Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Sweet Jesus]

But I haven't seen (happy to be given suggestions) a conversation of Peterson with a woman discussing this issues that are so divisive, outside of the usual reductive outragy stuff.

I actually thought Leigh Sales did a reasonable job. It's adversarial in parts but I don't think she is deliberately misrepresenting him the way others have.

 

[Russian Demon]

I actually thought Leigh Sales did a reasonable job. It's adversarial in parts but I don't think she is deliberately misrepresenting him the way others have.

Yeah she was ok. But didn't this happen right after she got slapped down by the regulator? In this interview I don't think she was really probing very deep, and is trying to keep it professional

 

[Russian Demon]

Sam Harris actually raised some interesting points regarding Peterson's purported religious underpinnings.

I look forward to these questions being tabled and answered at some time in the future.

Sam Harris and Dillahunty have very similar objections. Peterson has very little time for the concept of an adaptive, ever improving (or devolving) moral absolute. He is careful not to put his own religious affiliation in, which makes it tough because that is what he is being asked.

That said, I like Sam Harris too, but he comes up with some real bullshit sometimes. He's strong on the religious counter when discussing organized religion in the real world, but I feel his philosophical roots are a little under developed.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I actually thought Leigh Sales did a reasonable job. It's adversarial in parts but I don't think she is deliberately misrepresenting him the way others have.

Short but Sweet....I saw nothing overtly adversarial there whatsoever.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah she was ok. But didn't this happen right after she got slapped down by the regulator? In this interview I don't think she was really probing very deep, and is trying to keep it professional

I reckon the Cathy Newman trainwreck would have been more of a factor. JP doesn't represent a political party so I doubt "the regulator" would have a view.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Short but Sweet....I saw nothing overtly adversarial there whatsoever.

She's pressing him but that's fine. That's why I said she did a reasonable job.

 

[Procrastinator35]

She's pressing him but that's fine. That's why I said she did a reasonable job.

That is one of the key components of her job, I'd of thought.

Only hypocritical I.P.A types, trying to get away with s**t, would have an issue with that.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

That is one of the key components of her job, I'd of thought.

Only hypocritical I.P.A types, trying to get away with s**t, would have an issue with that.

Did you miss the part where I said she did a reasonable job?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Did you miss the part where I said she did a reasonable job?

Not at all.

 

[Russian Demon]

That is one of the key components of her job, I'd of thought.

Only hypocritical I.P.A types, trying to get away with s**t, would have an issue with that.

Not sure what India Pale Ale has to do with it...

But who is going down any polarizing crap about types?

Be part of the solution, ditch the gang mentality.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Not sure what India Pale Ale has to do with it...

But who is going down any polarizing crap about types?

Be part of the solution, ditch the gang mentality.

Um.....The I.P.A are the main adversarial proponents of doing away with the A.B.C because of shows like the 7-30 report with Leigh Sales.

Are you O.K there matey?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sam Harris and Dillahunty have very similar objections. Peterson has very little time for the concept of an adaptive, ever improving (or devolving) moral absolute. He is careful not to put his own religious affiliation in, which makes it tough because that is what he is being asked.

That said, I like Sam Harris too, but he comes up with some real bullshit sometimes. He's strong on the religious counter when discussing organized religion in the real world, but I feel his philosophical roots are a little under developed.

I do find JP's comments on religion to be a bit of a dodge and unconvincing overall. For a guy who is doggedly evidence-based, he seems pretty keen to give organised religion a pass.

Did you listen to his first appearance on Sam Harris's podcast? They spent an hour arguing about the meaning of truth because JP was saying that if an idea is useful (ie. religion) it may as well be true. That seems to be at odds with his position on other issues. He might be talking specifically about archetypes that enshrine certain kinds of useful human behaviour but religions make claims about themselves beyond that. I can't quite square those different aspects of his work.

What do you mean about Harris's philosophical roots being under-developed? I'm not disagreeing necessarily but I'm curious about what you mean.

 

[Russian Demon]

Um.....The I.P.A are the main adversarial proponents of doing away with the A.B.C because of shows like the 7-30 report with Leigh Sales.

Are you O.K there matey?

I havent looked at Australian politics much.

But no, I'm not for privatizing the ABC. I can't see it getting anywhere, as there is so little public support for it. Things debated by the crazies in the cabinet don't necessarily mean its ever going to get to legislation. It would be political suicide

 

[Russian Demon]

[QUOTE="Russian Demon, post: 56342598, member: 160956]
Sam Harris and Dillahunty have very similar objections. Peterson has very little time for the concept of an adaptive, ever improving (or devolving) moral absolute. He is careful not to put his own religious affiliation in, which makes it tough because that is what he is being asked.

That said, I like Sam Harris too, but he comes up with some real bullshit sometimes. He's strong on the religious counter when discussing organized religion in the real world, but I feel his philosophical roots are a little under developed.

