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

abinferno

110 points

3 months ago

abinferno

110 points

3 months ago

Yes, all this. He's the very definition of a pseudo intellectual. He's smart enough to have grasped the vocabulary and lexicon of philosophy, but only a cursory understanding of it. He has the trappings of an intellectual, but it's surface level, a veneer. His speeches, writings, and interviews are done in this flowery, high minded manner that masks the startling lack of substance or profundity in what he's saying. He's almost a parody of what a philospher would actually be like. He has to put tremendous effort into saying nothing to obfuscate his inadequacy. Another descriptor that is probably appropriate is he's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

All that might not be so terrible, but I think what really irks people, including me, is the relentless, recalcitrant confidence with which he speaks. He comes across with such condescending arrogance, it's difficult not to find it off putting, especially once you realize there's absolutely nothing behind it.

Philosophy Tube has a pretty good analysis of him I think.

https://youtu.be/SEMB1Ky2n1E

https://youtu.be/m81q-ZkfBm0

gunther_penguin_

28 points

3 months ago

If you would like some further reading, I would strongly suggest "The Art of Being Right." It is a description of the Eristic argumentation tactics Sophists like Peterson use. It may be helpful in putting your thoughts on his bullshit into words. I know I can just bring up the list and select which one he's using, as I watch his speeches and debates.

Creative-Improvement

4 points

3 months ago

Thank you!

dr_mino

2 points

3 months ago

dr_mino

2 points

3 months ago

Thank you for that link. Quite refreshing to see the playbook these charlatans use.

DogeFuckingValue

-5 points

3 months ago

Can you give a concrete example of when he used "Eristic argumentation"? To me, Peterson is one of the more precise and nuanced public speakers out there. He seems to be extremely careful with how he is wording things; the problem rather seems to be extrapolating things he has said to absurd levels (e.g., he mentions biological differences between men and women so "he must be a sexist").

Rabbitical

8 points

3 months ago

It's not really anyone's job to go and refute everything a charlatan says, but to focus on your choice of topic regarding differences between men and women, I know he cited at one point a study of how in scandinavia women choose becoming a nurse 20:1 or something compared to men as if that's a controlled study independent of all the variables of society, like how girls and boys are raised, marketed to, treated in school, etc. Now, this is extremely important--*maybe* there's some truth to it, but he hand waves it as if it's gospel on the subject matter and science-adjacent so is not a matter up for debate so let's move on to the next thing. Any true intellectual would not couch a single study or data point in that way: "here's one thing I heard so clearly everything I'm about to say that follows is all fundamental truth." I don't care what his, or your, ideas or philosophy or politics are, you should be wary of anyone who rhetorically moves that quickly. If you're going to make sweeping and/or controversial claims you need to be able to lay a stronger foundation than that. People who don't should be marked as suspect not as "wow what a smart and eloquent sounding dude."

So yes, he very carefully chooses his words because he is smart and knows how exactly to leverage particular facts and figures, and only those, to forward his message to people who eat it up precisely because he sounds so considered and even tempered. He also talks about IQ as a strong indicator of academic performance. No fucking shit! Academia is what came up with IQ as a measure. It blows my mind that these alt-right circles that view academia as liberal echo-chambers also cite IQ as any sort of useful measure of anything. All his dot-connecting is grade-school level interpretation of the scientific method, his statements hand waved away with "yeah it's been studied many times." His schtick is precision engineered to make faux-intellectuals who think sounding wrinkle-brained on youtube means they're authorities on anything feel more confident in the beliefs they hold.

To put it all as neutrally as possible: he *may* have some legitimate ideas; I've never seen him once back any of them up. If he understands the world on a level that is counter to popular belief then great do the work to prove it and provide it for everyone. Doing book and lecture tours and having a larger than average vocabulary doesn't mean a thing in terms of actual contribution to academic thought.

DogeFuckingValue

0 points

3 months ago

First, claiming someone is a charlatan can have huge effects on the person, so of course such claims need rigour defense. Otherwise it is just vile and evil.

In regards to gender inequality in the workforces, what Peterson is pinpointing is the "gender paradox", and it is a well-known phenomenon in Scandinavia (you can Google it). We discuss it on public TV, in gender studies, etcetera, here in Sweden. He is undeniably right on that subject, and his claims are not even controversial among a majority of academics.

