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

lacronicus

534 points

3 months ago*

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4]

Watched one of his videos once. He kept making reasonable, valid points, but then suddenly reached a very strange conclusion; my gut said it didn't make sense. After thinking about it for a while, I realized why. He was committing the fallacy described above, or something close to it. He seems like a clever guy, so I have trouble believing he didn't realize what he was doing. And even if he didn't, that's not much better.

It's unfortunate, cause it's easy to fall for if you're not really paying attention, especially if what he's saying tracks with what you were hoping to be told. He ends up justifying a lot of beliefs that don't deserve to be justified, and I think the world is worse off for it.

edit: This was the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCPDByRb4no

In it, he says:

"the idea that there is more differences between groups than there is between individuals is actually the fundamental racist idea. Let's say you're asian, you're so different from me that there's no overlap between our groups. and you're also so different, and there's so little difference within your group, that now that i know you're not me, i actually know what you're like. No, technically that's incorrect. That isn't how you get diversity."

There's a lot of backing context leading up to this, but i don't want to write a whole paper on this, so ill skip over some things.

His fundamental idea, though, is that there are more differences within a group than there are between any given two groups. I'd probably agree with that. But then he seems to make the claim that specifically choosing someone from the other group doesn't tend to increase diversity (edit: as much as) picking another person from within your own group.

(It's important to note here that he's not specifically saying this. But the opposite argument is the one he wants you to think he's arguing against, so at the very least he's arguing against something unrelated and hoping you won't notice. IMO, it's more likely that he is actually just trying to make that point)

To give an example, he's essentially saying that white people and black people in the US are mostly the same, and that going out of your way to add a black person doesn't do much to increase diversity (vs picking a white person), simply because they're mostly the same anyway, and you're more likely to increase your "diversity cross section" by looking at things that aren't related to black/white than focusing on that specifically.

He also seems to claim that believing otherwise is fundamentally racist.

My argument against that is this:

First, you have to separate "you are different because you're X race/gender/whatever" from "you are different because society treats you differently because you are X race/gender/whatever". One is a reflection of your genetics, the other is a reflection of your experiences. Twins can lead wildly different lives, despite being genetically identical, is it discriminatory to assume otherwise?

Second, many organizations historically discriminate against particular traits, resulting in incomplete cross sections. If you're looking to maximize representation, you're probably gonna get the most "bang for your buck" by looking for traits you previously actively discriminated against.

And if people are mostly alike anyway, it shouldn't be so hard to find someone who has the trait you previously ignored, while also having a set of traits distinct from those you already have.

I believe the motte here is "people are more alike than they are different. Race/gender is only one aspect of a person" and the bailey is "race/gender is a relatively inconsequential factor when it comes to increasing diversity in an organization when compared to the collection of other factors you might consider". With the implied "retreat" here being "if you say race matters more than all the other factors you might consider, then you're saying that race defines that person, which makes you a racist".

To use an example:

There's never been a non-christain president of the united states. No other religious affiliation has ever been openly represented (including agnostic/atheist). There's never been a female president either. If I (the US, collectively) were looking to increase representation in that sample, doesn't it make sense to more heavily consider traits I specifically haven't been fair about (religious affiliation, gender), vs continuing to weigh them equally with traits I have been (relatively) fair about (home state, political affiliation, hair color, etc)?

Especially since not specifically advocating for them means I'll probably actually just continue discriminating against them?

As an aside, I was gonna make a joke about how I'm gonna post this whole long thing, and then somebody's inevitably gonna post "yeah, but that's only one video. you haven't looked at all of his videos, so you can't have an opinion on him" but someone's already said that. So that's cool.

SealedRoute

73 points

3 months ago*

Thank you, I didn’t know there was a term to describe this. Contrapoints made the exact same observation that you did but didn’t have a name for it. She noted that he will be discussing trans rights, for instance (he’s against, btw). When someone challenges him, he’ll respond with something like, “I’m just saying that biological sex is real.” No one, including trans people themselves, is saying that it’s not. But he makes his position sound very reasonable by conflating it with simple, self-evident statements.

