What do you guys think of Jordan Peterson?

[Merely]

what are people’s thoughts on this guy? He’s apparently a clinical psychologist and professor, seems pretty smart. Anyone familiar with him?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Anyone who embraces incel culture can't be that smart in my book.

 

[PsyDr]

From the limited stuff I’ve listened to:

1) He’s very knowledgeable about personality research. But he blends this in with Pennebaker’s stuff which isn’t personality. I dislike pennebaker.

2) Aside from assertiveness training, I’ve never heard him refer to any clinical intervention for axis I disorders. I wouldn’t consider this to be a great thing.

3) It’s a weird thing to show expertise in a subject and then throw in religion, Jung, etc. I am all for a psychologist having their own personal beliefs. But I think that personal beliefs need to stay out of the professional realm. Be kinky, be catholic, hunt Bigfoot, abuse substances, be vegan, believe that an angel/comet/giant lizard is gonna come take you away to paradise all you want. But patients are coming to you for professional knowledge, not this stuff. Same as an attorney or CPA.

4) Some of his ideas about labeling aren’t psychological. And this seems like the majority of his talking points.

5) There are some clear gender issues for males, which I believe should be addressed. This doesn’t mean that there are not ones for women, but I believe we should approach this from an abundance viewpoint and go both sides. Maybe he’s not doing a great job in this, but I’m glad that there is a beginning of a conversation.

6) I like that he presents research that is not easily popular. Dunno about his interpretations, but the search for truth shouldn’t be held hostage by how people feel about the truth.

7) I divide psychotherapy into two categories: treating discrete mental illness and personal improvement. I believe that a lot of his stuff falls into the psychology as self improvement thing.

8) I think people’s personal dislike for him makes it hard for them to hear the research he presents.

9) He tends to report expertise in things that I am not so sure he actually has.

10) I hate that he uses so much literature. He’s not an literature professor.

11) I am 100% for any psychologist who directly quotes the empirical bases being in the media. We’ve had a bunch of bad psychologists in the media. It would be great if a psychologist who uses research bases would oppose him. A rising tide raises all boats.

 

[Mad Jack]

Used to be okay, but over the years has drank more and more of his own Kool Aid to the point that he's less a social scientist and more a proselytizer of his own increasingly less evidence based brand of social theory. It seems his followers have, though the force of positive feedback, encouraged him to double down on certain ideas to the point of absurdity. I don't dislike the guy, but he just comes off as increasingly self-serving, seeking a wider base and feeling of importance to feed his ego than the candid frustrated professor whose lectures I'd come across early on in his fame.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I like him. I'd highly recommend direct viewing (of his lectures on YouTube) and/or reading (his books and empirical articles) the man's work directly rather than relying on 2nd or 3rd-hand representations of him or 'what he's said' that mostly appear to be filtered through political lenses.

 

[WisNeuro]

I like him. I'd highly recommend direct viewing (of his lectures on YouTube) and/or reading (his books and empirical articles) the man's work directly rather than relying on 2nd or 3rd-hand representations of him or 'what he's said' that mostly appear to be filtered through political lenses.

You don't have to rely on anything filtered through anything to get at his recent vapidness and reliance on pseudoscience. Dude may have had something early on, but I'm with Mad Jack, been drinking way too much of his own Kool-Aid and is now just another Infowars type figure.

 

[Osminog]

Jordan Peterson's lectures are convoluted and disjointed. He likes to name-drop (sometimes managing to refer to Jung, Solzhenitsyn, and Nietzsche, all in a matter of minutes); he likes to create his own special categories for things that generally require no special system of categorization (e.g., "Order" and "Chaos"), or to haphazardly borrow them from other domains (e.g., "dominance hierarchy" from zoology and evolutionary biology); and he likes to extract supposed universal truths from ancient myths and works of classic literature.

What Peterson does is something that continental philosophers and psychoanalytical thinkers have been doing for over a century. They create an illusion of profundity when making statements that, when translated into plain language, are either commonsensical or completely baseless and absurd.

There's literally nothing scientific or empirical about what Peterson does. You can't cherry-pick a handful of mythological tales from past civilizations, try to uncover commonalities, and then claim you've discovered universal moral truths that have withstood the test of time. You've ignored any counterexamples that may exist, and you've infused your own biases into the entire process. His public work is based on bad anthropology, bad psychology, bad philosophy, and (most recently) bad theology. He's only popular because he garnered the respect of the Ben Shapiro crowd through his free speech advocacy; he seems to be a beneficiary of the halo effect.

 

[deleted103644]

I like him. I'd highly recommend direct viewing (of his lectures on YouTube) and/or reading (his books and empirical articles) the man's work directly rather than relying on 2nd or 3rd-hand representations of him or 'what he's said' that mostly appear to be filtered through political lenses.

