Podcasts?

[GlassRose]

Hello fellow psych enthusiasts! I am several weeks from starting intern year and I'd love some suggestions for good podcasts to listen to on my (unfortunately very long) commute to a few of my sites (I have to drive -- public transit not an option unfortunately). I'm looking for anything related to general medicine, psychiatry, neuro, Step 3 prep, philosophy, etc. Any suggestions? Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nexus73]

2 podcasts I like:
1. Very bad wizards: a psychologist and philosopher have informal and often irreverent conversations about a wide variety of topics.
2. Waking Up, Sam Harris: a neuroscientist and famous agnostic/atheist, discusses issues in science/politics.

 

[seeinghowitgoes]

I've just recently gotten into "You're Not that Smart" which is a psychology-related podcast. Some popular standbys I always enjoy include "This American Life" and "Freakonomics".

 

[Unico]

It has been hard to find quality psych podcasts, but these are some general podcasts I enjoy:

Psych:
Focus on neurology and psychology
American journal of psychiatry
MGH academy
Peerview neuroscience and psychiatry

Thinkers:
Waking up with Sam Harris (and if you like that one, check out Jordan B Peterson as well)
Radiolab
Hidden Brain
Rationally thinking
Skeptics guide to the universe
StarTalk
Invisabilia
MorePerfect


Stories:
Tanis
The black tapes
Rabbits
S-town
Limetown
Lifeafter
The message (by GE podcast theater)





Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[COXblocker]

Using the app Overcast because it cuts out the pauses, has voice boost, and can fine tune the speed, here are my podcasts. Of course, I don't listen to every episode. I gave a start to my top 5 that I think 90-100% of the episodes are worth listening to.

• *The Bright Sessions (fictional podcast about a psychotherapist for people with super powers)
• *Dan Carlin's Hardcore History (worth the price of old episodes. Fall of Rome, Wrath of Khans, Blueprint for Apocalypse)
• Data Skeptic (nerd with his wife discussing issues of big data and analysis)
• Exploration (Michio Kaku talking about technology, futurism)
• The Ezra Klein Show (Liberal CEO of Vox Media, interviews interesting people)
• Freakonomics Radio (Classic podcast interesting topics)
• The Good Dad Project (I'm a dad, some topics and interviews are good)
• The History of Rome (Decent Looooong podcast goes through the history better than a book)
• I think You're Interesting (Interview of interesting people in pop culture)
• Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates (Popper style debates)
• iProcrastinate blog (Prichet? I think is the author/host's name. I've followed his research. Like his stuff)
• JAMA Clinical Reviews (Some are psych related)
• LifeAfter (and the original "The Message" are cool fictional podcasts)
• Lancet Psychiatry (Headlines and good presentations
• Lore (Fun/creepy stories about urban legends)
• MGH Psychiatry (Great presentations from their grand rounds)
• Myths and Legends (Similar to Lore. Really like the stuff on Norse mythology)
• Planet Money (Classic NPR good stuff)
• Rationally Speaking (by the New York City Skeptics...I am a skeptic)
• The Liturgist Podcast (Unique Christian worldview. Balances my skepticism)
• S-Town (wife recommended, haven't started)
• *This American Life (Classic NPR again)
• No Jargon (Good talks on complicated topics made easy, pretty left leaning)
• Science Vs (It's nice to hear what pop-science thinks on some of these topics)
• Signal (Podcast on modern medicine. Well done)
• Ted Radio Hour (Podcast of good TED talks. Guy Raz is a great podcaster)
• *Tim Ferriss Show (Long form interviews. Many good ones)
• You Are Not So Smart (Dive into cognitive biases)
• GTD (I am a David Allen Disciple)
• How I Built This (Guy Raz again, interesting interviews)
• The Upgrade by Lifehacker (some good talks on lifehacking things)
• *The Weeds (Left-leaning political podcast that dives into the weeds of policy)
• The Whitecoat Investor (podcast by the author of the book and blog on money management for docs)
• Work in Progress by Slack (Interesting pieces on people working)

 

[singasongofjoy]

Thanks to @Unico for giving me a few new ideas - sounds like we have similar tastes.

