcomings.

There are constant studies and policies being developed on how to improve situations and inequalities. It's already hard enough that scientist and economists are often bad communicators for good science.

Its like using outdated, incomplete and potentially invalid measures to make your policies, it makes for bad policies.

But as you say, it would be good if data can be used to address inequality, but Peterson also doesn't take that next step from talking about his ideas to then talking about ok what does this mean. He say we should be talking about it, ok, he is talking about, what are the implications and the next steps? thats why I said its a cop out.

And to the comment about mother nature. Just because we think its ok at this current point in time doesn't mean its not sexist. Like this is a difference I am seeing between how we see things but to me, just because society , a person or a group does X doesn't mean that the act itself isn't Y. If a person or even a group of people who maybe generally considered good does an action you considered think has a certain character, it doesnt change the character of that action right?

you think I am reaching but that is a logical end read of the diagram and of his argument, you can disagree with me that its not but then you need to give me a decent argument as to why its not.

As for if he wasn't infamous, his views won't bat an eye, sure it wouldn't. His work would for the most part be considered fringe by academic standards and out there, but thats a dime a dozen, there area lot more heterodox views in academia then people give credit for, even Marxism and like old school theology is taught in Universities. Economist in big schools are thought everything from Hayek to Marx and psychologist are taught things from Freud & Jung (works of whom are considered outadated by now) to more modern methods. So him give classes and lectures in universities would not be strange. You have to be a really out there like flat-eathers, homeopaths or other pseudosciences(even then they can still get invited) to be excluded.

Peterson never have claimed that things should be looked at or actioned in the lens of IQ. Not sure where your getting this.

His basically saying that there is a correlation of certain individual outcomes with IQ.

Also if you expect him to also solve world problems from his findings of IQ, then your expecting too much from him. Nor has he stated that IQ results can be used to solve world problems.

In terms of historical metophoric representing of gender...I think ppl are smart enough to differentiate (more than what your giving them credit for).

There has never been a problem until gender has become a political.

And this is what I mean by ppl using energy in 1st world problems (I.e. policing language) vs actually going out and solving real injustices

I don't expect him to solve anything. I am expecting him as an academic to actually be thorough with his ideas and its conclusions and to explicitly draw the line of what his conclusion should or should not get to.

Thats what most academics has to do, they state the limits of their findings and conclusions, not saying it is often tantamount to agreeing with the opposite conclusion. You try your best to get rid of any potential implicit conclusions and to get rid of anything you potentially do not mean. And if you are unaware of the implicit there are even Cover your ass statements that people use, he is lacking even in that standard. If he doesn't think IQ should be actioned upon or used to solve problems, state so and say why. you have to be explicit as an academic, state your assumptions, state your biases, limitations to the best of your abilities and if people point out things you didn't take into account then address them and I am not seeing the rigour here.

as for your comment about metaphors, i never said anything about intelligence or being able to tell the difference (between metaphors and reality?) so I don't understand what you want to say here? I was trying to make a point about an interpretation of his model and how it has a sexist and pretty misogynistic conclusion, not about how people view metaphors?

as for the gender and politics point, the only thing I would say is that from a historical pov and my point of view..insert *always has been* meme here. We have ancient Greek sources on influence and character of women in politics and society if you want to go back that far.

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

The only reason why his message is muddled up is because of the political embroilement.

As I said his message got muddled up and taken out of context.

Even by response, your reaching to make his use of ancient metaphorical representations as somehow sexist.

We have no problem in calling catastrophic natural event as "mother nature"...because everyone understands its just a metpahrocial representation.

In regards to IQ, I'll give you that he probably should be more careful on expressing the data and outcome of IQ across certain topics due to the political embroilement he was in.....but I personally think that interesting results from data like this should be openly discussed (with a certain care of course)

How else could we solve real life problems if certain data is hidden if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

With IQ for example, since it has a high correlation with certain type of success in the modern world...isnt it beneficial to look at the data and see the inequality of distribution so we can come up with a plan to tackle it?

Again a lot of the controversy around Peterson and IQ (which has been known well before Peterson) is mostly driven with the politic embroilment he was in.

Tbh, if hasn't embroiled in the political controversy, his book and viewpoints would have not bat anyone's eyelid. I mean his been teaching the same stuff in Harvard and Toronto for years and no one ever raised an issue.