 

[WisNeuro]

OP, do you have a question to redirect this specifically to clinical psych? Before this gets thrown into the SPF?

 

[deleted103644]

OP, do you have a question to redirect this specifically to clinical psych? Before this gets thrown into the SPF?

I think you’re being too generous.

Straight to Froopyland.

 

[Merely]

OP, do you have a question to redirect this specifically to clinical psych? Before this gets thrown into the SPF?

Yeah so I appreciate all the insights, he is objectively not an expert on free speech, philosophy, theology, etc nor are any of you. What I was looking for was comments by experts (you guys) on his comments regarding his area of expertise ( psychology). It seems to me when he talks psychology he says interesting stuff on hierarchy, personality pathology, etc. is the stuff he’s saying evidence based and true or kinda just pop science bs? I’m only a med student so I don’t have the expertise to analyze his comments regarding psychology. For example he mentions jung a lot, is he understanding jung correctly or kinda just bsing his way through it? The rest of his comments we will disregard as again he nor we are experts on those topics. Thanks.

 

[erg923]

I have never heard of this person

 

[psych.meout]

My favorite Jordan Peterson thing is when he got so upset by something that Slavoj Zizek wrote that he got into a long argument with a Zizek quote bot.

I have never heard of this person

How I envy you.

 

[erg923]

My favorite Jordan Peterson thing is when he got so upset by something that Slavoj Zizek wrote that he got into a long argument with a Zizek quote bot.



How I envy you.

I dont do the tweeterbookspaces

 

[MCParent]

Y is the stuff he’s saying evidence based

he mentions jung a lot

 

[AbnormalPsych]

Should I know who this person is?

Sounds like I have been lucky so far...

 

[deleted343839]

Should I know who this person is?

Sounds like I have been lucky so far...

He's a professor by day and a YouTube star by night. He also wrote a popular book based more on the content of the latter.

 

[calimich]

In my side-gig pp I see about 12 clients/week -- most of them men; for my most recent 23 billed hours, 20 of them were with men. I am fortunate to live in a very diverse part of the country so the men I see (while all college educated and between ~18-35) represent various sexualities, relationship statuses, nationalities, and US ethnic groups. Given all that, intimacy is a primary concern for all but 1 of my male clients. Yes, they also struggle with issues like anxiety, depression, panic, and substance use, however, lack of intimacy is a major source of distress.

Some of them reference JP. More than one has asked me directly what I think of him and his philosophy. One showed his favorite videos and asked to talk about them. I have mixed feelings about JP. I've been aware of his stuff for about two years, and I've read other books/articles related to men and masculinity for many years. I'm not surprised to hear male clients struggle with intimacy, but I have been surprised at the consistency and intensity with which it shows up. And by intimacy I see everything from "I have difficulty making/maintaining friendships" to "I can't achieve/sustain an erection and therefore I'm not a man."

So, I think it's unwise to simply dismiss JP. It seems he's found an audience and has tapped into something many men (young men?) experience.

edited to ask: other folks doing clinical work, what's been your experience working with intimacy issues with male clients?

 

[AichhornOak]

Yeah so I appreciate all the insights, he is objectively not an expert on free speech, philosophy, theology, etc nor are any of you. What I was looking for was comments by experts (you guys) on his comments regarding his area of expertise ( psychology). It seems to me when he talks psychology he says interesting stuff on hierarchy, personality pathology, etc. is the stuff he’s saying evidence based and true or kinda just pop science bs? I’m only a med student so I don’t have the expertise to analyze his comments regarding psychology. For example he mentions jung a lot, is he understanding jung correctly or kinda just bsing his way through it? The rest of his comments we will disregard as again he nor we are experts on those topics. Thanks.

I've been following Jordan Peterson for some time, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan- just intrigued because he is bringing philosophy back into psychology. Some may disagree with me, but I have some thoughts on the guy:
I think he understands Jung well, but it's hard to communicate much of Jungian theory, especially considering it evolved rapidly and there are numerous interpretations (as with early analytic thought). All those folks were just writing and formulating as they went. Not to say that's a bad thing, they were pioneers. With that, I think Peterson does a fair job when referring to Jungian archetypes.
Regarding clinical references, he's pretty spot on. He frequently returns to exposure and behavioral principles in treating problems and shaping behavior. He over generalizes much of the neuroscience, but, he is speaking to the masses.
I don't think he references much pop science. Many of his ideas and newer lectures may be loosely constructed, but I think he's drawing from solid literature.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

In my side-gig pp I see about 12 clients/week -- most of them men; for my most recent 23 billed hours, 20 of them were with men. I am fortunate to live in a very diverse part of the country so the men I see (while all college educated and between ~18-35) represent various sexualities, relationship statuses, nationalities, and US ethnic groups. Given all that, intimacy is a primary concern for all but 1 of my male clients. Yes, they also struggle with issues like anxiety, depression, panic, and substance use, however, lack of intimacy is a major source of distress.