My go-tos that are already mentioned are Radiolab (seriously have listened to a few of my favorite episodes 5+ times), Invisibilia, Hidden Brain (this one tends to be a lot of social psych), Freakonomics, This American Life, S Town. I also like 99% Invisible, Science Friday, TED Radio Hour, Criminal.

 

[Unico]

I also like 99% Invisible, Science Friday, TED Radio Hour, Criminal.

Oh yeah, those are good ones too!! I just realized Science Friday isn't in my feed -- I have to add it

 

[GlassRose]

Yes! These are awesome, thank you!!

 

[Merovinge]

Anyone familiar with any good podcasts on health care policy/economics? I have listened to Medscape Business of Medicine podcast which is okay.

 

[NickNaylor]

Love this thread (@COXblocker in particular - awesome list) - please keep the recommendations coming!

I second @Merovinge's request.

 

[Unico]

I'm sampling some from a quick Overcast search (as @COXblocker mentioned, it's a great podcast app).

Here's the list:

- 2 Docs Talk
"...the podcast about healthcare, the science of medicine and everything in between. Join cohosts Kendall Britt, MD and Amy Rogers, MD for a 15 minute check-up on current issues in medicine and health policy."

- Addiction talk radio
"Addiction Talk Radio brings cutting-edge treatment and the latest research to the airwaves. We take a hard look at public policy and controversies in addiction and mental health."

- The Healthcare Policy Podcast
"Podcast interviews with health policy experts on topical subjects."

- HealthCetera
"Diana Mason, PhD, RN, FAAN, and Barbara Glickstein, MPH, MS, RN, are founders and co-directors of the Center. Both are recognized as experts in media, nursing, health, and health policy. They have a longstanding relationship as producers and moderators of HealthCetera, a live, award-winning radio program on public radio and iTunes. They are bloggers for Disruptive Women in Health Care and for the American Journal of Nursing (AJN)."

- Jill Schwieters Healthcare Podcast
"Jill Schwieters, President of Cielo Healthcare, talks with healthcare executives and professionals to discuss the latest in industry news and public policy."

- MediStrategy
"The MediStrategy podcast offers lively, informative interviews with healthcare leaders and insights on hot business and policy issues in Medicaid, Medicare, and health reform. Health executives, policymakers, entrepreneurs, authors, and influencers share challenges and opportunities in America’s rapidly changing $3.2 trillion health care system."

- POLITICOs Pulse Check
"Weekly conversations with some of the most interesting and influential people in health care, hosted by POLITICO Pulse author Dan Diamond."

- Health Business Blog
"Health care business consultant and policy expert David E. Williams share his views."

- State of reform
"Bridging the gap between healthcare and health policy."

- Straight talk MD
"Dr. Frank Sweeny explores hot-button issues in science, medicine, and healthcare that affect us all. My guests are shakers and movers and experts that are all really interesting people to help us find the truth. The status quo is not an option. We can all be the instruments of positive change."

- The week in health law
"Listen to Frank Pasquale, Nicolas Terry and their guests discuss the most pressing issues in Health Law & Policy."

Can't vouch for any of these, proceed with cation


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[postbacc99]

Dr Money Matters- for a podcast about finances and the business of medicine
Hippocratic Hustle Podcast- Podcast for women physicians, about practicing medicine creatively
The Happy Doc- The Voice of Fulfilled Physicians: Made by a 4th year med student, now psych resident (just graduated from med school)
Docs Outside the Box Podcast - Ordinary Doctors doing Extraordinary Things

I too prefer the Overcast app. So much better than Apple's.

 

[Unico]

Reply All is a good reprieve from the daily grind for technophiles (or those interested in learning more about Internet stuffs).