I never said anything about hiding data. I said it before, academics openly discusses group differentials with regards to a myriad of outcomes and IQ is part of that conversation, but its never the sole factor that people uses to build policies and argue for a scaled up worldview like how Peterson uses it. Its a minor limited view due to its shortcomings as a measure.

Countries argue about the data on tests scores all the time and those actually lead to policies like what happened in the US and PISA and I would also argue that it's also extremely shortsighted based on those numbers due to their shortcomings.

There are constant studies and policies being developed on how to improve situations and inequalities. It's already hard enough that scientist and economists are often bad communicators for good science.

Its like using outdated, incomplete and potentially invalid measures to make your policies, it makes for bad policies.

But as you say, it would be good if data can be used to address inequality, but Peterson also doesn't take that next step from talking about his ideas to then talking about ok what does this mean. He say we should be talking about it, ok, he is talking about, what are the implications and the next steps? thats why I said its a cop out.

And to the comment about mother nature. Just because we think its ok at this current point in time doesn't mean its not sexist. Like this is a difference I am seeing between how we see things but to me, just because society , a person or a group does X doesn't mean that the act itself isn't Y. If a person or even a group of people who maybe generally considered good does an action you considered think has a certain character, it doesnt change the character of that action right?

you think I am reaching but that is a logical end read of the diagram and of his argument, you can disagree with me that its not but then you need to give me a decent argument as to why its not.

As for if he wasn't infamous, his views won't bat an eye, sure it wouldn't. His work would for the most part be considered fringe by academic standards and out there, but thats a dime a dozen, there area lot more heterodox views in academia then people give credit for, even Marxism and like old school theology is taught in Universities. Economist in big schools are thought everything from Hayek to Marx and psychologist are taught things from Freud & Jung (works of whom are considered outadated by now) to more modern methods. So him give classes and lectures in universities would not be strange. You have to be a really out there like flat-eathers, homeopaths or other pseudosciences(even then they can still get invited) to be excluded.

Peterson never have claimed that things should be looked at or actioned in the lens of IQ. Not sure where your getting this.

His basically saying that there is a correlation of certain individual outcomes with IQ.

Also if you expect him to also solve world problems from his findings of IQ, then your expecting too much from him. Nor has he stated that IQ results can be used to solve world problems.

In terms of historical metophoric representing of gender...I think ppl are smart enough to differentiate (more than what your giving them credit for).

There has never been a problem until gender has become a political.

And this is what I mean by ppl using energy in 1st world problems (I.e. policing language) vs actually going out and solving real injustices

I don't expect him to solve anything. I am expecting him as an academic to actually be thorough with his ideas and its conclusions and to explicitly draw the line of what his conclusion should or should not get to.

Thats what most academics has to do, they state the limits of their findings and conclusions, not saying it is often tantamount to agreeing with the opposite conclusion. You try your best to get rid of any potential implicit conclusions and to get rid of anything you potentially do not mean. And if you are unaware of the implicit there are even Cover your ass statements that people use, he is lacking even in that standard. If he doesn't think IQ should be actioned upon or used to solve problems, state so and say why. you have to be explicit as an academic, state your assumptions, state your biases, limitations to the best of your abilities and if people point out things you didn't take into account then address them and I am not seeing the rigour here.

as for your comment about metaphors, i never said anything about intelligence or being able to tell the difference (between metaphors and reality?) so I don't understand what you want to say here? I was trying to make a point about an interpretation of his model and how it has a sexist and pretty misogynistic conclusion, not about how people view metaphors?

as for the gender and politics point, the only thing I would say is that from a historical pov and my point of view..insert *always has been* meme here. We have ancient Greek sources on influence and character of women in politics and society if you want to go back that far.

About IQ, his conclusions are that there are differences in cognitive abilities in people which could have major consequence in socio economics and interpersonal relationships. It's not ground breaking. It's something I knew before Peterson came on the scene.

He has said many times that he doesn't know what to do about it, but people should start discussing how to tackle it because it's becoming a wider problem in a ever increasing complex world.

I don't know why this is controversial or you expect him to draw it to its conclusion...do you expect the physicists that posited about Higgs Boson should also have lead to the formula of how quantum physics meshes with Einstein's general relativity? Or worse yet, how does Higgs Boson solve social injustice?

In terms of where to draw the line on IQ, he has stated many times that IQ is not the only factor, that's why he uses the term correlation when bringing up iq....and brings up the big 5 personality traits also and there correlation.

Regarding the metaphors, the nature of metaphors is to use something that we are familiar with to describe something that is abstract.

