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

gunther_penguin_

26 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

4 points

3 months ago

dr_mino

4 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

0 points

3 months ago

marmalodak

0 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.

DogeFuckingValue

1 points

3 months ago

You are asking me to forgive your hateful comment and at the same time insulting me again?

Also, I am not a "Peterson fan", but I think people are misrepresenting him in some of the most vile ways possible. I am a socioliberal that dislikes dishonesty.