The Daily by the NYT is a great 30 min snapshot of daily news.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Nasrudin]

....

Thinkers:
Waking up with Sam Harris (and if you like that one, check out Jordan B Peterson as well)

The other way around.

Jordan Peterson is a superb lecturer and researcher at the university of Toronto. His YouTube channel has hundreds of hours of the most engaging presentations of psychology material I've ever seen or heard.

Sam Harris is a public intellectual who has some aspect of his work on neuroscience. But I'm not even sure that he finished a phd. I think he's been on the publishing and speaking curcuit for most of his career. With some specialization in meditation. Interesting. But not the first stop for psychiatry centered material. Jordan Peterson's lectures made me literate and dare I say, conversant, in general ideas in psychology. Something psychiatry residents desperately need. I've spent literally hundreds of hours watching them.

 

[zolof]

I have been unimpressed with any podcasts related strictly to psychiatry, sam harris did not impress me at all. I have found many guests (psychiatrists doing there own thing, promoting their own type of care) on certain programs to be more enlightening, but no consistent recurring podcast from them per se.

 

[MaximusMDPhD]

The other way around.

Jordan Peterson is a superb lecturer and researcher at the university of Toronto. His YouTube channel has hundreds of hours of the most engaging presentations of psychology material I've ever seen or heard.

Sam Harris is a public intellectual who has some aspect of his work on neuroscience. But I'm not even sure that he finished a phd. I think he's been on the publishing and speaking curcuit for most of his career. With some specialization in meditation. Interesting. But not the first stop for psychiatry centered material. Jordan Peterson's lectures made me literate and dare I say, conversant, in general ideas in psychology. Something psychiatry residents desperately need. I've spent literally hundreds of hours watching them.

JBP got me interested in psychiatry in the first place. He is repetitive if you listen to enough content, but he has a homebrewed view of the mind created over the course of a colorful career. Part psychoanalyst, part personality psychology, part evolutionary psychology, and part existential philosophy. He hammers out ideas like our lives depend on them, which they do. He is at his least resonant when discussing particular Jungian archetypes. At his strongest when a discussion gives religious propositions biological/sociological/existential creedence.

 

[Nasrudin]

JBP got me interested in psychiatry in the first place. He is repetitive if you listen to enough content, but he has a homebrewed view of the mind created over the course of a colorful career. Part psychoanalyst, part personality psychology, part evolutionary psychology, and part existential philosophy. He hammers out ideas like our lives depend on them, which they do. He is at his least resonant when discussing particular Jungian archetypes. At his strongest when a discussion gives religious propositions biological/sociological/existential creedence.

Please elaborate on the bolded, if you have time.

 

[MaximusMDPhD]

Please elaborate on the bolded, if you have time.

I should paste in the next example I hear since this probably won't help much. Sometimes he starts talking about religious iconography and story elements in terms of "the masculine" and "the feminine", associations of the masculine/feminine, and what we might conclude (at times proscriptively) based on those associations. It seems like a reach. Could totally be a lack of insight on my part. Also, I guess those aren't exactly Jungian archetypes but instead something like art history motifs.

 

[Nasrudin]

I should paste in the next example I hear since this probably won't help much. Sometimes he starts talking about religious iconography and story elements in terms of "the masculine" and "the feminine", associations of the masculine/feminine, and what we might conclude (at times proscriptively) based on those associations. It seems like a reach. Could totally be a lack of insight on my part. Also, I guess those aren't exactly Jungian archetypes but instead something like art history motifs.

Hmmm. Interesting. I'll listen closer to that. He does often refer to his lab's research on personality traits and their relative statistical distribution between males and females. And since he deals with mythology and in particular a kind of evolutionary emergence of archetypes as they pertain to dominance hierarchies and a concentric circles of playable role games, then.... the masculine and the feminine become important as emergent modes of being. He also often hedges on the fact that masculine and feminine need not be restricted to one sex or the other.

I'd liken it to sexual dimorphism as it pertains to mythologies and their Darwinian emergence.