Some of them reference JP. More than one has asked me directly what I think of him and his philosophy. One showed his favorite videos and asked to talk about them. I have mixed feelings about JP. I've been aware of his stuff for about two years, and I've read other books/articles related to men and masculinity for many years. I'm not surprised to hear male clients struggle with intimacy, but I have been surprised at the consistency and intensity with which it shows up. And by intimacy I see everything from "I have difficulty making/maintaining friendships" to "I can't achieve/sustain an erection and therefore I'm not a man."

So, I think it's unwise to simply dismiss JP. It seems he's found an audience and has tapped into something many men (young men?) experience.

edited to ask: other folks doing clinical work, what's been your experience working with intimacy issues with male clients?

I don't know if this directly addresses your question but I work in a post-deployment clinic at a VA hospital (mostly male clients) and the amount of social isolation and lack of relationships is a profound and widespread issue. Of course, there are primary psychiatric issues driving much of it (PTSD/avoidance, clinical depression, substance use, etc.) but it is overwhelmingly prevalent for my clients to express frustration at lack of opportunities for socialization and male friendships and socialization opportunities. One of the things that is potentially beneficial about Peterson's message is that he emphasizes the non-toxic aspects of masculinity (where 'masculinity' these days is almost always preceded by the modifier 'toxic'). There's an emphasis placed on assuming (rather than avoiding) responsibility (and deriving meaning from this), on not blaming others for your problems (e.g., not blaming the women who reject you but rather taking stock of yourself and working on yourself to improve), and letting go of resentment toward the world when your 'sacrifices' are not bearing fruit. There's also the idea that men (especially young men) are hungry to hear words of encouragement and to be able to embrace their masculinity as a non-toxic part of their identity. I can see how this would be appealing (and not in a pathological way) to men. I don't see anything wrong with it at all and, given the typical clientele in a VA post-deployment clinic, it seems like a pretty healthy perspective.

 

[erg923]

Is anyone gonna cut the academic and philosophical masturbation BS and just tell me what this person believes.... and does? Seriously, WTF?

I don't get into this "political thought leader" stuff much, as frankly I am busy, and some the more academic underpinnings of this field have always been boring to me.

He is a "conservative" and has some set of beliefs about men and women and marriage and stuff informed by Jung? Is that it? Why is some random psychologist, that frankly I've never heard of, so important (or controversial?) in this regard? Did he murder someone's dog? Who gives a **** what some random Canadian psychologist says about anything anyway...even on Youtube. Half the psychologists out there are poorly trained in most of that we are suppose to be doing anyway. I am more alarmed about that fact than anything else.

 

[WisNeuro]

In fact, the first time I ever heard "white privilege" criticized was by Dr. Peterson. Put simply, his argument is thus: it is always wrong to hold individuals accountable based on group membership. It's not because white people do not hold some advantages - it just that it is wrong to target any ethnic group with a "collective crime" and then try to extrapolate that to individuals. The term "collective crime" is probably where JP and I lost some of y'all. But, he tends to examine everything through a historic lens that is critical of marxism and neo-marxism movements in psychology/academia (especially pointing a finger to the postmodernists).

But, c'mon, for my only exposure to a criticism of white privilege had to be through JP is frustrating. If the idea is good enough, then it should be able to withstand criticism. But, many professors, I think are way to afraid of getting called -ist. It would be an assault on how they were indoctrinated.

You are conceptualizing those who believe in white privilege very narrowly, as does JP, to build up a strawman which is easier to attack. One can believe in the concept and not believe that it is an indictment or a thing one should be punished for, as many people do. Rather, it is a discussion piece from which to think about correcting existing systemic inequities to make things more level. It's not about removing advantages, but giving everyone the same advantages, or removing certain institutional disadvantages that not everyone shares. All too often, both sides create these strawmen on the extreme of the argument to tear down the entire, much more nuanced, concept.

 

[WisNeuro]

While I do agree that there is nuance here, the part about systemic inequities is a typical postmoderism argument that is often treated as gospel. Now, I am not saying that systemic inequities exist - they clearly do. But there are many reasons why a person may be "disadvantaged" and systemic issues are one of many. The biggest problem is that these arguments always fall apart when looking at the individual. That is why it's wrong.

For example, who is more "disadvantaged" (and thus more deserving of "giving everyone the same advantages") person A (born to a poor white meth addicted mother in Chicago or person B born to a poor black meth addicted mother in Chicago?