The metaphir of "mother nature", "chaos" and "order"...there are no sexist under tones in it.

But because people are using the 2021 lens where gender is politicised...they see things when it's not there.

If you want to play this game, then why stop at gender? And why stop at metaphors?

Let's police language to a point where it's perfect in a politically correct sense...what do you think that world looks like?

[helln00]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

The only reason why his message is muddled up is because of the political embroilement.

As I said his message got muddled up and taken out of context.

Even by response, your reaching to make his use of ancient metaphorical representations as somehow sexist.

We have no problem in calling catastrophic natural event as "mother nature"...because everyone understands its just a metpahrocial representation.

In regards to IQ, I'll give you that he probably should be more careful on expressing the data and outcome of IQ across certain topics due to the political embroilement he was in.....but I personally think that interesting results from data like this should be openly discussed (with a certain care of course)

How else could we solve real life problems if certain data is hidden if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

With IQ for example, since it has a high correlation with certain type of success in the modern world...isnt it beneficial to look at the data and see the inequality of distribution so we can come up with a plan to tackle it?

Again a lot of the controversy around Peterson and IQ (which has been known well before Peterson) is mostly driven with the politic embroilment he was in.

Tbh, if hasn't embroiled in the political controversy, his book and viewpoints would have not bat anyone's eyelid. I mean his been teaching the same stuff in Harvard and Toronto for years and no one ever raised an issue.

I never said anything about hiding data. I said it before, academics openly discusses group differentials with regards to a myriad of outcomes and IQ is part of that conversation, but its never the sole factor that people uses to build policies and argue for a scaled up worldview like how Peterson uses it. Its a minor limited view due to its shortcomings as a measure.

Countries argue about the data on tests scores all the time and those actually lead to policies like what happened in the US and PISA and I would also argue that it's also extremely shortsighted based on those numbers due to their shortcomings.

There are constant studies and policies being developed on how to improve situations and inequalities. It's already hard enough that scientist and economists are often bad communicators for good science.

Its like using outdated, incomplete and potentially invalid measures to make your policies, it makes for bad policies.

But as you say, it would be good if data can be used to address inequality, but Peterson also doesn't take that next step from talking about his ideas to then talking about ok what does this mean. He say we should be talking about it, ok, he is talking about, what are the implications and the next steps? thats why I said its a cop out.

And to the comment about mother nature. Just because we think its ok at this current point in time doesn't mean its not sexist. Like this is a difference I am seeing between how we see things but to me, just because society , a person or a group does X doesn't mean that the act itself isn't Y. If a person or even a group of people who maybe generally considered good does an action you considered think has a certain character, it doesnt change the character of that action right?

you think I am reaching but that is a logical end read of the diagram and of his argument, you can disagree with me that its not but then you need to give me a decent argument as to why its not.

As for if he wasn't infamous, his views won't bat an eye, sure it wouldn't. His work would for the most part be considered fringe by academic standards and out there, but thats a dime a dozen, there area lot more heterodox views in academia then people give credit for, even Marxism and like old school theology is taught in Universities. Economist in big schools are thought everything from Hayek to Marx and psychologist are taught things from Freud & Jung (works of whom are considered outadated by now) to more modern methods. So him give classes and lectures in universities would not be strange. You have to be a really out there like flat-eathers, homeopaths or other pseudosciences(even then they can still get invited) to be excluded.

Peterson never have claimed that things should be looked at or actioned in the lens of IQ. Not sure where your getting this.

His basically saying that there is a correlation of certain individual outcomes with IQ.

Also if you expect him to also solve world problems from his findings of IQ, then your expecting too much from him. Nor has he stated that IQ results can be used to solve world problems.

In terms of historical metophoric representing of gender...I think ppl are smart enough to differentiate (more than what your giving them credit for).

There has never been a problem until gender has become a political.

And this is what I mean by ppl using energy in 1st world problems (I.e. policing language) vs actually going out and solving real injustices

I don't expect him to solve anything. I am expecting him as an academic to actually be thorough with his ideas and its conclusions and to explicitly draw the line of what his conclusion should or should not get to.