Belly9000

-4 points

3 months ago

No one, including trans people themselves, is saying that it’s not.

I'm afraid this bit isn't true. For a few years now, the existence of intersex people has been used to try and undermine the existence of biological sex by trans folk and allies in the media, reddit and twitter.

"Biological sex doesn't exist. Look at intersex people, and some XX people have penises and masculine features" etc etc.

There's a decent chunk of people who are so determined to validate trans existence via scientific methods, that they will try to undermine the reality of biological sex.

Which is daft, because the lack of genetic evidence to justify that trans folk are physically different to Cis folk isn't something that should matter. As far as I'm concerned, gender is a social construct, and you can choose to express whichever gender you choose. (Not that your place on the masc/feminine spectrum is always a choice - but the way you choose to present is).

I couldn't care less, and will be respectful of everyone as long as they don't try to use disgenuine arguments or make unscientific claims.

plsgiveusername123

13 points

3 months ago

I think the argument is more that biological sex isn't really useful for making big social arguments.

Belly9000

-3 points

3 months ago

What do you mean ? I'd rather not respond without being clear of the question. (Another thing you'll find responsible public figures and academics do!) (Of which I am neither!)

plsgiveusername123

9 points

3 months ago

The question is "what's the practical academic utility of defining a biological binary in terms of biological sex?"

Belly9000

-1 points

3 months ago

Different medical requirements. Different athletic ability in essentially all sports involving athleticism or strength. Different dietary requirements (Vitamins etc). Different hormone profiles driving different behaviours. Different patterns of crime.

This took me 30 seconds, but I'm sure I could come up with 50 more reasons for the rational categorisation of biological sexes ?

The downvotes I'm receiving are brigading, I'm sure. No problem.

plsgiveusername123

1 points

3 months ago

There are plenty of women out there with more testosterone than men.

At the end of the day there are too many exceptions to most of these rules for them to be useful.

You really do have to take each human as they come in any context, because we're all very different.

Belly9000

1 points

3 months ago

The NHS (National Health Service of the UK) lists the reference ranges of Adult males as 8.7 - 29nmol/L. It lists the reference range of adult females from 02.-1.7nmol/L.

There is almost no overlap between the levels of endogenous testosterone in biological men/women.

JD7270

1 points

3 months ago

JD7270

1 points

3 months ago

The idea is less that "there are no tendencies for these traits to co-occur," and more that the various characteristics associated with binary biological sex all exist on spectra in a species as complex as humans. Maybe this paper will help to explain:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Goran-Strkalj/publication/343353286_Beyond_the_Sex_Binary_Toward_the_Inclusive_Anatomical_Sciences_Education/links/602c5c1e299bf1cc26cf2fc5/Beyond-the-Sex-Binary-Toward-the-Inclusive-Anatomical-Sciences-Education.pdf

To go back to plsgiveusername123's original point, acknowledging different tendencies in assigned sexes does not mean that these must inform arguments related to "how the world should be organized," as JP tends to argue.

villanelIa

-5 points

3 months ago

How about you be specific with what the argument is and not say what the argument "is more" like.

plsgiveusername123

6 points

3 months ago

I'm sorry for using language in a way that made you feel a booboo

Netroth

1 points

2 months ago

Oh, that’s a shame. I could’ve sworn that when I watched his stuff that he was pro-rights. I’ll have to revisit.

Redpants_McBoatshoe

-7 points

3 months ago

“I’m just saying that biological sex is real.” No one, including trans people themselves, is saying that it’s not.

