Ask Hadley on Jordan Peterson

[Freespeecher]

I know that 'Ask Hadley' is a lighthearted column but she opens by damning him by association (he doesn't choose his fans) and essentially writes a hit piece by cutting and pasting a previous hit piece. ReluctantCamper could have written this for a fraction of Hadley's fee!

I understand opinions on Peterson are somewhat mixed to say the least but, in the wake of her articles on the Trafalgar Square anti-semitism demo and ManFriday, this article comes across as a disappointingly weak effort.

Thoughts?

(And link - don't seem to be able to do clicky links on my phone, sorry: www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/may/23/jordan-peterson-public-intellectual-isnt-clever-violent-men-monogamy).

Another "hit" piece but this time written by someone who knows JBP well, considers him a friend. JP even tweeted this himself with "my good friend"

I might be a fan of JP but it does not mean I cannot give this article careful thought and consideration.

It is far more worthy of my time than the identikit "angry white men" style hit pieces written by people that have never checked out any actual JBP material

www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

The ironic thing about the "monogamy is good for men" thing is that it's often men who screw monogamy up. It's men who are much more likely to trade in their wife for a younger model, men who are more likely to be illegal bigamists or start cults where the head guy (it's always a guy!) gets to be polygamous leaving few women for the other blokes dozy enough to join the cult. This is largely a male created problem. Women are happy with one bloke at a time of about their age.

Sillage

Females with internalized misogyny are here on this thread licking Peterson' odious balls

And that would include Posie Parker? I'm used to that sort of nonsense from you Sillage but as I said on the prostitution thread you really should try getting out of your echo chamber occasionally if you can describe Posy like that.

Christ fms that article is frightening. From a friend too. Has it made you have a rethink about JP?

mmmm, very interesting article.

I did think that JP's view seemed to be very dark, interesting to learn that he has suffered from depression....which would be no-ones business but his own if he were not trying to present his personal view point as a universal truth.

and christ, according to the writer JP believes his wife's dreams sometimes foretell the future

Interesting piece FMS

On the one hand it's quite possible that Peterson's building up to a breakdown, on the other there has to be at least a slight question mark over the source as the writer has a transgender child and was, at times, touching on questionable points of gender and biology, so may not be a completely disinterested observer seeing as it was C-16 that kick-started the Peterson Phenomenon.

Very concerning. The writer confirms that JP has a tendency to state his opinion as fact and misrepresent scientific data.....plus there's the small matter of freedom of speech only applying to those you agree with, and the aping of the techniques of authoritarian leaders. ..what can an authoritarian leader who harnesses the power of YouTube achieve I wonder.

"Christ fms that article is frightening. From a friend too. Has it made you have a rethink about JP?"

As I said, I think this article is worthy of much more attention than the identkit hit pieces that are everywhere.

There's not a lot I didn't already know - eg depression, obsession with the cold war and the general description of his personality doesn't come as a surprise

The author has a trans daughter, so straight away the trans issue becomes a very real source of disagreement between the pair. Look at that @transdad Twitter account - has a trans daughter and is now a a very vocal advocate for trans rights, which is a perfectly natural reaction for a father to have.

He repeats the standard "not real Marxism" claim re Stalinism/Maoism.

The dream stuff is a bit o_O

I don't really feel it necessary to keep going with bits I agree/disagree with.

The author obviously knows him better than most people and has a very real reason to fall out with him/disagree. I think anyone reading it has to bear both those points in mind

Cross posted with free speecher. I guess having a transgender child is likely to have coloured the author's opinion. Still, it's powerful stuff.

Its common for born again Christians to believe in prophecy. Its considered a gift from God.

"..plus there's the small matter of freedom of speech only applying to those you agree with"

I actually deleted this point from my first reply but as you bring it up

I think it's a false equivalence to compare his intended "list of postmodern neomarxist Courses" to the "hecklers veto" attacks on free speech/right wing/conservative speakers.

The list was a reference guide and was intended for people to make their own mind up or serve as a warning for parents/prospective students.

The Hecklers Veto involves speakers being invited to talk at a University, people wanting to hear what they have to say and others using their freedom of speech to prevent the speaker from being heard. e.g one person with a megaphone can prevent 100 from hearing a speaker en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

And the author doesn't say "misrepresent scientific data". The exact phrase was:

"His output is voluminous and filled with oversimplifications which obscure or misrepresent complex matters in the service of a message which is difficult to pin down"

"Its common for born again Christians to believe in prophecy. Its considered a gift from God."

He is not a born again Christian in the literal/traditional sense of the word. I am 100% on that one.

He'd just be an interesting crackpot if people weren't taking him so bloody seriously.