See, how does "correct" these inequities while only examining things through a lens of race?

Also, one can make generalized statements without setting up a straw-man...

The issue is only looking at these things through the lens of race, or just SES, or just gender. Iniquities can exist due to many demographic and/or institutional factors. To try and frame the argument as dichotomous is just misleading, but exactly what is often done to try and tear the whole thing down, further demonstrating my point. I haven't had your experience of this concept treated as "gospel" in a very narrow way. I'm sure it happens, but the majority of my experiences with this discussion have been much more nuanced. I think people on the far ends of both sides of this discussion all too often just see what they want to see, reduce things to oversimplifications, and use it as a means of shutting down opposing viewpoints rather than engaging in an actual, productive discussion.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

While I do agree that there is nuance here, the part about systemic inequities is a typical postmoderism argument that is often treated as gospel. Now, I am not saying that systemic inequities exist - they clearly do. But there are many reasons why a person may be "disadvantaged" and systemic issues are one of many. The biggest problem is that these arguments always fall apart when looking at the individual. That is why it's wrong.

For example, who is more "disadvantaged" (and thus more deserving of "giving everyone the same advantages") person A (born to a poor white meth addicted mother in Chicago or person B born to a poor black meth addicted mother in Chicago?

See, how does "correct" these inequities while only examining things through a lens of race?

Also, one can make generalized statements without setting up a straw-man...

While I do agree that there is nuance here, the part about systemic inequities is a typical postmoderism argument that is often treated as gospel. Now, I am not saying that systemic inequities exist - they clearly do. But there are many reasons why a person may be "disadvantaged" and systemic issues are one of many. The biggest problem is that these arguments always fall apart when looking at the individual. That is why it's wrong.

For example, who is more "disadvantaged" (and thus more deserving of "giving everyone the same advantages") person A (born to a poor white meth addicted mother in Chicago or person B born to a poor black meth addicted mother in Chicago?

See, how does "correct" these inequities while only examining things through a lens of race?

Also, one can make generalized statements without setting up a straw-man...

I was fortunate enough to be trained in psychology before such things became gospel.

I think the term is apt, and for the following reason: where are all the critical empirical investigations of 'critical race theory' or 'white privilege?' What I mean is, a scientific approach involves questioning your own theories and devising critical empirical tests that would potentially falsify said theory. If the theory survives these tests, it becomes corroborated (though never 'proved').. The critical race theorists don't appear to take this approach. Rather, they appear to simply assume that their theory has merit and then seek to find data supporting their theory. I don't recall seeing any of them publish (or comment upon) potentially problematic or contradictory data that would call their theories into question.This is a problem. And it stands in contrast to nearly all the other areas of clinical psychology where people aera expected to critically examine and test their theories (and revise them, as appropriate). You can pick up a chapter on exposure therapy written by competent clinicians/academicians in the field and they will describe a series of empirical investigations that provide 'mixed results' in regard to whether the data support theory (or stand in contrast to theoretical predictions). They go on to offer perspectives on future research that would clarify controversies and potentially settle issues involving advancing the theory, revising the theory, or even completely abandoning the theory if necessary. The theory isn't a 'golden calf' that must be maintained at all costs.

 

[WisNeuro]

They go on to offer perspectives on future research that would clarify controversies and potentially settle issues involving advancing the theory, revising the theory, or even completely abandoning the theory if necessary. The theory isn't a 'golden calf' that must be maintained at all costs.

More of a side comment, as I am much more cynical when it comes to research. But, this happens all of the time in psychological, and medical research. Certain theories get propagated and maintained through shoddy research quite often. As for just recent examples, look at the CTE and complex PTSD lit areas.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

More of a side comment, as I am much more cynical when it comes to research. But, this happens all of the time in psychological, and medical research. Certain theories get propagated and maintained through shoddy research quite often. As for just recent examples, look at the CTE and complex PTSD lit areas.

Granted, but I would assert that: (a) a cogent and empirically well-grounded sharp critique of, say, the cognitive 'content specificity hypothesis' would likely be lauded and see publication while (b) a cogent and empirically well-grounded sharp critique of 'critical race theory' or 'white privilege' would be met with considerable gnashing of teeth, derision, and pejorative attacks on the characters or motivations of the authors. It's why we don't see any cogent and empirically well-grounded sharp critiques of those particular objects of worship...it would signal the end of people's careers or prospects for tenure ..and they KNOW it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Granted, but I would assert that: (a) a cogent and empirically well-grounded sharp critique of, say, the cognitive 'content specificity hypothesis' would likely be lauded and see publication while (b) a cogent and empirically well-grounded sharp critique of 'critical race theory' or 'white privilege' would be met with considerable gnashing of teeth, derision, and pejorative attacks on the characters or motivations of the authors. It's why we don't see any cogent and empirically well-grounded sharp critiques of those particular objects of worship...it would signal the end of people's careers or prospects for tenure ..and they KNOW it.