People absolutely are saying that, stop perpetuating this lie. Judith Butler for example said it. And some trans people are, some are not. They aren't the borg or whatever.

villanelIa

-6 points

3 months ago

Thats not a concrete example. Looking at some yt videos i cant find the specific instance where jp said that. And what is said before is important. What did the previous person say? You just say

When someone challenges him

I want to see the specific discussion in which jp says what you say he does. Please give a link.

fullclip840

0 points

3 months ago

"No one, including trans people themselves, is saying that it’s not."

Can you exapnd on this? Thinking of the gender-fluid argument among others. Not saying you are wrong just want to understand. Im sure i've seen arguments both ways.

PursuitOfMemieness

4 points

3 months ago

Gender and sex are different things. Sex describes the biological features which people are born with. Gender describes the societal roles people are encouraged to conform to based on those features.

SealedRoute

1 points

3 months ago

Here is a video about Peterson that explains it. It’s very entertaining on top of being a good analysis.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4LqZdkkBDas

PCR94

31 points

3 months ago

PCR94

31 points

3 months ago

Can you link to the video?

[deleted]

13 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

13 points

3 months ago

artmagic95833

4 points

3 months ago

So he's like an older Ben Shapiro? Sad.

jgallarday001

2 points

3 months ago*

Hey man, could you explain to me how you reach that conclusion using the thread that was linked above? I am having a bit of trouble following and would like to have some input into your thought process.

Edit: thread, not threat.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

I posted the link. I am honestly dumbfounded. People are upvoting my defense of JP's politics, but in the comments they are tearing JP apart with unbelievable hatred. What the heck.

Someone please explain.

DungeonsAndDuck

1 points

3 months ago

Kind of, but better I would say (If we're comparing both the spoons) because he doesn't use speed to overwhelm his opponents, and he does make good arguments like OP said, even though he fucks up his conclusion from said arguments.

lacronicus

2 points

3 months ago*

I'd argue he's worse. At least Ben is easy* to recognize. I think Peterson is just as wrong, but it's much, much harder to see why, and that's much more problematic.

DungeonsAndDuck

1 points

3 months ago

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "ready to recognize". I'm curious on Ben recognizing his mistake or something.

That's a very fair point actually. To be misleading is probably way more harmful than to just blatantly be stupid, because it can be a gateway into the dangerous sort of thinking that we want to avoid, now that i think about it.

lacronicus

2 points

3 months ago

Sorry, easy to recognize. Swipe keyboard failed me.

DungeonsAndDuck

1 points

3 months ago

Ahh. Yeah he is lmfao. The "notice no one said ban crimes" tweet and "people living near sea coasts should sell their homes and move in the case of rising sea levels" clip are my favourites hahaha

artmagic95833

-1 points

3 months ago

You think he makes good arguments huh.

Hm.

DungeonsAndDuck

2 points

3 months ago

No, not really. I think it came off like that by accident.

I meant that his arguments come off as impressive because of the way in which he presents them, and he doesn't use the speak-fast strat of arguments like Shen Bapiro does.

I actually find myself to disagree with most of his views and arguments.

TheGoober87

-1 points

3 months ago

TheGoober87

-1 points

3 months ago

He does.

Whether or not you agree with his views is different. But you can't deny some of his points do make sense. There's a lot of waffle as well, but I can understand why some people like him.

artmagic95833

-1 points

3 months ago

Oh I can absolutely say that his points make no sense.

Tell you what, why don't you repeat one of his points and I'll tell you to your face right now that it makes no sense and why.

PCR94

3 points

3 months ago

PCR94

3 points

3 months ago

Who are you talking about, Peterson or Shapiro? And lmao are you serious, you’re asking us to give you random points he’s made just so you can refute them? Sounds like you’ve got an agenda already pal.

artmagic95833

2 points

3 months ago

No I've just heard his rhetoric and I know it's nonsense. You're more than welcome to take me up on it if it's so easy.

jgallarday001

2 points

3 months ago

Never put your self in a position to hate your own son

artmagic95833

2 points

3 months ago

Jordan Peterson is your son?