I just don't get how people find themselves in a crowd hanging on every word of the person on the stage. this is probably a personality flaw. I even struggle with pop concerts.

I just feel like maybe some people could be helped by having this face tatooed on the inside of their eyelids.

He also writes
"He has done disservice to the professoriate. He cheapens the intellectual life with self-serving misrepresentations of important ideas and scientific findings."

Does he provide any actual examples?

I know what you mean RC. You sound like my DH, he doesn't get that sort of group experience (pop concerts, football matches, etc.). I understand the discomfort, but do sometimes get caught up if it's something I appreciate. It reminds me a bit of the mass hysteria when Diana died. I understood it was a bit sad, but didn't really get the group outpouring of grief for someone the 'mourners' didn't know in person at all.

I don't think he does fms but we've been through the whole 'presenting his opinions as fact' debate before, haven't we?

No I don't think so. If the subject is "scientific data" then I've posted 20+ studies cited by JP as evidence for "nature".

Without any actual explanations of this "misrepresentation of scientific data" then it's an easy claim to dismiss.

Especially when other voices have come out in favour of the similar research cited by James Damore, including gasp, some female scientists

www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/

You've got a bee in your bonnet about innate sex differences haven't you?

Why?

What other scientific data does JP frequently talk about/cite that he could possibly be "misrepresenting"

In the absence of actual examples from the article it was left me to assume what the author was referring to.

He doesn't specifically say he was misrepresenting any data here but does list some of his core beliefs:

"He is a biological and Darwinian determinist. Gender, gender roles, dominance hierarchies, parenthood, all firmly entrenched in our biological heritage "

So yeah, nature/innate differences, but easier to make it about me I guess

Peterson's views on gender relations are a small, non essential part of his perspective.

What he's well known for is writing a book that combines some Jungian ideas, depth psychology and self help advice wrapped up in examples that are meaningful to people from Western culture.

You don't have to agree with everything he says on every topic under the sun, hang on his every word or get involved in any kind of group activity to get something out of the book.

fms The issue I have with JP is his insistence that these differences are innate FACT because SCIENCE. It's not that simple.

FWIW, I also tend towards the view that there are likely to be innate differences between men and women's brains on average. I don't think the fact that there are differences is controversial, but whether or not they are innate remains to be conclusively proven.

I am not a neuroscientist (I am a geneticist) so I am not across all of of the relevant literature. JP is not a neuroscientist either but he seems so damn sure that what he says about it is gospel truth. I don't trust people who are so adamant and so aggressive towards people who disagree with them. What's worse is he looks at behavioural differences between men and women and states that they are innate because brain differences or because of some studies of differences between countries who treat men and women differently that proves no such thing. It may support his argument, depending on how you interpret it, it does not prove it irrefutably. So, yeah, misrepresentation of science.

And the question remains, why does he, and why do you, care so much whether sex differences are innate or not?

Usually, when men try to prove that there are innate differences between the sexes, the motivation is to keep women in their place.

I actually got halfway through this interview, don't have time to find the timestamp or listen to it again, but he said words to effect "there's no male or female brain" and men and women are more alike than they are different, I think he also said that there's also some influence of nurture

Lol, just went back to it and found it straight away at 22m

"These differences aren't absolute (re brain). More similar than different in personality but differences aren't irrelevant....Men = things, women = people on average" then he goes on to talk about Scandinavia

Why do I care? I don't, I've looked at the evidence for nature vs nurture and I've decided the nature evidence is not compelling and credible. But I've said all along that nurture isn't irrelevant.

Like I've already said multiple times, erase all social stigma, barriers etc obstacles overnight and you'll still get more men in the army than women, more men working in sewers, on building sites, in mines etc

As an example of the nature science vs nurture science you should find some time to watch this documentary, the whole series is on YouTube and worth a watch.

"
when men try to prove that there are innate differences between the sexes, the motivation is to keep women in their place."

As I've already explained, most of the research on personality differences came from left wing dominated disciplines

Just waving "the patriarchy" at me isn't compelling

Don't have time to watch videos now and shouldn't be on here at all (other things to do) but....

"Like I've already said multiple times, erase all social stigma, barriers etc obstacles overnight and you'll still get more men in the army than women, more men working in sewers, on building sites, in mines etc"

Yes, but saying it multiple times doesn’t make it a fact. And why do you care? Why have you spent time and energy researching this, and why do you spend time on a feminist chat board going on about it?

Regardless of how reasonable JP (sometimes) sounds, he does over-interpret the data and use it to underline that there are innate differences (not proven) between the sexes and his motivation for doing that appears to be to show that feminists are wrong. As does yours.

What do you think his motivation is? What is your motivation?

Sorry, that should be "innate behaviour differences". I think we can agree that there are innate differences