Perhaps, by some on the far end of a spectrum, but we'd be willfully ignorant to not recognize that the same thing occurs on the other end of the spectrum quite often as well. I'm not sure I see it as a problem with those who believe in the concept versus a larger issue of a breakdown of civil discourse about any contentious issue due to a very vocal of far spectrum individuals who constitute a minority of people who hold certain views.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Perhaps, by some on the far end of a spectrum, but we'd be willfully ignorant to not recognize that the same thing occurs on the other end of the spectrum quite often as well. I'm not sure I see it as a problem with those who believe in the concept versus a larger issue of a breakdown of civil discourse about any contentious issue due to a very vocal of far spectrum individuals who constitute a minority of people who hold certain views.

When I was in training I recall a book edited by Ron Rapee, 'Current Controversies in the Anxiety Disorders' in which various researchers and clinician's 'hashed it out,' so to speak, and took one another's pet theories to task. It was a 'provocative' book (in that none of the authors pulled any punches in aggressively critiquing various theoretical positions), which made it interesting, informative, and useful. It was a professional and 'civil' sparring ground...but they really let each other have it. Vigorous (but not uncivil) debate is how scientific knowledge advances. Any sophisticated scientist knows that their theories only get better by welcoming substantive critique and openly exploring the controversies surrounding any particular topic. I'd love to see a volume of work (similar to the 'controversies' in the anxiety disorders text referred to above) that involves real, vigorous, and substantive logical and empirical 'hashing out' of the extant controversies in the areas of critical race theory, multiculturalism, or 'white privilege' as manifest in research or clinical practice within rhe field of psychology.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd love to see a volume of work (similar to the 'controversies' in the anxiety disorders text referred to above) that involves real, vigorous, and substantive logical and empirical 'hashing out' of the extant controversies in the areas of critical race theory, multiculturalism, or 'white privilege' as manifest in research or clinical practice within rhe field of psychology.

I'd love to see this done on a variety of topics. At this point in time, I doubt it'd do much for the drivers of debate on the extremes, who dominate the air waves. Far too many people do not want to challenge their viewpoints and just turtle up with their comforting "alternative facts." We've been trending towards anti-science for some time now, and that pace has only increased in recent years, and I don't see a slowing down coming up ahead for some time. So, I'd love to see more of this type of volume, but it'd only affect a small number of us academically minded professionals. It wouldn't move the needle in the public sphere or change public opinions either way.

 

[deleted343839]

Ditto about the philosophy. I also think he does a great job of putting history back into psychology, too.

I would suggest moving on to the writings of Alice Dreger, who is an actual historian and in my view a more rigorous scholar when it comes to how science grapples with politics and ideology.

This will probably stir the pot a little and be a little provocative, but I am using this example to discuss how inadequate my program, and I think this generalizes to many other programs, was at forming a cogent philosophical underpinnings of several things treated as gospel by modern psychology.

So here's the example: white privilege. My program never discussed the concept. It was a classic indoctrination approach. We were basically told to think about differences between groups in terms of power. And power differentials were always the result of some flavor of -ism or -ist thinking. If you thought that differences between individuals might result from competence or other factors than gender, race, sexuality, or socio-economic status, then you would be called a "racist."

Your understanding of levels of analysis and how individual differences are conceptualized indeed suggests your program is doing you a disservice. Out of curiosity, what are your other examples of inadequate philosophical training?

I'm sure I am making heretical comments to many psychologists by even voicing concerns with white privilege.

I've yet to be a part of a group discussion of white privilege that doesn't include at least one or two white people who express discomfort with the idea on some level, so while you may be forthcoming (or not? do you bring these things up in person?) you are neither heretical nor especially unique within that ethnic group. So far, what you've said are things that a lot of other people have already said and lived to tell about it, so relax. If you just want to parrot backlash there's a whole chorus you can join.

If, on the other hand, you really want to hone your ability to parse theory and understand the philosophical underpinnings of theory and concepts in psychology, surround yourself with people who are good learners and thinkers, and strive to emulate them. Find the smartest people you can both who agree and disagree with you, and learn why that is the case. Read who they've read. Read people no one has heard of. Join Division 24 or read their journal. There is nothing wrong with enjoying authors on the bestseller list, but that's not what will make you a scholar. The thing a lot of people don't realize about grad school (until it's too late) is that much of the effort to cultivate specific expertise is on you. If this really is about the adequacy of your education, roll up your sleeves and dare to be uncomfortable and out of your element for a while.

