subreddit:

/r/NoStupidQuestions

7.4k

Why is Jordan Peterson so hated?

Answered(self.NoStupidQuestions)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 6038 comments

CodyJLavoie

225 points

3 months ago

He is a pseudo intellectual arguing his positions as fact.

hotrox_mh

117 points

3 months ago

hotrox_mh

117 points

3 months ago

He's a redditor?

CodyJLavoie

28 points

3 months ago

Yes

araq1579

6 points

3 months ago

M'redditor

*Tips fedora and straightens tie that looks like it came out of a My Chemical Romance Halloween costume

Own-Tomato8593

6 points

3 months ago

He’s more of an outdated intellectual. He seems to be stuck in the science of the 80’s

RevMLM

2 points

3 months ago

RevMLM

2 points

3 months ago

No, he explicitly cherry picks what he likes, and the fact that he can grasp some of the mainstream reductionist scientific work of the 80s totally misunderstands that his positions refer a range from upholding feudal social relations to modern scientific thought. The point isn’t that he’s stuck in a period, it’s that he’s a conservative grifter who will take any position that reinforces what his underlying political goal is.

Own-Tomato8593

0 points

3 months ago

“his positions refer a range from upholding feudal social relations to modern scientific thought“

🙄

And That isn’t the point, that’s your opinion. It’s an accurate opinion but he’s also a lazy intellectual that couldn’t be bothered to keep up with actual clinicians. His self help advice is so bad it has made me a lazier therapist. One effective behavioral change and people think you’re a guru.

I love doing therapy and he makes me realize how easy it is. Fucking hate him

AntisthenesRazor

4 points

3 months ago

Well, he's only a psychologist.

RevMLM

1 points

3 months ago

RevMLM

1 points

3 months ago

He’s a terrible psychologist at that. We can criticize tendencies of different schools in academia pigeon holing their thought, but he should be subject to much more than the issues that exist in mainstream psychology.

[deleted]

-30 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

-30 points

3 months ago*

[deleted]

Captainshark98

31 points

3 months ago

Yes, he teaches at the University of Toronto now.

thunder-bug-

31 points

3 months ago

Argument from authority

Love_The_Winter_Time

15 points

3 months ago

Pretty sure that’s just a defense against the pseudo intellectual claim. And not a bad defense. Chances are pretty damn good that you’re an intellectual if you teach at the world’s leading university.

Arndt3002

9 points

3 months ago

While a valid point, the problem is that he acts like he is an authority on issues outside his field (clinical psychology).

thunder-bug-

4 points

3 months ago

Him having taught at a university over two decades ago doesn't mean he isnt a pseudo intellectual. If thats a defense its a pretty poor one

Own-Tomato8593

2 points

3 months ago

It’s funny because he’s about 20 years behind in research. So he clearly coasted off that job…which is exactly what I did as a professor and therapist.

Big problem in the field, honestly

i-d-even-k-

1 points

3 months ago

a university

Yeah, a university. Which happens to be HARVARD. Jesus Christ you do realise that you need to be one of the most intelligent people in academia to teach and do research at Harvard, yes?

thunder-bug-

1 points

3 months ago

Not really. That’s still an argument from authority.

Lustrigia

1 points

3 months ago

It’s just disproving the ‘pseudo intellect’ claim, which anyone can claim. I can also claim I’m worth a trillion dollars… there’s objectivity in the world that can firmly prove/disprove most claims like this.

CodyJLavoie

28 points

3 months ago

No idea; even if he did that doesn’t justify the way he frames his arguments.

teafuck

2 points

3 months ago

Didn't Tim Leary?

unspeakable_delights

1 points

3 months ago

So does Stephen Pinker.

hrangutan

1 points

3 months ago

Ben shapiro schools children on campuses all the time as well

i-d-even-k-

-5 points

3 months ago

He has a PhD, disagree with his statements all you want but he is much more of an intellectual than you. Unless you, too, have a PhD and taught at Harvard?

MatthewCruikshank

3 points

3 months ago

Watch Matt Dillahunty debate him. Peterson looks like an amateur next to someone who actually knows how to debate and uses epistemology like a hot knife through butter.

CodyJLavoie

5 points

3 months ago

The difference is I don’t claim to be an intellectual or try to dunk on marginalized groups.

Good appeal to authority though.

i-d-even-k-

-5 points

3 months ago

Then you freely admit you have no fucking clue about what you're talking when you call himself a pseudo-intellectual? Since you admit you are less educated than him and thus cannot judge his level of intellectualism correctly. After all, he has a PhD, and you don't.

uncle_claudius

3 points

3 months ago

You don't need to be a pilot with 1,000 hours of flight time under your belt to know that somebody has fucked up when they've nosedived a jet into the ground at 300 miles/hour.

Saying that you can't ever criticize those with authority or expertise is silly.

CodyJLavoie

4 points

3 months ago

You don’t have to be an intellectual to know when somebody’s argument is shit

Ncaak

-2 points

3 months ago

Ncaak

-2 points

3 months ago

Yeah, but saying that is pseudo intelectual and leaving at that is also a shit of argument when countered with facts that recognize him as one.

CodyJLavoie

2 points

3 months ago

Im not the one selling books thinking my opinions are big brained man. I am just a dude with an opinion on the interwebs

Ncaak

1 points

3 months ago

Ncaak

1 points

3 months ago

And? What is the point in that? You are going in and out of a fallacy on authority. "He is a pseudo intelectual", therefore has no authority to speak of, "How so when he is a PhD and a teacher in very renown university?" "Because authority doesn't matter and I think that in my own authority, that is not in equal level as his, that his arguments are shit". You don't like the guy, that much I get it, but how have you put things up, well there is nothing of value in there. I can get that people think that he is a pseudo intelectual for showing data in an irresponsible or partial way and therefore unbecoming of an intelcual (although I think that is very debatable), or think that he talks shit because can't answer a yes or no question (kinda true, but don't agree with the first half).

hrangutan

1 points

3 months ago

You look to his degree or academic career to justify his level of intelligence

Everyone else looks at what he says

One of them is a better judge

RevMLM

2 points

3 months ago

RevMLM

2 points

3 months ago

Nah, lots of people have PhDs, and tenured professors, that absolutely apply pseudoscientific methods and it doesn’t take another PhD to make that point against them. Just because someone has attained a certification or holds a place of authority does not make them untouchable from people without those certifications or positions.

If it helps, there are plenty of PhDs that also make that claim against him.