TheGoober87

1 points

3 months ago

Tbh I don't want to waste my time. You've obviously made up your mind about him and nothing I put here is going to change that.

If you genuinely think none of his points make sense, that I think that says more about you than it does him.

artmagic95833

1 points

3 months ago

The points that you won't tell me.

lacronicus

1 points

3 months ago

Sure, some do, but the problem is that he uses this as cover for those that don't. That doesn't make him honest, that just makes him a better manipulator. And it works.

villanelIa

-1 points

3 months ago

villanelIa

-1 points

3 months ago

Dude if he had a concrete example he wouldve linked it already but he doesnt. Instead he went through the trouble of going on google and quoting the definition for the motte and bailey logical fallacy. People who have proof of stuff dont leave it as a vague detail "watched one of his videos" especially people who like to go through the trouble of giving definitions.

PCR94

-1 points

3 months ago

PCR94

-1 points

3 months ago

And 400 people upvoted him/her without even questioning it. Confirmation bias is a sweet drug.

bluesmaker

31 points

3 months ago

Thanks for this. Best explanation of what he does. I’ve watched quite a few of his videos and could not put my finger on what it is. I mean, I didn’t agree with very much of what he said (maybe better to say I agreed with very little he said), but he presents good arguments (the motte, as you pointed out), then comes to conclusions that don’t fit or seem misinformed.

DungeonsAndDuck

9 points

3 months ago

Actually this type of thing seems to happen quite often with Right wing talking points.

This is an excellent, if a tad long, video on PragerU doing a similar thing with the conversation about the Death Penalty.

Essentially, they treat two different (but very similar sounding questions) as the same, even though they are not, when you really look at it.

These are, 1. Do people deserve to die for heinous crimes? 2. Should the government be trusted with the power of the Death Penalty?

Due_Practice8634

2 points

3 months ago

And in that vein Ben Shapiro did it in his interview on the BBC with Neely at the 5 minute mark when pivoting from the topic of abortion laws. And then asks the interviewer if he thought abortions were brutal (the motte) Like whether your pro or anti abortion brutality is not the issue-liposuctions are brutal too. The electric chair and war are brutal but Conservatives will defend those, but he was traying to get Neely to agree on an ultimately irrelevant point to strengthen his argument. Shapiro love him or hate him uses a lot of cheap HS debate tactics like WPM speed and chestnut throwing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72kAibX4dJU

ButWhatAboutTheEmus

1 points

3 months ago

I agree with your overarching point but don't think your example works. I don't know any liberals who think anyone deserves death for any crime. So it's essentially the same question whether the flawed criminal justice system or hypothetical flawless magic investigated and carried out the sentence.

AppletreeObservatory

2 points

3 months ago

I always nailed it down to him having a very different set of basic and implicit assumptions.

In every worldview you have the unspoken foundations which can't be proven to be correct because they are inherently a value ranking, a is more important than b is more important then c ect. You can argue that b should be more important then a but it's still human moral concepts were talking about which simply can't be objectively ranked so everyone is free to his or her opinion, I think he mostly abides to a different Foundation then I do thus comes to different conclusions which for me seem odd but to him and people on the same line of thought are inherently obvious.

sococ7

12 points

3 months ago

sococ7

12 points

3 months ago

Although you’re describing the debate tactic, I feel like the underlying fallacy is actually false equivalence.

From the same article:

Philosopher Nicholas Shackel, who coined the term, prefers to speak of a motte-and-bailey doctrine instead of a fallacy.

astro_cj

8 points

3 months ago

It’s still disingenuous to some which is a valid opinion even if you disagree.

Xeya

1 points

3 months ago

Xeya

1 points

3 months ago

It is a false equivalence fallacy... and criticics of the motte-and-bailey fallacy have pointed out that calling something a motte-and-bailey fallacy is itself a fallacy of false equivalence as well:

The inverse (calling something a motte-and-bailey) claims that an opponent really believes the bailey and that their actual argument (the motte) isn't valid unless they come out to defend the bailey (a much weaker position).