Thats what most academics has to do, they state the limits of their findings and conclusions, not saying it is often tantamount to agreeing with the opposite conclusion. You try your best to get rid of any potential implicit conclusions and to get rid of anything you potentially do not mean. And if you are unaware of the implicit there are even Cover your ass statements that people use, he is lacking even in that standard. If he doesn't think IQ should be actioned upon or used to solve problems, state so and say why. you have to be explicit as an academic, state your assumptions, state your biases, limitations to the best of your abilities and if people point out things you didn't take into account then address them and I am not seeing the rigour here.

as for your comment about metaphors, i never said anything about intelligence or being able to tell the difference (between metaphors and reality?) so I don't understand what you want to say here? I was trying to make a point about an interpretation of his model and how it has a sexist and pretty misogynistic conclusion, not about how people view metaphors?

as for the gender and politics point, the only thing I would say is that from a historical pov and my point of view..insert *always has been* meme here. We have ancient Greek sources on influence and character of women in politics and society if you want to go back that far.

About IQ, his conclusions are that there are differences in cognitive abilities in people which could have major consequence in socio economics and interpersonal relationships. It's not ground breaking. It's something I knew before Peterson came on the scene.

He has said many times that he doesn't know what to do about it, but people should start discussing how to tackle it because it's becoming a wider problem in a ever increasing complex world.

I don't know why this is controversial or you expect him to draw it to its conclusion...do you expect the physicists that posited about Higgs Boson should also have lead to the formula of how quantum physics meshes with Einstein's general relativity? Or worse yet, how does Higgs Boson solve social injustice?

In terms of where to draw the line on IQ, he has stated many times that IQ is not the only factor, that's why he uses the term correlation when bringing up iq....and brings up the big 5 personality traits also and there correlation.

Regarding the metaphors, the nature of metaphors is to use something that we are familiar with to describe something that is abstract.

The metaphir of "mother nature", "chaos" and "order"...there are no sexist under tones in it.

But because people are using the 2021 lens where gender is politicised...they see things when it's not there.

If you want to play this game, then why stop at gender? And why stop at metaphors?

Let's police language to a point where it's perfect in a politically correct sense...what do you think that world looks like?

Just because its been said before doesn't mean you are allowed to have less rigour and discipline in what you say, especially if you are trying to make a point about it or add something to the conversation. If you don't think you can add to the conversation, then defer to someone else you think can.

Ok so he said there are implications, which are? I don't see him say it in my reading of him, if I am missing what his thoughts are about the implications of IQ, please tell me. And then he can go on and say he doesn't know what to do about them (with reason like because he believes x, or he thinks Y and there are limitations Z like other factors) and therefore this should be discussed more because we can discover X or maybe do Y.

You bring up the Higgs Boson example, when that was first theorised, like they had to do the implications( make predictions about what the properties of the particles are, whether or not it fits into the standard model) and then go on about the next steps (is it testable, what would be needed to test it). There is a reason why a model proposed in 1964 took until 2013 to get some amount experimental evidence. Its long and hard work.

One don't need to do all of it, but you need to add your part to the whole project doing the process to the best of their abilities and state clearly your contribution and your own limits, that whole newton standing on the shoulders of giants thing.

On your point on metaphors, I again do not know how you are reaching this point in the discussion since I was talking about a interpretation of a particular model presented by one man in a single book and you want to talk about how people think and intend when they use words, aren't you generalising things?

I have never said anything about changing any thoughts or policing anything. I have been criticizing the actions and models of one man. In addition I am one person talking about how I view things and what I think is correct and calling things out as I see it, how does that lead to policing, which implies state level and state directed regulations?

When a parent tells a child not to say x in public because its rude or inappropriate, is that policing? If a person is doing something you think is wrong or inappropriate, is calling them out policing? Am I policing JP by saying these things about him? My family members doing something inappropriate in public I tell them to stop, is that policing?

[Goodspeed]

You used the words Misogynist and White Supremacist, labels you could probably agree are almost in the same level as a rapist and paedophile.

It's weird to me that you think these are almost on the same level

[helln00]

To add on my thoughts on the intellectual process, I actually think JP came very close to doing it well in the Vice interview you postsed @JKProwler, where he stated that there is sexual tension that leads to harassment because of unclear rules between men and women naturally in the workplace, with the implications in his mind that it can't be eliminated without removing what he things are fundamental freedoms and ergo since he values those freedoms, things should stop at not removing those fundamental freedoms and tolerate the tension and/or manage things with other means. That is a semi-coherent path to take from the argument to the implications. I don't agree with some of his premises but we can work from there.

Of course he had to be asked and almost guided by that interviewer to end up in this stage (I wish he can do that more proactively) but then at the end when asked whether he thinks the policies being written meets his standard, he first said they are too vauge, and when asked how are they too vague he said he doesn't actually know them. He was this close.

