-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jordan Peterson - The "Intellectual" We Deserve
- Thread starter Deleted member 25709
- Start date
- Status
Already quoted from this put Peterson's stupid University is moving forward... grades are basically done by upvotes... It's Reddit in University form with no accreditation .
https://mic.com/articles/188569/jor...stroy-college-indoctrination-cults#.0NLeK5MDe
https://mic.com/articles/188569/jor...stroy-college-indoctrination-cults#.0NLeK5MDe
I love this graph.
Social democrat is the same color as Libertarian.
None is different from Don't identify.
The sorting is all over the place (why orderalphabetically when you could group close group together so you could do broader bigger analysis?)
Peterson's subreddit is really not good at data representation...kinda like Peterson himself.
So basically what is "popular" is going to determine what is good?
This university's diploma is gonna be real good at letting us identify idiots.
Damn he really isn't hiding his bigotry. That's good, it's better than a cheap-talk that allow room to try to tell if he's telling serious or not.
It's a non hierarchial university where grades are determined by the collective... in other words the students own the means of gradation.
thing is that's still a generality but when you ask him for specifics, he gets hostile, angry even. The man has consistently demonstrated that he does not like to explain himself and anybody who attempts to get him to do so is subject to ridicule and hostility. It's so fucking transparent and predictable that I'm amazed anybody ever takes him seriously. Actually, virtually nobody with any academic standing DOES take him seriously. His last book, maps of meaning, didn't even generate a peep among academics, which was it's target audience. It's only now that he's released something consumable by the masses that he's found success. In a genre filled with hucksters and anti intellectual gibberish. the self help genre lol.
We have numerous examples how algorithms could be abused or creates an echo chamber. Peterson is an example of that. Crowd-sourced education seems like a good idea on paper, but in practice, it's going to create a class full of misconceptions, propaganda, and unscientific reasoning. Students won't be critically challenged because only the "agreeable" will be upvoted. Anything that hints at social justice will be voted down hard. You nailed it: Reddit University. If the professor acted as a curator and struck down wrong answers that were upvoted, maybe, but Peterson is far from qualified to do something like that.
Peterson talks about personal responsibility, but his own fans can't exercise it by reading the text themselves. They just blindly follow what he says and make excuses
I would love for the Peterson fans who said he's a real liberal for promoting the discussion of different ideas to explain how they reconcile their praise with the fact that he plans on removing entire subjects from the discussion at his university.
Holy fuck that's terrible.
Yeah, I don't see how you can claim that Peterson is all about free speech and yet he wants to get rid of subjects he doesn't like.
the question is WHY you disagree with that perspective. for example, if you disagree that the holocaust happened and don't want your child being taught about it in school then I have to question that. etc etc. not all perspectives are created equal. You know this of course. As a teacher.
It is a scientific fact that cleaning your room raises your IQ by 20 pointsr/JordanPeterson's survey results are such a source of amusement... especially the IQ
92.8% report they have a higher IQ than 75% of the population
70.8% report they have a higher IQ than 91% of the population
40% report they have a higher IQ than 98% of the population
LOL
They'll be generating new "alternative facts". Just what we need in today's world.
Fake academia is nothing new, tobacco and crackpot christians have been delivering diplomas for literal decades now.
This is off topic, but people using 3D pie charts for no reason pisses off the hell out of me. The third dimension serves no purpose and the perspective shift just distorts the image.
Last edited:
Jordan Peterson's logic is this:
JP: "Frozen is propaganda because it shows that women can be successfull on their own"
Then you reply to him "Of course they can, why not??"
But genius JP knows the answer to that too: "You see, you might be livingin a house right? So this house... I mean statistics show 99% of the builders are male... and biologically it makes sense... so this house you are living in has been built by a male... and I'm not suggesting that this might always be the case... but most of the time it'll be... so it's been built by males and it's unlikely women would have got to where they are without a place to live."
It took me about 10 minutes of listening to one of his videos to realize that anything he says ultimately leads to nowhere, just like this thread.