I do find JP's comments on religion to be a bit of a dodge and unconvincing overall. For a guy who is doggedly evidence-based, he seems pretty keen to give organised religion a pass.

Did you listen to his first appearance on Sam Harris's podcast? They spent an hour arguing about the meaning of truth because JP was saying that if an idea is useful (ie. religion) it may as well be true. That seems to be at odds with his position on other issues. He might be talking specifically about archetypes that enshrine certain kinds of useful human behaviour but religions make claims about themselves beyond that. I can't quite square those different aspects of his work.

What do you mean about Harris's philosophical roots being under-developed? I'm not disagreeing necessarily but I'm curious about what you mean.[/QUOTE]
'
I would have to go back in detail, but there are just some parts of how you develop a rational basis to live by without being completely open about how its not a foundation. I just think Dillahunty is a better speaker about philosophy.

Yeah, Peterson has some interesting social science ideas on the definitions of truth and all that stuff. It makes sense within a certain sphere of the literature, but its very hard to transpose to real world use from a rational perspective.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah, Peterson has some interesting social science ideas on the definitions of truth and all that stuff. It makes sense within a certain sphere of the literature, but its very hard to transpose to real world use from a rational perspective.

The problem is that JP is willing to accommodate the idea of "religious truth" because he believes it's useful from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. But on the issue of gender identity, he rejects any kind of "subjective truth" beyond the empirical biology.

 

[Russian Demon]

The problem is that JP is willing to accommodate the idea of "religious truth" because he believes it's useful from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. But on the issue of gender identity, he rejects any kind of "subjective truth" beyond the empirical biology.

So he flits between qualitative and quantitative evidence, party by necessity, partly to serve his arguments?

On the gender stuff, I'm on board with his examination of why things are the way they are, and busting some of the widely held beliefs that don't really stack up. Its important to understand how and why we're in the spot we are if we want to move forward with outcome based solutions, rather than programs that make everyone feel better.

Where i disagree with him is where he seems to jump from that into promoting a 1970s style nuclear family as the ideal scenario, when i'm not convinced that just because its the most common necessarily makes it the best vehicle for children/development/life.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

So he flits between qualitative and quantitative evidence, party by necessity, partly to serve his arguments?

I'm not sure that's the distinction that explains my objection.

What is the quantitative argument you're referring to?

On the gender stuff, I'm on board with his examination of why things are the way they are, and busting some of the widely held beliefs that don't really stack up. Its important to understand how and why we're in the spot we are if we want to move forward with outcome based solutions, rather than programs that make everyone feel better.

I agree mostly with his views on that as well, particularly when it comes to the question of compelled speech.

My problem is that he has this very evidence-based, empirical view about biology. It is a rational, scientific worldview, which is what you'd expect from a clinical psychologist. That's what I like about him. That appeals to me.

But then when he talks about religion, he's like "if it's useful, it may as well be true". That's bullshit. The truth claims of religion need to be checked far more rigorously than that. The test can't simply be "is it useful?"

Where i disagree with him is where he seems to jump from that into promoting a 1970s style nuclear family as the ideal scenario, when i'm not convinced that just because its the most common necessarily makes it the best vehicle for children/development/life.

I think "ideal" is the wrong word. Nor is he saying that it's "the best" just because it's the most common. I think that oversimplifies and misconstrues what he's said on that issue.

 

[ShanDog]

The problem is that JP is willing to accommodate the idea of "religious truth" because he believes it's useful from the perspective of evolutionary psychology. But on the issue of gender identity, he rejects any kind of "subjective truth" beyond the empirical biology.

His main criticism of postmodern thought is not that there are infinite perspectives of ways to analyse things (hence his blend of metaphysics and science) but that there only so many that have any utility (or perhaps that could be deemed "good"). This goes a way to explaining how he can call on mystical (religious / archetypical) truth as just as valid as scientific truth, which as I understand it, is an epistemological issue that the humanities and sciences have wrestled over since the age of science began. It's not a new argument, and it's a valid one to consider.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

His main criticism of postmodern thought is not that there are infinite perspectives of ways to analyse things (hence his blend of metaphysics and science) but that there only so many that have any utility (or perhaps that could be deemed "good").

I don't think that's accurate. Or, at least, I think that's too broad an explanation to be meaningful.

As it relates to identity politics, JP's criticism of postmodern thought is that it reduces all of history to a hierarchy of oppression and that this is not actually a faithful or instructive way to understand society.

This goes a way to explaining how he can call on mystical (religious / archetypical) truth as just as valid as scientific truth, which as I understand it, is an epistemological issue that the humanities and sciences have wrestled over since the age of science began. It's not a new argument, and it's a valid one to consider.

No. That's nonsense. And it's at odds with his otherwise hardcore commitment to a scientific worldview.