And finally, have a bit more courage. Quit saying things like "I know just by saying this the pitchforks will come for me" because pre-emptive defensiveness like that makes people think you're too fragile to engage in real dialogue.

 

[dopamin_arsonist]

what are people’s thoughts on this guy? He’s apparently a clinical psychologist and professor, seems pretty smart. Anyone familiar with him?

Peterson is an unapologetic, raging homo- and transphobic heterosexist who misquotes or deliberately ignores emerging research inconsistent with the arch-conservative propagation of the nuclear hetero family as the only family type to foster healthy and well adjusted children.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[dopamin_arsonist]

Jordan Peterson's lectures are convoluted and disjointed. He likes to name-drop (sometimes managing to refer to Jung, Solzhenitsyn, and Nietzsche, all in a matter of minutes); he likes to create his own special categories for things that generally require no special system of categorization (e.g., "Order" and "Chaos"), or to haphazardly borrow them from other domains (e.g., "dominance hierarchy" from zoology and evolutionary biology); and he likes to extract supposed universal truths from ancient myths and works of classic literature.

What Peterson does is something that continental philosophers and psychoanalytical thinkers have been doing for over a century. They create an illusion of profundity when making statements that, when translated into plain language, are either commonsensical or completely baseless and absurd.

There's literally nothing scientific or empirical about what Peterson does. You can't cherry-pick a handful of mythological tales from past civilizations, try to uncover commonalities, and then claim you've discovered universal moral truths that have withstood the test of time. You've ignored any counterexamples that may exist, and you've infused your own biases into the entire process. His public work is based on bad anthropology, bad psychology, bad philosophy, and (most recently) bad theology. He's only popular because he garnered the respect of the Ben Shapiro crowd through his free speech advocacy; he seems to be a beneficiary of the halo effect.

Word! 100% snake oil dealer / cult leader material for the intellectually curious but scientifically pseudo-educated.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Pragma]

I'd love to see this done on a variety of topics. At this point in time, I doubt it'd do much for the drivers of debate on the extremes, who dominate the air waves. Far too many people do not want to challenge their viewpoints and just turtle up with their comforting "alternative facts." We've been trending towards anti-science for some time now, and that pace has only increased in recent years, and I don't see a slowing down coming up ahead for some time. So, I'd love to see more of this type of volume, but it'd only affect a small number of us academically minded professionals. It wouldn't move the needle in the public sphere or change public opinions either way.

Is the goal to change public opinion or to understand the construct/nuances better empirically and then proceed appropriately?

 

[WisNeuro]

Is the goal to change public opinion or to understand the construct/nuances better empirically and then proceed appropriately?

Probably depends on who the audience is. In this example, the audience appears to be patients and lay people who are fans of Peterson, or the flip side of people holding an extreme view of concepts of privilege. We already know that empirical data does little to sway those with deeply held beliefs, in fact, if anything, it just further entrenches them in their held belief. In which case, any real venture is somewhat quixotic.

 

[Pragma]

Probably depends on who the audience is. In this example, the audience appears to be patients and lay people who are fans of Peterson, or the flip side of people holding an extreme view of concepts of privilege. We already know that empirical data does little to sway those with deeply held beliefs, in fact, if anything, it just further entrenches them in their held belief. In which case, any real venture is somewhat quixotic.

I guess I was thinking of academics. There’s one very ubiquitous viewpoint within that system that is highly intolerant of opposing views.

I have never listened to JP myself but I’m absolutely starved for other viewpoints and more critical nuance within academia.

 

[WisNeuro]

I guess I was thinking of academics. There’s one very ubiquitous viewpoint within that system that is highly intolerant of opposing views.

I have never listened to JP myself but I’m absolutely starved for other viewpoints and more critical nuance within academia.

I agree somewhat. I think the issue with the opposing viewpoints on the right, is that the most vocal and available viewpoints tend to be people who espouse anti-science, conspiracy theories, etc. It's all dominated by angry fear mongers. It's starting to happen somewhat on the left as well. no room for moderates or actual fiscal conservatives in this nation anymore.

 

[Pragma]

I agree somewhat. I think the issue with the opposing viewpoints on the right, is that the most vocal and available viewpoints tend to be people who espouse anti-science, conspiracy theories, etc. It's all dominated by angry fear mongers. It's starting to happen somewhat on the left as well. no room for moderates or actual fiscal conservatives in this nation anymore.

Totally agree with your last statement.

I think what an earlier poster was suggesting was that the academic left is also “anti science” in the sense that attempting to study a volatile/extreme and concept that could benefit from more empirical understanding, but that has been accepted as dogma systematically within academic insitutions, is essentially social and career suicide. It’s a tragedy and incredibly hypocritical when the labeling starts.

