Jordan Peterson

[Perimental]

dl-tube.com/watch?v=UFwfJVv9P34#.Wvvtj8Hnqjk.link

Thoughts on this man......

@reluctantcamper

"when people are unquestioningly swallowing the idea that this man cannot talk 'in any serious manner' on the telephone "

Once again you are straw manning his quotes. It's not about being a fanboy, I've given examples in this thread of what I disagree with him on. It's about analysing his words correctly without misrepresenting them - which is what you've done consistently, first with the Hawking/Gandhi stuff, now with the telephone thing

Hint: if you're "adding" things to a quote that aren't there to begin with then there's a high probability you are straw manning. Straw manning is not the basis or foundation for a solid argument and people won't take you seriously until you can represent and respond to your opponents point of view accurately

I love Jordan Peterson. Almost went to see him when he was here on his last tour a few months ago.

I don't agree with everything he says, but his ideas are interesting, and I agree that he is often misconstrued. Frankly often on purpose.

How did we get to a position where we have to add the disclaimer “I don’t agree with everything S/he says”?

There is no one I agree with everything they say. How could that be possible? Why are we expected to wholesale agree or disagree.

I like a lot of what Peterson says but of course not everything. And I don’t think you can judge him in isolated quotes from his 100s of hours of content.

I find his biblical series fascinating. It’s been 30 years since I was at university and I find that I am enjoying the lecture experience that his YouTube videos provide.

Anyone have any suggestions to any other YouTubers doing something similar.

@ReluctantCamper if your personal interpretation of what another person says is not the same as fmsfms then you are wrong. You are especially not allowed to use quotes to prove this as it is taking words out of context, while fmsfms is allowed to with other people.

Also fact that your understanding is based on your lived experience including education which will differ from his is to be ignored as that is wrong.

@fmsfms but do you actually understand him to mean that he would be violent or threaten violence towards a man who likened him to a nazi (like the woman he didn't know how to deal with did)? I would have thought someone as thoughtful as him could come up with a more intelligent approach to either a sex in that situation

There's a bit of a whiff of protecting the gospel of JP on this thread.

It's straightforward, he's right about some stuff and wrong about other stuff. There's no need to fight in favour of all of his pronouncements just because he said them.

@bluebug45

"if your personal interpretation of what another person says is not the same as fmsfms then you are wrong."

I'm sorry (not) for holding people to a higher standard of debate than you're used to e.g. Not using logical fallacies like straw man, ad hominem, reductions to absurdity and anecdotes

Why don't you familiarise yourself with the full list to avoid making these mistakes in your reasoning?

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

I mentioned him briefly to someone who called round for a chat last night. I said I quite liked his emphasis on personal responsibility and getting on and doing it for yourself and he said: 'Sounds like Norman Tebbit and 'Get on yer bike'.' I think that's my problem with Peterson. Reframe him ever so slightly and you get something completely different.

But it is nit just right here, wrong there. His underlying ‘philosophy’ is a muscular liberalism with a lot of sociobiologically inflected assumptions that I am astounded feminists would want any truck with. A problem of essentialism maybe,

Oh don't be silly. Nearly every one who likes or is interested in JP has also said there are things they don't agree with.

Just because people then respond to points made which misrepresent some of his arguments, doesn't make anyone a fanboy or cult member.

They're just another example random slurs thrown about to attacks others without any substance.

I like him because he's really making me think, in a way noone else has for a while. I mean I've really had to think about my reactions to what he says and figure out my thoughts and understanding of that.

Thinking is a good thing you know.

If you've reached a point where you've decided you know what you think, what your position is, and you enter all debate to fight against views which oppose the position you've adopted, you've stopped thinking.

One of JPs rules for life is. " Presume the person you are speaking to, knows something you don't." I think that's wise.

But surely this is all the ‘nature or nurture’ debate.

Peterson seems to come very heavily on the ‘nature’ side and the world the way it is because it’s innate in humans to behave that way.
Men have an undercurrent of violence in their interactions because violence hardwired into the male brain.

I am surprised so many feminists are onboard with this to be honest.

Take the anecdote about the biker gangs, it could just as easily have been that the men felt inferior because they’ve been conditioned to feel that way and women find them attractive because of societal conditioning.

This debate has been raging forever and I don’t think we’ll ever have proper answers as it’s so difficult to conduct studies when we a) can’t take humans out of society and b) humans are so different anyway it’s impossible to have a comparative study.

The argument that it’s all nature harms women because it allows all the inequality to exist, because it can be waved away as natural. Women are just better at caring roles, men have an undercurrent of violence etc.

I personally believe that it’s a mixture of both, but there is as much difference within the sexes as between them. I also feel strongly within myself the conflict between my conditioning and my personality. I don’t think it helps anyone to say ‘men are like this’ and ‘women are like that’.

Mmm, to quote John Finnemore [when trying to understand a person] 'all we have to go on are the things you say and the things you do'.

JP said 'if you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight you under any circumstances whatsoever then you're talking to someone for whom you have no respect '

That's incredibly clear. I'm astonished that anyone feels it is open to interpretation.

And reveals a very strange attitude.