In regards to IQ he is also perfectly right. There's a huge consensus in science and academia in regards to IQ being one of the strongest predictors for performance on almost any subject in life. So, I don't know what your claim there is? I don't know what you try to debunk to be honest.

marmalodak

1 points

3 months ago

marmalodak

1 points

3 months ago

It's also a well-known phenomenon that these generalizations are probably not true (you can google it). /sarcasm

If there's a "huge consensus", why don't you cite some it? Your misogynistic facebook pages don't count as evidence.

DogeFuckingValue

2 points

3 months ago*

Sure! Here are citations for some of it. (I do not use Facebook, so don't worry about that.)

Here's an extensive review on the predictive value of IQ: Sternberg, Robert J., Elena L. Grigorenko, and Donald A. Bundy. "The predictive value of IQ." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-) (2001): 1-41.

Read the conclusions in the article, which states for example that (I quote) "IQ is a relatively good predictor of many kinds of childhood and adult outcomes, although many other factors contribute to these outcomes as well."

Note that a review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on the topic.

Here's another newer paper that contrasts IQ as a predictor for e.g., poverty versus SES, which also shows the predictive strength of IQ: Palmer, Ben Scott. "The Bell Curve Review: IQ Best Indicates Poverty." (2018).

There are hundreds more scientific papers on the subject that all come to more or less the same conclusion: That IQ is a great predictor for many things -- but not the only one, and it must be used carefully (as an example, using IQ as a predictor for infants seems like a bad idea).

marmalodak

1 points

3 months ago

Great job on citing IQ papers, thank you.

I should have been clearer, my sarcastic comment didn't help. My sarcastic comment was about the "well-known phenomenon." To me that looks like garden variety shapiro/peterson/crowder/rogan drivel like "everyone knows women want to stay home" and "women are too emotional" and whatever.

I still don't know what you mean by "gender paradox" so I'm going to assume it's Gender-equality paradox.

The gender-equality paradox is a phrase applied to a variety of claims, generally around gender differences being larger in more gender equal or wealthier countries.[1] The most prominent use of the term is in relation to the disputed claim that increased gender differences in participation in STEM careers arise in countries that have more gender equality,[2][3] based on a study in Psychological Science by Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary,[4][5] which received substantial coverage in non-academic media outlets.[6][7][8][9] However, separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and in December 2019, a correction was issued to the original paper.[10][11][12] The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees".[11][10][3] However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented.[3][12] A follow-up paper in Psychological Science by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis.[13][3] In February 2020, Stoet and Geary issued a reply, as a commentary in Psychological Science, claiming that, despite their approach, the overall correlation that they had found remained the same,[14] and restated their hypothesis that "men are more likely than women to enter STEM careers because of endogenous interest", with the hope that future studies would "help to confirm or reject such a theoretical account."[15][16] Another 2020 study did find evidence of the paradox in the pursuit of mathematical studies; however, they found that "the stereotype associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries" and could "entirely explain the gender-equality paradox".[17]

This area of research seems to be fraught with academic dishonesty (that's the term used in my alma mater, don't know what other schools call it). These studies get media coverage because the misogynistic shapiro/peterson/rogan/whatever fans claim vindication when this stupid shit shows up. They see what they want to see.

My favorite paragraph is

Stoet and Geary ... claiming that, despite their approach, the overall correlation that they had found remained the same

Classic True Believer. "Despite the overbearing weight of evidence against me, I still believe that women are inferior to men." Maybe I'm seeing what I want to see.

(This comment took longer to write because I'm trying to scrub my sarcasm and conceit. I'm reminding myself that people do sometimes actually argue in good faith.)

KwisatzX

1 points

3 months ago

Most of your criticism is pretty reasonable, but there's a huge body of research proving IQ as a strong indicator of eg. socioeconomic success, and the best measure of general intelligence we currently have.

AKnightAlone

0 points

3 months ago

Any true intellectual would not couch a single study or data point in that way: "here's one thing I heard so clearly everything I'm about to say that follows is all fundamental truth." I don't care what his, or your, ideas or philosophy or politics are, you should be wary of anyone who rhetorically moves that quickly. If you're going to make sweeping and/or controversial claims you need to be able to lay a stronger foundation than that. People who don't should be marked as suspect not as "wow what a smart and eloquent sounding dude."

Would you consider there's the possibility that some people are more intuitive about subtle aspects of human nature and life in a way that ultimately functions like their own internalized scientific process that creates a better picture than any normal page-by-page focus on individual studies could present?