JP: "Frozen is propaganda because it shows that women can be successfull on their own"
Then you reply to him "Of course they can, why not??"
But genius JP knows the answer to that too: "You see, you might be livingin a house right? So this house... I mean statistics show 99% of the builders are male... and biologically it makes sense... so this house you are living in has been built by a male... and I'm not suggesting that this might always be the case... but most of the time it'll be... so it's been built by males and it's unlikely women would have got to where they are without a place to live."
It took me about 10 minutes of listening to one of his videos to realize that anything he says ultimately leads to nowhere, just like this thread.
Pie charts in general are useless. Check out what Cole Nussbaumer, who may wear makeup to get harassed at work, but really who knows, says about them:
http://www.storytellingwithdata.com/blog/2011/07/death-to-pie-charts
Last edited:
There's about as much "truth" to what Peterson says as there is proof that the moon is made of cheese.
At that point, you might as well just point out that all human eggs require sperm to have an embryo. Men provide sperm. Therefore, humanity cannot get by without men! Women are humans, therefore they cannot get by without men!
My very first post said how Petersons combination of mythology, religion and psychology is something that is certainly not obvious to the wide population. There's a reason why he has seen some explosive growth like no other. Stuff like Jungs archetypes.
Thats the senate video, which includes debates from other sources. Its clearly not a simple misunderstanding.
I said most, not all. No one has the time or personal motivation to meet everyone. I know in the latter case Peterson did not make a false claim, he had a rightful ceremony done to him by someone from the tribe. He wrote about it and has the ceremonial gifts.
I highly doubt that considering a lot of the places he goes have them challenging his views. I would like to see him talk to more professors.
No he did not. He usually says the the ideology has some similarities and uses extreme examples to show how such ideology can be dangerous. I too think thats a poor example as the latter is a systematic regime while the former is nothing like that.
> parses data from poll
> changes data from poll to fit his/her view
Come on.
Psycho_Mantis you still have not responded to the claims that both you and Peterson both misunderstood the law that he became famous for. Can you please respond to these claims? Selectively quoting things that you can obfuscate is not exactly making me think you're very credible about this subject.
Because true logic lords always galaxy brain their way all the way back around to "the cavemen had it right, violence is at the heart of all debate"
You know, once people expose their arguments as empty and their ideas as laughable
Why don't you just copy and paste the text of C-16 and point out the places where you think someone can be arrested for not using pronouns? That is the easiest way for you to dispel our confusion.
How the hell does using these pronouns being similar to Marxist doctrines?
You still haven't said how identity politics leads to Marxism.
She's not changing data, she's reordering data because it was ordered alphabetically.
Last edited:
User banned (3 weeks): long history of gaslighting and dishonest posting style (repeatedly refusing to acknowledge counter-arguments).
Why don't you listen to the video linked? It explains it better than I could. The first 10 mins should be more than enough.
Talking about changing an entire category that labeled themselves as Classical Liberal -> Conservatives, because it fits the agenda.
Define Classical Liberal and why it shouldn't be lumped with Conservatism.
I just caught up on this guy a little bit.
Boy is he hard to pin down. Most debates go this way:
*Peterson makes controversial/provoking statement
*man attempts to characterize his statement in some way
*Peterson: "I'm not saying that"
*man attempts to clarify what he is saying
*Peterson makes some comparison analogy
*man attempts to bring Peterson's ideas together
*Peterson "I'm not saying that, I'm just saying we don't know the rules etc."
He puts something up for debate but then is unwilling to defend it properly. At some point you have to admit that the fault lies with Peterson and his inability to fully establish his ideas. He won't put his castle in the ground and defend it. Instead he is always moving, always avoiding subscribing to an any sort of ideology that he would have to defend.
Boy is he hard to pin down. Most debates go this way:
*Peterson makes controversial/provoking statement
*man attempts to characterize his statement in some way
*Peterson: "I'm not saying that"
*man attempts to clarify what he is saying
*Peterson makes some comparison analogy
*man attempts to bring Peterson's ideas together
*Peterson "I'm not saying that, I'm just saying we don't know the rules etc."