Metaphysics? Mystical truth? WTF is that? That's an oxymoron, surely.

Think about the kind of bullshit that could be smuggled through as "mystical truth". Are we really giving that a pass now? I don't think JP would be an advocate for that. He's a scientist. He can't pivot from that to spruiking "mystical truth". That's ridiculous. I think that does him a disservice, frankly.

 

[Russian Demon]

I'm not sure that's the distinction that explains my objection.

What is the quantitative argument you're referring to?

I agree mostly with his views on that as well, particularly when it comes to the question of compelled speech.

My problem is that he has this very evidence-based, empirical view about biology. It is a rational, scientific worldview, which is what you'd expect from a clinical psychologist. That's what I like about him. That appeals to me.

But then when he talks about religion, he's like "if it's useful, it may as well be true". That's bullshit. The truth claims of religion need to be checked far more rigorously than that. The test can't simply be "is it useful?"

I think "ideal" is the wrong word. Nor is he saying that it's "the best" just because it's the most common. I think that oversimplifies and misconstrues what he's said on that issue.

Yeah i didn't quite articulate what i meant regarding the 1970s nuclear family thing. I just get the vibe that it always comes back to a more traditional set of best outcomes. Whereas the world is way more complicated.

In terms of the qualitative vs quantitative..... a lot of his studies that leverage biology, even behaviour are good scientific studies. However when the theological comes into play, reasons for explaining complex human bahaviour, you simply can't do a quantitative study. Its a lot more fluid, and you're proposing stuff that might be true, but its hard to nail it down for sure. And while he often talks about multi variate analyses, this whole area is very hand wavey in the literature. Things like putting personality traits into 5 categories, or 16 or 256.... its a constantly changing field where the understanding is evolving fast. I'd be very hesitant to put too much stock into it yet.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah i didn't quite articulate what i meant regarding the 1970s nuclear family thing. I just get the vibe that it always comes back to a more traditional set of best outcomes. Whereas the world is way more complicated.

Your "vibe" is one thing. But I'd counter by pointing to what he actually says.

I don't think JP is saying "tradition for the sake of tradition". He's speaking as a clinical psychologist and offering a view about how behaviour is modelled. The video I posted makes this point pretty clearly.

He's not a religious conservative saying "this is how we've always done it so therefore it must be morally correct".

In terms of the qualitative vs quantitative..... a lot of his studies that leverage biology, even behaviour are good scientific studies. However when the theological comes into play, reasons for explaining complex human bahaviour, you simply can't do a quantitative study. Its a lot more fluid, and you're proposing stuff that might be true, but its hard to nail it down for sure. And while he often talks about multi variate analyses, this whole area is very hand wavey in the literature. Things like putting personality traits into 5 categories, or 16 or 256.... its a constantly changing field where the understanding is evolving fast. I'd be very hesitant to put too much stock into it yet.

OK. I still don't think a distinction between qualitative/quantitive answers or summarises my criticism.

My criticism is that he has a hardcore empirical worldview – which appeals to me – on everything except the truth claims of religion.



Dillahunty's first question is about whether JP believes God exists. Why doesn't JP start by addressing the evidence – or lack thereof?

When JP says "it's not that easy to distinguish between what's useful and what's real", that's a dodge. The job of scientists – like him, assuming he considers himself one – is to identify what's real. To conflate that with "what's useful" is bullshit.

Once upon a time, it might have been useful to think poisonous snakes were devils. Because children would avoid them and therefore avoid being bitten. That didn't mean it was true. It's not that hard to make the distinction.

I like JP generally. I like how he speaks. I like his precision. I share most of his libertarian impulses. I like how he takes apart established but flawed arguments. But I find him totally unconvincing – and maybe even slightly disingenuous – on this particular question.

 

[Russian Demon]

Your "vibe" is one thing. But I'd counter by pointing to what he actually says.

I don't think JP is saying "tradition for the sake of tradition". He's speaking as a clinical psychologist and offering a view about how behaviour is modelled. The video I posted makes this point pretty clearly.

He's not a religious conservative saying "this is how we've always done it so therefore it must be morally correct".



OK. I still don't think a distinction between qualitative/quantitive answers or summarises my criticism.

My criticism is that he has a hardcore empirical worldview – which appeals to me – on everything except the truth claims of religion.



Dillahunty's first question is about whether JP believes God exists. Why doesn't JP start by addressing the evidence – or lack thereof?

When JP says "it's not that easy to distinguish between what's useful and what's real", that's a dodge. The job of scientists – like him, assuming he considers himself one – is to identify what's real. To conflate that with "what's useful" is bullshit.

Once upon a time, it might have been useful to think poisonous snakes were devils. That didn't mean it was true. It's not that hard to make the distinction.