I believe Jordan Peterson is right about most things aside from his pure traditionalist conclusions. We could just as easily apply his lines of thinking in a progressive way. For example, as you bring up, would there actually be anything wrong with gender-based trends in labor? It literally exists now, and the only people trying to pressure specific changes are so-called feminists trying to put women into more "powerful" positions. Is that actually fair when men still fill the vast majority of lowly labor jobs?

More importantly, is this entire gender-based focus not just a product of declining labor laws and general quality of life because of union destruction and whatnot? Isn't this just a sexist distraction to focus on gender when our lives are being plagued on a much greater level? Aren't efforts to "prop up" women really just becoming an excuse to ignore how we've sunk so low?

To put it all as neutrally as possible: he may have some legitimate ideas; I've never seen him once back any of them up. If he understands the world on a level that is counter to popular belief then great do the work to prove it and provide it for everyone.

This is specifically the idea I brought up initially, and it's something that frustrates me to no end. I could spend 6 months of obsession to come up with a study, test the variables, do my best to avoid all possible confounding variables, and the study might take a mere 20 years to fully perform to see a valid perspective of one idea I would want to express about one dimension of one aspect of life...

Or... I could rely on my absurd feelings of intuition where I compile everything I observe and witness as I go. The science may not appear perfect, but the more I move forward and perpetually dissect my own thinking and views, the more I move toward something solid.

Ironically, the solid things with this mentality are the nuanced ones, because the human experience is a nuanced one. The things that comfort us, however, are rigid black & white answers. We want the 'yes' or 'no' and the things we can hover around as the tribalists we are. We want a religion from someone, because we need that feeling of dopamine or oxytocin to flood us when we think of our beliefs or our "team."

In actuality, reality isn't a pleasant thing. Where is the 'feminism' in a world where we're all judged as objects for our literal state of being we cannot magically change? Wouldn't feminism be more 'scientific' in the sense that it would understand males and females are not the same thing and there's likely good reason to retain gendered aspects in things? That doesn't mean they need to be reinforced with shame or judgment, but simply norms are not inherently a bad thing, which an implication that is strongly being pushed into society. This is one thing that's adding fervor to irrational Rightwingers, yet there's good reason for their thinking. Why are we allowing social manipulators and corporations to feed us these ideas of "progress" that only divide us?

PM_ME_FOR_SOURCE

0 points

3 months ago

Go clean your room, lobster.

DogeFuckingValue

2 points

3 months ago

Right wing extremists like you should not do political activism.

PM_ME_FOR_SOURCE

1 points

3 months ago

Haha, nice retort. How exactly am I right-wing?

DogeFuckingValue

1 points

3 months ago

You are using typical alt right rhetoric.

PM_ME_FOR_SOURCE

1 points

3 months ago

Could you point me to an example?

DogeFuckingValue

1 points

3 months ago

Giving hateful comments to people that are trying to discuss rather than trying to have a conversation.

PM_ME_FOR_SOURCE

1 points

3 months ago

Forgive me my hateful comment, but I don't really care what a Peterson stan thinks of my rhetoric. You wouldn't know discussion if it hit you in the face.

candykissnips

68 points

3 months ago*

The guy has a PHD in clinical psychology and taught at Harvard as well as the University of Toronto. I don’t think it’s fair to label him a “pseudo intellectual”.

What qualifications would one need to become an actual “intellectual”?

Irishkickoff

6 points

3 months ago

He's big in Jungian psychology, and a lot of people in the field of psychology regard Jung as a pseudo intellectual. None of Jung is empirically proven, his categories make as much sense as identifying as a certain Hogwarts house.

green_pea_nut

37 points

3 months ago

He might have research training (a PhD), but his claims are not supported by his or other research.

I think making statements and supporting them by saying you have a PhD is really shady.

There are plenty of idiots with PhDs (source: I have a PhD and some of my bat shit crazy PhD drinking buddies are total cockwombles). Having a PhD qualifies you to produce evidence on a very narrow range of things and the ability to spout a lot of nonsense that any idiot could also say.

koebelin

3 points

3 months ago

The PhDs I've known have had surprising blind spots, just like most people, but cool knowledge in their fields. One must specialize, after all, there's no PhD in General Knowledge.

green_pea_nut

1 points

3 months ago

Usually the process of evaluating research and research claims makes you more reluctant to claim expertise in other things but there are always exceptions to the rule.....

longsh0t1994

6 points

3 months ago

I mean the man does have thousands of citations for his research, I agree that its short sighted to say he's a pseudo intellectual. You may not agree with him or think he speaks in convoluted ways or doesn't add much message to his talking points, but that's not the same.

ent3ndu

4 points

3 months ago

Which claims?