It seems abrasive to the very new ideas of sexual identity fluidity and so forth. But it's not really when you think about how ideas of masculinity, for example, function evolutionarily. And it was repetitive in some domains of his work because his public coming out, if you will, was centered around free speech politics and the recent passing of Bill C-16 in Canada which pertain to gender identity issues.

 

[deleted407021]

Hmmm. Interesting. I'll listen closer to that. He does often refer to his lab's research on personality traits and their relative statistical distribution between males and females. And since he deals with mythology and in particular a kind of evolutionary emergence of archetypes as they pertain to dominance hierarchies and a concentric circles of playable role games, then.... the masculine and the feminine become important as emergent modes of being. He also often hedges on the fact that masculine and feminine need not be restricted to one sex or the other.

I'd liken it to sexual dimorphism as it pertains to mythologies and their Darwinian emergence.

It seems abrasive to the very new ideas of sexual identity fluidity and so forth. But it's not really when you think about how ideas of masculinity, for example, function evolutionarily. And it was repetitive in some domains of his work because his public coming out, if you will, was centered around free speech politics and the recent passing of Bill C-16 in Canada which pertain to gender identity issues.

Does he rail against post-modernism a lot in his podcast? Because I'd like to listen to it but that would be tedious to sit through

 

[Nasrudin]

Does he rail against post-modernism a lot in his podcast? Because I'd like to listen to it but that would be tedious to sit through

Only occasionally. I'm not speaking in in regards to a podcast. Just go to his youtube channel. The lecture series are listed by class and year. I think he's starting to venture into podcasting just recently. He's also posting lecture series on the psychological aspects of Biblical stories, or... roughly something along those lines.

The attack on postmodernism wouldn't make a lot of sense to anyone who wasn't interested in free speech, dismantling political correctness, counteracting identity politics, and so forth. You can bypass all of this by going right to the lectures.

Although the issues do come up tangentially as they pertain to the course materials. He's a very creative lecturer in my view. So the same course is different from year to year. I realize... I probably sound like a Grateful dead fan... so... to further make the case against myself... here's a cool documentary I'm watching:

 

[MaximusMDPhD]

^ I love this post. Other than JBP, I recommend: Shrink-Rap, Between Us, Joe Rogan, and Invisibilia (for the 10th time!).

 

[bashir]

I first heard of Jordan Peterson from this thread and as he seems to be everywhere lately it made me curious what this forum's fans think about his evolving public persona. Frankly I'm increasingly horrified by his ideas, particularly this latest bit in the New York Times profile about "enforced monogamy." Any thoughts?

 

[justabanana]

I first heard of Jordan Peterson from this thread and as he seems to be everywhere lately it made me curious what this forum's fans think about his evolving public persona. Frankly I'm increasingly horrified by his ideas, particularly this latest bit in the New York Times profile about "enforced monogamy." Any thoughts?

I think it's summed up nicely with this statement: “Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy" ((from: On the New York Times and "Enforced Monogamy"))

That's certainly not a concept that should be horrifying since it's done in virtually every modern culture. I took it as saying the tinder hook-up culture where a large number of women sleep with a much smaller number of the same men, is unhealthy for society because it leaves 'less fit' males unable to get some or something. Maybe he's wrong, I don't know. I've never had problems with girlfriends and I was never into hook-up culture. But when you call the idea of enforced monogamy horrifying, I just wonder what you're imagining. I took his idea more akin to being society should continue to encourage two parent households rather than single moms (and I was raised by a single mom.. took the military to grow me up) and that the death of society encouraging monogamy would make society much less stable. Plus we'd get more violent, single, bitter young men with pent up sexual aggression. I'd tend to agree with him.

You said multiple of his ideas were horrifying, so what other ones are you referring to? With his increasingly public persona, I still find him engaging and I'm glad he's gotten more of an opportunity to be heard these days than he used to.