Somehow this went into painting it as if i'm supporting him, or have some strong opinion. I don't. And i agree with a lot of what you said.

I'm obviously not articulating what i meant very well, so I'll think it over and get back to you.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Somehow this went into painting it as if i'm supporting him, or have some strong opinion. I don't. And i agree with a lot of what you said.

I'm obviously not articulating what i meant very well, so I'll think it over and get back to you.

Well, I'm the same. I agree with some of what he said but disagree with other parts. See above.

 

[ShanDog]

I don't think that's accurate. Or, at least, I think that's too broad an explanation to be meaningful.

As it relates to identity politics, JP's criticism of postmodern thought is that it reduces all of history to a hierarchy of oppression and that this is not actually a faithful or instructive way to understand society.

He summarised what I said above in this video (linked from 1:25:30):


He states clearly that the ideas of postmodern thought are credible, and if you go back a few minutes, he discusses how the issues of power and hierarchy in society are predicated on (or extremely closely related to) the rejection of fact by postmodernism in favour of the concept of infinite interpretations. He details three key areas where postmodernism is wrong - the first of which is that there isn't an infinite number of viable interpretations.

No. That's nonsense. And it's at odds with his otherwise hardcore commitment to a scientific worldview.

Metaphysics? Mystical truth? WTF is that? That's an oxymoron, surely.

Mystical = religious. Metaphysical = everything not material, i.e. ideas, beliefs, archetypes, the concept of truth itself etc etc etc. Choose whichever words suits you best - it doesn't change the points I made in any way. His whole series on the psychological significance of the Bible is an attempt to extract universal psychological truth from the stories of the bible. That's exactly what I am talking about.

Think about the kind of bullshit that could be smuggled through as "mystical truth". Are we really giving that a pass now? I don't think JP would be an advocate for that. He's a scientist. He can't pivot from that to spruiking "mystical truth". That's ridiculous. I think that does him a disservice, frankly.

Peterson is a scientist insofar as a clinical and research psychologist can be, but that's not all. One of his key tenants is that the state is subordinate to the individual which represents the 'logos'. The greatest idea humanity has ever had is the transcendent and 'divine' individual according to Peterson. This isn't science - this is based in metaphysics and mysticism i.e. ideas and religiously represented (unscientific) truth. He doesn't reject this avenue of knowledge because it just isn't scientific. He is a 'student' of Jung for Judd's sake...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

He summarised what I said above in this video (linked from 1:25:30):


He states clearly that the ideas of postmodern thought are credible, and if you go back a few minutes, he discusses how the issues of power and hierarchy in society are predicated on (or extremely closely related to) the rejection of fact by postmodernism in favour of the concept of infinite interpretations. He details three key areas where postmodernism is wrong - the first of which is that there isn't an infinite number of viable interpretations.

Can you narrow that down to a direct quote?

I'm sorry but your summary doesn't really clarify or explain anything.

As it relates to identity politics, JP's criticism of postmodern thought is that it reduces all of history to a hierarchy of oppression and that this is not actually a faithful or instructive way to understand society.

Am I wrong about that?

Mystical = religious. Metaphysical = everything not material, i.e. ideas, beliefs, archetypes, the concept of truth itself etc etc etc. Choose whichever words suits you best - it doesn't change the points I made in any way.

Surely this is too imprecise to be taken seriously?

My question is: what is religious/mystical truth? Isn't that just religious/mystical belief? And that's not the same as truth.

JP promotes a generally empirical worldview. He can't pivot from that to validating "religious/mystical truth". That's jarringly inconsistent.

His whole series on the psychological significance of the Bible is an attempt to extract universal psychological truth from the stories of the bible. That's exactly what I am talking about.

That's not the same as reinforcing "religious truth".

He talks about the Bible and other texts as enshrining certain kinds of behaviour that have been useful, and therefore, in his view, valid. It's descriptively true about how humans behave and benefit. That's fine, as a map for human behaviour and the ideas that have influenced it.

But that's not the same as "religious truth". Let's not conflate that.

Peterson is a scientist insofar as a clinical and research psychologist can be, but that's not all.

But that necessitates an empirical worldview. That's my point. You can't turn that switch on and off depending on the subject matter.

One of his key tenants is that the state is subordinate to the individual which represents the 'logos'. The greatest idea humanity has ever had is the transcendent and 'divine' individual according to Peterson. This isn't science - this is based in metaphysics and mysticism i.e. ideas and religiously represented (unscientific) truth. He doesn't reject this avenue of knowledge because it just isn't scientific. He is a 'student' of Jung for Judd's sake...

And that's where I find him unconvincing. He's a scientist. He has no business talking about what's "divine". That's bullshit.

Pointing out that he's a "student of Jung" makes no point. I get it, he talks about the power of archetypes. It's perfectly valid to do that without reinforcing "religious/mystic truth", which is a complete misnomer.