[Dolan]

In a sense the meta is shifting away from men being dominant

I very much doubt that, I don't think human nature changes, it just gets differently expressed and channelled, depending on historical conditions. By dropping out of society, they are sabotaging the game. Basically retrenching in preparation for an incoming disintegration of the current social model. Through sabotage, they're trying to regain the upper hand. Heraclitus: "all things come into being and pass away through strife".

if you think that the VC,investor and business space aren't full of cowboys, you have to meet some of these people. Never in my life have i met people with higher egos and paranoia like you described. Also the oil sector and im not talking about people working on the rigs, I am talking about the people who just run the business

That's the legacy of the Wild West mentality, these people are a throwback to that era when there was genuinely a wild frontier to still be explored and exploited. But it's still just shitty paper and fossil fuel trading, what drives their egos is knowing they're on top of a resource that can be exploited to make bank. They are Wild West larpers, not true trailblazers in any way.

[JKProwler]

Show hidden quotes

I wish the people that keep disparaging JP actually read his stuff.

His core message to young men are to be loving and caring husbands and father.

Unfortunately his message is muddled up due to the politic embroilment he was in.

I don't think people argue against his message for men(though there are some things that I find personally not for me), its his thoughts on women and IQ that are objectionable.

And if those aren't his core messages, he should be less focused on those when he speaks.Its not a good look as an academic that you go off on tangents. Its like if you write an essay and then went off on a rant every third paragraph. it makes the rants and those objectionable opinions stand out and makes them more his words then even his core messages.

What are his thoughts on women and iq you don't agree with?

Women I have posted but here is a map of meaning for the chaos dragon thing which I would disagree with, not just intellectually(beside it being Jungian) but personally.


IQ ( I also posted this before)
I don't disagree with the idea that some people are smarter then others, thats fine. If he stopped at that and just stick to keeping it about indivduals and what they can do, great which he does, but then he slips and its bad. We know that IQ is highly correlated with income and economic development, hell IQ inflation is a thing like normal inflation cause people as a function of societal development get "smarter" such that standards for mentally challenged has to be revised.
https://www.reddit.com/link/r1ydmm/vide ... 181/player

Sorry I still haven't got any specific views of Peterson from anyone here about his views on women.

Regarding the chaos statement...if your talking about his representation of chaos and order where chaos is feminine and order is masculine, if you read his material, you would know these are just rooted in historical metaphorical representations.

Since I don't have the time to explain this representation in detail (and I generally struggle to express my self clearly cause of English being my 2nd language) I just copied someone's description which I think sums this up nicely:

Because in metaphor, Chaos doesn't stand for "bad" it stands for everything that's unknown, new, rejuvenating, creative, and passionate.

Order stands for that which is structured, explored, traditional, old-fashioned, and inhibited.

Like yin and yang, these are two sides of the same coin, which need, and enforce each other. Neither is "good" and neither is "bad". Without Order there is no stability and tradition, with chaos there is no rejuvenation, new life, creativity, or exploration.

The reason women symbolize Chaos is that they are the creators of new life. They are the rejuvenating force which brings change into existence, by the very fact that they create it out of their own bodies.

Men stand for Order, because they're the reactionary force: they can only work with what is there, what the world gives them, and then try to shape that.


Regarding IQ, he does state that socio economics and culture have an impact on IQ. But I still don't understand your objection of his views? You mean you think he shouldn't mention that iq across different cultures and race vary? U think discussing this should be taboo?

So sure you can take the yin yang argument based on historical representations, one of my objections is that historical representations are often pigeonholing people into things that were based on standard observations of past people without scientific basis, ie it generalises people and tropes onto people without circumstances and historical context, which is something JP himself doesn't like. That is not even account for bias of nature of historical sources and representation of the people who write history.

Like saying men stand for order, that is basically against the fact that most if not all revolutionaries, radical thinkers, conquerors that brought about change were men. Men can only give what the world gives them, that is against the fact that most famous artists and novelists were men. The vice versa is the same for women, there have been great women who were mathematicians and leaders (less of them but still) and women have often been the conservative political force in society since the rich women uses financial wealth to protect their privileges. Even today, alot of disruptors in tech and business are men.