He puts something up for debate but then is unwilling to defend it properly. At some point you have to admit that the fault lies with Peterson and his inability to fully establish his ideas. He won't put his castle in the ground and defend it. Instead he is always moving, always avoiding subscribing to an any sort of ideology that he would have to defend.
...his words are the contentious part of the argument, using his own words as evidence that his interpertations are correct is circular reasoning...
If you can't provide evidence that support it, vs people using the actual law, then you have nothing to stand on.
Here's a link to the bill, it's an amendment to the Human Rights Act: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent. It's short, you shouldn't need 10 minutes to discuss this. You should be able to point to this immediately. I can link the full text if it helps.
OK, I'm just still wondering if you read the criticism of him linked by the OP and what your thoughts are. Some of his writing reminds me of Joseph Campbell's, but with less focus, and ultimately less meaning.
I don't know why some of you have all of these questions that need answering. Just strap yourself into a Ludovico chair, hire an eye wetter on taskrabbit, and consume 60 straight hours of videos. I don't have the answers but they're probably in there somewhere and you'll come out the other side a fan!
Point to where you can be arrested for misgendering someone:
It's like when my libertarian friend said I should watch Dave Rubin. I watch it for five minutes, my mouth twists with distaste and I can't watch it anymore. If it was in written form I might have a better idea about it. I know you're joking but I think anyone who's a fan of Peterson or any of these people should be able to respond to these criticisms with their own support. Not just directly linking videos without additional context. It's super lazy and makes me think they don't really have a good clue of why they even agree with these people in the first place.
Because I wasn't sure I looked it up, first response to what classical liberalism is:
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government."
Yeah that sounds exactly like conservatism to me.
EDIT: How does Peterson's desire to eliminate certain areas of study line up with classical liberalism?
Last edited:
Peterson is like jazz music. You have to listen to the arguments he's NOT making. Then you will finally attain access to true enlightenment.
And Psycho Mantis has been banned.
Well, if classical liberalism is actually conservatism, then teaching scary subjects that revolve around group identity is bad and should be gotten rid of.
Well, if classical liberalism is actually conservatism, then teaching scary subjects that revolve around group identity is bad and should be gotten rid of.
That's too bad. I was looking forward to him showing me the list of evidence that indicates that bill c16 will lead to arrests and a degradation of free speech. I will, in his stead, produce it:
That was quite exhaustive and I am looking forward to the peer review.
That seems to be the totality of evidence that C-16 will lead to arrests.
I think it's a horrible idea on paper too. The whole point of a university education is that you're not taught by pedagogues, but instead experts on the specific topic of instruction.
Last edited:
I mean it sounds good by the types that would attend such a university.
If it was curated by a knowledgeable professor and treated as a project for the entire class with properly sourced research, I think it's a good idea. But Peterson's version of it is bad.
Maybe for introductory level classes at most. Students simply don't have the context to understand the state of the field in whatever they are studying. Professors curating wouldn't be effective for dealing without unless they took a very active role. At that point it's just a weird message board seminar. Some schools do this already to supplement actual in class discussion though, so I don't see how it's really much of anything.
Universities need to focus on bettering the faculty to student ratio, not finding ways to further abstract and commodify the university education.
Guess you need a real high IQ to have your brains scooped out by Russian propaganda.The Jill Stein contingent really brings it home. It's crazy, but not surprising, that the Dunning-Kruger market is so big.r/JordanPeterson's survey results are such a source of amusement... especially the IQ
92.8% report they have a higher IQ than 75% of the population
70.8% report they have a higher IQ than 91% of the population
40% report they have a higher IQ than 98% of the population
LOL
Other stuff from their various surveys
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/6w9s5d/rjordanpeterson_survey_what_we_learned/
https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPete...anpeterson_political_survey_results/?sort=top
50% Trump, 35% Gary Johnson.... LOL
More or less what his style boils down to. Gish galloping from an intellectual reject.
I didn't change
75% of the sub supports Trump or Johnson.
Classical Liberal is a form of conservatism.
You're the one ignoring the data.
- Status