 

[WisNeuro]

Totally agree with your last statement.

I think what an earlier poster was suggesting was that the academic left is also “anti science” in the sense that attempting to study a volatile/extreme and concept that could benefit from more empirical understanding, but that has been accepted as dogma systematically within academic insitutions, is essentially social and career suicide. It’s a tragedy and incredibly hypocritical when the labeling starts.

I think this is a mix of some real concerns, and also some expectancy bias. I think some use the fear as a convenient bogeyman at times. I have yet to see someone challenging that status quo, while not going on an overtly racist rant or using slurs against an uber driver etc, and get shamed for it. I just don't see any examples of someone trying to reasonably have that discussion. It's all noise and rhetoric.

 

[Pragma]

I think this is a mix of some real concerns, and also some expectancy bias. I think some use the fear as a convenient bogeyman at times. I have yet to see someone challenging that status quo, while not going on an overtly racist rant or using slurs against an uber driver etc, and get shamed for it. I just don't see any examples of someone trying to reasonably have that discussion. It's all noise and rhetoric.

This seems highly oversimplified to me. It’s pretty obvious, and the shaming happens all the time, even when people have said something benign. Different experiences/workplace settings I guess.

 

[Pragma]

I think this is a mix of some real concerns, and also some expectancy bias. I think some use the fear as a convenient bogeyman at times. I have yet to see someone challenging that status quo, while not going on an overtly racist rant or using slurs against an uber driver etc, and get shamed for it. I just don't see any examples of someone trying to reasonably have that discussion. It's all noise and rhetoric.

If my only professional experiences were clinical ones, I might be more inclined to see your perspective on this. But enter the world of higher education and tenure/promotion/university politics outside of the healthcare industry, and you’d be on a first name basis with the bogeyman you referenced.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I'm not a big fan of using service dogs or emotional support animals as 'treatments' for mental disorders. However, as a psychologist, I am frequently called to task to have an articulated and informed opinion about why I take the position that I do on the topic since I see many patients in my practice who bring up the topic. So, I've had to familiarize myself with the literature--such as it exists--relating to the use of service animals in mental health. I did this for a couple of reasons: (a) I don't know everything and I might actually have something that I could learn about the topic that would be useful; contempt prior to investigation isn't an intellectual virtue; (b) if I am going to espouse a particular position on the topic, I don't want my patients to get the impression that my position is based on an a priori contempt that I have for the topic or for their views on the topic.

Maybe my colleagues who don't have an opinion (or exposure) to Jordan Peterson's views/work can consider exposing themselves to some of his actual thoughts, opinions, or expressed views--direct from the source and not based on articles written 'about' what his 'views are' in the popular media. Or, even better, if a patient of yours brings him up, simply ask THEM what they have taken from exposure to his work (and then judge the merits of that for what it is). Odds are, they will say something about how they learned how to be less resentful toward life and other people, how they learned to fix their own problems before criticizing others, and how they have learned to find meaning and fulfillment in shouldering more responsibility in their lives and trying to speak truthfully. I've sampled a fair bit of what Jordan Peterson has written and said and also read some of the popular media accounts 'about what he stands for' and I have to say that there is an astonishing disconnect between the two.

 

[Pragma]

I'm not a big fan of using service dogs or emotional support animals as 'treatments' for mental disorders. However, as a psychologist, I am frequently called to task to have an articulated and informed opinion about why I take the position that I do on the topic since I see many patients in my practice who bring up the topic. So, I've had to familiarize myself with the literature--such as it exists--relating to the use of service animals in mental health. I did this for a couple of reasons: (a) I don't know everything and I might actually have something that I could learn about the topic that would be useful; contempt prior to investigation isn't an intellectual virtue; (b) if I am going to espouse a particular position on the topic, I don't want my patients to get the impression that my position is based on an a priori contempt that I have for the topic or for their views on the topic.

Maybe my colleagues who don't have an opinion (or exposure) to Jordan Peterson's views/work can consider exposing themselves to some of his actual thoughts, opinions, or expressed views--direct from the source and not based on articles written 'about' what his 'views are' in the popular media. Or, even better, if a patient of yours brings him up, simply ask THEM what they have taken from exposure to his work (and then judge the merits of that for what it is). Odds are, they will say something about how they learned how to be less resentful toward life and other people, how they learned to fix their own problems before criticizing others, and how they have learned to find meaning and fulfillment in shouldering more responsibility in their lives and trying to speak truthfully. I've sampled a fair bit of what Jordan Peterson has written and said and also read some of the popular media accounts 'about what he stands for' and I have to say that there is an astonishing disconnect between the two.