The other problem is that the moment you try to apply that line of thinking to the present day or heck past moments in history (or even much else), what is the conclusion to this model? remember in the diagram, women are associated not with rejuvenating force of chaos, but specifically with Disintegration and Descent. Does a disintegrating society, a split society more feminine and womanly in character? Is a Descent into madness womanly (conjuring up images of medical Hysteria once again). And even if it does include rejuvenation, does that mean that a country rebuilding itself, creating new life and order not also womanly? or would that be manly since it is order. Are you then attributing the descent of civilizations to their womanly character, or were the women at fault for the collapse of civilization?

Like if that is his model of female characters and story from history, then that is pretty problematic and misogynistic. Sure he could have intended something else, but a good academic tries their best to make sure that their model is understood and correct, they don't just shout whatever they want. So its either bad academic work or misogynistic academic work, or both.

So tldr: bad model.

On IQ, to me there are 2 main problems. First are the problems with IQ itself, in that IQ as actually a specific measure (pattern recognition) for an abstract concept, so what affects it is often very difficult to parse out since you are also not sure whether what you are specifically measuring correspond to the whole or not , not to mention it being a measure means that its prone to inflation as people get better at doing the test, not actually measuring what you want. It has its use cases, as Peterson mention himself that the US army has a somewhat bottom bar, but that is also a specific use case and not scalable like how Peterson uses it to imply what job you can do.

The second is his specific application to race and ethnicity which I find very careless,borderline dangerous for a person who is a good orator for the most part. Like if he knows the nature of what can influence IQ and IQ tests and he knows the myriad nature of the effects, a good scientist know to put heavy caveat to make sure they are speaking clearly. The fact he uses race and ethnicity as a categorical group of focus is irresponsible as an academic if he knows the myriad of impacts, its like using colour of leaves as the category to determine whether it rains, sure leaves have impact on weather pattern, but this catergorisation is not helpful (I am almost tempted to put a C-grade like Goodspeed).

Like people talk about differential performance and outcomes(income, academic performance) between groups, academic talks about it alot. But they don't for the most part try to scale up the implications of that without heavy backings of data and agreement from other academics.

He also seem to mostly based his ideas on like studies from the 80s when he worked the most which is just a sign of to me of a guy who isn't keeping up with things (its like a doctor going around saying lobotomy and homeopathy show some promise, dude you are not keeping up)

Finally, the implications and arguably this is where I think he is the most irresponsible. Like with the chaos dragon model, he often doesn't actually develop upon what the things he said actually are. Scientist say I don't know when they don't know the facts, not when they are talking in theories. He say some ideas and then doesn't actually develop upon that to the end logic and its implications and just usually don't talk. Thats an irresponsible cop out. If he doesn't do this then his ideas are prone to being pickup by people for their own purpose, literally twisting his words. You say he is not a white supremacist, but his ideas keeps getting used by white supremacist and he does next to nothing to reclaim them, at some point I have to think he agrees with them. Same with his views on women, they keep getting picked up by misogynist incels, and he does nothing to reclaim them, heck if the enforced monogamy comment was something to go by, he agrees with them.

People already have problems trusting academics(with some good reason, especially in communication) and his communication style does not help.

The only reason why his message is muddled up is because of the political embroilement.

As I said his message got muddled up and taken out of context.

Even by response, your reaching to make his use of ancient metaphorical representations as somehow sexist.

We have no problem in calling catastrophic natural event as "mother nature"...because everyone understands its just a metpahrocial representation.

In regards to IQ, I'll give you that he probably should be more careful on expressing the data and outcome of IQ across certain topics due to the political embroilement he was in.....but I personally think that interesting results from data like this should be openly discussed (with a certain care of course)

How else could we solve real life problems if certain data is hidden if it makes us feel uncomfortable.

With IQ for example, since it has a high correlation with certain type of success in the modern world...isnt it beneficial to look at the data and see the inequality of distribution so we can come up with a plan to tackle it?

Again a lot of the controversy around Peterson and IQ (which has been known well before Peterson) is mostly driven with the politic embroilment he was in.

Tbh, if hasn't embroiled in the political controversy, his book and viewpoints would have not bat anyone's eyelid. I mean his been teaching the same stuff in Harvard and Toronto for years and no one ever raised an issue.

I never said anything about hiding data. I said it before, academics openly discusses group differentials with regards to a myriad of outcomes and IQ is part of that conversation, but its never the sole factor that people uses to build policies and argue for a scaled up worldview like how Peterson uses it. Its a minor limited view due to its shortcomings as a measure.

Countries argue about the data on tests scores all the time and those actually lead to policies like what happened in the US and PISA and I would also argue that it's also extremely shortsighted based on those numbers due to their shortcomings.