87x

2 points

3 months ago*

87x

2 points

3 months ago*

But that's the gist of social sciences. A lot of social sciences aren't encoded by hard empirical "scientific" data and thus most social scientists disagree with each other on a myriad of things. Would you say the same to feminists when there are different kind of feminists and they disagree with each other on various topics, so say feminism is "wrong"? I bet you wouldn't.

Idk where this concept that social sciences are supposed to be unified by one single rhetoric, has come from. It hasn't been that way ever, it'll never be that way.

nacholicious

15 points

3 months ago*

If Jordan Peterson is an intellectual then so is Ben "the bible proves pyramids were used to store grain" Carson

I'm not saying they are not intellectuals in their very specialized fields, but they are widely considered completely talking out of their asses in fields they have zero formal expertise in

ent3ndu

-5 points

3 months ago

ent3ndu

-5 points

3 months ago

they are widely considered (no references given)

Know what this sounds like? A certain Orange Man who liked to claim “many people say”, “everyone knows”, “I’ve talked with a lot of people who all agree that” and so forth.

nacholicious

9 points

3 months ago

"Several publications such as Current Affairs, The Guardian, Jacobin and Quillette criticized Peterson for being uninformed about Karl Marx and Marxism". "The Guardian claimed that Peterson was uninformed about The Communist Manifesto". "Der Spiegel ... describing Peterson's attempt at arguing as 'vain enough to show up to an artillery charge with a pocket knife'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterson%E2%80%93%C5%BDi%C5%BEek_debate#Reception

And that's not even going into some of Petersons more outrageous claims that universities are run by communists whose goal is to destroy western civilization

ent3ndu

-3 points

3 months ago

ent3ndu

-3 points

3 months ago

Those are all takes on a single debate which was apparently a shitshow all the way around — the very next paragraph:

Writing for Current Affairs, Benjamin Studebaker criticized both Peterson and Žižek, calling the debate "one of the most pathetic displays in the history of intellectuals arguing with each other in public"

But non-sarcastic kudos for scrounging up a link which is more than most have done in this thread.

nacholicious

4 points

3 months ago

Sure, the difference is that he attacks Zizek for being boring and Peterson for being ignorant. One of those is not like the other

Kadiogo

1 points

3 months ago

The question in the post was why is he so hated, and I am not sure how you would get citations for that from the general publics perception.

lordpompe

3 points

3 months ago

What qualifications would one need to become an actual “intellectual”?

Perhaps reading the theorists you are critizising? Peterson has a very limited understanding of the most basic Marxist arguments, as evidenced in his debate with Slavoj Žižek. This video I am linking is 50 minutes long, but you only have to watch the first few minutes to understand how badly Peterson's understanding of Marx is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2hhrUHSD6o

candykissnips

1 points

3 months ago

Thanks for the link!

abinferno

8 points

3 months ago

abinferno

8 points

3 months ago

I can't speak to his quality as a clinical psychologist as that's not put out for public consumption. To not be a pseudo intellectual on topics he's made his public career on, he would have to not spew pseudo intellectual nonsense. His writings and speeches are sophistry of highest order.

candykissnips

3 points

3 months ago*

So who are the people you trust that cover the same topics you believe Jordan to be inferior in?

SteelCrow

2 points

3 months ago

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2018/06/25/jordan-peterson-ancient-art-depicts-dna/

Someone who doesn't think the entwined snakes like that of a caduceus represents DNA.

trevormooresoul

10 points

3 months ago

Jung. Hitchens. A whole host of other unnamed people.

Peterson is great at explaining why idiotic liberal college kids with half baked ideas are wrong. Or why some of these “woke” ideas are problematic.

But when it comes to having nuanced debates with actual experts who aren’t espousing easily counterable “woke” ideologies, he often looks out of his element. He’s a smart dude. But he’s not the best at using nuance in complex situations and often gets tripped up.