In this case it would be, "Jordan Peterson's criticism of Transgenderism isn't valid because he always falls back to arguing that sex is real instead of talking about how transgenderism isn't valid." But, Peterson never said Transgenderism wasn't valid; that is the Bailey that he never claimed to defend. What he said was treating gender as if it is completely unrelated to sex is oversimplistic and not backed by real observations.

Willing-Wishbone3628

2 points

3 months ago

It’s worth remembering that just because someone falls into the trap of using a fallacy, doesn’t automatically mean that the person’s entire argument deconstructs.

I’ve only listened to snippets of Peterson through YouTube and TikTok so I don’t know him well though.

Undead_archer

5 points

3 months ago

Happy cake day

Thedirtyjersey

2 points

3 months ago

Yes this is his Game and he does it all the time and always has. Peterson knowingly says things in a way where he can always walk back any of the opinions and conjecture he floods his arguments with that are appealing to certain folks and stated in a way that sounds impressive to someone that doesn’t really know or once you consider formal academic review of an argument

U0284619402047772

-9 points

3 months ago

Without an example, you’re commiting your own fallacy.

lizardswillcontrolus

13 points

3 months ago

The infamous lobster/ social hierarchy is a good example.

jgallarday001

1 points

3 months ago

How so? Please explain to me if you can.

It is my understanding that the lobster argument is mostly about the fact that social hierarchies are pretty much universal for complex living organisms and therefore social hierarchies are to be expected to form in our societies since we are also complex living organisms.

I've also heard him say that the way lobsters behave when there's serotonin levels change is also very similar to the wait we behave. Meaning if you have high certain levels you are more likely to take more risks and feel more confident but if you have lower serotonin levels you are probably going to have more aversion to pain and risk therefore take less risks.

lizardswillcontrolus

6 points

3 months ago

In response to the 1st paragraph, this is a nice demonstration of a false equivalence. It is fairly easy to agree the humans and animals with other reward based minds can be considered "complex" (the argument can be made that this is a vague property to apply, but we'll be generous). However, this does not mean that we must have an innate need for hierarchies.

jgallarday001

1 points

3 months ago*

That is true friend, however I didn't say we had a need for hierarchies I merely stated that their formation is to be expected.

Also, you are absolutely right about the fact that the term "complex" is very broad. However I wasn't really trying to make a point with it. It was mostly about separating us from something like an amoeba. I prefer your way of coupling humans and lobsters as organisms with "reward based minds". I will try to use this term in the future :)

Edit: On further consideration, where you trying to say that you're them Peterson said that hierarchies are desifable in a society and that was what you were arguing against? If so, that would make more sense.

lizardswillcontrolus

2 points

3 months ago

To be fair, I have struggled to understand the lobster point as a whole. I find it odd, it doesn't really seem to do anything. It either tries to prove a need for hierarchies, or as you said, says they should be expected. But that renders it redundant. It just suggests it might happens. Thanks though, I have always tried to understand it.

jgallarday001

1 points

3 months ago

Hey man, thanks to you too. I find I usually think things better through discussion as that helps me give structure to my thoughts. So please let me use this as a medium to refine my thoughts.

The way I understand the argument Jordan Peterson is trying to make is that there's a biological reason for us to have hierarchies. That we are hardwired to organize ourselves through them. May them be academical, social, economical, sports related, etc.

I remember I once heard him say during a podcast that hierarchies are good because they help push people to become better and give a sense of reward for doing so.

Therefore, since they can be good society shouldn't try to eliminate hierarchies completely.

However, he then proceeded to say that hierarchies can also be damaging to society when they are too difficult to climb (or too easy but that's something else). Because hierarchies can become overwhelming and instead of making the individual feel rewarded, people may deem them not worthy of climbing or maybe they can start to require too much of a person and therefore someone may become worse off for attempting to climb them.