I had a patient tell me about listening to him last year but never took the time to look into JP. I’m too busy trying to get the Baby Shark song out of my head most of the day when my kid is at school.

 

[WisNeuro]

If my only professional experiences were clinical ones, I might be more inclined to see your perspective on this. But enter the world of higher education and tenure/promotion/university politics outside of the healthcare industry, and you’d be on a first name basis with the bogeyman you referenced.

Fair, I occupy a tangential academic position. Affiliation, but I am not housed there. I still have a hard time seeing any examples of actual academic research in this area being punished or pushed out. The counterpoint has allowed the discussion to be driven by the farthest right, which is correctly shunned, as most extreme unempirical positions should be, and I think that drives the fear of these discussions, rather than real world issues. I could definitely be wrong, but I think it's closer to the middle than many make it out to be.

 

[Pragma]

Fair, I occupy a tangential academic position. Affiliation, but I am not housed there. I still have a hard time seeing any examples of actual academic research in this area being punished or pushed out. The counterpoint has allowed the discussion to be driven by the farthest right, which is correctly shunned, as most extreme unempirical positions should be, and I think that drives the fear of these discussions, rather than real world issues. I could definitely be wrong, but I think it's closer to the middle than many make it out to be.

I’ve been on a search committee where a job application was thrown out because the individual attended a Christian school and were “likely religious.” Another where one member said they would google the candidates to be sure there was no evidence of conservative political activity.

Just a couple of examples of general political discrimination at the hiring level. If I decided that I wanted to study alternative ideas regarding white privilege, I’m pretty certain that the university administration would find a way to get rid of me within 2 years. I could see someone arguing that such research constitutes harassment or some other conduct-related issue, or exposes students to a hostile environment. The union would probably agree. Yes, speculation, but the climate overtly deters opposing viewpoints regarding sensitive sociopolitical issues.

 

[WisNeuro]

I’ve been on a search committee where a job application was thrown out because the individual attended a Christian school and were “likely religious.” Another where one member said they would google the candidates to be sure there was no evidence of conservative political activity.

Just a couple of examples of general political discrimination at the hiring level. If I decided that I wanted to study alternative ideas regarding white privilege, I’m pretty certain that the university administration would find a way to get rid of me within 2 years. I could see someone arguing that such research constitutes harassment or some other conduct-related issue, or exposes students to a hostile environment. The union would probably agree. Yes, speculation, but the climate overtly deters opposing viewpoints regarding sensitive sociopolitical issues.

That sucks, and sounds like a pretty extreme example. I have lots of friends and former colleagues who are housed/work in academia and I have never heard of anything like that. I'm sure that it does, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Pragma]

I'm sure that it does, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.

Institutional context matters a lot. There are places that are better at accepting diverse viewpoints compared to others. I would argue that AMC/healthcare contexts have more political and socioeconomic diversity. In higher education outside of healthcare, less political diversity. My opinion is that it is probably somewhere in between an exception and a rule.

 

[WisNeuro]

As with many things, I wouldn't look at acceptance of postmodernism as an all or none thing, you can believe/support some aspects of it, and reject others. It's the same with conservative or liberal thought. The only "true believers" tend to hang out at the extreme, with many people having a mix of ideologically liberal and conservative views.

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree, but it's clear which viewpoint has a hegemony at the university level.

I'm sure the "hegemony" exists in some places, and I'm sure that it is merely thought to exist at many others by some. Maybe I hang out with different academics, but I know few who would consider themselves "postmodern" by that definition. I think it's partially a useful target to continue to attack science and education in this country.

 

[WisNeuro]

Dude look at sex difference research and evolutionary psychology. They've been continually called slurs and attacked for having objective science saying that men and women actually have biological differences that affect behavior... This has been happening since the 1970's.

I'd say it's more accurate to say that people are using group data to extrapolate to the individual to make inaccurate assumptions at times when this has come out in corporate practice. That's where the real issues come out. You were arguing against this very notion earlier in the thread. There are group differences, yes, but there is far more overlap. And, those who are trying to use this research in practice are misusing the actual research. That's where the outcry is. This is another manufactured crisis.

 

[Merely]

I'd say it's more accurate to say that people are using group data to extrapolate to the individual to make inaccurate assumptions at times when this has come out in corporate practice. That's where the real issues come out. You were arguing against this very notion earlier in the thread. There are group differences, yes, but there is far more overlap. And, those who are trying to use this research in practice are misusing the actual research. That's where the outcry is. This is another manufactured crisis.

Not always true, the outcry has been with the research showing that men and woman are biologically different and excelling in different traits, for example men have traits that make them better at engineering and high level mathematics on average while woman on average are more agreeable and make better nurses for example