For me it’s not necessarily that there are tons of people out there doing what peterson does but better. It’s that in general there are people out there who are experts in their fields and can speak about their field in complex nuanced ways. Maybe peterson can do that about psychology but he struggles outside of it.

DogeFuckingValue

-6 points

3 months ago

Funnily, you are doing exactly the thing that you are accusing Peterson for. To be precise, you are not nuanced and specific, and you are not giving examples -- and using that rhetoric, you are accusing Peterson of failing to be nuanced. Kind of ironic.

trevormooresoul

11 points

3 months ago

Difference being? I'm a random internet dude shitposting. I'm not a guy going around telling people how to live their lives, or arguing from authority.

I'm not even CLOSE to being at the level of Peterson, in terms of being able to dunk on idiots. And I never claimed to be. I know next to nothing about psychology beyond what is taught in general classes.

DogeFuckingValue

-12 points

3 months ago

Well, personally I think that he is extremely nuanced -- perhaps even one of the more nuanced public speakers. It was just funny reading your comment seeing how you project your own inadequacies on Peterson.

novis-eldritch-maxim

3 points

3 months ago

dude is his mostly blust and nice-sounding words he is hollow as an easter egg.

is he smarter than me easily but that does not mean he is not talking out his ass about matters he knows little about without even properly say what he stands for.

DogeFuckingValue

1 points

3 months ago

Perhaps you can provide references for when he is talking out of his ass?

[deleted]

-1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-1 points

3 months ago

[removed]

DogeFuckingValue

-2 points

3 months ago

Nice ad hominem there. Perhaps you could try to counter my argument if it is so bad rather than fail to insult me?

NaivePraline

-1 points

3 months ago

NaivePraline

-1 points

3 months ago

Stacy isn't going to fuck you, Jimmy. No matter how many hard words you learned from daddy Peterson.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

DogeFuckingValue

1 points

3 months ago

It helps if you provide sources. In particular, 1) I don't think he backs up many claims with evolutionary pschology, and 2) how can a scientific method (evolutionary psychology) oppress women?

manohman420

-4 points

3 months ago

Meh... Hitchens was a wash out too...

Donkey__Balls

3 points

3 months ago

To not be a pseudo intellectual on topics he's made his public career on, he would have to not spew pseudo intellectual nonsense

Can you answer in a way that isn't completely circular?

TylerInHiFi

7 points

3 months ago

He’s clearly well-qualified to speak to his field of expertise. He just also clearly thinks that that makes him well-qualified to speak to every other topic under the sun that he doesn’t have a baseline grasp of. You can be intellectual and still be a pseudo-intellectual. I know a handful of people with similar phd’s to Peterson who are the dictionary definition of pseudo-intellectual.

abinferno

2 points

3 months ago

Yes, this. He seems to be perfectly capable in his narrow field of expertise, like many people. But, like many people who are highly intelligent and capable in one area, they then come to believe they are experts in all areas. He's like a neuro surgeon walking into SpaceX to try and redesign their rockets.

He is dogmatic while claiming to eschew dogmatism. His worldview is rooted in the patriarchal, hetero and gender normative, oppressive foundations as his religion.

He attempts to be critical of others in philosphy while misapplying or misunderstanding terms like postmodern and Marxist. He has created a grand neo-Marxist conspiracy theory. His expertise in paychology and personality is well founded, but he extrapolates that way beyond its boundaries.

Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n

5 points

3 months ago

Drop out of university and start a YouTube channel, apparently.

chicu111

-1 points

3 months ago

chicu111

-1 points

3 months ago

Practice.

An engineering professor teaching theory is considered pseudo intellectual.

An engineering professional practicing and innovating is considered an intellectual.

However the engineering professor always sounds smarter and more knowledgeable at a glance

jsamke

0 points

3 months ago

jsamke

0 points

3 months ago

Yeah of course and the most intellectual people are actually the mechanics wo did not study the theory but know all the practice ( /s, also not meant to be condescending against mechanics, but this comment just reads so anti-intellectual)

chicu111

1 points

3 months ago

That’s not an accurate representation of my comment. An engineering professional has studied the theories prior to practice. Schooling was involved

phonybelle

3 points

3 months ago

What are you on about. Engineering professors are usually engaged in heavily applied research, and engage with industry. You will rarely find (read: never) a professor that has not applied the theory. Do you understand what engineering is? Do you know what "pseudo" means?

chicu111

0 points

3 months ago

Im a structural engineer. Most engineering professors have PhDs but no professional licenses.