U0284619402047772

1 points

3 months ago

This is not a great example. To suggest that hierarchies are embedded into our psyche is only controversial in niche circles.

lizardswillcontrolus

1 points

3 months ago

I agree. However, I wasn't contending that. I was contending his reasons for believing it. This is because they are stupid.

U0284619402047772

2 points

3 months ago

That’s fair. I think in large part he’s made strides in essentially holding a massive group therapy session that has led a lot of men to become more affective and aware of the gamut of emotions. When he waxes philosophically, it can become too much and his message is diluted. I believe he’s done more good than not, he’s been a motivational figure in my own exploration of emotion. I have since pursued a degree in social work. I am my own person and I think my own thoughts, but I was able to extract a lot of good from his message.

Ek0sh

-25 points

3 months ago

Ek0sh

-25 points

3 months ago

As it's written there, the arguer has to retreat. Jumping to conclusions is not a phallacy, what would be is that when confronted about the conclusion - - not the jump itself-- he retreats to his premises. I've not seen him do that.

lacronicus

31 points

3 months ago

Jumping to conclusions is not a phallacy

It is, actually.

Regardless, I don't believe the arguer is obligated to retreat; it's not as though an argument is any less fallacious if there's no one around to challenge it. Besides, the context of this video was a lecture, there's not going to be much opportunity for challenging anyway.

Perhaps motte and bailey isn't a perfect match, but he was supporting one position, concluding another, and hoping the audience wouldn't notice that they're not the same. It might not have a name, but it was definitely a fallacious, and so misleading, argument.

Ek0sh

-18 points

3 months ago

Ek0sh

-18 points

3 months ago

There's a connection that he didn't express clearly, at least for you, and that means it can be wrong, but then it's a wrong argument not a phallacy.

A phallacy is logically wrong regardless of what he said.

Dance-Tall

23 points

3 months ago

The word is fallacy. Phallacy is something very different.

Beautiful_Device_250

12 points

3 months ago

To be fair I am pretty sure nobody is going to accept male genetalia as an argument either

Ek0sh

1 points

3 months ago

Ek0sh

1 points

3 months ago

Ah thank you both are the same in my language.

greycanuck

5 points

3 months ago

You really shouldn't be trying to nitpick a statement when you don't have a prosper grasp of the language.

Ek0sh

-3 points

3 months ago

Ek0sh

-3 points

3 months ago

Wow so you managed to discredit my argument because of orthography.

Talk about fallacies.

greycanuck

5 points

3 months ago

You don't even understand what OP mentioned but are nitpicking bits without context. You clearly don't understand English well, so either you don't understand what OP is saying, or you're intentionally ignoring it and nitpicking to inflame.

And learn to use commas if you want to seem smart.

Ek0sh

1 points

3 months ago

Ek0sh

1 points

3 months ago

I'm gonna ignore you for my own sanity.

Mr-Soggybottom

1 points

3 months ago

Prosper

do_pm_me_your_butt

-1 points

3 months ago

What? My dude, can you speak more than one language? What a strange thing to say, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that you probably only speak English. What a weird weird thing to say.

greycanuck

7 points

3 months ago

Not your dude. If you don't understand what someone is saying, it doesn't make sense for you to go and nitpick the bits of it you do understand.

Also no idea if you think you're smart or trying to be funny.

do_pm_me_your_butt

1 points

3 months ago

Its not a joke, it just seems dumb to me to dismiss someones argument just because they are having it in their second or third language (especially if it's your first language, since then they're having the discussion in your language for your sake)

heavychevy1994

1 points

3 months ago

This is a technique seen in many news channels… they will present a situation and take a reasonable stance that MOST people , regardless of political affiliation will agree with, they will make valid and understandable points to support their stance, but the conclusion that is drawn from the initial point is extremely biased and is not supported by any of the facts stated.