 

[Nasrudin]

I first heard of Jordan Peterson from this thread and as he seems to be everywhere lately it made me curious what this forum's fans think about his evolving public persona. Frankly I'm increasingly horrified by his ideas, particularly this latest bit in the New York Times profile about "enforced monogamy." Any thoughts?

So. Let me get this straight. You're "particularly horrified" by Jordan Peterson's ideas, as they're portrayed in a new york times piece? In other words. The words "enforced monogamy." Are horrifying. Because the new york times piece explains why they're reprehensible as such.

Is that right?

 

[bashir]

You are correct that I am not at all sure what “enforced monogamy” is supposed to look like in practice. I think stable, two-parent households are good for society and am still horrified by the suggestion that society should somehow figure out a way to ensure that less desirable men are paired with women because otherwise they will commit sexual violence. The fact that Peterson has, deservedly, become a hero of the “incel” movement says enough for me to be decidedly not a fan. I probably should not have posted, because I’ve been discussing these issues in real life with people I care about and don’t really have the emotional energy to do so here. I’m going to back out of the room slowly, with apologies for starting a conversation I now realize I’m not interested in having.

 

[Nasrudin]

You are correct that I am not at all sure what “enforced monogamy” is supposed to look like in practice. I think stable, two-parent households are good for society and am still horrified by the suggestion that society should somehow figure out a way to ensure that less desirable men are paired with women because otherwise they will commit sexual violence. The fact that Peterson has, deservedly, become a hero of the “incel” movement says enough for me to be decidedly not a fan. I probably should not have posted, because I’ve been discussing these issues in real life with people I care about and don’t really have the emotional energy to do so here. I’m going to back out of the room slowly, with apologies for starting a conversation I now realize I’m not interested in having.

It's all good. Take care of the people in your life, best wishes to you and them.

But if you ever come back to this notion, try to recognize when you're speaking with low resolution generalities, maybe because you're dealing with more stuff with actual people, which is more important. And then return to this when you have the time/energy to figure out the subtleties. Because one of the real dangers happening in the current social media spheres is that we are all exceedingly vulnerable to being used as tools of particular ideologies. Something, Peterson, focuses is work on incidentally--making yourself less vulnerable to political ideology. Most of these secondary sources are polluted with ideological precepts. And for reasons, that I'm still formulating, Peterson seems to be a magnet for those who would deliberately or unconsciously misinterpret him.

 

[Nasrudin]

In regards to podcasts:

I've been really enjoying Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman's: The Psychology Podcast

 

[WingedOx]

You are correct that I am not at all sure what “enforced monogamy” is supposed to look like in practice. I think stable, two-parent households are good for society and am still horrified by the suggestion that society should somehow figure out a way to ensure that less desirable men are paired with women because otherwise they will commit sexual violence. The fact that Peterson has, deservedly, become a hero of the “incel” movement says enough for me to be decidedly not a fan. I probably should not have posted, because I’ve been discussing these issues in real life with people I care about and don’t really have the emotional energy to do so here. I’m going to back out of the room slowly, with apologies for starting a conversation I now realize I’m not interested in having.

Most likely "enforced monogamy" is Peterson talking out of his ass then walking it back when people called out how ridiculous what he was saying was.

 

[sloh]

Jordan Peterson's response to the NYTimes article below. "Enforced monogamy" was probably a poor choice of words on his part due to the high likelihood of it being misinterpreted.

On the New York Times and "Enforced Monogamy"

"Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy."

His youtube channel has plenty of valuable lectures that have little to do with his critique on post-modernism. I'd recommend his Q&A's, Maps of meaning lecture series, and Personality and its transformations.

Awesome excerpt on depression:



Also awesome slatestarcodex (Scott Alexander, MD) review on his new book

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/

"I have to admit, I read the therapy parts of this book with a little more desperation than might be considered proper. Psychotherapy is really hard, maybe impossible. Your patient comes in, says their twelve-year old kid just died in some tragic accident. Didn’t even get to say good-bye. They’re past their childbearing age now, so they’ll never have any more children. And then they ask you for help. What do you say? “It’s not as bad as all that”? But it’s exactly as bad as all that. All you’ve got are cliches. “Give yourself time to grieve”. “You know that she wouldn’t have wanted you to be unhappy”. “At some point you have to move on with your life”.