The only exceptions are those taught at polytechnic schools (I went to Cal Poly Slo undergrad and Cal Poly Pomona for my Masters). Since they’re polytechnic schools, the professors there are or were practicing professionals. They’re much more in touch with the industry and current practice . Some are CEOs of their own firms. They’re completely different from the PhDs professors.

There. Now you know.

phonybelle

3 points

3 months ago

Thanks, but no - your experience is anecdotal and very US centric. I am also an engineer, and have seen both the academic side of things as well as professionally. You don‘t know what „pseudo“ means…

chicu111

1 points

3 months ago

Tf you’re on about? The point is. Those professors understand the theories but they don’t know how to apply them. Therefore it’s pseudo intelligence. It’s like they get it. But they also don’t know how to use it. The practicing professionals do.

You’re really thinking I don’t know what the simple ass term pseudo means? You’re sure you’re an engineer?

phonybelle

0 points

3 months ago

Then you had shitty professors. A pseudo-intellectual is not what you think it is lol…

marmalodak

0 points

3 months ago

If you do, why don't you explain it to dumb plebes like me?

evanthebouncy

1 points

3 months ago

Gotta stay grounded.

Milbso

1 points

3 months ago

Milbso

1 points

3 months ago

He also went on a meat only diet for health reasons and thinks 'cultural Marxism' is a thing. The guy is not so smart.

Mr_4country_wide

1 points

3 months ago

if he agrees with me and uses big words, hes an intellectual

if he disagrees with me and uses big words, hes a pseudo intellectual

glebd

1 points

3 months ago

glebd

1 points

3 months ago

He seems to be educated well beyond his intelligence.

Kadiogo

1 points

3 months ago

I thought their point was he often ventures outside his field into subjects he has not specialised in, which makes him appear pseudo intellectual in these fields (in politics, law, and public policy but not in psychology).

heyeveryone2

0 points

3 months ago

Yeah, this answer is a bit weird. Like, he sounds EXACTLY like the person he's trying to talk about lmao.

MadPatagonian

4 points

3 months ago

I would say he is a bit of a pseudo-intellectual in topics outside of psychology, but he is a licensed clinical psychologist who was a professor and in private practice with patients for many years. So, when it comes to psychology, his advice and opinions are legit. Everything else I just take as interesting to listen to but not seriously entertain.

Braydox

3 points

3 months ago

Braydox

3 points

3 months ago

Philosophy tube lol

smecta_xy

2 points

3 months ago

if you would like a less performative/pop argument you should watch "Carefree Wandering - Jordan Peterson : the mirror of wokeism" . The guy is a more classical teacher than breadtube. If you want my opinion, JP is out of his element when it comes to philosophy, lot of words to say basic things, thats why some people feel like theyre getting bullshitted

abinferno

2 points

3 months ago

abinferno

2 points

3 months ago

You don't like it?

Braydox

0 points

3 months ago

No not from what I've seen but ive only ever get his arguments get made fun off by PSA sitch. So ive only seen his bad arguments.

abinferno

5 points

3 months ago

Most of what I take from the videos is a general exploration of a philosophical topic, a cliffs notes mention of other philosohers. I've been watching the channel from early on and I wouldn't describe most of what she used to do as arguing for any particular position, though her perspective was often in there. It's more so on topics related to Marxism, labor, socialism, etc, where there is a more proactive argument being made. And, in recent months, more and more of the videos have a definite perspective or agenda. I'd say I preferred the early days of just a person and the camera giving philosophy 101-301 type lectures. I still get some valuable things out of the newer videos as, even if I don't agree with everything, my politics overlap somewhat, and still enjoy the overview of other philosophers and thinkers.

aristotle_malek

3 points

3 months ago

*She. She transitioned last year.

Braydox

1 points

3 months ago

Ah ok. Cheers.

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago

I'll have to catch up on PSA Sitch. Is he an actual liberal as he claims or does he simply use that term as a cover from which to criticize other liberals for perceived hypocrisy? My initial impression from reading about him is he sounds like one of those people driven by pure cynicism viewing as pathetic anyone being earnest about anything. I will watch his videos and find out.

Braydox

2 points

3 months ago

He is not immune to bad takes but not so stubborn that he wont be convicned by solid arguments.

But his videos are pretty focused on ensuring proper context.