There are constant studies and policies being developed on how to improve situations and inequalities. It's already hard enough that scientist and economists are often bad communicators for good science.

Its like using outdated, incomplete and potentially invalid measures to make your policies, it makes for bad policies.

But as you say, it would be good if data can be used to address inequality, but Peterson also doesn't take that next step from talking about his ideas to then talking about ok what does this mean. He say we should be talking about it, ok, he is talking about, what are the implications and the next steps? thats why I said its a cop out.

And to the comment about mother nature. Just because we think its ok at this current point in time doesn't mean its not sexist. Like this is a difference I am seeing between how we see things but to me, just because society , a person or a group does X doesn't mean that the act itself isn't Y. If a person or even a group of people who maybe generally considered good does an action you considered think has a certain character, it doesnt change the character of that action right?

you think I am reaching but that is a logical end read of the diagram and of his argument, you can disagree with me that its not but then you need to give me a decent argument as to why its not.

As for if he wasn't infamous, his views won't bat an eye, sure it wouldn't. His work would for the most part be considered fringe by academic standards and out there, but thats a dime a dozen, there area lot more heterodox views in academia then people give credit for, even Marxism and like old school theology is taught in Universities. Economist in big schools are thought everything from Hayek to Marx and psychologist are taught things from Freud & Jung (works of whom are considered outadated by now) to more modern methods. So him give classes and lectures in universities would not be strange. You have to be a really out there like flat-eathers, homeopaths or other pseudosciences(even then they can still get invited) to be excluded.

Peterson never have claimed that things should be looked at or actioned in the lens of IQ. Not sure where your getting this.

His basically saying that there is a correlation of certain individual outcomes with IQ.

Also if you expect him to also solve world problems from his findings of IQ, then your expecting too much from him. Nor has he stated that IQ results can be used to solve world problems.

In terms of historical metophoric representing of gender...I think ppl are smart enough to differentiate (more than what your giving them credit for).

There has never been a problem until gender has become a political.

And this is what I mean by ppl using energy in 1st world problems (I.e. policing language) vs actually going out and solving real injustices

I don't expect him to solve anything. I am expecting him as an academic to actually be thorough with his ideas and its conclusions and to explicitly draw the line of what his conclusion should or should not get to.

Thats what most academics has to do, they state the limits of their findings and conclusions, not saying it is often tantamount to agreeing with the opposite conclusion. You try your best to get rid of any potential implicit conclusions and to get rid of anything you potentially do not mean. And if you are unaware of the implicit there are even Cover your ass statements that people use, he is lacking even in that standard. If he doesn't think IQ should be actioned upon or used to solve problems, state so and say why. you have to be explicit as an academic, state your assumptions, state your biases, limitations to the best of your abilities and if people point out things you didn't take into account then address them and I am not seeing the rigour here.

as for your comment about metaphors, i never said anything about intelligence or being able to tell the difference (between metaphors and reality?) so I don't understand what you want to say here? I was trying to make a point about an interpretation of his model and how it has a sexist and pretty misogynistic conclusion, not about how people view metaphors?

as for the gender and politics point, the only thing I would say is that from a historical pov and my point of view..insert *always has been* meme here. We have ancient Greek sources on influence and character of women in politics and society if you want to go back that far.

About IQ, his conclusions are that there are differences in cognitive abilities in people which could have major consequence in socio economics and interpersonal relationships. It's not ground breaking. It's something I knew before Peterson came on the scene.

He has said many times that he doesn't know what to do about it, but people should start discussing how to tackle it because it's becoming a wider problem in a ever increasing complex world.

I don't know why this is controversial or you expect him to draw it to its conclusion...do you expect the physicists that posited about Higgs Boson should also have lead to the formula of how quantum physics meshes with Einstein's general relativity? Or worse yet, how does Higgs Boson solve social injustice?

In terms of where to draw the line on IQ, he has stated many times that IQ is not the only factor, that's why he uses the term correlation when bringing up iq....and brings up the big 5 personality traits also and there correlation.

Regarding the metaphors, the nature of metaphors is to use something that we are familiar with to describe something that is abstract.

The metaphir of "mother nature", "chaos" and "order"...there are no sexist under tones in it.

But because people are using the 2021 lens where gender is politicised...they see things when it's not there.

If you want to play this game, then why stop at gender? And why stop at metaphors?