Jordan Peterson’s superpower is saying cliches and having them sound meaningful. There are times – like when I have a desperate and grieving patient in front of me – that I would give almost anything for this talent. “You know that she wouldn’t have wanted you to be unhappy.” “Oh my God, you’re right! I’m wasting my life grieving when I could be helping others and making her proud of me, let me go out and do this right now!” If only.

Everybody – at least every therapist, but probably every human being – has this desperate desire to do something to help the people in front of them who are in pain, right now. And you always think – if I were just a deeper, more eloquent person, I could say something that would solve this right now. Part of the therapeutic skillset is realizing that this isn’t true, and that you’ll do more harm than good if you try. But you still feel inadequate. And so learning that Jordan Peterson, who in his off-hours injects pharmaceutical-grade meaning into thousands of disillusioned young people – learning that even he doesn’t have much he can do except listen and try to help people organize their narrative – is really calming and helpful."

 

[rock2doc]

It’s hard to argue about Jordan Peterson on the internet. For those of us that see his videos and think “his formula seems to be: say something fairly obviously true and then use that true thing to justify and imply something controversial without actually committing to or defending the controversial idea, nor really show just why the controversial idea logically follows from the true idea,” it can get pretty boring and tiresome to wade through the videos to argue with people who know what he says in more detail. I’ve watched too many JBP videos while trying (I promise!) to keep an open mind.


Also, as someone who has read a lot of western philosophy, he seems pretty confused about it. I’m not sure that he’s actually read Marx, for example, but sure throws the term “Marxism” out a lot. Contrapoints made a great and funny video that talks about some of this stuff. It’s 30 minutes long, but I think it’s worth a watch for a JBP fan to see why people don’t like him (it’s not just SJWs shouting RACIST SEXIST TRANSPHOBIC). We are engaging with him and find his ideas mostly old fashioned and see a dude scrambling to find reasons to uphold a moral tradition that many other very smart and very thoughtful people find to be oppressive and outdated.

 

[WingedOx]

Jordan Peterson's response to the NYTimes article below. "Enforced monogamy" was probably a poor choice of words on his part due to the high likelihood of it being misinterpreted.

On the New York Times and "Enforced Monogamy"

"Peterson is using well-established anthropological language here: “enforced monogamy” does not mean government-enforced monogamy. “Enforced monogamy” means socially-promoted, culturally-inculcated monogamy."

His youtube channel has plenty of valuable lectures that have little to do with his critique on post-modernism. I'd recommend his Q&A's, Maps of meaning lecture series, and Personality and its transformations.

Awesome excerpt on depression:



Also awesome slatestarcodex (Scott Alexander, MD) review on his new book

http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/26/book-review-twelve-rules-for-life/

"I have to admit, I read the therapy parts of this book with a little more desperation than might be considered proper. Psychotherapy is really hard, maybe impossible. Your patient comes in, says their twelve-year old kid just died in some tragic accident. Didn’t even get to say good-bye. They’re past their childbearing age now, so they’ll never have any more children. And then they ask you for help. What do you say? “It’s not as bad as all that”? But it’s exactly as bad as all that. All you’ve got are cliches. “Give yourself time to grieve”. “You know that she wouldn’t have wanted you to be unhappy”. “At some point you have to move on with your life”.

Jordan Peterson’s superpower is saying cliches and having them sound meaningful. There are times – like when I have a desperate and grieving patient in front of me – that I would give almost anything for this talent. “You know that she wouldn’t have wanted you to be unhappy.” “Oh my God, you’re right! I’m wasting my life grieving when I could be helping others and making her proud of me, let me go out and do this right now!” If only.