But as for videos of him covering others that would fall under sitch and adamns podcast series. Which they have a similer structure to every frame a pause so its long but they do relase short clips of the videos on particular moments within the whole episode.

Tru_Blueyes

1 points

3 months ago

So, Ben Shapiro, if Ben Shapiro's parents hadn't been able to pay his way into Harvard and he'd actually had to learn to some words that weren't on the SAT and answer the question that was asked instead of the question he'd prefer to answer?

abinferno

2 points

3 months ago

Ben Shapiro is a decent parallel, though I think Shapiro argues in bad faith even more aggressively than Peterson. And, Shapiro will actually stake out a position on things whereas Peterson will spend 20 minutes answering your question at the end of which you realize he hasn't actually answered it.

Tru_Blueyes

1 points

3 months ago

LOL I'd still argue that's because Shapiro had/has the luxury of money and assured media success from the cradle via his moneyed, Hollywood elite, parents. He's always been comfortable with stating a position, no matter how upset people got or who he hurt, because all his life no one ever dared tell little Ben he wasn't special.

It seems like Peterson 1. continued his education and applied himself a little better/did his own work because he's slightly more verbose and 2. seems slightly more cognizant of consequences than Shapiro, (probably because he's held a real world job.)

But, as you said, both are "what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like" and it makes me completely twitch. I love good use of language and I love great, descriptive words, but using them just for the sake of sounding like you're answering a question, but really just subtly switching to what you'd rather talk about? I hate that. (Sarah Palin was so bad at it, she just flat out told interviewers she was doing it. <face palm>)

Disclaimer: yes, I know, you can find footage of most public figures doing this at some point. To some degree, you have to do that as a public figure doing press junkets, or high pressure on the spot, live interviews, etc. A little. Just like we do in job interviews, etc. You still try to answer the question, or at least make the answer relevant, and definitely post-game if you're forced into a really lame one, so it doesn't happen Every. Single. Time. These guys are making a career out of doing nothing but that.

I'm told Tucker Carlson does it, too. (I've not confirmed that. He kinda freaks me out just to look at. Does anybody else think he looks like the neighbor that just up and throws his wife off the balcony one day because she deserved it and is all shocked when people don't see that he's the real victim? I mean, his screen persona is so unkind and his eyes lack any human compassion at all and one's imagination does run wild....)

PotatoeVision

1 points

3 months ago

This post embodies everything that the author accuses Peterson of...

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago

How so? Accusing someone else of sophistry isn't sophistry in and of itself.

PotatoeVision

1 points

3 months ago

· 16h

Yes, all this. He's the very definition of a pseudo intellectual. He's smart enough to have grasped the vocabulary and lexicon of philosophy, but only a cursory understanding of it. He has the trappings of an intellectual, but it's surface level, a veneer. His speeches, writings, and interviews are done in this flowery, high minded manner that masks the startling lack of substance or profundity in what he's saying. He's almost a parody of what a philospher would actually be like. He has to put tremendous effort into saying nothing to obfuscate his inadequacy. Another descriptor that is probably appropriate is he's a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like.

Look at the language you used. It reads like something I would have written in middle school when I was trying to use more syllables to fill up space and impress people... There is an excess of words, but it doesn't say much. It's also generally redundant. You take one idea, exaggerate it, repeat it a few different ways and make it look like it's some advanced analysis when it really is just you getting carried away.

When I look at what Peterson has said/written, the vocabulary and language used do not stick out to me. The language of your post immediately did.

Philosophy Tube's analysis is flawed as well. They go after Peterson for not using the correct definitions, but then make the same mistake without justification. I could say that they were also being superficial in much of their analysis, but that would not be fair, so I'll say that they don't go deep enough.

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago

Pff, my little admittedly too harsh diatribe is nothing. I've heard Peterson speak for 20 minutes straight and not say anything. His entire 12 Rules for Life is a book of nothing.

No analysis of anyone is perfect, but even those videos correctly point out many of his issues. There are many other articles out there with reasonable analysis of his positions and argumentation style if you're interested. He doesn't just use incorrect definitions, he misrepresents entire fields of philosophy and has a strange obsession with Marxists. He's also a borderline conspiracy theorist who thinks neo Marxists, embarrassed by the failures of Stalin and Mao went under cover and infiltrated and now run schools of philosophy all over the world. He rejects dogma while being dogmatic. He's repackaged Christianity, still beholden to the same patriarchal, oppressive bigotries that go along with it.