Let's police language to a point where it's perfect in a politically correct sense...what do you think that world looks like?

Just because its been said before doesn't mean you are allowed to have less rigour and discipline in what you say, especially if you are trying to make a point about it or add something to the conversation. If you don't think you can add to the conversation, then defer to someone else you think can.

Ok so he said there are implications, which are? I don't see him say it in my reading of him, if I am missing what his thoughts are about the implications of IQ, please tell me. And then he can go on and say he doesn't know what to do about them (with reason like because he believes x, or he thinks Y and there are limitations Z like other factors) and therefore this should be discussed more because we can discover X or maybe do Y.

You bring up the Higgs Boson example, when that was first theorised, like they had to do the implications( make predictions about what the properties of the particles are, whether or not it fits into the standard model) and then go on about the next steps (is it testable, what would be needed to test it). There is a reason why a model proposed in 1964 took until 2013 to get some amount experimental evidence. Its long and hard work.

One don't need to do all of it, but you need to add your part to the whole project doing the process to the best of their abilities and state clearly your contribution and your own limits, that whole newton standing on the shoulders of giants thing.

On your point on metaphors, I again do not know how you are reaching this point in the discussion since I was talking about a interpretation of a particular model presented by one man in a single book and you want to talk about how people think and intend when they use words, aren't you generalising things?

I have never said anything about changing any thoughts or policing anything. I have been criticizing the actions and models of one man. In addition I am one person talking about how I view things and what I think is correct and calling things out as I see it, how does that lead to policing, which implies state level and state directed regulations?

When a parent tells a child not to say x in public because its rude or inappropriate, is that policing? If a person is doing something you think is wrong or inappropriate, is calling them out policing? Am I policing JP by saying these things about him? My family members doing something inappropriate in public I tell them to stop, is that policing?

I feel like we're going in circles here. If you want to expand your knowledge on Petersons viewpoints on IQ, there's many YT videos around that you can look up. Don't just base it on my summary, better to research yourself.

Here's a few vids you can look up




If you want the work and studies his published regarding correlation and regression of IQ with certain areas, then they're available too, just google it.

Regarding the metaphors, you criticise Oeterson for using the traditional chaos and order gender representation and it's akin to ppl using mother nature as a metaphor representation (which you also think has the similar sexist undertones)...then you should also criticise every writer and person that has used this mother nature metaphor with the same vigour as you have with Peterson.

Look if you level of criticism for these use of metaphors is something that you try to avoid but not actively push down everyone's throat, then I'm fine with that.

Everyone's allowed to have an opinion, as long as you don't support enforcement of everyone else on this point of view and don't use extreme labels on ppl that do.

So I think on your last point, we can kind of meet middle ground

[helln00]

In a sense the meta is shifting away from men being dominant

I very much doubt that, I don't think human nature changes, it just gets differently expressed and channelled, depending on historical conditions. By dropping out of society, they are sabotaging the game. Basically retrenching in preparation for an incoming disintegration of the current social model. Through sabotage, they're trying to regain the upper hand. Heraclitus: "all things come into being and pass away through strife".

if you think that the VC,investor and business space aren't full of cowboys, you have to meet some of these people. Never in my life have i met people with higher egos and paranoia like you described. Also the oil sector and im not talking about people working on the rigs, I am talking about the people who just run the business

That's the legacy of the Wild West mentality, these people are a throwback to that era when there was genuinely a wild frontier to still be explored and exploited. But it's still just shitty paper and fossil fuel trading, what drives their egos is knowing they're on top of a resource that can be exploited to make bank. They are Wild West larpers, not true trailblazers in any way.

Like you say some "dropping out" to sabotage the game, like OOS-ing but that only works if the system does disintegrate. That is not a given, we could still prevent players from OOS-ing, make it so their actions don't impact the system, there will be something. We might fail but I think its not a given. Its like Malthus when he commented on the grim human calculus, the out come from the period and what we have now is very much not what he expects. On human nature, the only thing I would say is that I don't think that matters as you say since it gets channeled differently base on historical conditions, so what ever gets expressed is a function of what we try to achieve in the present day since history is past politics and politics, present history.

On the VC, I do agree they are Larpers, but in the sense that they are playing to a fantasy since the wild West was never as wild as people think it is. The image however still stands and they stand as close as we have now to the image of the risk taking cowboys. The people that experienced that state of nature that you are describing and trying to exploit it are one are not trailblazing for humanity I feel, but more like the harbingers of the states to come.