And given that he appears to have self imposed rules around violence to women, must also as I have said previously seriously impair his ability to have 'serious conversations ' with women. In fact it must be impossible for him if these two things he has stated are both true.

And may I just say how pleased I am to have fms here with his tedious handy links to raise the standard of debate?

Thank goodness for you fms, that's all I can say

@reluctantcamper “That's incredibly clear. I'm astonished that anyone feels it is open to interpretation.”

If it’s so clear then why did you feel the need to extrapolate it down to the absurd with “so he’s saying he wouldn’t respect Hawking or Gandhi?!?”, and why after having the reduction to absurdity fallacy repeatedly explained to you last night did you then turn to another misrepresentation of those words by claiming he was referring to telephone conversations?

I actually don’t know why I’m bothering with you, you’ve already admitted you were trolling last night. And it says a lot about JP that his detractors have less than a handful of controversial quotes to attack him with

I don’t think it helps anyone to say ‘men are like this’ and ‘women are like that

I think when pushed, JP would emphasise 'on average', but often doesn't use that caveat when speaking.

I'm not sure what sort of feminist I am tbh. Having spent the last 20-odd years thinking hard about molecular genetics and not a great deal about feminism. Pretty sure I am some sort of feminist, and I seem to agree with a lot of what the radfems say on here....

I do have a bit of a tendency toward biological essentialism though, which I try to challenge as I don't think it's helpful for women. I think it may come from being a geneticist (to a hammer, everything is a nail and all that).

fmsfms you didn't answer my question. ..

But I don't see how that isn't a logical interpretation fms.

He doesn't respect men who would never fight him, those men would never fight him, ergo he has no respect for them.

It's alright to say this particular statement of JPs is (as I suspect) ill thought through bollocks. He's not the Pope.

And I would suggest that a man trying to change the tone of debate on a feminist talk board could be considered slightly hairy handed himself.....

It’s not extrapolating down to the absurd, it’s pushing the argument to its furthest logical conclusion. Which is something you’re supposed to do to see if your ideas hold up.

If he’s saying he can’t respect a man who wouldn’t fight him under ‘any circumstances’ then those circumstances include being disabled or not fighting for religious reasons.

I just think it’s a goady thing for Peterson to say anyway. I know lots of men who don’t fight, one of my closest friends as taken a vow of ahimsa (non violence) and he commands more respect than any man I’ve ever met.

Yes Teacup, I have far less respect for a man who has to resort to violence compared to a man who can use his brain instead.

@Teacuphiccup “It’s not extrapolating down to the absurd, it’s pushing the argument to its furthest logical conclusion. Which is something you’re supposed to do to see if your ideas hold up.”

I’m not having this debate, go check out some of the links I already posted on the reduction to absurdity fallacy

“If I say "I'm so lucky, my husband always does the cooking"

Then you saying "what, even when he was recuperating from his kidney transplant?" is a similar reduction to absurdity, because you've gone for the most extreme scenario where my statement is no longer true.”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Also @teacuphiccup

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_extreme

"A logical extreme is a useful, though often fallacious, rhetorical device for the disputation of propositions.

Quite simply, a logical extreme is the relevant statement of an extreme or even preposterous position that is nonetheless consistent with the proposition in question. Thus, in so far as the logically extreme position is both relevant and untenable, it has succeeded in calling the proposition into question, at least in its stated form."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

"A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves"[1] in the construction of an argument.[2][3] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.[4]"

I think when pushed, JP would emphasise 'on average', but often doesn't use that caveat when speaking.

As a feminist I would push him to start using that caveat as it’s harmful to women (and men) not too.
But the fact is that’s not where his passion is, his drive is not equality of the sexes because that’s not where his interests are.

And you know what? That’s actually totally fine. As a woman I don’t expect feminism to centred in every conversation ever and I actually enjoy listening to people with other points of view.

But I think we should be able to discuss parts of his arguments that we don’t agree with and point out the bits that are actively harmful.

@teacuphiccup

“But the fact is that’s not where his passion is, his drive is not equality of the sexes because that’s not where his interests are.”

He repeatedly states that he is pro equality of opportunity. Said it to Cathy Newman, said it again yesterday with Sophie Walker.

He is against equality of outcome – which is achieved via positive discrimination, which is actually illegal.

“But I think we should be able to discuss parts of his arguments that we don’t agree with”

Of course, the problem is when people like @reluctantcamper misrepresent those arguments, push them to logical extremes and reduce them to the absurd, which as detailed above are all forms of fallacious reasoning.

I still don’t agree with you, I think that was a perfectly logical example to give.

‘I’m so lucky my husband always does the dishes’

Is a slightly different statement to,

‘I have no respect for a man who doesn’t do the dishes under any circumstances’

It’s the inclusion of the words ‘under any circumstances’ which invites you to push what that actually means.

‘What, even if he’s recovering from a kidney transplant?’

Is a perfectly fine response then because it’s asking for the boundaries of ‘any circumstances’.

Well it’s very easy to say your pro equal of opportunity, but if you don’t address or acknowledge the in built structural reasons why we don’t have equal opportunity now, you aren’t going to get very far and it’s just lip service.

And I’m surprised so many Peterson fans are using the ‘what he meant to say was’ technique.

If the caveat isn’t there I don’t think it’s our place to put it there.