Everybody – at least every therapist, but probably every human being – has this desperate desire to do something to help the people in front of them who are in pain, right now. And you always think – if I were just a deeper, more eloquent person, I could say something that would solve this right now. Part of the therapeutic skillset is realizing that this isn’t true, and that you’ll do more harm than good if you try. But you still feel inadequate. And so learning that Jordan Peterson, who in his off-hours injects pharmaceutical-grade meaning into thousands of disillusioned young people – learning that even he doesn’t have much he can do except listen and try to help people organize their narrative – is really calming and helpful."

I think one of my favorite things about the ridiculousness of Peterson is how impressed people are with the ability to adequately do basic cognitive therapy.

(my favorite part of that NYT piece was the quote admiring him for keeping a straight face while being yelled at... these people should watch literally any member of the inpatient staff during a routine day here in this department).

 

[Nasrudin]

I think one of my favorite things about the ridiculousness of Peterson is how impressed people are with the ability to adequately do basic cognitive therapy.

(my favorite part of that NYT piece was the quote admiring him for keeping a straight face while being yelled at... these people should watch literally any member of the inpatient staff during a routine day here in this department).

That's a facile comment. Neither you or I or anyone here knows what the pressures of being a controversial pop culture icon are. I would've gone ape **** on my adversaries and been dismissed as a lunatic way before I ever had a chance to emerge into pop superstar status.

He's taking on positions that we have been incapable of dealing with. There's a psychic malaise to modern western culture that is rotting people from the inside. The epidemiology of "anxiety" and "depression" is what's ridiculous. Peterson is doing something about it. And usurping the comfortable position of corrupt academics and upsetting atheist, coastal, intellectual elites, and journalists on all fronts to do it. Being libeled as all manner of evil in the process.

That's CBT on a high wire. On a unicycle. With no net.

 

[WingedOx]

You know, JP fans don't HAVE to embody every stereotype about themselves. My amusement with this type of stuff knows no bounds.

Bring up that something is good but otherwise mundane about JP, and the superfan jumps in with a "HOW DARE YOU SLANDER HIM AND NOT RECOGNIZE HIS GREATNESS PERSISTS IN ALL DOMAINS!?"

Plus, c'mon now, "[x] is good because it goes against the established order" is the type of lazy thinking you're supposed to outgrow after your freshman year of college.

Validation is a hell of a drug.

 

[Nasrudin]

You know, JP fans don't HAVE to embody every stereotype about themselves. My amusement with this type of stuff knows no bounds.

Bring up that something is good but otherwise mundane about JP, and the superfan jumps in with a "HOW DARE YOU SLANDER HIM AND NOT RECOGNIZE HIS GREATNESS PERSISTS IN ALL DOMAINS!?"

Plus, c'mon now, "[x] is good because it goes against the established order" is the type of lazy thinking you're supposed to outgrow after your freshman year of college.

Validation is a hell of a drug.

So far... you're just throwing out vague insults. With nothing of substance for me to swing at. I'm ready to get it on. You just have to identify the specific ideas you disagree with and why. And lay out a specific case. And we can go at it. Or maybe we agree on more than we don't, I don't know. But we can figure it out. But the above is just a caricature. I dare you to represent me accurately before you presume to disagree with me for starters. You got only one thing right above. That I like JP. "Fan" is not actually accurate and is, from your tone more intended as insult. What I would say is that I've studied his work, not just his public persona, more thoroughly than anyone I know. And you're right. There's a crowded space of admirers. But my admiration is far from superficial. You may not agree. But you haven't even scratched the surface with your innuendo. And I'm not ashamed of it in the least.

Consider this my formal challenge to a verbal duel. But as far as the rules involved. I suggest trying to represent one another as accurately and charitably as possible in order that the combat remains honorable. And perhaps an opportunity for growth.

 

[Liquid8]

The Psych Review: 3 Australian Registrars discussing psych journal articles

The Psych Review