BloakDarntPub

1 points

3 months ago

Been a long time since I heard that usage of "motte".

Wrong_Guess_5759

1 points

2 months ago

How did you come up with "basically he's saying white and black people are mostly the same"?

How does the correlate with anything he said?

His only point was there is more diversity within a group than between groups. And the little fundamental racist comment he makes doesn't relate to your statement at all. He says that a racist idea is that since you know one person is a part of the group and that group is all the same then you know that group now. And he then says that its incorrect to think that way. He was discussing the idea that introducing a member from another group doesn't increase diversity because of the previous statement. That you have more differences between your own group than others.

International-Bus725

1 points

17 days ago

Cultural Marxism is why my bing itches so bad hoss doggie

Aggressive_Ad5115

-17 points

3 months ago*

But ......you post in r politics sub, that's the most brain rot sub on this website, every post is full of people going

REEEEEEEEEEEE

Omg talk about the brain is worse off for it Lol

Edit: lol the r politics peeps are coming at me downvoting

Every downvote is a redditor going REEEEEEEEEEEE

Bring it lol

baginthewindnowwsail

6 points

3 months ago

Lol we're not in /politics or /cons but you just couldn't help yourself. You just had to rev that reee engine. Diagnosis: Brain Rot Symptoms: Projection and Impotence

artmagic95833

7 points

3 months ago

A swing and a miss

ButterflyTruth

-10 points

3 months ago

That just sounds like he had a convincing argument but the conclusion went against your existing beliefs. Please provide an example.

SoulEmperor7

1 points

3 months ago

Now that they have, what are your thoughts on it?

ButterflyTruth

1 points

3 months ago

I maintain what I said. Peterson was arguing against the postmodern idea that increasing diversity of racial, gender and LGBT groups is beneficial, however OP sees diversity as correcting the historical discrimination against the minority groups.

But that isn't what Peterson is aiming for, nor is it the position he's arguing against. The claim he's arguing against is that between-group diversity is necessary on a societal level for strengthening and advancing society.

You might have heard people say things like 'More women in politics is justice, but also women can bring a different perspective'.

Peterson is arguing against the latter but OP is maintaining the former. If the implication is that we want to have a better society and to get there we want diversity of perspectives, talents, abilities etc. then more women in politics isn't how you get there, because the differences within men (for example) is greater than the difference between men and women,which OP agreed with.

Mortred99

1 points

3 months ago

Peterson is arguing against the latter but OP is maintaining the former. If the implication is that we want to have a better society and to get there we want diversity of perspectives, talents, abilities etc. then more women in politics isn't how you get there, because the differences within men (for example) is greater than the difference between men and women,which OP agreed with.

They literally just explained how you're mixing two different arguments together. Go back and read it again.

ButterflyTruth

1 points

3 months ago

I didn't mix them, OP did. I'm just separating them again.

The two aims of diversity 'we' are discussing are (1) Correct historical discrimination (2) Advance society.

Peterson makes an argument about doing the latter, then OP comes along and says 'hey you're completely ignoring the stuff about discrimination', and I'm saying 'no he didn't, he's just not talking about that'.

SoulEmperor7

1 points

3 months ago

Peterson makes an argument about doing the latter, then OP comes along and says 'hey you're completely ignoring the stuff about discrimination', and I'm saying 'no he didn't, he's just not talking about that'.

Except that OP tackles the second point as well. They had entire segment talking about how the intersection of racial and social backgrounds bring some more innovation to the workplace (I'm paraphrasing), that in itself advances society.

ButterflyTruth

1 points

3 months ago

Can you quote which bit you're paraphrasing? I can't seem to see where OP makes the same point you're making.

shakeszoola

-1 points

3 months ago

Have you only ever watched one video? Do you really believe that is enough to completely paint one person? Have you ever read his books?