Jordan Peterson: Dangerous IQ Debate

Post Reply New Topic

Thinking about the last month there have been very different kinds of people watching that as well. Some people think it's been absolutely wonderful, others have seen it as a tragedy and a move potentially closer to civil war.

I'm not one to try adjusting someone's lens if they're being consistent with their values and it turns out that their values and read on reality are irreconcilably different from my own. I care about factual lacunas but past that I don't argue people who are being consistent.

I'm not afraid to help somebody re-adjust their lens based on their adherence to their own values rather than objective reality. However I would also say I am equally guilty of doing the same so its helpful to get different veiwpoints across the demarcation line before internalising information.

I might slightly rephrase myself in that light - if someone's really secure in a belief I know that comes with memetic closure and it factors in to how facts get sorted, accepted, and discarded. It means that even if they're significantly wrong in certain areas no one from any other direction, left, right, up, or down, atheist, or whatever else can persuade them of anything.

Here's the thing though - there are ways you can tell whether or not someone is challenging themselves, and it's the tools they use in conversation and how they engage. If a person rushes to judgment or rushes to pigeonhole person x, y, or z, it's generally not a great sign that they have a grip on their own internal biases.

Yeah I get it. Wiser voices on WP have made me realise I have been hasty in executing the aforementioned transgression.

IMHO Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are probably the easiest people to criticize in the IDW, and there are fair reasons to criticize them. Disagreement's fine as well but high quality disagreement is the best variety (ie. knowing the good and the bad with the people one is criticizing).

I know but Peterson actually makes a lot of sense....hence the contradiction

Actually one correction - Dave Rubin is probably easier to criticize, I keep forgetting that the umbrella extended to him.

Yep he and Shapiro have the credibility of swiss cheese.

Thus why I won't watch the video of this topic, and only comment on what I have seen before. I think that Jordan Peterson is really good at making himself sound like a reasonable figure of authority, a mix of his tone of voice that he does not seem to raise while he keeps in control everything he say sound deliberate, right as he puts in something a little dangerous.

For example, logic he says by pointing out that women are stressed from jobs is logical just as you could point to a history of women being seemingly content acting as mothers, but it is taking those thoughts further in saying that women should be mothers instead of autonomy of working if they choose is where problems come from. He really knows how to prey on insecurities within masculinity by saying something like a man would feel bad being emasculated by a woman, but he does not question if that system where men feel bad when a woman "out-mans him". It is a talking point that people with already too big insecurities of their masculinity would be quick to take.

Or that courtship had the appearance of simplicity of consent, and is reasonable to see that people would be confused now in what is considered consent when you have people saying they can't do so when drunk or that one party can duck out after a point. It is reasonable to see how that might upset men who have been sold an idea by things like old movies and stuff, but the step is not taken to see that maybe boys should not be sold that fantasy and they should respect the wishes of their partner at their own whim. Jordan Peterson uses that whole thing to say that he thinks that there should be no sex before marriage, and similarly that people should not even live together before marriage Jordan Peterson thinks that it leads to more divorces because the people figure they can get it all outside of the relationship of marriage. There is no consideration that perhaps people might like to practice in relationships to find one that would fit them.

Jordan Peterson is great at making you think that you are just talking about realistic racial or sex experiences, until you realize that he is saying that some races are naturally better than others and the sexes should stick to their lane, and you should have checked his references if they are actually reliable and the logic he is extracting makes sense.

This is the conundrum with Peterson. He is actually breaching his own ethical code as a clinical psychologist.

I think that Dave Rubin is easier to prove as a shill, who switched his politics the moment he found he could make more money by pretending that he is enlightened from the Left, claiming that his show is fair in showing all sides when you can see that it greatly favours conservatives, and even been told outright that he has value for his identity as those on his side would see him lose things like the ability to have a husband.

So you *Don't* think the left side of politics is hampering freedom of expression?

Any radical of any political stripe will invariably stifle objective discourse.

And by doing so,
Will lose credibility.

This guy's theory on "status and dominance" in human society is based on the study of lobsters,enough said.