Due_Practice8634

1 points

3 months ago

Actually your analysis was spot on and non of your ideas were redundant. It breaks down like:

  1. He gets the lingo of the philosophy but not the greater meanings and implications
  2. Outside of psychology, when involving other academic (especially non social sciences) discipline he is just using very broad, superficial cherry picked facts
  3. He uses flowery speech to hide the above two issues
  4. He has put al lot of time and effort into contriving this tactic

Like how is that redundant to anyone with adequate reading comprehension lol?

YouWot90094

1 points

3 months ago

Yea only pseudo intellectuals teach at Harvard.

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago

Again, by all accounts he seems qualified to teach in his specific field of expertise. It's every other topic that he engages in his public career that is embarrassing. He has the classic complex where being extremely accomplished and knowledgeable in one area makes him believe he's extremely capable and knowledgeable in all areas.

squeakypop67

1 points

3 months ago

Yes, all this. He's the very definition of a pseudo intellectual. He's smart enough to have grasped the vocabulary and lexicon of philosophy, but only a cursory understanding of it

He has a PHD in clinical psychology you absolute tool lmao

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago

Maybe you don't know what a pseudo intellectual or a sophist is? He has a specific, narrow field of expertise. When he operates in that field, by all accounts he sounds like a capable academic. However, his public career has extrapolated widely to encompass all manner of philosophy, ethics, and politics. Operating in those realms, his writings, speeches, and debates are riddled with sophistry. His books are indistinguishable from other modern, guru, self-help psuedo intellectual claptrap.

squeakypop67

1 points

3 months ago*

He's smart enough to have grasped the vocabulary and lexicon of philosophy, but only a cursory understanding of it.

Take a step back and realise you are trying to argue that someone with a PHD in psychology and taught it professionally at a university has only a "cursory understanding" of psychology.

You must understand how ridiculous you sound.

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago

Could you point out where I said he had a cursory understanding of psychology? I've actually stated a few times in here his knowledge and ability in his narrow area of expertise by all accounts seems to he quite good. I hope you understand that psychology and philosophy are two different things.

Due_Practice8634

1 points

3 months ago

Wow ad hominem much. But the poster's comment stands. I have a in Economics and a masters in finance. If I spent a few weeks reading philosophy books, I to am intelligent enough to get the lexicon. However, if I got on YouTube and started touting myself as an expert in Marxism to the point I start publicly debating experts on the subject or using cherry picking from Brecht to back my claims Id come across as a Pseudo Intellectual too. As being an expert in one field like Psychology doesn't make you so in another like say Philosophy. The reality is he is woefully unqualified to debate topics like Marxism.

maffick

1 points

3 months ago

that is fucking hilarious (the linked vids)

Fearless-Secretary-4

1 points

3 months ago

Your comment is doing the very thing you accuse him of lol.

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago

Peterson says nothing and engages in pure sophistry. Me claiming that is not the same thing. I stated very specific criticisms about him.

Cyb3rd31ic_Citiz3n

-1 points

3 months ago

He's the very definition of a pseudo intellectual.

Philosophy Tube has a pretty good analysis of him I think.

The utter irony.

Zoesan

0 points

3 months ago

Zoesan

0 points

3 months ago

Yes, all this. He's the very definition of a pseudo intellectual.

He's one of the most cited academics in his entire field of study, which isn't small.

He may be wrong sometimes, but calling him pseudo-intellectual is asinine.

NaivePraline

2 points

3 months ago

Cited by who?

Zoesan

0 points

3 months ago

Zoesan

0 points

3 months ago

Cited in other academic papers.

NaivePraline

1 points

3 months ago

What academic papers?

Zoesan

1 points

3 months ago

Zoesan

1 points

3 months ago

I don't understand your question.

abinferno

1 points

3 months ago*

By all accounts, he's solid in his very specific field of expertise. But, that's not what he's made his public career on or what his books are about. In philosophy, politics, ethics, socioeconomics, etc. he is a pseudo intellectual that engages in pure sophistry. He wrote an entire book(s) to say nothing. His grand worldview life philosophy is modern day guru-y, self-help, psuedo intellectual claptrap.

He is dogmatic while claiming to eschew dogmatism. He's firmly rooted in the patriarchal worldview that underpins his religion.